These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE General Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

In Response to Sugar Kyle - Highsec development

First post First post
Bellatrix Invicta
#301 - 2015-10-14 14:47:59 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I do not care about what you want. Simple as that, I do not care. You do not matter to me in any way save what you can potentially drop as loot. To me, most of the "players" of this game aren't players at all. You're barely better than NPCs, or destructible terrain, something to be destroyed for my amusement whether you like it or not.

And the very best thing about EVE is that what you want doesn't really matter.

Dear CCP,

you got yourself some very special folks into your fold. I will grant you that. But if you want more money they better not be allowed to "interact" with me or anyone else in their right minds.

Thanks a bunch

I highly suggest biomassing and returning to the theme park. GTFO.

If you think you've won, think again.

The CODE always wins.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#302 - 2015-10-14 15:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Hiasa Kite wrote:

She's not advocating change. The suggestions she's making is the same that I've made and every fan of EVE that has entered this argument has made:

EVE isn't for everyone. Instead of playing a game you dislike and demanding it be changed to the detriment of everyone else's enjoyment, why not just play a game that is already more suited to your interests?

Perfectly well said.

But to answer the underlying question (highlighted), it's the exact same reason why people in real life choose bad people to enter into relationships with and stay there damn near forever even though they have a lot of non-scummy alternatives. The reality is that they aren't looking for a good mate, they are looking for validation. They want to change someone, and get credit for doing it by holding their 'creation' up as a trophy.

Likewise, the 'change' types here want to one day be able to say "EVE was this horrible game of griefers, then i started playing and i told the developers this was a problem, and now EVE is no longer a game of griefers, but a game where 'good people' can play the way they want to without being bothered by bad people. I made that happen."

What they don't understand is that after they are able to say the above, this will come next:

"well, sure, I don't play the game anymore, there is no excitement in it, everyone is all peaceful with each other. Of course, there are only about 15 people that log in an play EVE every day (on a privately owned server, for some reason CCP went out of business shortly after they fixed the game to get rid of bad people), but I've moved on to this new game. It's full of griefers like EVE was, and I've started informing these poor professional DEVs about how bad griefers are for their game and how wonderful my last game became after they listened to me and got rid of the griefers. You know, that game I don't play anymore because it's boring and dead"....

Carebearism is twice as insidious as Locust swarmsSad
Ainara Aideron
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2015-10-14 16:12:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ainara Aideron
A question I have. What does pvp involve? Of course, it is one or more vs one or more other people, like in combat for instance. But are there other ways of pvp?
Market McSelling Alt
#304 - 2015-10-14 19:35:00 UTC
Ainara Aideron wrote:
A question I have. What does pvp involve? Of course, it is one or more vs one or more other people, like in combat for instance. But are there other ways of pvp?

The only form of PVP these guys care about is X number of catalysts vs Y number of unarmed haulers


X number of lemmings waiting for hours in a fleet for an FC paid by the alliance leadership with moon goo isk that said lemmings shed isk and time protecting for said leadership.

If it happens in High-Sec from wardecs, if it happens in WHs from small gang action, or if it involves any of the hundred forms of non-shooting PVP this game has... they pretend it doesn't exist. Or at the very least minimize it.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#305 - 2015-10-14 19:49:55 UTC
Removed some off topic posts.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Ainara Aideron
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#306 - 2015-10-14 19:50:20 UTC
Pvp do exist in more ways than directly between ships and fleets. Mining away resources so others don't get them, stocking up on plex or market scams is in a way pvp, as you put others at a disadvantage. It's just a bit more subtle.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#307 - 2015-10-14 20:36:43 UTC
Ainara Aideron wrote:
A question I have. What does pvp involve? Of course, it is one or more vs one or more other people, like in combat for instance. But are there other ways of pvp?

I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that pvp is far more than simple shooting based combat.

Eve has a lot of other activities where one player can compete with/affect another player, even in indirect ways (see the butterfly effect trailer), so virtually everything you do in the game can be pvp.

Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#308 - 2015-10-14 23:42:10 UTC
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Eternal Bob wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Facpo would be gone. I suppose you could call that a redesign of sec status mechanics.

It would introduce the opportunity for meaningful gameplay that isn't overridden by NPCs who are faster, stronger, and react more quickly than any group of players ever could.

It would improve the game because it would let pirate playstyle characters interact with highsec in more than just cheap, disposable ships, improving the potential for player interaction a hundredfold.

Translation: "I want to gank noobs with no consequences"

Nah, he didn't say CONCORD. He said faction police.

As someone with an low security status because of lowsec pvp, I don't enter highsec very often. It's just too much of a hassle to continually be on the move if not docked.

So at times like when our Alliance is wardecced, it makes it difficult to come to highsec even to assist some newer members that are still operating there.

If Faction Police didn't chase anymore, Kaarous is exactly right, it would provide more opportunities for player-player interaction in ways that would bring enjoyment for many people.

FacPo should not respond to security status, imho. Rather than do Concord work, FacPo should respond to low faction standings in the Empire space you are in. A trade-off could be made that illegally killing a citizen in an Empire's space could warrant a small faction hit for that Empire.

I never liked the security/faction standings mishmash. Especially bad for Lowsec residents, many of whom are FW pilots and should be treated like 'heroes' in their own Empire space, not criminals by their own Factions.

This makes a lot of sense. A 'Pirate' is only an outlaw to one faction, not all of them. A Minmatar Pirate would be a criminal to the Amarr, but a hero to the Minmatar. Laws are different between different factions. Different things are contraband.

I remember when I first joined EVE. My desire was to learn how to be a guard for miners against gankers. I figured that in order to do that, I had to learn to fight as a PVP pilot first. As soon as I finished my combat tutorial, I was essentially thrust into the Militia.

What is the Militia, I wondered? Well, it meant that I had to leave high sec to go to low sec, where war was 'legal'. Oh, and fight the Minmatar, and pirates. It turns out I did a lot of PLEXing, circling timers and wishing I was mining. I died a lot, blew up a few ships in a solo fight, more in group fights, did a lot of dodging as a rabbit, taking almost a year to train up my PVP skills.

Well, let me suggest we use the word 'Militia' in the way I always understood it to be, an all volunteer Police and paramilitary force.

In that way, we could eliminate the redundant Faction Police, and replace them with an all volunteer 'Citizen's militia'. That way, as soon as a newbie completes their combat tutorial, they have a choice whether or not to join the Militia. If they hit yes, then the Policing of that region now becomes their responsibility. Protect miners and haulers. Patrol high sec and low sec. They automatically enter a channel called 'High sec patrol', which is specific to their region.

Also, if they lose their tech 1 newbie frigate in battle, then they automatically get another one at any station they dock at, courtesy of the insurance company (or tax payers). Instead of an Imperitor, they would get a Punisher. This would reduce the barriers to PVP participation.

I was never too keen about the idea of losing ships either, until I was given access to the common hangar with access to unlimited free ships and modules (and sometimes skill-books) so that I could keep at least five fitted frigates on hand.

This is how things work in the real world. The Police don't have to pay for the vehicles and equipment they use, the taxpayers do.

As soon as you joined another player corporation, you would quit the NPC militia and lose those 'freebee' frigates of course. You would also lose those freebee frigates and be ejected from the Militia if you became an outlaw. An outlaw to one faction could still join another faction's militia though, receiving free frigates as a 'Privateer'.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#309 - 2015-10-15 21:27:21 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

While i do think that a couple of activities in highsec need an income nerf and highsec PI needs a buff, nerfing highsec income into oblivion will have a consequence you are not going to like.

There is a belief that if you make highsec poor enough, if you make highsec boring enough, if you make highsec miserable enough then highsec players will leave highsec and on this point you are absolutely correct but we won't be leaving for wh, low or nullsec space we will be leaving EVE.

Glad to see us go?

You wont be when CCP decides it doesnt have the financial backing it needs to further develop EVE because too many highsec players quit and EVE goes free to play and along with it any further development on the game.

Let's hope that CCP isnt completely blind to its need for highsec players to keep paying a significant portion of the bills.

That is not the belief. The goal is that by restoring risk vs. reward, players will not be drawn back to highsec to run incursions in safety leaving the other spaces to languish.

There are some players that will never leave highsec. But there are many more that would venture out given the right incentive, or already do leave to engage in PvP but prefer to return earn an income in highsec because it is so much safer and easier. They are the ones clamping down on the highsec income faucet may influence.

Slashing highsec payouts, at least on the highend (L3/L4s, incursions) will encourage those that are comfortable to go back to the other spaces, and will perhaps encourage the more brave newer players to leave highsec to chase increased rewards. The other, full-on risk-averse players can stay behind, shooting red crosses or rocks for enough ISK to gradually upgrade that ship that they never lose, but should never get rich this way or even be able to PLEX an account. That should only be possible by exposing yourself to the risk of other players interfering with your resource generation thus offering yourself as content for the other players in this game.

I have no problem with CCP spending as much time and development resources as they think valuable on producing fun content for highsec themeparkers. The payouts of this content however cannot continue to have such a distorting effect on the economy that everyone and their uncle uses a highsec alt to make a living. The other spaces are suffering for it, and there will be no hope of reinvigorating nullsec if there is no economic reason for players or groups of players to ever leave the safety of highsec.

The post i was quoting said...."nerf highsec income into oblivion".

so my response is dead on, in that this should never happen and would ultimately be seriously bad for the game.

Further, I already stated in another post, you could have read because it was there on the same page, that i too believe that some highsec income sources need nerfing, while some like highsec PI need buffing, exploration is probably in need of a buffing as well.

Totally disagree that there should be no way to PLEX in highsec it is currently impossible for casual players( a few hours a week) in highsec to plex doing most highsec activities and this should be the case, they dont have the time invested so they should have to pay to play.

I fall into the heavy game play catagory ( normally around 10-13 hours per day) so earning PLEX isnt a problem for me, again as it should be. Im investing the time and playing in highsec should be PLEX capable for those that put in the time.

I should also point out that your belief that ships are not lost in highsec space is erroneous since more ships are lost every day in highsec by far than any place else in the game.

Also, as to exposing yourself to risk, the most lethal alliances operate almost exclusively in highsec space and have ZERO risk killing ships that no real ability to actually defend themselves from attacks. Yes they lose their ships but they are in near zero risk from other players which is your concern. The attackers leave, the clean up crew grabs the loot and scoots and its all over..

Lastly, let me make it clear that while we agree that some incomes in highsec need a nerfing the reasons you and I have are totally different. You believe that the old adage, 'nerf highsec and they will go to other areas of the game', which is in my opinion dubious at best and most likely dead on wrong.

There are people already pulling in a fortune in other areas of the game even solo players but as you say a lot of people prefer to make their incomes in safer space and while some of us admit our cowardice it seems those of you from other areas of the game are not so honest with yourselves.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
#310 - 2015-10-16 14:55:58 UTC
So long as CCP tries to sell tofu to vegans, instead of focussing on it's great burger story in a way that aligns to upticks in new subs from similarly aligned media stories, EvE simply will never reach critical mass.

In fact, at this point it is clear that making hisec safer and more content-rich over time was short-sighted folly. The question is do you compound that folly, with more paper-cuts to non consensual agression in hisec to make it even more safe, or take a single short-term hit to restructure positively for the future?

It is time.

Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#311 - 2015-10-17 11:03:00 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
HS is more dangerous than NS, counterintuitively, exactly because of its own mechanics.
CONCORD is a double edged sword that cuts in favor of a deliberate illegal activity.

I'm still trying to figure out where this bizzaro world thinking comes from in which the space with magical infallible unkillable space police is 'less safe' than areas where the only thing that can get you from getting killed is actually knowing how to play. It's not just on this forum, I've heard guys I play with say the same thing: "high sec fells safer because i don't know who is going to kill me whereas in null i can see it coming".

And yea, it's as stupid when people say it on comms as it is here. It's the same as saying "I feel safer in the woods because in the woods i can see a bear coming but in my house the bear could be hiding in a closet waiting to kill me and eat my porridge....never mind the fact that my house is bear free and i don't even know wtf porridge is".

So some how, if I'm standing in a room full of body guards (who will shoot anyone who tries to so much as slap me in the face), I'm less safe than if I were standing alone in a desert surrounded by hungry wolves? That's the difference between High Sec and the the other 83% of EVE-space, a mechanical response the rest of the game doesn't get.

in High Sec, ALL you have to do to be safe is tank your ship enough to survive initial contact. You could run missions in a super buffer Proteus and be physically immune to ganking (because enough ships on grid to kill you will probably cause module activation lag enough to let you escape in hull as CONCORD pops your last aggressor). You literally can't get safer than that, while you can't even come close to that outside of high sec.

CONCORD doesn't prevent people from terrorizing your ship. They avenge.

Less people and better intel in null let's you know who exactly is a threat.

In highsec, everyone is a possible threat. All attempts at keeping accurate intel in hisec are foggy at best, as anyone can come along and wreck you. You can tank your ship, but if some group wants to brutalize your space pixels; they will.

Your analogy of the "bear in the woods" and the "bear in the house" is inaccurate. It's more like walking around Times Square and everyone has a gun, with some police around; versus living on your own ranch in Montana with sensors all over the place telling you exactly who is who, and what they have.

So yeah, being in a big alliance in null, with good intel; is safer than hisec.

Up-to-date intel coupled with use of dscan and watching local channel for certain ship types will keep you very safe in high sec in terms of mining. If you are hauling then it becomes much harder as you are by necessity on the move. Haulers have been getting kicked in the teeth for ages now.