These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Petition to remove pvp ship combat from high sec.

First post
Author
CyberRaver
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#101 - 2014-09-23 10:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: CyberRaver
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-09-23 12:01:47 UTC
The OP left behind an odour of Troll. It would appear a mug of players has fallen for it. 6 pages and still going strong. Looks promising.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#103 - 2014-09-23 12:25:19 UTC
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:
The OP left behind an odour of Troll. It would appear a mug of players has fallen for it. 6 pages and still going strong. Looks promising.


Trolls trolling trolls. They get trolled every time.
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
#104 - 2014-09-23 14:37:48 UTC
NO! -1
Draker Raze
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-10-18 07:11:56 UTC
Here here,

I agree with you entirely, Benton Risalo. I, too, have recently left EVE Online due in part to the High Sec PVP Woes.

Although there are other things that pushed me away from the game, one that was a major factor is the constant fear of suicide gankers. If I had wished to PVP, I would be in null/low sec, PVPing.

Call us CareBears if you wish, some of us just want to chill out in high sec and mine, maybe run a mission or two every now and then with friends. We do not encroach on your "Low/Null Sec" world, so leave our world alone. We shouldn't be punished for working hard to get a nice Mission ship built, just to fear bringing it out of the station.

A lot of people will go on about the age old "if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it" adage. But where is the fun in that? Can the "CareBears" not work hard and fly nice things too? And when I say "Nice things" I don't mean "Wallet Warrior - look what my parents credit card bought me" nice, I mean "I spent 3 months farming/mining to build/buy this baby" nice. There is no need, in high sec at least, to go though that trouble just to have that clump of Maelstroms on the gate pop you and run off with your hard work.

What I ask is a simple fix. Either:

A) Make concord's response INSTANT and all PC ships vs PC Ship Damage greatly reduced (10% effectiveness) unless one is at war with the other. Thus making anyone's attempt to "Suicide Gank" require alot more on their part and become, on the whole, cost prohibitive and purely a "This guy pissed me off so lets go kill him" gesture.

-or-

B) Just disallow PVP in high sec all together (excluding duels/bounties/wars). This goes for can flipping and the like. No more can stealing. Don't even make it an option to loot / shoot someone else's wrecks/cans.

We live in high sec for a reason! High sec is there, for a reason! Those who suicide gank, work against the system and intended purpose of High sec. Suicide gankers should be observed and punished as a form of in game harassment! I view suicide gankers as no worse than hackers: Both can be prevented/avoided, but shouldn't be allowed in the first place!
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#106 - 2014-10-18 07:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: King Fu Hostile
Removing suicide ganking wouldnt actually have any downsides at all, but would increase subscription count.

You can keep wardecs, just incerase their cost and introduce a counter-bribe mechanism so it's fair for both sides.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2014-10-18 13:26:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Draker Raze wrote:
Here here,

I agree with you entirely, Benton Risalo. I, too, have recently left EVE Online due in part to the High Sec PVP Woes.

Although there are other things that pushed me away from the game, one that was a major factor is the constant fear of suicide gankers. If I had wished to PVP, I would be in null/low sec, PVPing.

Call us CareBears if you wish, some of us just want to chill out in high sec and mine, maybe run a mission or two every now and then with friends. We do not encroach on your "Low/Null Sec" world, so leave our world alone. We shouldn't be punished for working hard to get a nice Mission ship built, just to fear bringing it out of the station.

A lot of people will go on about the age old "if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it" adage. But where is the fun in that? Can the "CareBears" not work hard and fly nice things too? And when I say "Nice things" I don't mean "Wallet Warrior - look what my parents credit card bought me" nice, I mean "I spent 3 months farming/mining to build/buy this baby" nice. There is no need, in high sec at least, to go though that trouble just to have that clump of Maelstroms on the gate pop you and run off with your hard work.

What I ask is a simple fix. Either:

A) Make concord's response INSTANT and all PC ships vs PC Ship Damage greatly reduced (10% effectiveness) unless one is at war with the other. Thus making anyone's attempt to "Suicide Gank" require alot more on their part and become, on the whole, cost prohibitive and purely a "This guy pissed me off so lets go kill him" gesture.

-or-

B) Just disallow PVP in high sec all together (excluding duels/bounties/wars). This goes for can flipping and the like. No more can stealing. Don't even make it an option to loot / shoot someone else's wrecks/cans.

We live in high sec for a reason! High sec is there, for a reason! Those who suicide gank, work against the system and intended purpose of High sec. Suicide gankers should be observed and punished as a form of in game harassment! I view suicide gankers as no worse than hackers: Both can be prevented/avoided, but shouldn't be allowed in the first place!


Hisec would become very dull very rapidly if you take away players freedom to act as they choose. Hisec provides a deterrant to criminal action rathrr than a stop to it. If you want some element of safety form a corp and work together. If you play mainly solo as i do then you need to be prepared to be prey and mitigate the risks. No area of eve is intended to be 100% safe and nor should they be. Where would be the fun in that?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#108 - 2014-10-18 14:03:57 UTC
if this isn't just a troll and you are really trying to set up a PVP zone i can direct to you the log out button it's PvP free
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#109 - 2014-10-18 14:11:34 UTC
I too hate Eve and wish to destroy it.

So I add my own suggestion to yours, OP:

-Replace all of CCP's computers with healthy, refreshing yoghurt.

With this and removing all PVP from HighSec, we both get our wish of seeing the final end of this bad game.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-10-18 14:13:51 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Removing suicide ganking wouldnt actually have any downsides at all, but would increase subscription count.

You can keep wardecs, just incerase their cost and introduce a counter-bribe mechanism so it's fair for both sides.



Ganking is an economic control. Without it the economy would go bad fast. As this is the only way bears lose money in this game.
Well after a few months and they learn how to run pve properly (ie. know how to fly their ships, learn the trigger rats to know to not shoot them at bad times, etc).



Your average 0.0 or wh type will make billions....and give some back in the form of ship losses. My usual example. I solo'd a pre adjusted officer spawn back in the day. 1 bil + isk in minutes flat. And lost half of that easily in ship losses soon after. Made some isk, gave the eve gods their sacrificial offering as it were to appease them later on.

Bear makes billions. Gets his gank from time to time. If they won't voluntarily give back their "union dues" as it were to the game, the game provides a way to do that for them.

Bears who no longer have this....become an ever running isk faucet. Something in the economy is going to go bad from this a good bet.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#111 - 2014-10-18 14:59:31 UTC
Ignored this one initially because I knew it was going to get bad, but I felt compelled for some strange reason to read it anyway.

We are supposed to be civilized adults here, I cannot believe the underlying tone of hatred I get out of many of these posts. If as most of you say (and I agree with you) that CCP is never going to remove high sec PvP why do we have to be so unpleasant in the responses that are posted. I hope that those who post this way will someday realize that it is counter productive at so many levels that there is not enough space her to cover them all.

After the verbal beating here in this topic I hope the OP is still playing the game even if they never come back here to post again.
I also hope that the OP and others who read this learn from the mistake and adjust their play styles.

Getting back to the topic. High sec PvP and the gankers should never go away but that does not mean that a few adjustments are not in order. One thought would be that when Concord responds to these incidences the offenders are met with loss of ship AND pod. No it would not stop gankers, in fact it may not affect many/most of them but what it would do is level the field just a bit. by making it more expensive for the ones that choose to gank in pods with high ISK implants that boost damage.
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#112 - 2014-10-18 15:56:23 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Ganking is an economic control. Without it the economy would go bad fast.

THIS!
If you would remove PvP from highsec the economy would go nuts.
There is no profit in building stuff that doesn't get destroyed.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-10-18 15:57:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Aqriue
Donnachadh wrote:
Getting back to the topic. High sec PvP and the gankers should never go away but that does not mean that a few adjustments are not in order. One thought would be that when Concord responds to these incidences the offenders are met with loss of ship AND pod. No it would not stop gankers, in fact it may not affect many/most of them but what it would do is level the field just a bit. by making it more expensive for the ones that choose to gank in pods with high ISK implants that boost damage.

May many women bear your children.

I have said the same thing, there needs to be more risk in highsec when it comes to destroyers in ganking and crappy industrials/barges/exhumers. Cheap ships with too much fire power vs ships that are meant to explode the moment they undock since they cannot hold anything worth of value or you can try to tank it only to realize there isn't enough room to put a shuttle in it with all the bulkheads, wish CCP would just remove all industrial related things from the game, not refund the skill points, seed ships and just turn it into a click menu first person shooter since many want it that way cause the value of a person is measured in the size of your manhood KB. Using a Battleship or Assault battlecruiser or a pile of gun cruisers doesn't really bother me since the cost is higher vs the target....but destroyers put out relatively high DPS for low hitpoints crap ships (industrial ships are useless other than being targets) that can carry to much value in the cargo hold. T2 transports....now those get decent fleet hanger space to put something in and can hold their own with a decent tank, but the T1 industrials are crap period.

Of course, risking your pod without the lame crime watch (warp to deep safe, can't be touched) means you are relatively risk free until the timer is out. Now if CONCORD where to pod...isk is dumped out of the game with cost of medical clones and implants + the broker fees involved to buy them Twisted. That would balance out the kill for thrills and LARPing rock-shepherds leading pilgrims to the promised lands with fake permits....mining so boring, might as well get rid of asteroid belts and just turn it into a mini-game like P1 leaving the Legion/Valkyrie (should they ever get produced by CCP) to destroy them like DUST for PI.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#114 - 2014-10-18 16:00:38 UTC
Draker Raze wrote:
Here here,

I agree with you entirely, Benton Risalo. I, too, have recently left EVE Online due in part to the High Sec PVP Woes.

Although there are other things that pushed me away from the game, one that was a major factor is the constant fear of suicide gankers. If I had wished to PVP, I would be in null/low sec, PVPing.

Call us CareBears if you wish, some of us just want to chill out in high sec and mine, maybe run a mission or two every now and then with friends. We do not encroach on your "Low/Null Sec" world, so leave our world alone. We shouldn't be punished for working hard to get a nice Mission ship built, just to fear bringing it out of the station.

A lot of people will go on about the age old "if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it" adage. But where is the fun in that? Can the "CareBears" not work hard and fly nice things too? And when I say "Nice things" I don't mean "Wallet Warrior - look what my parents credit card bought me" nice, I mean "I spent 3 months farming/mining to build/buy this baby" nice. There is no need, in high sec at least, to go though that trouble just to have that clump of Maelstroms on the gate pop you and run off with your hard work.

What I ask is a simple fix. Either:

A) Make concord's response INSTANT and all PC ships vs PC Ship Damage greatly reduced (10% effectiveness) unless one is at war with the other. Thus making anyone's attempt to "Suicide Gank" require alot more on their part and become, on the whole, cost prohibitive and purely a "This guy pissed me off so lets go kill him" gesture.

-or-

B) Just disallow PVP in high sec all together (excluding duels/bounties/wars). This goes for can flipping and the like. No more can stealing. Don't even make it an option to loot / shoot someone else's wrecks/cans.

We live in high sec for a reason! High sec is there, for a reason! Those who suicide gank, work against the system and intended purpose of High sec. Suicide gankers should be observed and punished as a form of in game harassment! I view suicide gankers as no worse than hackers: Both can be prevented/avoided, but shouldn't be allowed in the first place!

I'd rather go with C: You biomass and leave the game. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#115 - 2014-10-18 16:05:36 UTC
Ha no. Give me your stuff and biomass.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#116 - 2014-10-18 19:07:20 UTC
I know I stated I wasn't going to dig up my posts, but I'm in a different mood now that a month has passed.

See Page 22 Section 7-7.2

My general thoughts on Carebears trying to create game mechanics to protect them from the mean evil gankers.
1 - 2

I also like this post, but I think my argument is weaker in it.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#117 - 2014-10-18 19:21:54 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
-Replace all of CCP's computers with healthy, refreshing yoghurt.


I'm down with this providing it's raspberry yoghurt.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#118 - 2014-10-18 21:38:36 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Hisec would become very dull very rapidly if you take away players freedom to act as they choose. Hisec provides a deterrant to criminal action rathrr than a stop to it. If you want some element of safety form a corp and work together. If you play mainly solo as i do then you need to be prepared to be prey and mitigate the risks. No area of eve is intended to be 100% safe and nor should they be. Where would be the fun in that?

Inside an NPC station is designed to be 100% safe and is working as intended, counter to most CCP designs.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2014-10-18 21:41:56 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Hisec would become very dull very rapidly if you take away players freedom to act as they choose. Hisec provides a deterrant to criminal action rathrr than a stop to it. If you want some element of safety form a corp and work together. If you play mainly solo as i do then you need to be prepared to be prey and mitigate the risks. No area of eve is intended to be 100% safe and nor should they be. Where would be the fun in that?

Inside an NPC station is designed to be 100% safe and is working as intended, counter to most CCP designs.


Unless you're a trader or someone selling stuff trying to outsel/manufacture/trade the others in said station :D
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#120 - 2014-10-18 21:43:43 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Hisec would become very dull very rapidly if you take away players freedom to act as they choose. Hisec provides a deterrant to criminal action rathrr than a stop to it. If you want some element of safety form a corp and work together. If you play mainly solo as i do then you need to be prepared to be prey and mitigate the risks. No area of eve is intended to be 100% safe and nor should they be. Where would be the fun in that?

Inside an NPC station is designed to be 100% safe and is working as intended, counter to most CCP designs.


Unless you're a trader or someone selling stuff trying to outsel/manufacture/trade the others in said station :D

It is safe, just not always profitable.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp