Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Thanks.

You see- that's exactly the "point" I'm trying to distinguish here.
The reality is, people aren't thinking their "CTA" when it comes to "NURF HISECZ!!!!!!!" all the way through.

Hisec, Losec and Nullsec all exist for a reason. Without definition- the game becomes a completely chaotic mess of anarchistic types who think that there's some sort of "order" in what they're doing. The next dictator is just as bad as the last one, and soon they come to learn this. Doesn't matter if you AGREE with the reason- just that it exists for a reason. It's called "balance".

"It's bad for the game" is entirely the point I'm trying to make, yet the pessimistic bittervet neckbeard types will have you believe...

• The "premise of EVE" is that they should be able to get to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as THEY don't have to face consequences for their actions (AKA "bitter and cold environment", yada yada) and;
• That CCP will lose more subs and won't survive if things continue to go the way they are. (EVE is DYIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG!)

So let's see if they're right, shall we? How about we put it to the test. Then we can see who should HTFU (or STFU is probably more applicable in this case).

The eventual boredom of nullsec and lowsec isn't due to hisec being popular. It's due to the nature of "power" and those who wield it. Who's in charge of the alliances? Who's in control of the space? Why aren't there more battles for control- rather than the eventual blobbing together?

If everyone's so "itching" for a fight- why aren't they fighting amongst themselves to claim said space, instead of looking to hisec and moaning about it? Looking for "gudfites"? How about going where you know you'll find them?

Oh, but that requires effort on their part- and might actually have to risk their own belongings in the process, right? A little off-topic, but this is why I'm also a fan for removing off-grid boosting. People who "hide" their boosters aren't risking them in the field- yet they whine all day long about "risk aversion" when you get right down to it.

I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo.

Don't always get what we want though, right?

You are alone there. That is not what the EVE populace wants. What the EVE populace wants is fights to happen but not on their doorstep. Problem is: there is too many doorsteps.

I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker.

I do not have a problem with high-sec
I do not have a problem with NPC corps
I do not have a problem with veterans in high secs

I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is.

.... and watch how many more migrate to high sec.

Had a Goon I chatted to recently. He said his home system was really dangerous and he wasn't safer than in high sec, in the same breath as telling me he was AFK carrier ratting. So, had a look at the region on zkill and it was 0.75 of one page with kills. Looked at Providence and it was 4.5 pages of kills and it was still early in the day.

Deklein bit over a page of kills for Feb 03 where as, Providence 6.25 pages.

So, yes. Null Sec is still too safe in many places.

take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat.

Ps it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers.

Then go make it "less" safe for those players and stop being lazy and asking CCP to do it for you. Players do not need to be in a player corp for you to gank them. As for war decs the only players that get killed in them are 1. ignorant of the options, 2. to lazy to take one of those options 3. the extremely rare war dec corp member that makes a stupid mistake.
Yes I know you will forcefully deny this but the basis for your idea is to "force" players into corps that you can WD, why? Because that is the only real change the OP idea will have on the game.

As for the safety of high sec blame the players ( lIke you) who are to lazy or risk averse to provide the "dangers" that you think should come along with the rewards for being in high sec. I find it interesting that most people claim that we the players are supposed to provide the content unless that situation is the risk level associated with life in high sec then they want CCP to provide the risks.


So why are you complaining about high sec when what is supposed to be one of the more dangerous places in the game is actually as safe or possibly even safer than high sec?

Another interesting twist here is this. Over the years as the nul sec blocks have stabilized and the amount of fighting between those blocks has dropped there has been a corresponding increase in the calls to nerf income and increase risk in high sec. I find myself wondering what the connection is? And no I do not believe in coincidence there IS a connection between these two and it woul be interesting to be able to explore it more completely.

Ganking has it's value but an emergent conflict between two entities is ideally perpetrated without intervention by NPCs. EVE is a player-driven sandbox based around conflict. You can draw a straight line between wardecs and the most basic idea behind the game.


Highsec dwellers are very polarized. Some are trivially easy to keep docked up indefinitely while others are competent enough to mitigate almost the entirety of their risk. The frustration you see is related to the second group. Take our friend Veers for example and his bragging about being able to PVE all day. If you're able to fly around space for hours racking up ISK unimpeded with half the galaxy wanting you dead there is something wrong there. The problem though isn't that you can mitigate the risks, it's that there is no reason not to. You're viewing it as players asking CCP to provide the risks, but it's players asking CCP to provide the rewards for choosing to take risks.

I disagee with almost everything you are asking us to stipulate as fact. I don't believe CCP has a problem with
NPC run corps. They serve an important purpose in the game...even for the veteran who may easily fall out of a player run corp. I disagree the thought that empire should be a smallish noob only play region. I feel empire play, low sec, null sec, and WH space all need to be separate yet equally important in play viability. High sec should not be thought of as a traininig ground for null sec. The play should remain vastly different. Not everyone likes the same things; trying to drive players out of high sec will probably only succeed in driving players who enjoy this play from the game. If null sec is boring because 80% of the player base are somewhere else, maybe we need to look at null sec play instead of trying to kill other areas in order to grow null player base. ...not even null sectarians stay in null sec all the time - many split their time between high sec, low sec, and null.

More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships.

Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever.