These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec will burn
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jantunen the Infernal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2012-11-02 21:25:58 UTC
When null is blue we'll just reset people to get some stuff to shoot at.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-11-02 21:27:37 UTC
Kaylyis wrote:
So why not allow people to flag themselves as pirates? with the mining/indy EHP buff concord doesn't have to be *instant* if you fit a damn shield tank to an exhumer. and a pirate flag would allow people to attack said person without concord intervention. but if you do, concord's not going to protect you for taking the law into your own hands. ganking a freighter automatically sets you to open season in high sec and you start getting shot on sight. bonus if concord autotallys a bounty on your ass worth 20% of the hull you fly, in similar fashion to the belt rat bounties.

Make it a month-long cooldown without shooting some indy and you'll get plenty of PvP opportunity in highsec. wouldn't even need to shoot indys after a point.

Basically make suicide gankers effectively war targets. it would draw PvP their way, and bluntly 99% of the people they suicide gank will just whine and ***** and cry and say things are broken, while a few people like me would be gleefully fitting a megathron to chase you down and die horribly to the inevitable ambush you've arranged with your buddies.

Is any of this workable? probably not, I'm not a game designer. But I think things could afford to be a little more dynamic, rather than X + Y = CONCORDUKEN!

But there should be consequences for pirate lifestyles. Dont ask me how to balance them out because I suck at that ****.

Plus no matter how many people you please, there will be a vocal minority who will scream about how you ruined the game. I don't see a risk-free highsec as anything but completely boring and I hang there. Belt rats in a .5 system can't even break the tanks on my indy ships so they're automatically discounted as a threat.

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

Each faction is tied to another faction just like FW, but has it's own ruleset that only allows people to shoot each other from the tied factions. If you're Caldari you can shoot gallente people, and vice versa. Allow people to switch factions as long as standing allows.

And then nerf random ganking into the dirt so that people get a few months in the NPC corp to learn the ropes, and if they join a militia in high sec the only people they have to worry about is gusy of the apposing militia.

Have the navy respond to high sec agression between militia members instead of concord, and have the navy react with a size and force appropriate to the player force.

Have systems nearer the the interior of each empire have considerably higher navy presence to make them extremely difficult to enter.

Have guys that aggress more recieve lower standing towards the apposing miltia and the lower it gets the harder the navy force will be to deal with that spawns.

Keep lowsec the place that militias and corps can go to fight for control of systems for their empire. They could even tie the success of each faction in low sec to high sec by having higher navy prsence for the winning sides.

Have destroying high sec navies have some small impact on conditions in null, perhaps lower navy forces in low sec systems where lots of navy ships are destroyed in high for that faction.



I know that the people who use the NPC corps to avoid wardecs and minimize their expose to pvp wouldn't like it, but it would reinforce the fact that the empires are all at war, and that high sec isn't a safe place to be, while hopefully keeping to a minimum the number of peopel that are allowed to pvp in high sec to ensure people are being blown up.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#143 - 2012-11-02 21:28:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Dar Manic
Intended for the last rant intended for me.

Take a midol. It'll help.

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#144 - 2012-11-02 21:29:41 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Kaylyis wrote:
So why not allow people to flag themselves as pirates? with the mining/indy EHP buff concord doesn't have to be *instant* if you fit a damn shield tank to an exhumer. and a pirate flag would allow people to attack said person without concord intervention. but if you do, concord's not going to protect you for taking the law into your own hands. ganking a freighter automatically sets you to open season in high sec and you start getting shot on sight. bonus if concord autotallys a bounty on your ass worth 20% of the hull you fly, in similar fashion to the belt rat bounties.

Make it a month-long cooldown without shooting some indy and you'll get plenty of PvP opportunity in highsec. wouldn't even need to shoot indys after a point.

Basically make suicide gankers effectively war targets. it would draw PvP their way, and bluntly 99% of the people they suicide gank will just whine and ***** and cry and say things are broken, while a few people like me would be gleefully fitting a megathron to chase you down and die horribly to the inevitable ambush you've arranged with your buddies.

Is any of this workable? probably not, I'm not a game designer. But I think things could afford to be a little more dynamic, rather than X + Y = CONCORDUKEN!

But there should be consequences for pirate lifestyles. Dont ask me how to balance them out because I suck at that ****.

Plus no matter how many people you please, there will be a vocal minority who will scream about how you ruined the game. I don't see a risk-free highsec as anything but completely boring and I hang there. Belt rats in a .5 system can't even break the tanks on my indy ships so they're automatically discounted as a threat.

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

Each faction is tied to another faction just like FW, but has it's own ruleset that only allows people to shoot each other from the tied factions. If you're Caldari you can shoot gallente people, and vice versa. Allow people to switch factions as long as standing allows.

And then nerf random ganking into the dirt so that people get a few months in the NPC corp to learn the ropes, and if they join a militia in high sec the only people they have to worry about is gusy of the apposing militia.

Have the navy respond to high sec agression between militia members instead of concord, and have the navy react with a size and force appropriate to the player force.

Have systems nearer the the interior of each empire have considerably higher navy presence to make them extremely difficult to enter.

Have guys that aggress more recieve lower standing towards the apposing miltia and the lower it gets the harder the navy force will be to deal with that spawns.

Keep lowsec the place that militias and corps can go to fight for control of systems for their empire. They could even tie the success of each faction in low sec to high sec by having higher navy prsence for the winning sides.

Have destroying high sec navies have some small impact on conditions in null, perhaps lower navy forces in low sec systems where lots of navy ships are destroyed in high for that faction.



I know that the people who use the NPC corps to avoid wardecs and minimize their expose to pvp wouldn't like it, but it would reinforce the fact that the empires are all at war, and that high sec isn't a safe place to be, while hopefully keeping to a minimum the number of peopel that are allowed to pvp in high sec to ensure people are being blown up.


So a complete change in the way the game is currently played?

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-11-02 21:33:04 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:

Please note: Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.


Quit trying to redefine things.

PvP == Player verses Player

This can be spaceship combat PvP, market PvP, diplomatic/political PvP.

If you can't stand being pitted against other players, then don't play a massively multi-player game.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#146 - 2012-11-02 21:33:24 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:

So a complete change in the way the game is currently played?

Yeah...

It's more of a, "If I was going to do it from the ground up sort of thing" and not so much something "I think" they should do.


I think that the years of NPC corps might have had a slight effect on the way that some people expect high sec to work. As in, "I'm in an NPC corp, that means i don't want to pvp and shouldn't have to".

Mostly because I've seen people saying literally that in some threads.

If it had been done from the ground up to reinforce the idea that pvp is as much a part of high sec as it is any other place of the game, it's just a little safer here is all, then maybe people would "get it" more.
Kaylyis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2012-11-02 21:35:07 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

+

Stuff


Nothing here that I disagree with. My idea you quoted was an example, not one I seriously believe to be a thing of brilliance.

But if people really are as desperate as they say for real PvP, then let them get a month long flag that says "i'm a valid target" when they do a gank.

I think that would show whether or not people really are interested in the gudfites, or whether or not they're suicide ganking because they can't be bothered to hit people who have the ability to meaningfully return fire.

the claim (not from you) is that people are so risk averse that they won't fight, period.

I'm curious what the gankers will do if suddenly they're the target of good fights, as opposed to bob the builder with 3-5 T1 drones for defense.

I'm betting it'll involve a lot of ganker tears and cries of unfairness. and the people who form fleets to kill each other and engage Sov warfare will do what they always do. Roll their eyes and call primary.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#148 - 2012-11-02 21:35:11 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:

Please note: Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.


Quit trying to redefine things.

PvP == Player verses Player

This can be spaceship combat PvP, market PvP, diplomatic/political PvP.

If you can't stand being pitted against other players, then don't play a massively multi-player game.


So when a player posts they want to learn how to PvP, you are going to train them to buy, sell and make stuff?

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#149 - 2012-11-02 21:35:58 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:

So a complete change in the way the game is currently played?

Yeah...

It's more of a, "If I was going to do it from the ground up sort of thing" and not so much something "I think" they should do.


I think that the years of NPC corps might have had a slight effect on the way that some people expect high sec to work. As in, "I'm in an NPC corp, that means i don't want to pvp and shouldn't have to".

Mostly because I've seen people saying literally that in some threads.

If it had been done from the ground up to reinforce the idea that pvp is as much a part of high sec as it is any other place of the game, it's just a little safer here is all, then maybe people would "get it" more.


If you started a new game from the ground up, I could buy that 100%.

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.
Dave stark
#150 - 2012-11-02 21:38:37 UTC
Dar Manic wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:

Please note: Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.


Quit trying to redefine things.

PvP == Player verses Player

This can be spaceship combat PvP, market PvP, diplomatic/political PvP.

If you can't stand being pitted against other players, then don't play a massively multi-player game.


So when a player posts they want to learn how to PvP, you are going to train them to buy, sell and make stuff?


depends where they post, and the context of their post. obviously if they are asking for ship fittings they aren't interested in the market.
conversely if they post in market discussion they clearly don't care how amazing your rifter fit is.
Kaylyis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2012-11-02 21:42:40 UTC
at least people aren't crying about killstealing.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2012-11-02 21:49:35 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Dar Manic wrote:

Please note: Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.


Quit trying to redefine things.

PvP == Player verses Player

This can be spaceship combat PvP, market PvP, diplomatic/political PvP.

If you can't stand being pitted against other players, then don't play a massively multi-player game.


So when a player posts they want to learn how to PvP, you are going to train them to buy, sell and make stuff?


depends where they post, and the context of their post. obviously if they are asking for ship fittings they aren't interested in the market.
conversely if they post in market discussion they clearly don't care how amazing your rifter fit is.



Exactly.

And Eve is one of the few games out there were this notion of PvP context is even a thing. Most other games only offer combat as content, so "PvP" is only really combat PvP. Some take a bit more organization, and that can open up opportunities for spies and sabotage. Eve has a very open market system, and that opens opportunities for market PvP, like speculation and manipulation.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#153 - 2012-11-02 21:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Kaylyis wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

+

Stuff


Nothing here that I disagree with. My idea you quoted was an example, not one I seriously believe to be a thing of brilliance.

But if people really are as desperate as they say for real PvP, then let them get a month long flag that says "i'm a valid target" when they do a gank.

I think that would show whether or not people really are interested in the gudfites, or whether or not they're suicide ganking because they can't be bothered to hit people who have the ability to meaningfully return fire.

the claim (not from you) is that people are so risk averse that they won't fight, period.

I'm curious what the gankers will do if suddenly they're the target of good fights, as opposed to bob the builder with 3-5 T1 drones for defense.

I'm betting it'll involve a lot of ganker tears and cries of unfairness. and the people who form fleets to kill each other and engage Sov warfare will do what they always do. Roll their eyes and call primary.

I kind of agree.

I think some of the gankers will quit when they end up with a FFA flag after ganking come Dec. 4th. I hope they won't, but I'm not naive enough to believe that no one ganks so that they can't be retaliated agains. Some have in fact already complained that they shouldn't be subject to FFA pvp because they ganked someone.

I don't think those people are wrong for ganking, I do think they should show some balls and if you're willing to suicide a ship that can't fight back you should be willing to accept any pvp that comes your way. It's only fair.

My problem is actually more along the lines of, that first kill to initiate more sweaping and inclusive pvp, is required to come with high cost.



Basically,
CCP is like "hey guys, we want to give you more tools that allow you to take matters into your own hands and foster more pvp, but first you have to commit suicide."

Why give the players those tools and still require a manditory explosion of the bad guys ship in order to initiate those tools?

And the short term timer for can flipping, in my opinion, doesn't justify requiring one side or the other be forced to pay a fee in order to stimulate pvp.

It's just encouraging people to use throw away alts and find as many ways to manipulate the system as they can to greif others


In this player driven game, where they want to foster more conflict in high sec, and give players the tools to do so, they still enforce a manditory punishment on "the bad guy".


Edit: i should point out that I'm saying CONCORD shouldn't be a god force anymore with the coming changes. If someone ganks a ship CONCORD should spawn and prevent the ganker from warping away, and the ganker should be able to fight back against CONCORD. The victim can announce the ganker, set the kill rights to public, place a bounty, and then the players can come and kill them.

No reason for CONCORD to exact retribution on the player if you're giving the victims complete control over doing it themselves.
Natasha Liao
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2012-11-02 21:55:54 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.
They stopped just a step from that when CCP jacked the Starter/NPC corp taxes through the roof a few years ago. All it accomplished was people spending a mil or so and a proliferation of 1 person corps IIRC.
Dave stark wrote:
conversely if they post in market discussion they clearly don't care how amazing your rifter fit is.
BLASPHEMY!! Amazing Rifter fits should be required reading for everyone... Big smile

You're using logic on an internet discussion forum. A rookie mistake, but one you'll soon learn to avoid. -Destiny Corrupted
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#155 - 2012-11-02 21:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
Well if what OP says is correct, we obviously have some very uninspired, uncreative, and generally feckless gameplay going on in null. Rhetorical questions:
-Is a pet always a pet? Will they always be content being pets? If they blue all of null and run out of anything to shoot, could they possibly get ambitious and ::gasp:: start doing autonomous diplomacy/aggression of their own? Or is the Goon Empire/Pax Goonana set in cement, to last forever and ever? If so, then people forgot how to play in a PVP sandbox.

-Is the Goon machine so internally strong and healthy that it's self-sustaining, infinitely? Is it not possible that Goons could bore themselves into their own graves? Just from having a lack of meaningful challenges. Or does the machine have an infinite supply of leaders with the time, enthusiasm, and talent to motivate an organization that large? That hasn't been my experience with any group I've been, in EVE or otherwise. Talented people leave, less talented people take over, things decline. "All things pass gas." No, I mean, "All things must pass."

-If null has become a stagnant pool of entropic boredom, doesn't that create opportunities for opportunistic opportunists? It sounds as if null is doing repetitive things by rote. People are set in their ways. People aren't really thinking. There are lots of wealth and resources around. That sounds like an opportunity for some creative and eventually profitable mischief.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-11-02 22:00:48 UTC
Natasha Liao wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.
They stopped just a step from that when CCP jacked the Starter/NPC corp taxes through the roof a few years ago. All it accomplished was people spending a mil or so and a proliferation of 1 person corps IIRC.

I'm perfectly fine with that. You can dec a one man corp.


So it doesn't get missed,
I should point out that I'm saying CONCORD shouldn't be a god force anymore with the coming changes. If someone ganks a ship CONCORD should spawn and prevent the ganker from warping away, and the ganker should be able to fight back against CONCORD. The victim can announce the ganker, set the kill rights to public, place a bounty, and then the players can come and kill them.

No reason for CONCORD to exact retribution on the player if you're giving the victims complete control over doing it themselves.
Natasha Liao
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2012-11-02 22:04:25 UTC
*chuckle* And James 315 has shown how 'effective' war decing a one man corp really is. :-)

You're using logic on an internet discussion forum. A rookie mistake, but one you'll soon learn to avoid. -Destiny Corrupted
Kaylyis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2012-11-02 22:05:12 UTC
Looking for epic Ritter fits.

Plus the people whining about being flagged for an asskicking when yanking prove themselves nothing more than cannibal carebears. The lite beer of carebear. Less calories, still tastes like ****
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#159 - 2012-11-02 22:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Natasha Liao wrote:
*chuckle* And James 315 has shown how 'effective' war decing a one man corp really is. :-)

Yeah, I know.

It's not ideal, but at least it encourages more people to leave the NPC corp than it currently is.

PS: That is to say that it's better than people only making one man corps for the purpose of putting up PoS's in high sec.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2012-11-02 22:21:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Shepard Wong Ogeko
Khergit Deserters wrote:
Well if what OP says is correct, we obviously have some very uninspired, uncreative, and generally feckless gameplay going on in null. Rhetorical questions:


I know you said it was rhetorical, but a lot of people have absolutely no clue how nullsec really works, so...

Quote:

-Is a pet always a pet? Will they always be content being pets? If they blue all of null and run out of anything to shoot, could they possibly get ambitious and ::gasp:: start doing autonomous diplomacy/aggression of their own? Or is the Goon Empire/Pax Goonana set in cement, to last forever and ever? If so, then people forgot how to play in a PVP sandbox.


"Pet" is a pejorative term, and the agreements between these corps and alliances vary a lot. And it is never set in stone. A very good and recent example is the split between Black Legion and NCdot. One week that are blue to each other and fighting side by side. The next, they are neutral, evacuating from the other's stations and looking for new allies.


Quote:

-Is the Goon machine so internally strong and healthy that it's self-sustaining, infinitely? Is it not possible that Goons could bore themselves into their own graves? Just from having a lack of meaningful challenges. Or does the machine have an infinite supply of leaders with the time, enthusiasm, and talent to motivate an organization that large? That hasn't been my experience with any group I've been, in EVE or otherwise. Talented people leave, less talented people take over, things decline. "All things pass gas." No, I mean, "All things must pass."


Nothing lasts forever, and boredom is the greatest threat to large nullsec alliance.


Quote:

-If null has become a stagnant pool of entropic boredom, doesn't that create opportunities for opportunistic opportunists? It sounds as if null is doing repetitive things by rote. People are set in their ways. People aren't really thinking. There are lots of wealth and resources around. That sounds like an opportunity for some creative and eventually profitable mischief.


There really are no opportunities in nullsec worth chasing for the vast majority of Eve players. The _only_ thing that can be done in sov nullsec that cannot be done anywhere else is building supercaps. And you only need 1 upgraded system to do that, and it is orders of magnitude easier to just rent such a system from an established power (and get access the supercap market that comes with it) than to fight for such a system.