These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carebear Entitlement: The Decadence of the Modern Era

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
NARDAC
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#261 - 2012-11-01 21:33:10 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
NARDAC wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Look, for all the whining about high-sec that happens here DAILY, nobody has really bothered to TAKE a system. Do the same thing that's done in null: claim a stake, and take it. In this case, wardec everyone that comes around, kill everyone and everything that moves (even if you have to gank to get it done),



You can't wardec NPC corps.


Then you kill them or grief them within game rules. I thought I said that??? Everybody is just oozing praise on Jimmy what's-his-name for his "playstyle", so use it. Plenty of miners are in corps; plenty more are in NPC corps. The only difference is one small mechanic.

But I have a feeling this is coming back around to "easy" for the anti-miners/gankers. You guys want it just as easy as the miners supposedly want it.

Who's looking back at whom in the mirror? Twisted



When I was in a corp that shall go unnamed, we did try to take a high sec system.... in effect.

If anyone came in to mine our belts, we would shoot the same rocks they were, and short-cycle the rock so they got nothing... or bump them out of belt.. or hire mercs to war dec them, etc. Or, of course, offer to let them join our alliance.
FeralShadow
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2012-11-01 21:35:00 UTC
Clearly something is going on in the Eve universe. There are numerous "threadnaughts" like these. I for one simply think the isk:reward ratio is out of whack. People should WANT to leave high sec for null sec, of their own volition, even when pvp is a risk. Low, but null especially, should be so rewarding that people staying in high sec are making pennies compared to the rest. Don't nerf highsec, just get the Risk:Reward ratio back into balance.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Ginger Barbarella
#263 - 2012-11-01 21:37:43 UTC
NARDAC wrote:
If anyone came in to mine our belts, we would shoot the same rocks they were, and short-cycle the rock so they got nothing... or bump them out of belt.. or hire mercs to war dec them, etc. Or, of course, offer to let them join our alliance.


So, let me get this straight: to "take" that system, you either mined the same rox as them, bumped them (which makes sense), or asked them to join the team?!?!?!

Wow.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2012-11-01 21:41:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Arduemont wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Is this thread still going on?

I don't understand why anyone listens to the opinion of a group of people who think elite PvP is bumping miners.

Just ignore them, they'll go away eventually. If they don't, I might have to rally the troops myself. Not because I like mining, I don't, but because this is one of the most ret*rded movements in the history of Eve and needs to be stomped out.

How is bumping not PvP? Or is resource denial only included in PvP at the convenience of your arguments?


I didn't say it wasn't. Mining is PvP too you know. (You see what I did there?)

Edit: Also, you can't just claim I said something and then use the imaginary thing you think I said to make a witty argument. Because it just shows you people to be as ret*rded as you already look.

Actually to be honest I missed a word which can change the meaning of a sentence, particularly

"I don't understand why anyone listens to the opinion of a group of people who think elite PvP is bumping miners."

became

"I don't understand why anyone listens to the opinion of a group of people who think PvP is bumping miners."

Where one can be interpreted as a jab at those who argue that bumping is a trivial act and not worth consideration, while the other takes a somewhat opposite tone. My mistake. Yes mining itself is equally PvP.
CausticS0da
Shrubbery Acquisitions
Blohm and Voss Shipyards Alliance
#265 - 2012-11-01 21:54:54 UTC
Anyone who puts the longevity of Eve above their own personal interests would have to agree with OP. There have been many positive changes in the recent past, but I worry they are going to 'balance' and 'streamline' the game onto rails. Once people start to believe they've 'got control' or 'mastered' the game they will lose interest and Eve will die. Pandas anyone?
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#266 - 2012-11-01 22:00:27 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
People should WANT to leave high sec for null sec, of their own volition, even when pvp is a risk.

I agree with this and you know, a huge number of people do WANT to.

There is lack of incentive.

1) You as good as have to join an existing alliance where everything is and has been done for you. There is no "empire building" facet anymore. To tackle an alliance to "empire build" means creating or joining another big alliance.

2) You make roughly same isk with ^ times the risk. (I'm not going to debate intel/blue etc. that's not the point).

If we accept that massive alliances are neccessary then the only thing left is the ISK incentive. (playstyle benefit is outside of the scope here because many nullseccers are there purely for the PvP, not the ISK potential or lack thereof).

I used to be in 0.0 when it WAS good ISK. It was still boring because that's all there was to do. Rat, mine or go on CTA's. Roams were good but finding an enemy that wants to come out and fight was sometimes hours, even days between.

(One of the ironies was where a lot of NPC 0.0 stations used to field guys wanting a fight but we camped them in so badly they got bored they left. We had no-one to fight!)

I made a post a while ago called wasted space. It offered a way to allow people to set up in 0.0 w/o sov. It was absolutely slammed by - you guessed it - sov holders. The very people saying they are bored, have no targets and we need to break highsec to make nullsec better.

OP wants to talk about entitlement? Entitlement is worse in 0.0 than anywhere else in Eve. Until that mindset changes, any solution is as good as trying to cut concrete with a feather.

Nobody is looking at causes, we're trying to "fix" the effects.

"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..."
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#267 - 2012-11-01 22:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalua Rui
Touval Lysander wrote:
Nobody is looking at causes, we're trying to "fix" the effects.


...this... if there is any "decadence of the modern era" then it's this useless mindset. Roll

Then again, it's neither modern nor new...

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#268 - 2012-11-01 22:21:13 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
I for one simply think the isk:reward ratio is out of whack. People should WANT to leave high sec for null sec, of their own volition, even when pvp is a risk. Low, but null especially, should be so rewarding that people staying in high sec are making pennies compared to the rest. Don't nerf highsec,just get the Risk:Reward ratio back into balance.

When CCP introduced anomalies to 0.0 space, the isk fountain gushed so hard they had to then nerf it back into oblivion. Then came incursions, with the same result.

The problem is (and has been) that you can't increase the rewards of 0.0 to make them competitive with hi-sec (with the risk factor considered in) without throwing the economy into an inflationary spiral (look at how fast/quickly the Anoms/Incursions got fixed if you think this wasn't an issue).

What we have here is a zero-sum situation.

To make 0.0 that much better, the hi-sec isk faucets need to be thinned down.

THAT is where the problem lies.

If you just buff 0.0 isk faucets w/o any concomitant reduction in the isk faucets from elsewhere....

"bad things happen".

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2012-11-01 22:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Shepard Wong Ogeko
Touval Lysander wrote:

I made a post a while ago called wasted space. It offered a way to allow people to set up in 0.0 w/o sov. It was absolutely slammed by - you guessed it - sov holders. The very people saying they are bored, have no targets and we need to break highsec to make nullsec better.


Very few of us really complain about lack of targets. We've been engaged in almost non-stop sov wars for the past year. Delve, Branch, Tenal, back to Delve, back up north to Tribute and now Vale. We'll complain about being blue balled, but at least in those cases we know there is hundreds of enemies who could fight us but simply choose not to.

A lot of this "nothing to shoot" is projection on the part of day-trippers. People who live outside of null and want to fly in and find something cool to kill in under an hour. They are the ones suggesting all the dumb ideas like no-local, no jumpdrives, and alpha-able POSes. Meanwhile, plenty of dedicated nullsec gankers pad their killboard all day long.

People who live full time in nullsec know where to find targets, how to bait them or pick a fight. And living in nullsec, we are fully aware that the reason there are not more targets is that there really isn't much to do in nullsec that can't be done just as profitably and with a lot more ease in empire.



And the reason nullsec empire building has hit a plateau is because our empire building tools have stagnated (1 crappy outpost per system) or get actively nerfed (jump bridge breaking). Give us factory outposts that are better than highsec and maybe you'll get more haulers flying around. Buff up nullsec ratting so it is better than highsec L4s, and maybe our PvE alts will move back to nullsec.

Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#270 - 2012-11-01 23:14:16 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2012-11-01 23:26:38 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#272 - 2012-11-01 23:27:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?

What happens if you buff null but don't nerf high?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2012-11-01 23:29:30 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?

What happens if you buff null but don't nerf high?

My statement wasn't that highsec shouldn't be nerfed but rather it was a question about how it helps the issue pointed out.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#274 - 2012-11-01 23:44:08 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?

What happens if you buff null but don't nerf high?

My statement wasn't that highsec shouldn't be nerfed but rather it was a question about how it helps the issue pointed out.

Well the hope here is that something will be implemented OTHER than simply increasing current payouts to anoms, because of course that wouldn't change squat.

The hope, I say.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#275 - 2012-11-01 23:45:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?



Because everything is relative.

CCP could just double the bounties on nullsec rats, and that would bring in a lot of people, but it would lead to terrible rates of monetary inflation.

However, I think CCP has a lot more options besides injecting pure isk into nullsec. They could substantially buff player built outposts. An across the board doubling of factory and research slots. Greater than 100% refining to encourage mining and refining in nullsec. Or a lower material requirement for factory slots. Or both. Improvements on loot drops, so that we can make more isk with PvE/exploration without actually printing isk out of thin air. Upgrades to place mission agents in our stations so we don't have to wait in line for the limited number of belts and anoms. LP stores to go with it, giving us a local source of some of those special items and giving some diversity over the same old rat loot.

I like the idea of moving moon mining to the planetary interaction system, which would allow line members to directly deal in moon products. And have moon POCOs so alliances can fight for access and tax collection.


If CCP thinks any of these things are going too far, their only other option is to nerf empire so that nullsec is still relatively better than what is supposed to be the easy mode starting area.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-11-01 23:58:00 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?

What happens if you buff null but don't nerf high?

My statement wasn't that highsec shouldn't be nerfed but rather it was a question about how it helps the issue pointed out.

I'm too sick to make a long post.

Nerfing Hi-Sec (by itself) would not do anything for null-sec small holders. With current mechanics, nothing will because size has a quality all it's own.


Suffice to say though, that smaller null-sec groups would have an easier time of it if their members were majority of the time *living* in null, instead of in JC's or alts making money in some other area of the game.

As long as the ease and reward exist *at the level they are currently at for hi-sec* there is very little incentive for the line grunts (of large or small alliances) to try making a living in Null.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2012-11-02 00:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Empire keeps getting better, and nullsec stagnates. The results are predictable. Established nullsec powers can keep picking up territory because the small guys can't earn enough with small holdings to get ahead.

Bravo sir!

There is your answer.

While true that there needs to be a greater disparity between incomes between sec statuses, how does nerfing highsec have the effect of helping smaller nullsec entities generate the income to be competitive?



Because everything is relative.

CCP could just double the bounties on nullsec rats, and that would bring in a lot of people, but it would lead to terrible rates of monetary inflation.

However, I think CCP has a lot more options besides injecting pure isk into nullsec. They could substantially buff player built outposts. An across the board doubling of factory and research slots. Greater than 100% refining to encourage mining and refining in nullsec. Or a lower material requirement for factory slots. Or both. Improvements on loot drops, so that we can make more isk with PvE/exploration without actually printing isk out of thin air. Upgrades to place mission agents in our stations so we don't have to wait in line for the limited number of belts and anoms. LP stores to go with it, giving us a local source of some of those special items and giving some diversity over the same old rat loot.

I like the idea of moving moon mining to the planetary interaction system, which would allow line members to directly deal in moon products. And have moon POCOs so alliances can fight for access and tax collection.


If CCP thinks any of these things are going too far, their only other option is to nerf empire so that nullsec is still relatively better than what is supposed to be the easy mode starting area.

I have no issue with what you post but there lies a contradiction. Lets assume for the moment that we have achieved a balance in game mechanics where we have the following:

-Perfect refine is eliminated in highsec and can only be created in null outposts with POS being in between
-Efficiency in manufacturing is pretty much the same as above and POS/outpost slot counts are made to be more competitive
-Rat bounties have a multiplier on them much like highsec incursions which reduces their payout by ~20% (Just throwing a number out) in highsec

I think we can all agree that those would be at least a step in the direction things need to go for income desparity to mean something.

That done though still leaves the issue of how easy it is to get to the point of being able to take full advantage of all those aspects. Given current sov/outpost mechanics we'd be likely to see them require a significant and most likely more than one time investment to get and keep those upgrades. It stands to reason that an entity with more members and was established would likely have an easier time than now wiping out their smaller counterparts.

At the same time giving out those types of advantages just for being there would be highly questionable. I'd think there would be e number of balance issues involved.
Pipa Porto
#278 - 2012-11-02 00:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Bane Necran wrote:
If the last 9 years have taught hisec carebears anything, it's that they're primarily entitled to ganks and nerfs. This recent trend of pretending they've had it easy is ridiculous. No group has been maligned and abused more.

Try and suggest a small nerf to nullbear safety and you'll soon find out who the real entitled people are. P


So, which nerf to HS safety are you thinking of?

Was it the Introduction of CONCORD to make HS safer that made it less safe?
The Removal of the possibility of tanking CONCORD?
The removal of the legality of escaping CONCORD?
The steadily decreasing reaction times of CONCORD?
The removal of insurance payouts to those killed by CONCORD?
The increase in EHP to ships most often targeted by Suicide gankers?
Then upcoming Crimewatch 2.0 stupidity?

Name a single change that CCP made that has made HS less safe overall for carebears. (Crucible made ganking more expensive overall, so try again).


As for safety in Nullsec: All of that "Safety" is created by player effort, not an omniscient, omnipotent NPC group that costs you nothing.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#279 - 2012-11-02 00:55:18 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Some Rando wrote:

It is not at all pointless, it provides a convenient extortion scheme with an enforceable mechanic.

THIS is the most intelligent point you've made - but while you argue this, then the miners can counter with such extortion needs to be regulated. Extortion in the real world is illegal, in EVE you've thought of a way to do it legally. So now, it needs to be countered. Most miners are not armed, so making bumping an activity that gives a miner kill rights would be an acceptable compromise IMO. I'm not a miner myself, but while I do dabble here and there, I don't actually care one way or the other what gets done about it.

But if this is the best reason why, then it is a criminal activity, and we have high-sec for a reason - for people to operate under high security. The same in-game laws should apply to all criminal activities. You want to extort people, fine, but don't expect you should be able to do so without consequences. I'm actually all for bumping the AFKers, I think if you're going to play a game then you need to actually be there playing it.


Bumping is the activity that emerged to counter the mining barge buffs that made it unprofitable to gank them even when they don't fit a tank.

Fix that problem, and I bet most bumpers will go back to ganking.

As for making bumping give killrights: Hooray, I can park my ship on the Jita undock and get ALL THE KILLRIGHTS. Make Freighters Suspect erryday.

If you don't like scams, extortion, and crime, you're probably playing the wrong game. Take a gander at 90% of EVE's news coverage. It's about big, cool crimes.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#280 - 2012-11-02 01:02:39 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Just have to add this, because it fits.

Some random carebear in minmatar chat said that he demands respect from me,
because he gave away billions to random people a few days ago.

*shakeshead*



lol. Random Acts of Kindness ? In my EVE ?

That's not the same.

Random acts of kindness aren't done because people want to get something back.
If he expects a gain, by using money, he's trying to buy it.