These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Highsec reform thread: uniting the highsec candidates!

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2015-01-27 18:05:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Why I support Sabriz Adoudel and Jenshae Chiroptera:

At first glance you might think Sabriz' platform is rather opposed to Jenshae's, but I submit that both are in fact seeking the same goal: more player interaction and less separation of highsec from the rest of the game. Now they might disagree on how to bring about that change, but I don't feel either of them, or any of you, or even me really know how best to go about making such a tremendous change. There are too many factors to consider, and too many unknowns. It's going to be a long climb, but I think it might just be the greatest long-term goal ever embarked upon in EVE since tiericide, and perhaps a logical step forward for CCP to continue making dramatic improvements to the game once tiericide has finished.

In posting here, my goal is to reduce some of the disagreement and in-fighting between Jenshae Chiroptera's and Sabriz Adoudel's followers, so that perhaps both can share more votes between each other, for the betterment of EVE Online. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the matter, but keep it civil. Avoid posting specifics on why you think either is wrong, and instead lets focus on that general goal and what you think of it--regardless of the details in implementation.

The way I see it, currently highsec has a lot of folks who just don't feel like playing in dangerous space (like me!), but also plenty of folks who do want to get a bit of danger but are having difficulty assessing risk vs reward and coming out with any reasonable outcomes (also me!). So I feel that without forcing people out of highsec, we can encourage them out of it, and help better the new player experience so that we don't have such an appallingly high rate of people quitting without ever having seen what EVE is about.

This time in the CSM, there are numerous candidates talking about highsec, and I am seeing a lot of great ideas for changes, fixes, adjustments, and the like. This is not just devoted highsec candidates but a wide variety of candidates focusing on many areas in EVE, but nonoetheless out of many of you I am seeing some good hard looks at highsec and I think that's great.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jenshae Chiroptera
#2 - 2015-01-27 18:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
If I do land up in CSM, I hope that I will have better resources to knowledge, which will help fill in some of those holes of ignorance.
Only CCP has the hard figures and we are left with our perceptions.

One of my biggest challenges is changing people's minds.
In Null Sec, the miners usually started in high sec as newbies. They were ganked and pushed down. They were beaten in wars. They start to believe that any combat they do will only end up in them losing.

This crusade of anti-bots and now anti-AFK has made players more risk adverse and less interested in combat.
Mining has changed so much from when I started. It used to be so relaxed, social, the profits and ISK were pretty laughable, it was just a way to hang out with your corp while you did some other things like e-mails and work on the other screen.
Any nerfs to gankers and you hear them screaming about their way of play but they have already destroyed a way of play and keep trampling it down.

The main difference though is AFK and semi-AFK. Ganking gate campers can be just as easy as wiping out miners because what they are doing is just as boring in the core of the mechanics.
I think semi-AFK is perfectly fine. This is not a first person shooter game. It is diverse and allows all sorts of styles of play.

Thank you for the thread and letting me know about it; I do appreciate the intention behind it.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#3 - 2015-01-28 14:05:50 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
This crusade of anti-bots and now anti-AFK has made players more risk adverse and less interested in combat.
Mining has changed so much from when I started. It used to be so relaxed, social, the profits and ISK were pretty laughable, it was just a way to hang out with your corp while you did some other things like e-mails and work on the other screen.
Any nerfs to gankers and you hear them screaming about their way of play but they have already destroyed a way of play and keep trampling it down.

The main difference though is AFK and semi-AFK. Ganking gate campers can be just as easy as wiping out miners because what they are doing is just as boring in the core of the mechanics.
I think semi-AFK is perfectly fine. This is not a first person shooter game. It is diverse and allows all sorts of styles of play.

As long semi-AFK/AFK play is suboptimal to active play, and those that engage in it actually accept the consequences of the risk they are taking, I do not have a major problem with it. But allowing AFK play to be done in 100% safety is not acceptable to a vibrant competitive sandbox environment, otherwise every Tom, **** and Harry will leave their computer on 23/7 printing ISK for them while they do something else.

Profits need to scale with both effort and risk. If you want to sit around in space using the Eve client as a glorified instant messanger client, be my guest, but you can't do that and expect to make any significant income if you are doing something else.

I do however agree that players need more tools to tune their risk in the various aspects of the game so if they want to play more safely and relaxed they can, but at reduced income. However for mining those tools already exist, at least in highsec. Using a tanked Skiff or Procurer will cause 99%+ of random gankers to pass you over, at only a slight hit to yield.

Maybe I am missing something, but CCP (Dr. E, pg 104) has said miner ganking was at an all-time low in 2012, and the Skiff and Procurer have been buffed twice since then I believe, so how is it that the "miner way of play" has been destroyed?
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#4 - 2015-01-28 14:38:42 UTC
I think the best way to balance the value of AFK activities is to make it so that all of them combined yield less than a PLEX costs, thus making it unprofitable to make many alt accounts just for passive income. Execution is something to be discussed but I think that would make a good goal. Now as many have discussed before, a good portion of the playerbase would resent having highsec mining reduced in pay to a fraction of a PLEX for a whole month of work. Perhaps, then, the solution is to find some way to discourage mining 23.5/7 in favor of the way real people mine, thus giving real players enough of an advantage in the area to make it slightly profitable yet still something we can remove from the list of activities deemed to be AFK profit.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Black Pedro
Mine.
#5 - 2015-01-28 15:02:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I think the best way to balance the value of AFK activities is to make it so that all of them combined yield less than a PLEX costs, thus making it unprofitable to make many alt accounts just for passive income. Execution is something to be discussed but I think that would make a good goal. Now as many have discussed before, a good portion of the playerbase would resent having highsec mining reduced in pay to a fraction of a PLEX for a whole month of work. Perhaps, then, the solution is to find some way to discourage mining 23.5/7 in favor of the way real people mine, thus giving real players enough of an advantage in the area to make it slightly profitable yet still something we can remove from the list of activities deemed to be AFK profit.

Sure. I mean PI is AFK income that I don't have a problem with the way it is set up (primarily as it scales so much as you move to more dangerous spaces) so I think it could be done. If CCP gets around to a complete re-do of mining, there are several ways one could imagine there being "tiers" of mining types from the solo, safe, little interaction variety that doesn't pay very well, up to the risky, active and group type of mining that pays much better.

That way if you spend 8 hours mining semi-AFK in near safety, you might only make as much as an organized fleet risking significant assets would in an hour or two (or whatever - the numbers are made up).

Casual and new players should be able to play this game at the risk level they are willing to tolerate. However casual or safe play should not be even close to the most lucrative or optimal way to make ISK (as incursions are now). Players should be encouraged to take risks, but the payoff for those risks should be more than any losses they are likely to take.
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#6 - 2015-01-28 15:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Yes, that has been another concern of mine: risk vs reward. Too often I see people calling it balanced when the gross reward is indeed larger than in the lower risk situation, but I think the important thing is for net reward to be higher in a situation with higher risk.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jenshae Chiroptera
#7 - 2015-01-28 18:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Black Pedro wrote:
But allowing AFK play to be done in 100% safety is not acceptable to a vibrant competitive sandbox environment, ...
AFK-cloakers you mean?
Black Pedro wrote:
I do however agree that players need more tools to tune their risk in the various aspects of the game so if they want to play more safely and relaxed they can, but at reduced income. However for mining those tools already exist, at least in highsec. Using a tanked Skiff or Procurer will cause 99%+ of random gankers to pass you over, at only a slight hit to yield.
Maybe I am missing something, ....
Passive lock + neut ship + ship scanner + some maths on number of ships & DPS + cloaked warp to point = won before you engage.

I like the Orca mini-shield-bubble idea because it means the miners and any friends in corp and in system can react to help them.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#8 - 2015-01-28 20:05:49 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
But allowing AFK play to be done in 100% safety is not acceptable to a vibrant competitive sandbox environment, ...
AFK-cloakers you mean?


Actually I agree. While I don't think AFK-cloaking is a huge issue as they are not gathering resources or making ISK, I think any ship undocked should be at least at some small theoretical risk. One idea I favour is there being a small chance every hour you are undocked that an NPC will spawn and attack you - perhaps that is what these Circadian Sleepers are going to do. They would start with inconsequential damage and webbing, but would ramp up over time so that if you were at your keyboard you could easily warp away, but if you were AFK you would eventually lose your ship. This would happen rarely, but would provide a small risk to AFK ratting, mining and hauling, or even just floating in space.

I have no problem with that being extended to AFK cloakers as well.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
I do however agree that players need more tools to tune their risk in the various aspects of the game so if they want to play more safely and relaxed they can, but at reduced income. However for mining those tools already exist, at least in highsec. Using a tanked Skiff or Procurer will cause 99%+ of random gankers to pass you over, at only a slight hit to yield.
Maybe I am missing something, ....
Passive lock + neut ship + ship scanner + some maths on number of ships & DPS + cloaked warp to point = won before you engage.

I like the Orca mini-shield-bubble idea because it means the miners and any friends in corp and in system can react to help them.

I don't understand the last point. You are saying that because it is theoretically possible to gank even the most tanked Skiff with enough gank ships, the game is broken? Even though that would be an enormously costly move for the gankers, and require several-fold more people than than the solo miner? By any rational assessment, the gankers have lost by doing that, and if you look at killboards the near-zero number of Skiff ganks reflects that.

The problem with a bubble or shield is that it totally breaks the fitting choice for miners. Everyone will just fit for maximum yield and rely on whatever shield mechanism you are proposing to escape. Perhaps as part of a complete mining revamp something like that could be put in, as long as there are mechanisms to allow actual risk to the mining op from opponents so as to drive fitting choices.

I am not sure you can reconcile your particular view of balance with the open-world design of the game. CCP put sucide ganking in the game on purpose, just like they gave multiple tools to miners to defend against these attacks. If you have a specific aspect of suicide ganking that you think is unbalanced I will listen, but your radical view that if suicide ganking is even possible something must be broken is not going to get much traction with CCP.

You are not suppose to ever be or feel 100% safe in New Eden. That is just the design of the game.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#9 - 2015-01-29 00:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Black Pedro wrote:
I am not sure you can reconcile your particular view of balance ...
It is pretty simple. I don't like that they can be cherry picked.
The two things I advise barges to do is mine together and keep some ECM drones.
If you are trying to do it solo or under very hostile conditions then make two warp off points and slow boat between them at 76% speed.

The problem is that there is a lack of ability to save a ship. Either there is enough damage to blow them away in an alpha from 100% to 0% or there isn't. The one being attacked has no control over that.

(Known neutal barges to warp disrupt others, so that gankers can land, that can be an equal ISK loss before the gankers are added into it.)
Also, suicide ganking is not always done for profit. There are loads and loads of players with ISK pouring out of everywhere and they just go around blowing people up to ruin their day.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#10 - 2015-01-29 05:54:50 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

The problem is that there is a lack of ability to save a ship. Either there is enough damage to blow them away in an alpha from 100% to 0% or there isn't. The one being attacked has no control over that.

(Known neutal barges to warp disrupt others, so that gankers can land, that can be an equal ISK loss before the gankers are added into it.)
Also, suicide ganking is not always done for profit. There are loads and loads of players with ISK pouring out of everywhere and they just go around blowing people up to ruin their day.

That's where you a wrong. The actions of a miner completely dictate the outcome that engagement. Of course it will be binary, escape or be destroyed, but that is the type of PvP scenario it is - one of predator vs. prey. in most situations either the gazelle escapes, or is caught and eaten by the lion and there isn't much in between.

You may not notice that neutral scout passive scanning you and deciding that you are a too tough a nut to crack, or non-profitable, but how you fit your ship, what you carry, and how vigilant you are completely determines whether you are profitable to gank, or even gankable in the first place. This is a an open sandbox so people gank for many reasons, but profit is the main one by far, so CCP has given you many tools to reduce your risk.

Even if suicide ganking is sometimes done for fun, how do you plan to determine that intent to stop that? How can you tell if that ganker blew up your tanked Procurer at a loss because they were bored, or because he was paid by another miner that you annoyed by taking his asteroid? Or perhaps he is part of an extortion racket willing to gank at a loss but who makes ISK by selling "protection" to miners?

This is a sandbox and peoples motivations are not always obvious to you, nor are there many mechanisms to "balance" PvP as they necessarily infringe on player freedom. While there is clearly room for tweaks to allow "better fights", the core of your vision of Eve does not seem compatible with an open sandbox game.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#11 - 2015-01-29 06:11:45 UTC
Have a look at some kill boards and talk to some miners. There are loads that do not bother to tank any more. The gankers are taking out Frieghters and heavily tanked Orcas in 0.8 and 0.9 systems when they are not making a profit.

So the growing attitude is,
- get the max ore you can,
- take the lost ship as a cost to business,
- save ISK that you would spend on the tank,
- drop less for any looters.

They have given up.
They see high sec dunking, they see all the losses, they know that Concord is retribution - not protection and they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#12 - 2015-01-29 06:42:59 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Have a look at some kill boards and talk to some miners. There are loads that do not bother to tank any more. The gankers are taking out Frieghters and heavily tanked Orcas in 0.8 and 0.9 systems when they are not making a profit.

So the growing attitude is,
- get the max ore you can,
- take the lost ship as a cost to business,
- save ISK that you would spend on the tank,
- drop less for any looters.

They have given up.
They see high sec dunking, they see all the losses, they know that Concord is retribution - not protection and they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.

I am all for mechanisms that allow increased conflict between highsec criminals and targets - perhaps that is some common ground in our views. But I am not convinced that ganking is out of control or is any worse that at any time before in Eve. In fact, all the ganking nerfs have made highsec safer than it ever has been, at least for miners, according to CCP. In fact, ganking is so rare that the rational choice probably long ago became to ignore the small chance of a gank and just fit for yield and if you are unlucky, write the cost of the ship off as an operating expense.

Perhaps strengthening corps to make them a place where players want to be, and want to defend would be a good solution to this problem you see? Then highsec conflict would then move some to wardecs where corps would at least feel less helpless and be able to organize an active defense.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#13 - 2015-01-29 06:48:40 UTC
Yes.
Black Pedro wrote:
Perhaps strengthening corps to make them a place where players want to be, and want to defend would be a good solution to this problem you see? Then highsec conflict would then move some to wardecs where corps would at least feel less helpless and be able to organize an active defense.
On this point, how do you stop the, "Everyone wants to be a king," that creates a deck of twos, which gets constantly trumped as soon as a deck of aces comes into play?

It is the first shattering experience for a new player, when they realise that it will be years before they are drawing even with their attackers, that they either adjust to or breaks them and they quit.

(I am not suggesting more super powered easy ships like interceptors be introduced).

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#14 - 2015-01-29 19:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Guys, lets keep the specifics out of this. Those things are for other threads. This thread is for discussing politics and goals for highsec.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that there is a lack of ability to save a ship. Either there is enough damage to blow them away in an alpha from 100% to 0% or there isn't. The one being attacked has no control over that.

When you get into overall statistics, you can see that even in the most binary encounters, both outcomes will still happen. But it's also nice to give players enough tools to prevent encounters from being binary. As in the example you used, the ability for a PVEer to escape should go beyond their alertness and verge into fittings/ship types they are using versus what is used against them. I think one of the goals for getting the softer players out of highsec would be to flesh out defense and evasion variety so as to grant more game to the evasion without unduly buffing it at the expense of offense pilots.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is the first shattering experience for a new player, when they realise that it will be years before they are drawing even with their attackers, that they either adjust to or breaks them and they quit.

I think one of the things that makes EVE great is that you don't have to have the resources your opponent has in order to win. Perhaps there needs to be more focus on teaching this to new players. I think that should be one of the biggest goals of a highsec candidate.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jenshae Chiroptera
#15 - 2015-01-30 17:44:55 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Guys, lets keep the specifics out of this. Those things are for other threads. This thread is for discussing politics and goals for highsec.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that there is a lack of ability to save a ship. Either there is enough damage to blow them away in an alpha from 100% to 0% or there isn't. The one being attacked has no control over that.

When you get into overall statistics, you can see that even in the most binary encounters, both outcomes will still happen. But it's also nice to give players enough tools to prevent encounters from being binary.

Exactly.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is the first shattering experience for a new player, when they realise that it will be years before they are drawing even with their attackers, that they either adjust to or breaks them and they quit.

I think one of the things that makes EVE great is that you don't have to have the resources your opponent has in order to win. Perhaps there needs to be more focus on teaching this to new players. I think that should be one of the biggest goals of a highsec candidate.

I mean in the sense of a relative new corp being having war declared on them repeatedly and not having the ships or pilots to fight back.

Many things, such as binary factors also apply to null blobs where they get full on alpha'ed off the field.
Spend time getting the stuff into null, fitting up your ship, fly out to support your friends and *Boom* Sorry you lost the lottery, nothing your friends can do to help you. Cry

This thread needs more Sabriz in it. P

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#16 - 2015-01-31 02:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I mean in the sense of a relative new corp being having war declared on them repeatedly and not having the ships or pilots to fight back.

I think war declarations are too easy and so that should probably be balanced such that it won't be so mainstream for everyone not in an NPC corp to be constantly in war. It should be normal for a low-profile corp to not be in a war and in fact rare for them to be in a war unless they did something to make themselves visible. Beyond that, I don't think there is any need for them to be able to fight back, because they can simply evade. That costs the attacking corp the funds in that they won't make their profit back. It would help reduce incoming wardecs if corps didn't routinely lose large and expensive ships to the enemy. One way to accomplish that is to keep the corp small and provide training, and boot the ones who don't pay attention, refuse to learn, and make your corp stick out like a golden steeple to the enemy.


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
This thread needs more Sabriz in it. P

More Sabriz and Mike. ;)
I changed the title of the thread to generalize it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jenshae Chiroptera
#17 - 2015-01-31 02:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
That costs the attacking corp the funds in that they won't make their profit back.
There are many corps full of alts, whose mains are in null or worm hole space coining it. I know of one example this week where someone from Provi who is very well off is joining a merc alliance and "the dark side"

In many cases it has nothing to do with profits. It is simply about slaughtering the weak.
I tried to suggest to him that he form a corp to hunt and harass the merc corps, join all the wars they declare, going against them. He started talking about politics in null and how they are all linked, et cetera.

Edit: Hey! You changed the title on me! Shocked
I can't claim to solely be a high-sec candidate. It is very easy to point out how I don't live there and it is probably where I have spent the least time behind worm holes and soon to be null sec.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#18 - 2015-01-31 05:55:23 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Edit: Hey! You changed the title on me! Shocked
I can't claim to solely be a high-sec candidate. It is very easy to point out how I don't live there and it is probably where I have spent the least time behind worm holes and soon to be null sec.

Sorry. :/
I'm not claiming any of you are solely a highsec candidate and I like that most of you aren't. Mike Azariah in particular is really a jack of all trades candidate, one thing I love most about him. But the purpose of thhis thread was to get together all of the candidates who are putting a significant focus on highsec because right now I am seeing a good time for some good changes. There are a lot of CSM candidates talking about highsec this time around.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#19 - 2015-01-31 07:28:59 UTC
There is so much about high sec that doesn't make sense, and no matter how I look at Eve as a whole I don't think high sec 'fits' in with any other areas in Eve. The crime and punishment rules of high sec moulds (molds if you're a septic) a lot of new players into risk adverse players (actually that should be afraid to shoot because CONCORD) by it's very nature and rather that messing around with a load of code that will just be exploited by those who like picking on the weak I think it would be more constructive to abolish high sec entirely.

What exactly is the purpose of high sec and why is it good for the future development of Eve and it's playerbase? At the minute to me it appears high sec is a playground for bittervets to hit players who can't or won't hit back. High sec doesn't teach folks how to fit a ship, doesn't provide an environment where banding together becomes a necessity... high sec just teaches players not to leave high sec, turtle up in station if war decced or get bored and quit alone. Sure you can earn isk in high sec in relative safety, but again this only teaches players not to leave high sec.

If sov null gets fixed this year in a meaningful way then I see absolutely no reason to keep high sec in the game at all (given that a lot of bittervets will have something worthy of attacking/defending and should be able to earn enough in null to pay for their kit they need.) I also think that ship/module balancing could be much more interesting if high sec wasn't a thing; freighters are pretty much useless even in high sec now to a solo player for example and had freighters been balanced with low sec or null in mind they could be much more interesting ships than they are now.

If you are into ganking you can do that anywhere. If you are not into ganking you can do that anywhere. Meanwhile we are something like 20k online characters down on when I had to quit last year - that was my first impression on coming back to Eve, and for me that is a most disturbing trend. I don't think Eve is dying, but I think there is a gap between the bittervet and new player characters who got bored and quit entirely because of high sec mechanics.

Priority this year for CSM though should be sov and structures - if I were a bit more experienced with either I'd be running for CSM myself.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#20 - 2015-01-31 08:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
That costs the attacking corp the funds in that they won't make their profit back.
There are many corps full of alts, whose mains are in null or worm hole space coining it. I know of one example this week where someone from Provi who is very well off is joining a merc alliance and "the dark side"

In many cases it has nothing to do with profits. It is simply about slaughtering the weak.

I think a relevant question is why are they weak? If they are weak because they are new, or game mechanics are unbalanced in some way so it is impossible to mount a defense I agree there is a problem. That's why I support a social corp where new players can get up on their feet safe from wardecs as long as the social corp is not also economically competitive with real corps.

But if you have a highsec industrial corp who forsakes all defense in order to maximize their profits, they are actively choosing to be weak while still pumping billions of ISK per month into the economy. Corps like this have a made a calculated choice to remain weak (or are completely clueless to the reality of this competetive sandbox game) and deserve to be destroyed/disrupted by rival corporations, or even random mercenary corps, for not mounting a proper defense. Otherwise, if you give protection to them for free why would any corp bother to spend the resources or effort on defending themselves?
123Next pageLast page