These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Avvy
Doomheim
#261 - 2015-09-06 13:29:55 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Avvy wrote:
You want to make those in high-sec easier targets whilst at the same time reducing their income.
If you achieve that then most would just leave the game.

Make that "and" an "or" and you about have it right.

You would only become easier targets if you joined a player corp and/or left the highest security systems*.

You would only have your income reduced if you stayed in an NPC corp and/or stayed in the highest security systems*.


Either or, not both. You seem to think that I want to nerf hisec outright, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


*Note: I'm still talking hisec here. 0.5s/0.6s vs 0.9s/1.0s.



EDIT: Would you be less put off by proposals if, instead of including a set of taxes on NPC corps, I focused entirely on buffing hisec corps? I laid out something here but I'm still fleshing it out.


Also, you've had a lot to say about my ideas. Do you have any of your own? I'd love to hear them.



I've said before that I don't think much of high-sec as it is, especially as it's supposed to be a PvP game (talking combat PvP).

Only reason I rejected your proposals is that I see them creating other issues.

If I think of something that does not create more issues in trying to solve others then I'll be sure to post them in the ideas section of the forum.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#262 - 2015-09-06 17:01:02 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
2. Overhaul Player Corps.

Currently, player corps only offer limited benefits over NPC corps, and I think this is driving part of the stagnation of hisec. In order to get players out of NPC corps and interacting more, I think player corps need a buff.

2A. Tax NPC corps. Strictly speaking, yes, this is a nerf to NPC corps, not a buff to player corps, but the net effect is the same. After 90 days in an NPC corp out of the last 180, a player would be subject to a tax on all station-based activities (EDIT: and collected bounties) for as long as they remain in an NPC corp. I would place this tax at somewhere around double the current base NPC corp tax. This new tax would apply to placing market orders (buying and selling), creating contracts, installing industry and research jobs, reprocessing, repairs, and mission rewards. Anything that you do in a station would be taxed after you've been in an NPC corp long enough to meet the criteria. This tax can be eliminated by joining a player corp, but would be immediately re-imposed if you re-joined the NPC corp within 90 days due to the "90 out of 180" requirement. The goal here is to encourage people to leave NPC corps while requiring those who stay in NPC corps pay for the relative safety they are afforded by wardec immunity. I realize that this would not impact many things done in space, particularly mining, exploration, hauling, etc., and that these activities could still be performed in NPC corps with no penalty as they are now. However, refining, using, or selling any goods gathered in space, or buying and selling goods to be hauled, would still be taxed. I don't feel that a change to in-space mechanics (aside from taxes on bounties), which would likely be no small undertaking, justifies the potential benefit. As with all things, I am open to discussion about this though.

2B. Player corp "history". Currently, the standings between a player corp and various NPC factions and corps are determined entirely by the combined standings of its members. If all of the members of a player corp quit and re-formed a new player corp, the new player corp would have the exact same standings as the old one. These standings offer benefit to corp members in the form of lower fees, better access to agents, etc. This mechanism removes a solid incentive to retaining an old player corp over forming a new one and makes dodging a wardec easier. I propose adding some attribute to a player corp that is specific to that corp and provides some of the same benefits as NPC faction standings above and beyond the member-derived standings, but would not transfer when moving to a new corp. I'm thinking something along the lines of increased mission rewards or more efficient station/POS services (in other words, the exact opposite of the NPC corp taxes in 2A), but I don't have a particular mechanic in mind here and am open to suggestions. Perhaps this could be tied to some new hisec entosis mechanic coupled with system occupancy?

3. Adjust hisec agents.

Currently, level 1-4 agents for empire factions are scattered approximately equally throughout empire space, whereas level 5 agents are available only in losec. This creates ample opportunity to earn a good living running level 4 missions in a 0.9 or 1.0 system, which I feel violates the risk vs. reward principle. I would propose that mission agents have their ISK and LP rewards scaled up with decreasing security status. be adjusted such that higher level and quality agents are only available in lower security status systems. Thus, in 1.0 systems you could find level 1 agents, maybe a low quality level 2 agent, whereas to find level 4 agents you'd need to go to a 0.5 system (or losec). This would re-distribute income sources in a manner more appropriate with the risk associated with them. It also makes more sense to me from a lore standpoint as the empires are weakest in their least-secure systems and would be more likely to require more advanced capsuleer assistance. Whether existing agents, with their associated player standings, are actually moved to different systems, or whether agents simply have their levels adjusted based on the security level of their system is something I'm willing to discuss. I am aware that this would likely cause a massive, yet hopefully brief, upheaval as hisec mission runners move their assets to find their new agents, but I feel the long term benefit will be more than worth the temporary growing pains.

4. Remove hisec Sansha's Nation incursions.

Many people suspect that the current Sansha's Nation hisec incursions are ending with the coming of Drifter incursions, but I still wanted to call this out here. The current incursions in hisec offer far too much profit for far too little risk and I think this further violates the "risk vs. reward" balance crucial to EvE. The current Sansha's incursions in losec and nullsec are fine as far as I'm concerned.


Continued below....


remove incursions from high sec... pfff just go home dude
Tam Arai
Mi Pen Rai
#263 - 2015-09-06 18:00:49 UTC
Change Npc behaviour in lv4 missions and incursions.

The reason that they produce so much isk is because players all know how to run them for max isk / LP

If you run the same mission twice in a row, it will have different spawns, triggers, npc damage or ewar etc. Make it a challenge with a real risk of losing your ship because you don't have perfect Intel from eve survival.

I've never ran an incursion but from what I understand these are also predictable and farmable. Have npc primary the logi, use different tactics and put the billion isk pirate battleships at risk.

Increasing the danger and time taken will cut isk per hour but also make them more interesting and therefore fun
Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#264 - 2015-09-06 18:56:05 UTC
Bronson:

The first argument you use is to say that you are making something you are actually not, you are just trying to achieve it by making something else. That is post hoc. You are not adding RISK, you are adding OBSTACLES, which are usually the way politicians do things, as they are not the agents of risk, but the agents of regulations. That is actually one of the backfires CCP themselves did the same way. Slow down people so they can be shot is not add risk, it is add OBSTACLES. That doesnt accomplish anything if you dont have someone else to impress the RISK. That is preciselly when your proposal on that front fails contrary to CCPs one. Theirs, propose an OBSTACLE that surely gets the risk going. Yours just adds obstacles but in no way makes those under that obstacles in more risk. That is not how hisec works.

The second argument you use is based on non causa pro causa. You are denying my observation with a concept. Observation dont bear concepts, and is not subject to interpretation, concepts are. Being obligated to interact with players do not imply obeying their rules or mine. And that is preciselly where I am observing a fact. Players may have to interact, but as they do, they want CCP to interviene as ruler. That is why most efforts to get justice fail while freedom to opress is more likely to succed. CCP do not favor a player over other, but players do, so giving them the right of rule usually gets the rules to favor the bigger group, because the rulers will rule to their favorable peers, while the ones who wont go for that rule, must either follow or flee, but if there is no place where rules are made without populus intent, where do the minorities flee to ? In hisec I have to deal with players, I have to fight them, but it is done in neither terms. If I start to deliver the right to rule over to other players, like OBLIGATING me to get under their rule, either by inequal corporate oportunities or inequal empire-low/null oportunities, it is just a receipt to failure all in all.

The rest of your arguments imply I am saying you are doing X, but I am not. I am saying that you doing Y to intent in Z but the result you will get is X. I am not saying you want people to leave hisec, but you are proposing to change the gameplay of hisec into something more in the likes of low and null, by adding obstacles that serve no purpose in the hisec gameplay. There is already TOO MUCH RISK in hisec, and that is not what it is lacking. Because, and we circle back to the first thing I said, Hisec, Low and Null are different gameplays, and Hisec, low sec and null sec do not stack up as tiers of risk reward. That is an impression that you may have, but in pactice, that is not what happens. We circle back that adding obstacles wont add risk, just add obstacles. If nothing, you are not adding obstacles in the sense of higher trees bearing better fruits, you adding obstacles llike walls aside a train line which are made to get people to be run over by the train without ways of leaving the tracks.

All boils down to the base line of what most combat people in EVE always imply:
"Play the way I like because that is the right way to play."

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#265 - 2015-09-06 20:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Malt Zedong wrote:
There is already TOO MUCH RISK in hisec...

So long as that is your opinion of hisec, you and I will never see eye to eye. This idea runs counter to the very basis of my platform. Being able to operate in almost complete safety making income comparable to far riskier professions (even in hisec, leave the other regions out of it), is broken.

Malt Zedong wrote:
All boils down to the base line of what most combat people in EVE always imply:
"Play the way I like because that is the right way to play."

Play EvE however you like, so long as you understand the nature of the game. I don't feel that you do.

EDIT: Isn't this the very basis of your opposition? You want to keep playing the way you want, so you don't like my changes because it would impact how you play? If CCP never did anything that impacted anyone's playstyle, EvE would remain exactly the way it is now until the servers shut down. Change impacts everyone, you can't use that as a reason to not do it.


On a side note, I'd like to point out that you seem to spend an exorbitant amount of effort applying real-world parallels to EvE. EvE is not the real world, EvE is a game. Certain basic principles of human psychology will certainly apply because it is played by human beings, but your talk of actual corporation management, freedom, oppression, etc. are wholly disjointed from the fact that New Eden is a fictional construct used for entertainment, not a model of how current human society should actually behave. Interestingly enough, if we were discussing a real society, I'd agree with much of what you say. But we aren't, so I don't.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2015-09-06 20:09:03 UTC
If the nexus of most, if not all, of these issues comes from NPC corps being an effective shelter from player wars in highsec... why not simply open them up to war declarations too? That seems like a much more elegant solution than trying to implement additional mechanics around when, how long, and what tax rate you operate with under an NPC banner.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#267 - 2015-09-06 20:18:17 UTC
Zihao wrote:
If the nexus of most, if not all, of these issues comes from NPC corps being an effective shelter from player wars in highsec... why not simply open them up to war declarations too? That seems like a much more elegant solution than trying to implement additional mechanics around when, how long, and what tax rate you operate with under an NPC banner.

That would tip the risk scale too far the other way. Even though I don't think that pilots in NPC corps should be able to operate as profitably as those in player corps, wardec-free NPC corps need to exist. There needs to be some (relatively) safe haven.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2015-09-06 21:00:40 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Zihao wrote:
If the nexus of most, if not all, of these issues comes from NPC corps being an effective shelter from player wars in highsec... why not simply open them up to war declarations too? That seems like a much more elegant solution than trying to implement additional mechanics around when, how long, and what tax rate you operate with under an NPC banner.

That would tip the risk scale too far the other way. Even though I don't think that pilots in NPC corps should be able to operate as profitably as those in player corps, wardec-free NPC corps need to exist. There needs to be some (relatively) safe haven.


What is the scope and purpose of the safe haven?
Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2015-09-06 21:02:54 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Malt Zedong wrote:
There is already TOO MUCH RISK in hisec...

So long as that is your opinion of hisec, you and I will never see eye to eye. This idea runs counter to the very basis of my platform. Being able to operate in almost complete safety making income comparable to far riskier professions (even in hisec, leave the other regions out of it), is broken.

my edit: It is not my opinion, it is the truth. You cannot run your plataform in the naive idea that hisec works in a way people like to think it does, but it doesnt. You have to know the truth. You may be destroyed as easly in hisec you are in low sec, and in null you many be actually more secure than in hisec, just by being friends with the right people. In the hisec empires protect you to an extent that isnt neraly as effective. In fact, the ammount of time concord shows up in .6 or .5 systems is enough for people to even not lose anything of worth while doing crime. And by the mechanics, they are free to collect on crime with only a warning box in the UI. It is actually more productive for a criminal do pop people in hisec than in low. There is a saying about uedama: In certain times of the day, you are safer cutting through low sec than passing by uedama. That is not what I see, that is what it is. Maybe you should actually see how it is the truth of life in hisec before "plataforming" on it.

Malt Zedong wrote:
All boils down to the base line of what most combat people in EVE always imply:
"Play the way I like because that is the right way to play."

Play EvE however you like, so long as you understand the nature of the game. I don't feel that you do.

EDIT: Isn't this the very basis of your opposition? You want to keep playing the way you want, so you don't like my changes because it would impact how you play? If CCP never did anything that impacted anyone's playstyle, EvE would remain exactly the way it is now until the servers shut down. Change impacts everyone, you can't use that as a reason to not do it.

my edit: It is not. People often mistake freedom with oportunity and imperialism with unconformity. I deffend the right of having a choice. I defend to not change something into a more restrictive version of it. I defend the right to decide even if my decision goes against what the thing is intended or directed for. As long as I am not depriving someone of the same rights I have, I have the right to exercise mine, and that is freedom. I dont defend it to be the way I like, but the way it is, instead of a more "imperialistic majority rule" version of it. What I would like for the hisec differ a lot from what I am arguing you for.


On a side note, I'd like to point out that you seem to spend an exorbitant amount of effort applying real-world parallels to EvE. EvE is not the real world, EvE is a game. Certain basic principles of human psychology will certainly apply because it is played by human beings, but your talk of actual corporation management, freedom, oppression, etc. are wholly disjointed from the fact that New Eden is a fictional construct used for entertainment, not a model of how current human society should actually behave. Interestingly enough, if we were discussing a real society, I'd agree with much of what you say. But we aren't, so I don't.


Well, EVE material do say that EVE reproduce the most dark aspects of real life.

And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that I cant. I could do what I do in RP and use ingame examples, but half of the people who play eve have no clue of EVE fiction. I have to draw parallels from something people know.

And, talking about fiction, my talk of actual corporation management, freedom, oppression, etc. is completely relevant to New Eden. Do you really think that the wars waged includding in hisec do not round up to that ? Do you really think that all people are happy when your pixel ship comes and prevent my pixel ship to do what I want to do with it ?

Do you really think that the majority of EVE players do not manage their corporations with real CRM and other real life aplications ? You have a dozen multipage threads on Market forum talking about tools to use in EVE and many of them are based or clearly ripped off from real life management tools.

You have people with degrees on finance running finance scams in EVE just like the ones they see in real life.

The second and most important thing in there is the reason why some people apply the "You play the way I want because I think that is the right way". Those people only see EVE that way because they think "EVE is just a game so it doesnt matter what happens".

Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy. My joy ingame is to do what I like to do. I happen to work in real life doing what I like to do, and I do it in game because I like to do it. I respect my joy in being able to do it, and my joy comes most of the time from being able to confront a realistic simulation which is what devs strive so hard to make EVE be. If you dont care about your pixel ships, it is your right. Accusing me of insanity for not being like that is the same "You see the game as I see it because it is the right way to see it."

On my side note, it is interesting enough when that bites the rear of people. You have now 5 threads running when a "its just a game folk" cries over the fact they were massacred because they ambushed a person from a group who does the whole reality simulation thing. They say things like "It is just a game, why people get nervous and amass a horde to destroy all ships I have ?". See the issue ? If it is just a game, why cant I play the game fiercly while the so called "hardcore pvp" play the game in "softcore immersion" ?

Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#270 - 2015-09-06 21:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Malt Zedong wrote:
There is a saying about uedama: In certain times of the day, you are safer cutting through low sec than passing by uedama. That is not what I see, that is what it is. Maybe you should actually see how it is the truth of life in hisec before "plataforming" on it.

It is less safe for folks who aren't awake, at the keyboard, and taking steps to ensure their safety. As it should be. With a webbing alt and a proper scout, Uedama is rarely any more dangerous for a freighter pilot than any other system. That is what I see, people falling victim to other players because they refuse to accept the fact that EvE is, at its core, about living with risk from other players.


Malt Zedong wrote:
my edit: It is not. People often mistake freedom with oportunity and imperialism with unconformity. I deffend the right of having a choice. I defend to not change something into a more restrictive version of it. I defend the right to decide even if my decision goes against what the thing is intended or directed for. As long as I am not depriving someone of the same rights I have, I have the right to exercise mine, and that is freedom. I dont defend it to be the way I like, but the way it is, instead of a more "imperialistic majority rule" version of it. What I would like for the hisec differ a lot from what I am arguing you for.

The funny thing (actually, it's not funny, it stopped being funny a long time ago) is that nothing I am proposing removes any choices from anyone. No choices are going away. Every option available today would be present if all of these changes were implemented. All that would change is the relative benefit of each option.

Malt Zedong wrote:
My joy ingame is to do what I like to do.

So...aren't you just going back to:

Malt Zedong wrote:
All boils down to the base line of what most combat people in EVE always imply:
"Play the way I like because that is the right way to play."

You keep saying that I want to take your choices away and that I want you to play like I do. No choices are going away, and you can continue to play like you do. The benefits of doing so may change, but you can continue to do it.

I'm not judging you or your playstyle, or any other playstyle. I'm evaluating the amount of ISK revenue various playstyles generate compared to the risk invovled in earning it and trying to find a better balance.



I feel that our discussion is no longer being productive as we keep talking around each other. At this point I will not be responding to further comments from you unless you actually present:
1. A new point.
2. An actual playstyle choice that I my proposals would eliminate.
3. Any explanation as to why living in a largely risk-free setting justifies being able to earn the same ISK income as living in a raskier setting.

...while taking into account the fact that EvE Online is a fictional game world used for entertainment purposes, and that some people are entertained by inflicting misery and discomfort on others.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Mortlake
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
#271 - 2015-09-06 22:18:04 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
some people are entertained by inflicting misery and discomfort on others.


Indeed.

Sometimes you hit the bar and sometimes the bar hits you...

Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#272 - 2015-09-06 22:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Malt Zedong
Side notes are side notes.

But about hisec you are wrong.

I've seen people being blown up in Uedama in the most variable ways possible, and no matter how much you and other may deffend the idea that it is only occurent to blow up afk people. In the neighbouring systems of Uedama and Niarja, people are blown up either for carrying value or for just plain being easy taregets. That has nothing to do with being AFK or not.

I am not saying it should change, not it is bad for EVE. But that is the way it is.

And I deffend the right of people to do those kinds of things as much as I defend the right of people to run business or remain in hisec and npc corps as much as they like at the present balance between restrictions and advantages.

Our discussion is not productive anymore because you are taking it to a field where it favors you. And I dont want to go there.

Quote:
I feel that our discussion is no longer being productive as we keep talking around each other. At this point I will not be responding to further comments from you unless you actually present:
1. A new point.
2. An actual playstyle choice that I my proposals would eliminate.
3. Any explanation as to why living in a largely risk-free setting justifies being able to earn the same ISK income as living in a raskier setting.


You are placing rules here to benefit your side. That is exactly what you do here, and what your proposition does.

I dont need to show a choice from your proposal, because I just like the way it already is. I dont want to change, so I dont need to show any idea of change. In this you were just plain obnoxiously obtuse.

Risk-Free and same ISK earning are YOUR statements, FAR from the truth.

Once you create your own straw man of problem, you present the solution which is actually just a form of making a gameplay you dont like impossible.

Once you admit that people are blown up in hisec if someone wants to, regardless of being afk or doing stupid, and that it is a fact that any thing you do, from complexes to salvaging in low and null is potentially more lucrative, people just dont know how to translate their activity on profit, then we can move on.

Unless you show me where in hisec I can mine (mine, not buy) the most valuable ores, or find the most expensive skill books, implants, and other things, unless I do eternal grinds or mass criminal activity which is exactly what counters the risk free argument.

It is easy to make your oponent agree or give up when you are the one setting the rules on what is truth, what is fact.

And that is the reason I and many people do not want to change NPC corps or hisec in general is preciselly because we dont want people as obtuse as this ruling over the corp we work for or the space we operate on.

Im still to see anyone defending anything that really cant in any way gear the gameplay towards an end.

Try to express your proposition in a manner you never say anything remotely related to "make people do this", "lead people to do that", "compel people to be like this" or "that will motivate people to", and you will see that it is impossible, because there is not improvement there, just attempt to change behavior to a normalized way. While this wont address the issues you ignore.

But never mind. I am out anyway because after you say and justify completely out of it the hisec being "Risk Free high rewarding" and not refering to crime, there is nothing a hisec citizen can argue you with. That is plain lie.

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#273 - 2015-09-06 22:34:32 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:

Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.


The ever-loving irony.

You are literally saying in that same post that you only play the game to do what you want to do, and the game should not have any purview besides that.

You are the ONLY one suggesting there is only one way to play the game, and the only one demanding that the game be altered accordingly. We're just here to play the game the devs told us was there, you want that twisted around and cut into pieces so that we can't do things you don't like. And you absolutely refuse to countenance anything that conflicts with your unbelievably wrong view of EVE Online.

Up yours, hypocrite.

"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.

Malt Zedong
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2015-09-06 22:48:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Malt Zedong wrote:

Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.


The ever-loving irony.

You are literally saying in that same post that you only play the game to do what you want to do, and the game should not have any purview besides that.

You are the ONLY one suggesting there is only one way to play the game, and the only one demanding that the game be altered accordingly. We're just here to play the game the devs told us was there, you want that twisted around and cut into pieces so that we can't do things you don't like. And you absolutely refuse to countenance anything that conflicts with your unbelievably wrong view of EVE Online.

Up yours, hypocrite.


You lie here.

I am not saying YOU MUST remain in NPC corps or hisec. I am saying you must have the right to choose.

I am not saying the bull everyone knows it is a lie that hisec is risk free high rewarding. I worked in low and null and I know the kind of money you make there.

But you are saying we should make npc corps unatractive to force people to interact, in ways they dont want to.

You are implying that hisec is all roses and no one is blown up because of the will of people on blowing you up despite anything you do.

This is really contra-producent because as most of the people who are vocal or so called player representatives only represent the kind of player we know they do. If we want something to our side, we are better off just simply filling up feedback, forms and what not, because in forums it is always the same:

"In EVE you this, in EVE you that, EVE is a sandbox so you MUST this, that".

And I defending freedom of choice with equity of joy am the one telling people what to do.

I laugh. lol

WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#275 - 2015-09-06 22:55:29 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:

You lie here.


Do I?

Malt Zedong wrote:

Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy.


Nope, I don't.

You're playing the wrong game. EVE is highs and lows, EVE is gain and loss.


Quote:

But you are saying we should make npc corps unatractive to force people to interact, in ways they dont want to.


No, I'm saying that risk vs reward should mean something, and that NPC corps should not be the obvious best choice. Yes, that serves as an incentive to join player corps, and since player corps have a much higher retention rate, that is something you will have to get used to, whether you like it or not.

"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.

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#276 - 2015-09-06 23:23:54 UTC
Malt Zedong wrote:

Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy. My joy ingame is to do what I like to do. I happen to work in real life doing what I like to do, and I do it in game because I like to do it. I respect my joy in being able to do it, and my joy comes most of the time from being able to confront a realistic simulation which is what devs strive so hard to make EVE be. If you dont care about your pixel ships, it is your right. Accusing me of insanity for not being like that is the same "You see the game as I see it because it is the right way to see it."

On my side note, it is interesting enough when that bites the rear of people. You have now 5 threads running when a "its just a game folk" cries over the fact they were massacred because they ambushed a person from a group who does the whole reality simulation thing. They say things like "It is just a game, why people get nervous and amass a horde to destroy all ships I have ?". See the issue ? If it is just a game, why cant I play the game fiercly while the so called "hardcore pvp" play the game in "softcore immersion" ?

Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.


I am going to wardec you in 20 mins. I get joy from it. Respect my joy. Its all about joy.

Joy.

Does this make anyone else joyful? It gives me joy.

Joy.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#277 - 2015-09-07 01:38:23 UTC
Updated the OP, specifically points 2A and 2B. Gone are the NPC corp taxes (sticks are bad) and more formalized are the benefits of player corp growth, which I now refer to as Maturity (carrots are good).

I welcome further feedback on these changes. Even from you Malt, provided you have something new and/or relevant to say.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2015-09-07 03:37:39 UTC
I'm still curious to know why a certain safe haven for, especially non-new, players is desirable in the context of trying to fix a system that they fully bypass.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#279 - 2015-09-07 07:11:20 UTC
Avvy wrote:
admiral root wrote:
If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare?


Is it that rare?

Maybe because some players are paying for protection?

Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier.



Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#280 - 2015-09-07 07:22:54 UTC
I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.

So I live in highsec.