EVE General Discussion

Tippia, please check the stats...

There are more kills in Empire space then there are in Null-sec space

High-sec is more dangerous then the current state of null-sec for some regions / systems.

But, Tippia said it, he must be right?! Right?!

stuff

Being a PVE player in High-sec, I find it is hard to play a happy game nowadays.

I joined EVEonline 5 years ago, because I love universe-like online game. In that years there is few choice, and it is really very hard for me to settle in New Eden. I live in High-secs,not because I am a so called "pacificist", for I don't like politics in null and low-sec. I was ganked, cheated, and forced to protect my property, but all those are parts of the game, I enjoyed them . However, it is not old good time today, when I find CCP nerf the high-secs again and again.

CCP, you said it is a free game belongs to everyone, right? Everyone can Role-Play a character in the sandbox, right?
So, a high-sec civilian shouldn't be discriminated, right? But what you have done?
I used to be a loyalist, then you nerfed highsecs mission and LP value
I used to be a trader, then you chanced market rules
I used to be an explorer, then you make the scanning/hacking harder
Finally I think being a miner/manufacturer should make a peaceful life, then you rebuild the whole industry.

I know, changing is necessary for such a 11-year-old game, but not easy to all players, especially PVE players.
Each time you change the high-secs, each time I find it harder to play.
I know, being a Viking-culture game cooperation , you appreciate and encourage null secs behaviors, and seems try to make more and more people go to null secs, seems that your way is to nerf high-secs and make nulls situation more intense.

But don't you know that, everyone has their own values. If they don't like null, you can hardly change their minds.
The more you try to change their minds, the more they dislike the game. At last, they will leave.
In my view, there is not PVE in eve-online, but only PVC, Players vs CCP.
I don't mind any difficulties ingame, because I know I can suffer and get over them. But you, CCP, only you make me depressed and frustrated. I like a boom high-secs, and enjoy to bulid it, but you only focus on null. Maybe those null-sec alliance have more power and can give you more $-income, so it is more benefit to serve them? They need population, so you nerf the high-sec and dream that PVErs will head for null? Am I a lamb? Why don't you try to attract more players?

Now, it is 2014, not 2004 or 2009. There are lots of universe-like online game these days. Players have more choices.
I try to give myself a reason not to leave, but I fail.
I don't know what will happen to high-secs in future, may be you will finally deleted the whole highsec or make it a new null. I will not surprise if you really achieve.

Yes, I find I can no longer live in New Eden, a place where make me unhappy. Maybe I am a loser, and should be eliminated.

I use to love New Eden so much, but now I just what a "divorce"

You screw it up. Yes, you ,CCP

…when you include all the deaths to NPCs (including CONCORD) and in frigates an n00bships. It's not the number of kills that matters for the risk — it's what is lost.

Not really, no. Same goes here: if you want to argue against CCP's data, the mechanics, and the map, please provide something convincing to do so.

No, CCP said it. You have yet to offer anything other than irrelevant and unsupported anecdotes and hearsay to contradict it.

I love how everyone gleefully skips over the most important point when they grab for the "Nullsec is safer than high" argument.

In null, the "safety" is provided by other players, which makes it inherently better. That "safety" is conditional on the whim, actions and activities of other players. It's not a universal thing like highsec CONCORD protection.

I feel it's pretty disingenuous to leave those caveats out, and makes for a skewed comparison. Sure, Nullsec is safer, under specific conditions...you're a member of the group currently asserting ownership of an area, that has the strength to maintain that safety. This is entirely different from safety provided by an in-built universal game mechanic.

Making more does not reduce the risk or the effort, nor does it make those two words any worse a description of null.

…which is vastly more than you have offered. Since you can't argue against the facts, you go for the assumptions, lies, and ad hominems and thus instantly loses all credibility on the topic and loses the argument by default, even if everything you said hadn't been proven false already.

Again, I tried to protect you from this idiotic route, but you chose to gleefully skip down it anyway, and now you've admitted defeat. Try harder next time.

Far more than you are, since you have no data, no facts, no argument, fallacies and ignorant assumptions — none of which support your case.

Safer than before; not safer than in highsec. There's a difference, you know… or well, you should know, if you had any insight into the mechanics or player behaviours, but you've demonstrated beyond all doubt that you don't.

True, you are safer due to player organization. You are still safer. Concord does not warn you when someone is coming to kill you. With current game mechanics, and the player organization in null sec, you are currently safer than in high. That is my point, whether it's game mechanics or player interaction, the safety is there.

Do you? I have yet to see any.

So you are going to quit because CCP are changing EVE so that the best rewards for activities are now located in the more dangerous areas of EVE that require more effort and risk on your part? Welp, one less bear.

Try reading. I take it you have none, then, since you chose the evasion route rather than the obvious thing of just proving me wrong…