These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Megos Adriano
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#661 - 2012-10-17 22:35:47 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Megos Adriano wrote:


Tell me more about how forcing people to do things they don't want to do in a sandbox will improve EVE Online and increase subscriptions.


The same can be said of forcing people from other sec areas into highsec via reducing highsec risk and allowing is reward to remain the same.

Maybe its easier to put this as a ratio of risk:reward.

Do you pick 1:5, 2:7, or 3:9?

That's an easy pick you choose highsec because you can make just as much as you can in other sec areas with the least amount of effort and the least amount of risk.

Highsec needs a risk increase or reward decrease.


Except nobody is being forced into HiSec. There's still plenty of tryhards roaming around NullSec.

And boom goes the dynamite.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#662 - 2012-10-17 22:41:49 UTC
If only CCP would ban definitively exploiters/abusers of game mechanics as they already ban mining bots this thread would be almost empty but at least would be worthwhile reading and debating.

brb
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#663 - 2012-10-17 22:49:31 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Megos Adriano wrote:


Tell me more about how forcing people to do things they don't want to do in a sandbox will improve EVE Online and increase subscriptions.


The same can be said of forcing people from other sec areas into highsec via reducing highsec risk and allowing is reward to remain the same.

Maybe its easier to put this as a ratio of risk:reward.

Do you pick 1:5, 2:7, or 3:9?

That's an easy pick you choose highsec because you can make just as much as you can in other sec areas with the least amount of effort and the least amount of risk.

Highsec needs a risk increase or reward decrease.

This depends. Risk is subjective as measures can be taken to minimize it. For someone with the experience and knowledge survive low/null/wh and fully exploit the resources there The ratios are probably better than what you state. For those that don't it can be much worse.

For those that don't want to try it's another issue. But the greater factor seems to be, at least according to some, that the efforts of living in null combined with the dangers are what make it not worth while. Should those issues with the livability of the space be resolved then we me a greater population truly living in null.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#664 - 2012-10-17 22:57:00 UTC
Megos Adriano wrote:

Except nobody is being forced into HiSec. There's still plenty of tryhards roaming around NullSec.


There are whole guides posted on our 10k+ coalition forums about what to do with your highsec alt. Plenty of people are getting forced into highsec that's why the "try hards" are complaining about vast swaths of empty space and lack of targets. The risk : reward dynamics are off balance and when they are restored people will go back to where they were living before.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#665 - 2012-10-17 23:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
La Nariz wrote:
Megos Adriano wrote:

Except nobody is being forced into HiSec. There's still plenty of tryhards roaming around NullSec.


There are whole guides posted on our 10k+ coalition forums about what to do with your highsec alt. Plenty of people are getting forced into highsec that's why the "try hards" are complaining about vast swaths of empty space and lack of targets. The risk : reward dynamics are off balance and when they are restored people will go back to where they were living before.



Please don't speak for every one in the alliance. Being part of some alliance or even coalition doesn't makes all your claims right, and for truth reading the number of those posting in this thread or other with about same "content" makes me think there are a lot more who disagree with your point of view than other way around.

Believe me, I almost know what I'm talking about.

brb
Megos Adriano
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#666 - 2012-10-17 23:08:28 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Megos Adriano wrote:

Except nobody is being forced into HiSec. There's still plenty of tryhards roaming around NullSec.


There are whole guides posted on our 10k+ coalition forums about what to do with your highsec alt. Plenty of people are getting forced into highsec that's why the "try hards" are complaining about vast swaths of empty space and lack of targets. The risk : reward dynamics are off balance and when they are restored people will go back to where they were living before.


They're still not being "forced" - they're choosing. They're weighing the risk/effort:reward ratio and choosing to live in HiSec. Just as there are those who weigh the risk/effort:reward ratio and choose to live in WormHoles.

EVE is a player driven environment. The answer is right there in your post:

vast swaths of empty space and lack of targets

The risk : reward dynamics are off balance

The risk/effort:reward dynamic is off-balance because you're shooting at them. If you want targets, join FW or RvB - you'll find plenty of people eager to be shot at by you. If you want to attack helpless miners - hey, you can still do that in HiSec, but there will be consequences involved, which may not be your cup of tea.

It's not up to CCP to change the game and force people to do the things you want them to do just because you want to pad your killboard. EVE is a sandbox, and thus all areas (NullSec, WH, LowSec, HiSec) should be viable places to live and sustain a player throughout their EVE career, despite risk/effort:reward ratios. Nerfing HiSec to the point that it's unlivable in an attempt to "force" people into NullSec won't provide you with more targets - it'll simply nerf CCPs income.

And boom goes the dynamite.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#667 - 2012-10-17 23:09:27 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

This depends. Risk is subjective as measures can be taken to minimize it. For someone with the experience and knowledge survive low/null/wh and fully exploit the resources there The ratios are probably better than what you state. For those that don't it can be much worse.

For those that don't want to try it's another issue. But the greater factor seems to be, at least according to some, that the efforts of living in null combined with the dangers are what make it not worth while. Should those issues with the livability of the space be resolved then we me a greater population truly living in null.


Risk can be subjective but, the risk differences between the security status areas have an objective component which you are ignoring removal of CONCORD cannot be mitigated, presence of bubbles cannot be mitigated, gate camps cannot be mitigated, ridiculously powerful incursion gate camping rats cannot be mitigated, allowance of cynos cannot be mitigated, lack of local cannot be mitigated and allowance of combat capable capitals/supercapitals cannot be mitigated. The subjective component of risk that you allude to are player factors which can be minimized, the objective factors are game mechanics which cannot be minimized. Highsec also has the added benefit of being the only space you can perform activities AFK with negligible risk.

The ratios are completely arbitrary and just there as an example in a thought experiment.

I can agree that a revamp is due to fix issues in the various sec areas but that hasn't much to do with compensating for the trend of ever decreasing risk in highsec.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#668 - 2012-10-17 23:15:03 UTC
Megos Adriano wrote:


They're still not being "forced" - they're choosing. They're weighing the risk/effort:reward ratio and choosing to live in HiSec. Just as there are those who weigh the risk/effort:reward ratio and choose to live in WormHoles.

EVE is a player driven environment. The answer is right there in your post:

vast swaths of empty space and lack of targets

The risk : reward dynamics are off balance

The risk/effort:reward dynamic is off-balance because you're shooting at them. If you want targets, join FW or RvB - you'll find plenty of people eager to be shot at by you. If you want to attack helpless miners - hey, you can still do that in HiSec, but there will be consequences involved, which may not be your cup of tea.

It's not up to CCP to change the game and force people to do the things you want them to do just because you want to pad your killboard. EVE is a sandbox, and thus all areas (NullSec, WH, LowSec, HiSec) should be viable places to live and sustain a player throughout their EVE career, despite risk/effort:reward ratios. Nerfing HiSec to the point that it's unlivable in an attempt to "force" people into NullSec won't provide you with more targets - it'll simply nerf CCPs income.


By that logic nerfing highsec reward or increasing its risk won't "force" anyone to leave highsec. Highsec residents have acclimated to higher reward than they are entitled to and will have to put up with the changes exactly like gankers had to with the mining barge changes. The rest of your post is some English fallacy that I am not going to explain or do more than this sentence to address.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#669 - 2012-10-17 23:22:11 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Please don't speak for every one in the alliance. Being part of some alliance or even coalition doesn't makes all your claims right, and for truth reading the number of those posting in this thread or other with about same "content" makes me think there are a lot more who disagree with your point of view than other way around.

Believe me, I almost know what I'm talking about.


So why don't you prove me wrong then, go survey the entire CFC and HBC about their thoughts on highsec risk:reward compared to nullsec risk:reward. Then you can do a whole bunch of interesting statistical analyses and make a good post here on these forums about how wrong I am.

Most of your posts can be summarized as "I hate nullsec people for X reason and I offer no explanation or corroboration." So maybe if you want us to believe you, you shouldn't act like that. Be one of the proud, the few, the respectable npc alts.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#670 - 2012-10-17 23:26:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
La Nariz wrote:

Risk can be subjective but, the risk differences between the security status areas have an objective component which you are ignoring removal of CONCORD cannot be mitigated, presence of bubbles cannot be mitigated, gate camps cannot be mitigated, ridiculously powerful incursion gate camping rats cannot be mitigated, allowance of cynos cannot be mitigated, lack of local cannot be mitigated and allowance of combat capable capitals/supercapitals cannot be mitigated. The subjective component of risk that you allude to are player factors which can be minimized, the objective factors are game mechanics which cannot be minimized. Highsec also has the added benefit of being the only space you can perform activities AFK with negligible risk.

The ratios are completely arbitrary and just there as an example in a thought experiment.

I can agree that a revamp is due to fix issues in the various sec areas but that hasn't much to do with compensating for the trend of ever decreasing risk in highsec.

I'm suggesting that while the ratios may be arbitrary, if we ever came up with a quantitative measure of risk and true picture of reward and developed a matrix for each sec then analyzed individuals living in those securities looking at loses and isk/resources accumulated we'd find people all over the place in relation.

Each aspect of danger can be mitigated, though not all at the same time or by a single person in some cases, but it can be done.

No Concord: Don't be in a place with someone who wants to kill you, being the superior force
Gatecamps: Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, covert cloak ships, MWD warp trick, scouts, being the superior force
Bubbles: Interdiction nullifying T3, scouts, being the superior force
Incusrion gate rats: Bridging/jumping, Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, being the superior force
Cynos: Response readiness, being the superior force, being able to get away

And while you speak of these factors being subjective, the factors that you do consider subjective, player factors, include all of the above save incursion rats. Players set bubble camps, players camp gates, players try to kill other players thus making a lack of concord relevant. Player hostilities originate all but one of the dangers present thus making them all subjective factors.
Megos Adriano
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#671 - 2012-10-17 23:28:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Megos Adriano
La Nariz wrote:
By that logic nerfing highsec reward or increasing its risk won't "force" anyone to leave highsec. Highsec residents have acclimated to higher reward than they are entitled to and will have to put up with the changes exactly like gankers had to with the mining barge changes. The rest of your post is some English fallacy that I am not going to explain or do more than this sentence to address.


That's why I said "in an attempt to foce" and not "in order to force". I also don't care about increasing the risks of HiSec - as long as there is good logic behind it. Adding harder spawns in HiSec belts in answer to the previous mining ship changes is an idea that has merit. Nerfing HiSec in an attempt to force people into NullSec because poor little baby Nariz doesn't have enough people to shoot at is terrible logic. Do learn to read and do try to keep up, mate.

Nerfing HiSec in an attempt to force people to leave HiSec is nothing short of a spiteful wish spawned of vindictive babies who aren't getting what they want, and are jealous because other people are enjoying the game. If you don't enjoy EVE, stop playing. If you want people to shoot at, well, maybe stop forming these 10,000 man megablocs... because it looks like your risk mitigation has shot you in the foot. :)

And boom goes the dynamite.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#672 - 2012-10-17 23:30:34 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

I can agree that a revamp is due to fix issues in the various sec areas but that hasn't much to do with compensating for the trend of ever decreasing risk in highsec.

For all the waffle, I have yet to specific examples where risk has ACTUALLY been reduced.

There is waffle about gank profitablity.
There is waffle about smartbombing opportunites.
There is waffle about miners devaluing their own profession - by - strangely enough - being miners.

Has anybody really asked a miner what they think or they merely pawns in the great debate about the idealogy called Eve.

1) Miners CAN be killed, easily and readily. Profitability is a different issue. It's in the hands of the ganker. It's HIS choice to gank.
2) Ganking is profitable IF gankers would just stop selecting the easyshot miner.
3) Miners using cans to circumvent SB's as an "exploit" is BS. Miners have every right to defend themselves in ANY way possible - tank, cans whatever. They are not and were never meant to be little ducks at a fairground for your gratification.
4) If miners devalue their profession - that's THEIR problem if they made the problem (if it even exists).

And out of all of this - they're bashed relentlessly about how they CAN mitigate RISK - THEY KNOW. The bit conveniently overlooked is that they CHOOSE to REWARD fit instead.

They must think the REWARD is GREATER than the RISK. So by all intents, they ARE playing the way you want.

Ask yourselves honestly whether ganking is as dangerous and as prevalent to miners as you guys seem to think? ONLY when a concerted gank campaign involving hundreds in limited areas starts to happen do we see prices change.

Said it before, I'll say it again, you're OVER-VALUING your profession and nothing the roaming wannabe ganker does can increase the miner's value to himself.

I originally called it and continue to call it for BS - it's butt-hurt over buffs and requires a ganker to be more resourceful and a damned sight smarter than he has been.

I reckon CCP should bring in tradeable killrights so miners can get some ACTUAL revenge. Let's see how fast you switch to something that WILL be profitable instead of mercilessly singling out the easyshot.

Oh wait.....

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#673 - 2012-10-18 03:16:42 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I'm not sure how much mining you've done, to be honest.

Darth Gustav wrote:
You're right about CCP being the only ones who know for sure about bots in an environment where players aren't putting bots into their pods. You're wrong about CCP being the only ones who know for sure in an environment where ganking is moderately common (as compared to laughably rare). That's because the bots don't know their exhumer blew up. You can see the pods warping back and forth from the belt to the station every hour or so.


Sure. And if the pod doesn't warp back, it wasn't a bot. And if the woman drowns in the pond, she wasn't a witch.

If you want to bump or gank barges and drive risk up, just do it. You don't need botting as an alibi.

Darth Gustav wrote:
As for the minigame idea, at any point miners could choose to play the epic mini-game already pre-installed with Eve Online called "use the navigation mechanics and pay attention."


If they've played the basic game within EVE of "pick a quiet, out of the way system," there's no reward for the additional precautions. They're unnecessary 90% of the time, and that's enough for any barge you're mining in to pay for itself several times over. As it is, any miner smart enough to take a couple of basic precautions can, and does, factor the very occasional gank into his calculations as part of the cost of doing business.

Now if you're in wormhole space, you're mining aligned and hitting d-scan as if it were a Pez dispenser, because the alternative is O HAI MR. PROTEUS. The danger level there is high enough to warrant your undivided attention, but the rocks can be good enough to make that attention worthwhile.

If you get that balance wrong, you end up with the mining situation in low sec.

Darth Gustav wrote:
Finally, how can you possibly reasonably state that uninhibited mining isn't bad for the profession? Think like Aristotle for just a second. Do a few iterations of time. When time goes by, what's happened to the supply of miners seeking easy ISK? How about the supply of products they gather? It's basic reasoning.


I'm not sure where I said that. I certainly didn't intend to say anything of the kind. The natural corrective to the amount of mining being done is the market price for ore. As the price goes down, you can either increase your yield, making up the lower per-unit price in volume, or count on the casuals to find something more lucrative to do, decreasing your competition (and the overall yield), or, in the worst case, throttle back your own production until the prices start to rise. If the prices rise too high, the casuals dust off their Retrievers and get back to mining, lowering the prices, and so on.

Ganks reduce yield (since ore hold contents don't drop, and of course the ship isn't mining after it's space dust) and increase cost for the miner, and there's the occasional WTF RAGEQUIT!!!1, but unless they're part of a large, concerted effort like Hulkageddon or the Ice Interdiction, I'm not sure how much of an effect they have on the overall market.

Just a few things.

Number one, it's not justification for ganking. It's justification for adding risk of various types. I don't care if it is or isn't a bot, more risk lowers the threshold for survival.

Number two, what about ice? Those systems in high-sec are in very finite supply and are mined by hordes of miners. You speak of there being no need to mine aligned. That's ironic because those ice miners should be able to be smartbombed but they can't be. That would spice things up on the ice fields considerably, I'd think.

Number three, by saying you want the market to regulate peoples' activities, you're basically trying to tell people how to play. Not to mention that bots don't care what prices are, they mine just as well without a morale check. Try to think about new players who sign up for Eve and decide they want to be ice miners. They don't have a perspective, they juts mine ice and sell the refined products.

Do you really want those new miners to be considered a scourge because they continue to deflate ice prices despite market trends they were unaware of? Should new players be told, "No, you can't mine that right now there's a mining embargo to drive up ice prices?" Should miners take a pay cut every day they mine?

I don't think so. That's not good for Eve.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#674 - 2012-10-18 05:49:03 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:


Oh wait.....


Over the last few weeks we have provided you with the numbers, examples and historical facts to back up everything we have said. Our calls for balance revolve around more than simply wanting easy ganks and yet you continue to ignore anything that goes againt what you want to belive. You have provided nothing to back up your arguments other than attacks on people who play the game in a way you don't like.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#675 - 2012-10-19 16:17:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I'm suggesting that while the ratios may be arbitrary, if we ever came up with a quantitative measure of risk and true picture of reward and developed a matrix for each sec then analyzed individuals living in those securities looking at loses and isk/resources accumulated we'd find people all over the place in relation.

Each aspect of danger can be mitigated, though not all at the same time or by a single person in some cases, but it can be done.

No Concord: Don't be in a place with someone who wants to kill you, being the superior force
Gatecamps: Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, covert cloak ships, MWD warp trick, scouts, being the superior force
Bubbles: Interdiction nullifying T3, scouts, being the superior force
Incusrion gate rats: Bridging/jumping, Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, being the superior force
Cynos: Response readiness, being the superior force, being able to get away

And while you speak of these factors being subjective, the factors that you do consider subjective, player factors, include all of the above save incursion rats. Players set bubble camps, players camp gates, players try to kill other players thus making a lack of concord relevant. Player hostilities originate all but one of the dangers present thus making them all subjective factors.


All player factors are subjective we agree on that. Concord is not subjective at all and cannot be mitigated the same goes for the allowance of those other things in other sec status areas. The point I was making was that there is objectively more risk in other sec status areas and those areas do not have as good of a risk : reward ratio as highsec does. Highsec risk needs to be increased or highsec reward needs to be decreased to make this ratio in line with the other sec areas.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#676 - 2012-10-19 16:36:10 UTC
Megos Adriano wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
By that logic nerfing highsec reward or increasing its risk won't "force" anyone to leave highsec. Highsec residents have acclimated to higher reward than they are entitled to and will have to put up with the changes exactly like gankers had to with the mining barge changes. The rest of your post is some English fallacy that I am not going to explain or do more than this sentence to address.


That's why I said "in an attempt to foce" and not "in order to force". I also don't care about increasing the risks of HiSec - as long as there is good logic behind it. Adding harder spawns in HiSec belts in answer to the previous mining ship changes is an idea that has merit. Nerfing HiSec in an attempt to force people into NullSec because poor little baby Nariz doesn't have enough people to shoot at is terrible logic. Do learn to read and do try to keep up, mate.

Nerfing HiSec in an attempt to force people to leave HiSec is nothing short of a spiteful wish spawned of vindictive babies who aren't getting what they want, and are jealous because other people are enjoying the game. If you don't enjoy EVE, stop playing. If you want people to shoot at, well, maybe stop forming these 10,000 man megablocs... because it looks like your risk mitigation has shot you in the foot. :)


This post is mostly fallacy and attempting to waffle to a different idea because your argument was destroyed. Please try again.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#677 - 2012-10-19 20:58:36 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I'm suggesting that while the ratios may be arbitrary, if we ever came up with a quantitative measure of risk and true picture of reward and developed a matrix for each sec then analyzed individuals living in those securities looking at loses and isk/resources accumulated we'd find people all over the place in relation.

Each aspect of danger can be mitigated, though not all at the same time or by a single person in some cases, but it can be done.

No Concord: Don't be in a place with someone who wants to kill you, being the superior force
Gatecamps: Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, covert cloak ships, MWD warp trick, scouts, being the superior force
Bubbles: Interdiction nullifying T3, scouts, being the superior force
Incusrion gate rats: Bridging/jumping, Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, being the superior force
Cynos: Response readiness, being the superior force, being able to get away

And while you speak of these factors being subjective, the factors that you do consider subjective, player factors, include all of the above save incursion rats. Players set bubble camps, players camp gates, players try to kill other players thus making a lack of concord relevant. Player hostilities originate all but one of the dangers present thus making them all subjective factors.


All player factors are subjective we agree on that. Concord is not subjective at all and cannot be mitigated the same goes for the allowance of those other things in other sec status areas. The point I was making was that there is objectively more risk in other sec status areas and those areas do not have as good of a risk : reward ratio as highsec does. Highsec risk needs to be increased or highsec reward needs to be decreased to make this ratio in line with the other sec areas.

Yes, you are correct in that there are static factors that increase risk in the sense of what can happen due to interactions to other players. My point was that there is no real set ratio to be expressed because those dangers are experienced and realized in an unequal fashion between individual players and that some of those factors, without player intervention don't amount to any real quantifiable change in behavior. That said they do require at least greater awareness to ensure you react appropriately when someone does attempt to intervene.

But to the point of income specifically some things you may wish to look at include static rewards for the same acts in various sec statuses. IE a mission reward may pay out more in low than in high but the bounty payouts are the same despite the extra precautions taken. Incursions, while lacking in other areas demonstrated that it is possible to have content which rewards according to the sec status rather than simply doesn't exist in a particular sec status (whether the ratio is set appropriately is a separate argument). Applying this more broadly would help give null/low greater incentive while leaving highsec content intact for those who actually do gameplay for gameplay's sake.

Additionally I feel that ratting/anomalies are inherently inferior to missioning, save the occasional rare spawns, due to a lack of secondary gain from performing that act. They have no real reliable and constant equivalent to LP rewards. Addressing the former issue may make it unnecessary, but that was a pair of thoughts I've had for a while regarding non-mission/non-complex PvE in lower security bands.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#678 - 2012-10-19 22:32:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Oh wait.....

Over the last few weeks we have provided you with the numbers, examples and historical facts to back up everything we have said. Our calls for balance revolve around more than simply wanting easy ganks and yet you continue to ignore anything that goes againt what you want to belive. You have provided nothing to back up your arguments other than attacks on people who play the game in a way you don't like.

Standard in the EVEO GD forums.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#679 - 2012-10-20 13:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rayzilla Zaraki
I am still a pretty raw noob in Eve and have spent 99% of my short career in hi-sec space so far as I am still learning the game. For a casual player like myself, Eve has a steep learning curve to it.

I have played other games, one of which is strong on PvP and no where is safe from it as it is in Hi Sec Space, so I am no stanger to getting ganked or spawn camped.

I like that Eve is divided up into different security levels so that I can progress as I feel I am ready. As it is, most of the time I have ventured into even 0.4 space, I have been ganked at the Stargate and capsule killed before I had time to even lock a target. I lost several ships and all their equipment that way which is discouraging even though there is insurance and ISK is relatively easy to come by or cheap to buy.


I don't mind getting ganked like that once in a while, but after 10 in a row, I have developed an aversion to going under 0.5 for now as I am still learning the game and figuring out what works and what doesn't. Getting ganked and seeing what is used on me is definitely a help in learning, that's for sure. But, as I said, repeated ganks where you don't even have a chance to respond is defeating and frustrating.

I am sure someone will suggest that going under 0.5 is easier with Corporation mates, but I have always been a solo player in all the games I have played with only casual association with Corporations/Wings/Clans. They always devolve into too much drama.

What I have noticed that I think could use some tweaking is the difference between 1.0 space and 0.5 space - I really see none. In fact, while I have been reading these forums this morning, I have made three trips to an asteroid belt in 0.5 space in my Retriever and haven't seen a single NPC.


I think they could make more of a progression in risk between the security levels so that going from 0.5 to 0.4 isn't such a sharp contrast. Don't make 0.4 more secure, but I could see 0.5 being less secure. As it is, all I see is that resources in 0.4 are better than in 1.0 and the NPCs are very easy kills and not very common.

As I said, I am in a 0.4 system mining right now as I type this. I have 5 combat drones out and I am perfectly safe from the NPCs. To me, this shouldn't happen below, say 0.8 or so. I'd like to at least feel nervous in 0.5.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#680 - 2012-10-20 18:30:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
I am still a pretty raw noob in Eve and have spent 99% of my short career in hi-sec space so far as I am still learning the game. For a casual player like myself, Eve has a steep learning curve to it.

I have played other games, one of which is strong on PvP and no where is safe from it as it is in Hi Sec Space, so I am no stanger to getting ganked or spawn camped.

I like that Eve is divided up into different security levels so that I can progress as I feel I am ready. As it is, most of the time I have ventured into even 0.4 space, I have been ganked at the Stargate and capsule killed before I had time to even lock a target. I lost several ships and all their equipment that way which is discouraging even though there is insurance and ISK is relatively easy to come by or cheap to buy.


I don't mind getting ganked like that once in a while, but after 10 in a row, I have developed an aversion to going under 0.5 for now as I am still learning the game and figuring out what works and what doesn't. Getting ganked and seeing what is used on me is definitely a help in learning, that's for sure. But, as I said, repeated ganks where you don't even have a chance to respond is defeating and frustrating.

I am sure someone will suggest that going under 0.5 is easier with Corporation mates, but I have always been a solo player in all the games I have played with only casual association with Corporations/Wings/Clans. They always devolve into too much drama.

What I have noticed that I think could use some tweaking is the difference between 1.0 space and 0.5 space - I really see none. In fact, while I have been reading these forums this morning, I have made three trips to an asteroid belt in 0.5 space in my Retriever and haven't seen a single NPC.


I think they could make more of a progression in risk between the security levels so that going from 0.5 to 0.4 isn't such a sharp contrast. Don't make 0.4 more secure, but I could see 0.5 being less secure. As it is, all I see is that resources in 0.4 are better than in 1.0 and the NPCs are very easy kills and not very common.

As I said, I am in a 0.4 system mining right now as I type this. I have 5 combat drones out and I am perfectly safe from the NPCs. To me, this shouldn't happen below, say 0.8 or so. I'd like to at least feel nervous in 0.5.



Another alt lobby posting. You might eventually convince a pair of newbs, not older players.

Yet another fail despite many good points you just killed yourself with regular stuff everyone knowing high/low/null can figure out. Couldn't think the desperation from some older players out of high sec was that high. Post more with alts claiming noob posting and awesomeness, you fail.

brb