These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Retribution of Team Super Friends

First post First post
Author
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#1081 - 2012-10-19 15:07:26 UTC
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c


It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1082 - 2012-10-19 17:01:05 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c


It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires


While I agree many of your suggestions would be direct sinks... I don't particularly see the need to implement them...

I'm NEVER going to put a 500m isk bounty on a person or corporation if it expires in 30 days and no-one gets rewards for it.... But if it lasts indefinitely, so that it is guaranteed to benefit the destruction of their property, I'm game!

A 1m isk fee is reasonable.... and I consider that irrelevant... but then you might as well raise the minimum bounty to 5m isk or some such, because I'm not going to pay 1m isk to put a 100k isk bounty on someone!

A concord tax of 5% is not horrific, but I don't consider it all that necessary.... Make it 1%, or even 2% that's modified by trade skills, it's much more reasonable... No Need for concord to get greedy... bounties will help keep them employed!

I don't see the need for bounties to expire / be refunded, unless the organization they are placed on disbands!
Bodega Cat
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Northern Coalition.
#1083 - 2012-10-19 17:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Bodega Cat wrote:
Well, for what its worth it should be a lot of fun the first 3-6 months until we boil it down and break it.

More like 3-6 days.

Bodega Cat wrote:
Face it, the ideal we have about "bounty hunting" is just too romanticized anyway. We can never really have it the way we imagine it in our minds.

I disagree. If they let me, or one of the other pvp guys here develop the system, we could make something nice and authentic, that would be liked by everyone. All they'd have to do is code it, and support it. I certainly know that the expert programmers working for CCP can do that. But the problem is they don't want a nice, enjoyable system. They want a system that falls in line with their agenda, which is to segregate the four space types in terms of player interaction offered, and make sure high-sec is safe enough to bring in the carebear bucks.


BS.

Its easy to take a couple of like minded people, and build out a design for a system that seems fool proof because you have major user bias.

Put that design up in a serious way, with a full GDD, with goals, and features, and bullets about implementation and stuff from back to front, and watch this community of thousands shoot holes through it on the forums just like everything else.

Everything in a sandbox game gets meta'd into something else, but at the same time thats also why its brilliant. Its funny cause you talk about the segragation. It's so obvious that is not at all what CCP wants, its what WE want as a playerbase even if you can't admit it. We warp and twist things to our own conveniences, and that almost always means more polarized interactions. Inject uncertainty into anything and the obvious thing to do is avoid it regardless if you are a bear or pvper.

And we are only talking about a DESIGN for a system. In game dev, the design is the easy part, its the execution and implementation that challenges you significantly. Yes, tech limitations are very much valid. Sometimes "doing it right" means actually breaking other systems fundamentally as well. You'll get hounded so hard if one thing breaks too many things in other systems. You do have to compromise.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1084 - 2012-10-19 17:20:08 UTC
For bounty hunting to be a viable profession you should indeed be able to trigger kill rights, if the person has a negative security status in addition to a bounty. Being 'bad' (neg sec status) PLUS having a bounty should after all have consequences no?

i.e.
- Dawg the bounty hunter trains Bounty Hunting to 5 (taking some 25-30 days to do so), to unlock the 'Trigger Posse' button on characters info sheets having bounties AND negative security statuses
- Dawg lands on grid with Dookie who has a 100m bounty and -2 sec status. Dawg opens Dookie's character sheet and clicks 'Trigger Posse', paying a deposit to CONCORD of 25% of Dookies current ship value...so say 25m on a 100m ISK Myrm
- Dookie is now flagged as a suspect and blappable by ANYONE for 15 minutes.
- Dawg blaps Dookie and gets the 20m bounty payout (at 20% of bounty value), plus return of his 25m deposit. If someone else blapps Dookie however, they would get the 20m bounty payout BUT Dawg would NOT get his 25m deposit back.

Notes:
- By having the ability to trigger a posse (suspect flag) tied to security status, you have a safeguard vs. someone wealthy griefing a player. Players can avoid this mechanic by maintaining a zero or higher sec status. Done.
- By having a deposit based on higher value than ship value payout AND matching it to who gets the kill -- you encourage true bounty hunting, and not bounty 'co-ordinating'. i.e. The person triggering the posse is more inclined to ensure he gets the kill, than a passer by...
- A positive manipulation side-effect of this is that players wanting hisec fights can deliberately take their sec status negative, and get bounties applied to themselves, inviting other players to try and 'posse up' and get him, which remains their choice to do or not
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1085 - 2012-10-19 19:15:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
CCP Tallest wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
^ I agree with the above, except for one detail. Unlike the Unified Inventory, which was created with good intentions but executed badly, the kill right changes are being made to satisfy a specific agenda with "technical hurdles" just thrown around to make it easier for us to swallow.

The Unified Inventory didn't nerf pvp. It didn't nerf ganking, criminal activity, et cetera. It just made the interface less pleasant to use. The kill right changes, however, will do those things, all for the sake of making high-sec safer.

It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.

You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.

I never said that was the goal of the bounty system. If you actually read my posts, you would see that I support the bounty system in its proposed form, and in fact think it's quite nice. The same, however, can't be said for the kill right system. Nice misdirection attempt though. If I was ten years younger, it might have worked.

MeBiatch wrote:
drivel

all the crimewatch stuff will do is make high sec more dangerous for **** heads...
from what i understand now ifyou do something as$hole like you will be flagged and then its like 0.0 on your ass where anyone can kill you?

how is that safer?

all it will lead to is more fights and more death in high sec!??!?!? which if you ask me makes it more dangerous...

more drivel

How exactly will it make high-sec more dangerous for "**** heads" again? All it's going to do is make us use alts for "**** head" activity, and at that point we don't give a rat's ass about kill rights and bounties since those alts are outlaws anyway.

You are the posterchild for increasing public education budgets, you know that?

Scrapyard Bob wrote:
That seemingly goes against what we were told last week. It was described as 20% of the "destroyed" value (including cargo).

20% of the total kill value or even the hull value is going to be too easy to game. Having it as 20% of the value of the destroyed items is at least more resilient to being gamed.

It actually wouldn't matter either way, since the system would be equally exploitable using the market. But even for cases where no exploits would be taking place, going by destroyed value of items only would on average make the bounties not worth going after at all. What's 20% of about 15 million ISK worth of burned T2 gear? Nothing compared to the value of the hull and rigs.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

None ofthe Above
#1086 - 2012-10-20 01:34:30 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c


It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires


+1

Nice. All or any of this would improve the bounty system.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Reticle
Sight Picture
#1087 - 2012-10-21 03:33:21 UTC
Been pondering some things about the new bounty system. Do we know yet if bounties are instantaneous? I can see the advantage of advertising a bounty hunter service and asking clients NOT to place a bounty until you're in position. Don't want to spook the target.
Mex Wren
Perkone
Caldari State
#1088 - 2012-10-21 11:30:00 UTC
I find it interesting that you're finding a way to make Bounty Hunting work in a world full of immortals.

In 1000 years when we're walking around bulletproof, fireproof, diseaseproof, and self-cloned a gazillion times over, I wonder if we'll look back on Eve for inspiration on how to redesign our legal framework?

Andomg@salvagedrones.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1089 - 2012-10-21 22:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Soniclover, or anyone else from CCP.

I have a question on bounties. Has there been any discussion as to whether you would add an expiration time on bounties just as you have them on kill-rights? The reason why I ask this is, that although I'm entirely against the concept of putting a bounty on any given player, I also fear that bounties become meaningless if players are not losing their ships enough for a bounty to become completely paid out. In time, almost everyone will end up with a bounty one way or the other.

Why not set it with an expiration date just as kill-rights have? All bounties would then be refunded (or partially refunded in case of a partial payout) the moment a bounty expires. This also prevents situations in which a years-old bounty is still on the player while the person who put it on him or her is no longer playing the game. Ergo: the bounty is meaningless.

EDIT: sorry Scrapyard Bob. I didn't see your post there.

Scrapyard Bob wrote:



It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires


This would even be a better solution than what I posted.
Ghostwarden
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1090 - 2012-10-22 14:31:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
^ I agree with the above, except for one detail. Unlike the Unified Inventory, which was created with good intentions but executed badly, the kill right changes are being made to satisfy a specific agenda with "technical hurdles" just thrown around to make it easier for us to swallow.

The Unified Inventory didn't nerf pvp. It didn't nerf ganking, criminal activity, et cetera. It just made the interface less pleasant to use. The kill right changes, however, will do those things, all for the sake of making high-sec safer.

It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.

You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.

I never said that was the goal of the bounty system. If you actually read my posts, you would see that I support the bounty system in its proposed form, and in fact think it's quite nice. The same, however, can't be said for the kill right system. Nice misdirection attempt though. If I was ten years younger, it might have worked.

MeBiatch wrote:
drivel

all the crimewatch stuff will do is make high sec more dangerous for **** heads...
from what i understand now ifyou do something as$hole like you will be flagged and then its like 0.0 on your ass where anyone can kill you?

how is that safer?

all it will lead to is more fights and more death in high sec!??!?!? which if you ask me makes it more dangerous...

more drivel

How exactly will it make high-sec more dangerous for "**** heads" again? All it's going to do is make us use alts for "**** head" activity, and at that point we don't give a rat's ass about kill rights and bounties since those alts are outlaws anyway.

You are the posterchild for increasing public education budgets, you know that?


To your first point. I don't think that the intended goal of CCP is to make High-Sec safer with the kill rights changes. I think that they are trying to find a way for High-Sec Care Bears a means fight back without stooping to the same tactics that the gankers use. I think they want this to happen for two reasons. One, most of the care bears don't want to take a security hit to fight back. Two, I think that they are also trying to find a way to encourage the care bears to get into PVP.

Now, I'm not trying to say that it will work. I really don't know how its going to go, there are just too many variables to be sure. As for making it more dangerous for **** heads, it won't do anything to hamper you main (as you've said), but it very well could make it more dangerous for you pirate alt if the changes do in fact draw out the care bears and get them to start PVP'ing.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1091 - 2012-10-22 22:11:35 UTC
Ghostwarden wrote:
To your first point. I don't think that the intended goal of CCP is to make High-Sec safer with the kill rights changes. I think that they are trying to find a way for High-Sec Care Bears a means fight back without stooping to the same tactics that the gankers use. I think they want this to happen for two reasons. One, most of the care bears don't want to take a security hit to fight back. Two, I think that they are also trying to find a way to encourage the care bears to get into PVP.

I think that it's their intended goal, but they're just executing it poorly. Lack of foresight is not uncommon on CCP's part.

Also, how is toggling a switch that makes a player FFA a "means of fighting back"? Fighting back implies you're doing something instead of just pressing a button and watching someone else do it. At the very least, it should be a focused mercenary action, and not an FFA switch. Having to interact with someone before your target is hunted I could buy as "fighting back," but not the way things are currently planned.

Carebears don't want to fight back; that's why they're carebears. Carebears aren't the miners, traders, and industrialists. Carebears are players who want nonconsensual player interaction to be removed from the game. Doing pve activities simply falls in line with their attitudes. And CCP is pandering to them.

Ghostwarden wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to say that it will work. I really don't know how its going to go, there are just too many variables to be sure. As for making it more dangerous for **** heads, it won't do anything to hamper you main (as you've said), but it very well could make it more dangerous for you pirate alt if the changes do in fact draw out the care bears and get them to start PVP'ing.

How will it make things more difficult for my pirate alt, which can already be shot by anyone, anywhere, at any time? No, I'm serious, I want to know. People keep giving this argument, but don't say anything to back it up. How will it be more dangerous for an outlaw?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1092 - 2012-10-22 22:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Ghostwarden wrote:
To your first point. I don't think that the intended goal of CCP is to make High-Sec safer with the kill rights changes.

If they hadn't intended for both the crimewatch and the killright mechanics to make hisec changes, then CCP Tallest wouldn't have come here and said that the bounty changes weren't intended to make hisec safer, and I'm sure both CCP SoniClover and CCP Paradox would happily have corrected my statements when I said outright that CCP's intention was to make hisec safer. They've corrected me on various other minor details, but they've skirted that particular aspect like a drugaddict would skirt cops.

Ghostwarden wrote:
Two, I think that they are also trying to find a way to encourage the care bears to get into PVP.

Then they would've thought up a mechanic which didn't basically boil down to "press a button and watch everyone else do the job for you" or "let someone else pay me to press a button and do the job for me".

Ghostwarden wrote:
but it very well could make it more dangerous for you pirate alt if the changes do in fact draw out the care bears and get them to start PVP'ing.

They won't. The game mechanic changes are not incentivizing that carebears do any fighting on their own, which means they won't. They'll just get everyone else to do the job for them, either for free or by paying for the killrights.

And that is just sad.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1093 - 2012-10-22 23:21:29 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

They won't. The game mechanic changes are not incentivizing that carebears do any fighting on their own, which means they won't. They'll just get everyone else to do the job for them, either for free or by paying for the killrights.

And that is just sad.


I am a carebear and I approve of this message.

Although Zim, do you actually blame me for it? I mean, I have no interest in PvP other than the need to defend myself enough to survive ganks. You would call me a civilian if we would ever be able to attain a status like that. So, what does a civilian do? He gives the rights to mercenaries to do the job for him. I don't have a fancy battleship capable of destroying...oh wait, I do. But regardless, I don't shoot at people with it Blink

So I just let others do it if they so want. I don't think I'll even charge them for it, but I have my doubts whether to put the kill-rights public if an alt-account can just remove the right of the person who attacked me.

Oh and about High-sec becoming safer? I don't know. I do believe many arguments of those that say it will hold merit. If it's going to be more safe, all the better: High-sec PvE, Low-sec/Null-sec PvP. I'm all for it Roll




Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1094 - 2012-10-22 23:37:15 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Oh and about High-sec becoming safer? I don't know. I do believe many arguments of those that say it will hold merit. If it's going to be more safe, all the better: High-sec PvE, Low-sec/Null-sec PvP. I'm all for it Roll

It might take a while, but some day you'll understand why this is very, very bad for the game.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1095 - 2012-10-22 23:43:07 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Although Zim, do you actually blame me for it?

I don't blame carebears for not wanting to willingly PVP in the slightest, I blame CCP for making quite a few suboptimal design choices the past few years.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1096 - 2012-10-23 02:43:58 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It might take a while, but some day you'll understand why this is very, very bad for the game.


Heh, sure sure. I understand where you're coming from. Although, if this would ever be the case, I would also be in favor of severe penalties applied to all activities in high-sec such as mining/manufacturing/incursions and whatnot. Simply put, risk vs reward, so it's a lot better to produce and research things in low-sec or even null-sec with bonuses to efficiency and whatnot. After all, low risk means people become lazy, where as in a hostile environment people need a cutting-edge. As horrid as it may seem, but wars actually boost technological progression at a much faster pace than in times of peace. But rest assured, I doubt CCP will want high-sec to become a true PvE-haven. I'd love it, but it's just not going to happen.

Back to the topic at hand though, Zim & Destiny, what are your thoughts on what Scrapyard Bob wrote:

Scrapyard Bob wrote:

It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires



Are you dead against this? It would make bounties actually mean something and not just something that everyone is bound to have on him or her sooner or later.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1097 - 2012-10-23 03:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Back to the topic at hand though, Zim & Destiny, what are your thoughts on what Scrapyard Bob wrote:

Scrapyard Bob wrote:

It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires



Are you dead against this? It would make bounties actually mean something and not just something that everyone is bound to have on him or her sooner or later.

First of all I don't think that "ISK sinks" is a black and white topic. There is no concrete evidence that they're needed. Also, ISK faucets and sinks are balanced by material faucets and sinks. It's a complex topic, so don't get swept up into that "we need ISK sinks nownownow!" stuff. It's a very uninformed view.

Do we need an ISK sink as a deterrent to people placing bounties without consequence? That's hard to tell. Bounties can't be claimed if the target doesn't undock, or log in at all for that matter. Punishing people for placing bounties that go unrealized due to no fault of their own doesn't seem like a fair system. At least market taxes can be justified based on the fact that the seller controls sale volume with pricing; bounties have no similar control mechanism. You can place a billion on someone, and then that person takes a sabbatical for a month.

I think aside from maybe a minor "processing fee," bounties should have no other costs attached.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1098 - 2012-10-23 08:06:02 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Back to the topic at hand though, Zim & Destiny, what are your thoughts on what Scrapyard Bob wrote:

Scrapyard Bob wrote:

It would be an actual ISK sink (and a far better one) if:

- Bounties expired after 30 days
- You had to pay CONCORD a fee in order to place the bounty (such as 1M ISK)
- You had to pay CONCORD a tax on the amount that you were setting the bounty to (such as 5% or 10%)
- You only got back 80% of the bounty's remaining escrow value when it expires



Are you dead against this? It would make bounties actually mean something and not just something that everyone is bound to have on him or her sooner or later.

If what you're looking for is an isk sink, then there are tons of better, more reliable places where you could put in an isk sink which would actually matter: i.e. on places where you'd have a steady stream of consumption. Bounties are a luxury, and the isk sink it would provide would likely be minute in the extreme.

I'm not against it, but I don't see it bringing major benefits to the party. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#1099 - 2012-10-23 13:25:17 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

They won't. The game mechanic changes are not incentivizing that carebears do any fighting on their own, which means they won't. They'll just get everyone else to do the job for them, either for free or by paying for the killrights.

And that is just sad.


I am a carebear and I approve of this message.

Although Zim, do you actually blame me for it? I mean, I have no interest in PvP other than the need to defend myself enough to survive ganks. You would call me a civilian if we would ever be able to attain a status like that. So, what does a civilian do? He gives the rights to mercenaries to do the job for him. I don't have a fancy battleship capable of destroying...oh wait, I do. But regardless, I don't shoot at people with it Blink

So I just let others do it if they so want. I don't think I'll even charge them for it, but I have my doubts whether to put the kill-rights public if an alt-account can just remove the right of the person who attacked me.

Oh and about High-sec becoming safer? I don't know. I do believe many arguments of those that say it will hold merit. If it's going to be more safe, all the better: High-sec PvE, Low-sec/Null-sec PvP. I'm all for it Roll


I am genuinely curious about this since I have very little experience with a peaceful life in hisec, but...if you want PvE space, why does EVE still hold interest for you? Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you do like that breath of danger after all, that is. Truly, I mean no trollio, but I have seen this opinion touted so many times and I have never understood it.
Lieam Thellere
The CodeX Alliance Executive Holdings Corporation
The CodeX Alliance
#1100 - 2012-10-23 13:48:39 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
I am genuinely curious about this since I have very little experience with a peaceful life in hisec, but...if you want PvE space, why does EVE still hold interest for you? Unless my sarcasm meter is broken and you do like that breath of danger after all, that is. Truly, I mean no trollio, but I have seen this opinion touted so many times and I have never understood it.


Not to speak for him, but I personally find it much more fun to scan down sites, hack radar stations and kill rats than to engage in PvP. Now, I realize it will happen from time to time, but it's not what draws me to the game. Having the ability to put a bounty on the person who ganked me would at least give me some satisfaction knowing that they're going to have to either go into hiding on that character, or deal with getting ganked repeatedly themselves by bounty hunters.