These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hi Sec: Your Future Vision

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#41 - 2013-11-10 07:31:44 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Krimishkev wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
People's hatred of high will result in the death of the game they love.

Seriously, why so mad of other people's playstyle.

Its just like a person saying they want to bring concord to null. It's that ridiculous.

If you want people to come to lnull and low, why don't you take the time to invite them into your corp and actually take them out ot low and null. Being hot and bothered because you can't shoot them in high-sec just makes you look petty.


I would counter with the concept that, highsec was never intended to be as safe as it is right now, and after constant knee jerk safety buffs at the behest of the exceptionally whiny highsec carebear playerbase it has grown into something out of control, and needs to be pruned down back into balance with the rest of space.

So, I don't see as being mad at someone else's playstyle on the part of everyone who doesn't cling to highsec. I see it as being mad that highsec won't stop asking for buffs to safety, over and over and over again, despite the fact that they are safer now than they have ever been, or have ever deserved to be.

So it's time to take a little of that back, so the whiny bastards have to something to actually complain about.


I hope you're and alt of someone who's actually played the game since beta... otherwise this opinion in the scope of your eve experience context means nothing.



Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.


Wow.....Just wow. Either you are totally delusional about the eroding safety of high sec. or a troll. Not sure which one.
Either way, please step away from the keyboard.

All rational people accept on general principle that CCP has made high sec far more dangerous, in incremental steps, over the past few years, as they have hired more and more devs from null sec.

The attack on high sec players by CCP employees in the Live Events 3 days ago proves how much the CCP employee base hates high sec, and how delusional you are, or how extensive you lie is, take your pick.
Hypercake Mix
#42 - 2013-11-10 07:40:49 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.

Because there are players that want the dependable NPC protection because an effective player-based protection for players on unstable schedules does not and will not ever exist.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#43 - 2013-11-10 07:58:50 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
I would love to see more player driven content. Make all of space less cozy by penalizing blobs, getting rid of reinforcement timers, removing local from all non-empire systems, getting rid of structures automatically alerting whole groups that they're under attack. These things are completely ridiculous. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where your hand is held, you're supposed to fend for yourself. It's time we force people to play the game, instead of having the game play itself. Why should the game alert you every time an enemy enters a system, or takes a potshot against a structure you haven't actually seen in 6 months, or stop an attack because you can't be bothered to patrol? The game even does the patrolling for you by magically broadcasting that something is under attack. Oh, you were whining about the "other guys" having it too easy? My bad. Yea, I can live with hisec being more dangerous as long as the changes I just mentioned are implemented as well.


I have always believed that timers of all types on structures should be removed. If you can't defend your assets in any time zone, then you don't get to keep them.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#44 - 2013-11-10 08:26:59 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:


Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.


Wow.....Just wow. Either you are totally delusional about the eroding safety of high sec. or a troll. Not sure which one.
Either way, please step away from the keyboard.

All rational people accept on general principle that CCP has made high sec far more dangerous, in incremental steps, over the past few years, as they have hired more and more devs from null sec.

The attack on high sec players by CCP employees in the Live Events 3 days ago proves how much the CCP employee base hates high sec, and how delusional you are, or how extensive you lie is, take your pick.


The "past few years"? Rofl.

New Crimewatch. Eliminates can flipping, and adds safeties. Between that and the barge buffs, that's actually one of the biggest buffs to highsec safety in recent memory.

And enough is enough. Time to scale some of that back.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Hypercake Mix
#45 - 2013-11-10 08:49:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The "past few years"? Rofl.

New Crimewatch. Eliminates can flipping, and adds safeties. Between that and the barge buffs, that's actually one of the biggest buffs to highsec safety in recent memory.

And enough is enough. Time to scale some of that back.

No. Because that makes no sense.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#46 - 2013-11-10 08:50:45 UTC
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The "past few years"? Rofl.

New Crimewatch. Eliminates can flipping, and adds safeties. Between that and the barge buffs, that's actually one of the biggest buffs to highsec safety in recent memory.

And enough is enough. Time to scale some of that back.

No. Because that makes no sense.


Oh? Please elaborate.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
ctx2007
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-11-10 08:57:55 UTC
Bucket add on modules for POS and POCOS P for the tears

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.
Hypercake Mix
#48 - 2013-11-10 09:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hypercake Mix
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The "past few years"? Rofl.

New Crimewatch. Eliminates can flipping, and adds safeties. Between that and the barge buffs, that's actually one of the biggest buffs to highsec safety in recent memory.

And enough is enough. Time to scale some of that back.

No. Because that makes no sense.


Oh? Please elaborate.

Safeties got rid of those "Are you sure" pop-ups. Idk about you but I'm glad that's gone.
Barges needed to be scaled up to compensate for rising DPS numbers and all six of them needed to be usable. I guess they could be scaled back so people that are actually classified as ******** could just roll their face on the keyboard to gank miners. I personally like the added challenge.

Edit: Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. To me, it gave off a "high-sec is hard, please nerf" feeling.
Josef Djugashvilis
#49 - 2013-11-10 09:38:22 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
I think CCP's moving too slowly with Rubicon. They need to simply strip high-sec of it's safety, and convert it all to new NPC-null space.



Why?

This is not a signature.
Arisidana
Amadari Traders
#50 - 2013-11-10 09:43:27 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
I think CCP's moving too slowly with Rubicon. They need to simply strip high-sec of it's safety, and convert it all to new NPC-null space.



Why?



Ever heard of sarcasm? Learn to detect it.
Josef Djugashvilis
#51 - 2013-11-10 09:47:51 UTC
Arisidana wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
I think CCP's moving too slowly with Rubicon. They need to simply strip high-sec of it's safety, and convert it all to new NPC-null space.



Why?



Ever heard of sarcasm? Learn to detect it.


Sorry, I must have missed it in your tone of voice Smile

This is not a signature.
Hypercake Mix
#52 - 2013-11-10 10:35:49 UTC
Arisidana wrote:
Ever heard of sarcasm? Learn to detect it.

Couldn't detect it either. Not enough emoticons.
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#53 - 2013-11-10 10:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSaft
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.

Because there are players that want the dependable NPC protection because an effective player-based protection for players on unstable schedules does not and will not ever exist.


All that would be needed would a Concord bonus sponsered bonus on bounties and payout that's not restricted to ship/pod value. With the extension that bounties would have to be claimed differently. There could be individualized drops "bounty vouchers" or a bounty currnecy that would have to be non tradable and only redeemable in highsec and that you would lose on death. Also bounties could only be claimed by people with a sec status of above a certain value that prevents other pirates or alt characters to claim the bounty for the criminal.

That would lead to a bigger incentive to actually killing criminals when they are in high sec, criminals couldn't enter high sec as easily because of that.

It's that easy. Increase the incentive to kill criminals in highsec and players will do it and that will lead to increased high sec security.

CCP would just have to want it.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#54 - 2013-11-10 11:11:59 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:

Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.


As someone who has played since beta, could you please report how many players were online in prime time?

Because apparently there's a group of people who misses those 5000 online and wants EvE to lose development funds and an empty game on the brink of default again.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#55 - 2013-11-10 11:19:47 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:

Just wanted to toss this out, as someone who has played since beta. Highsec has steadily gotten safer and safer and safer. Early EVE didn't have NPC protection for players, it was added in after *gasp* whinging and complaints from people unable to defend themselves.


As someone who has played since beta, could you please report how many players were online in prime time?

Because apparently there's a group of people who misses those 5000 online and wants EvE to lose development funds and an empty game on the brink of default again.


You are implying that the ever increasing safety of highsec has resulted in the increased size of the playerbase?

Correlation does not imply causation. Especially in this case.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#56 - 2013-11-10 11:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Barges needed to be scaled up to compensate for rising DPS numbers and all six of them needed to be usable.
Horseshit, barges and exhumers got buffed because people couldn't be arsed to actually tank them and whined about them exploding, incidentally the same people still neglect to fit a tank, and still whine when they explode. It was possible to make one unprofitable to gank prebuff, just as it is now.

edit - too many prebuffs in the last sentence

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2013-11-10 12:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Wow.....Just wow. Either you are totally delusional about the eroding safety of high sec. or a troll. Not sure which one.
Either way, please step away from the keyboard.
You're talking about yourself there.

He's entirely right: the safety of highsec has only ever moved in one direction — towards more safety. Every change that has had a potential of making it less safe has been accompanied by another change that nullifies it.

You keep spouting the same ignorant and ill-informed nonsense based on nothing but failed recollections of the past, and you can never actually point towards anything that even remotely resembles the fantasy you've erected about where the game is going. Meanwhile, in the real world, it's trivial to point to all the changes that have made highsec far too safe over the years, especially in the time that has passed since you started.

Quote:
All rational people accept on general principle that CCP has made high sec far more dangerous, in incremental steps, over the past few years, as they have hired more and more devs from null sec.
Replace “dangerous” with “safe” and that would have been your first ever correct assessment of highsec. So close, yet so far away.

Quote:
The attack on high sec players by CCP employees in the Live Events 3 days ago proves how much the CCP employee base hates high sec, and how delusional you are, or how extensive you lie is, take your pick.
So “not at all” then on all three, since there was no attack on highsec players by CCP.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#58 - 2013-11-10 12:08:30 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Barges needed to be scaled up to compensate for rising DPS numbers and all six of them needed to be usable.
Horseshit, barges and exhumers got buffed because people couldn't be arsed to actually tank them and whined about them exploding, incidentally the same people still neglect to fit a tank, and still whine when they explode. It was possible prebuff to make one unprofitable to gank prebuff, just as it is now.


the retriever wasn't capable of tanking a single catalyst in 0.5 space, prior to the first round of rebalancing.

forums.  serious business.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#59 - 2013-11-10 12:12:05 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hypercake Mix wrote:
Barges needed to be scaled up to compensate for rising DPS numbers and all six of them needed to be usable.
Horseshit, barges and exhumers got buffed because people couldn't be arsed to actually tank them and whined about them exploding, incidentally the same people still neglect to fit a tank, and still whine when they explode. It was possible prebuff to make one unprofitable to gank prebuff, just as it is now.


the retriever wasn't capable of tanking a single catalyst in 0.5 space, prior to the first round of rebalancing.

Sure it was, because prior to the first round of rebalancing, the Catalyst was about as dangerous as a pile of silk handkerchiefs.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#60 - 2013-11-10 12:17:58 UTC
A good start would be to turn over control of all NPC corps plus assets (including stations) to Player Owned corps and alliances. Interbus for example could then exact revenge over those people who on the 19th are going to be shooting their customs's offices.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...