These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The state of Highsec

Author
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#81 - 2015-09-28 01:54:59 UTC
Ganking in hi-sec is the safest form of one-sided pvp Eve has to offer.

Can you really blame some for not wanting to give that up.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#82 - 2015-09-28 02:12:09 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Ganking in hi-sec is the safest form of one-sided pvp Eve has to offer.


As safe as the CFC showing up to 6VDT with thousands more players than Test bothered to field; as safe as a lowsec gate camp waiting for a solo freighter to blindly jump in; as safe as Marmite camping the 4/4 undock.

The simplest way to win at spaceship PvP in this game is to bring more guys than the other side. If people want to stop volunteering to be ganked they just have to bring the right friends. You're just mad that some people can't be bothered to do what's required of a winner.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Avvy
Doomheim
#83 - 2015-09-28 02:24:52 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:


I recently read about how some believe the population of Eve Online is in decline when for many years it was always growing. I feel like Eve has always lost players on a regular basis. But would regain many after some large battle received media coverage. It's too bad we have to constantly bleed subscription numbers the way we do. I work with a lot of gamers and I often try to recruit people to Eve. However, 90% of the time people just shake their head. This game has a reputation and no matter how good our community can be (I think it's one of the best), this reputation hurts the game. The number one reason I cannot recruit more people to this game is non-consensual PvP. Don't get me wrong, I don't think non-consensual PvP should be removed. It's what makes Eve Online the game it is. But, there are mechanics in this game that people are taking advantage of that sometimes just adds frustration for new players trying to survive in a game that is already difficult to learn to play. I think Highsec was meant to be "relatively" safe. Which is fine, it provides a place for players to get comfortable with the game before they move out into Lowsec , Null and WH space.



It doesn't have a very good reputation, which isn't really surprising when you have groups like CODE, that operate the way they do. It's not just CODE of course, the reputation has been around for a long time.

But that reputation will also attract some players albeit a minority.

That reputation won't change and so the main stream of gamers will just avoid the game. So EVE remains a niche game, which is what I'd expect it to continue as.




Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#84 - 2015-09-28 02:57:52 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
incentive for experience players to move out into lowsec and nullsec for their content.



You have at least this much right, sort of.

Antagonists go where bad-guy content can be created. So to motivate them to move to low, NPC null, or sov-null, there have to be players there to shoot at. Low and NPC null should be made vastly more attractive to new players, and should reward them for taking risks, but it currently doesn't, so most people either stay in Hi Sec, or join the zerg in the form of Karmafleet, Pandemic Horde, etc. Hunting in sov null isn't for everyone mostly because, well most of it is empty, and the places that aren't are extremely well defended.

You can't blame Antagonists for taking the path of least resistance to the biggest killmails. The trick is to incentive people moving out of Hi Sec, which helps many facets of the game simultaneously.



Or stay in NPC corps. There is almost zero reason for anyone to join a Player corp if they intend on doing anything in Hi-Sec.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#85 - 2015-09-28 03:32:50 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Criminals should not be allowed to dock up. If you want to dock you should be in a system where you are not flagged as a criminal.

It's reasonable that if a player can spacewarp arcross a galaxy, concord can detect any and all violations within all of HS and LS then some minimum wage docking manager can see a red flashy thing on his dashboard and push the SCREW YOU SCUMBAG button to prevent a known criminal from docking in the station he is managing.

It's kind or rediculous that the docking manager can time and police agression not only outside his station, but anywere in eve (I can get a timer Hek hit a HS > HS wh and be prevented from docking in Motsu) right down to the second, but can't figure out that this clearly labelled bad guy is a bad guy.



Dearest CONCORD,

For the love of all that is fair and just, give docking managers a small raise and train them that flashy red is actually worse than flashy yellow and get this docking oversight fixed once and for all.

Suncerly,
Every reasonable pilot in eve


I second this.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#86 - 2015-09-28 03:37:35 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Actually I wouldn't mind criminals not being able to doc in NPC stations but allowed to dock in a POS. Then the gankers would need to be in a player corp, have assets in space and be vulnerable to wardecs. This would really give any industry corp a means by which to retaliate if they so wished.

i second this.


Yep this is also a great idea.
Caleb Seremshur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#87 - 2015-09-28 09:15:13 UTC
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.
Zhaceera Armerarram
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2015-09-28 14:55:25 UTC
The fascinating thing is that people bluntly disconsider a lot of things when talking about hisec.

For them, it is like hisec is the same as everywhere else but you cant shoot people without concord interference.

What people forget is that their accessment of hisec being high earning and secure shows how little they know of anything but hisec.

In hisec you may find things in market that were not found or harvested in hisec, but at a cost people living out of hisec do not have. Most things CCP puts up as content and itens, also can only be found only out of hisec. People out of hisec have permission to create POS and equipment which streamline tons of revenue virtually impossible for a hisec pilot.

The only problem to someone arguing hisec is high profitable low-risk is that the person saying it is uncapable of taking advantage of profitable venues out of it.

I choose to be in hisec for a simple thing: There is no market advantage out of hisec. Exactly because the high payout comes at a high risk, but the payout/risk ratio of low and null is directly linked to other players relations with you. I dont like that. I worked for a time under a big alliance protection, and that was better than hisec. The moment that alliance started to fall apart, then everyone became fair game and those of us who could not bring our things back had huge losses.

You cant earn even 0,1% of what null offer in hisec. The risk however, due to CCP regulations and "make bad pvpers happy" policy, is very close to the null risk. You may get a 10mil ship alone to kill a miner in hisec and kill them and flee before concord respond. You can gate camp in hisec and kill a transport ship before concord respond, and haul the cargo with an alt. Due to constraints to please those so called "oh my God elite pvp pirates", you cannot fit a ship enough to make it not worth kill people in .6 systems. While at the same time, very little trade, mine or exploration can be profitable in .7 or above systems.

So, no. Your argument of hisec high pay low risk is just as non-sense as the claim that you have to priviledge piracy in hisec for the game to "interesting".

"If justice is not for everyone, it is for no one."

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#89 - 2015-09-28 16:08:18 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.


Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#90 - 2015-09-28 17:32:04 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.


Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk.


Nor are they concerned about what passes for morality among obscenely wealthy demigods.

"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.

Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#91 - 2015-09-28 20:07:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.


Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk.


Nor are they concerned about what passes for morality among obscenely wealthy demigods.



These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#92 - 2015-09-28 20:20:53 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage.


I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#93 - 2015-09-28 23:07:23 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage.


I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that.



Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix.

AKA - Emergent gameplay.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#94 - 2015-09-28 23:37:31 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
These last 2 responses are right up there with ships in Eve that are made of nerf material and bounce off of each other with no damage.


I don't understand, are you saying there's a lore reason for ship bumping? I'm fairly confident you're wrong about that.



Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix.

AKA - Emergent gameplay.


It's easily explained by the fluidic physics model, even if it weren't 100% approved emergent gameplay.

"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.

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2015-09-29 09:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Marranar Amatin
Zan Shiro wrote:
Its called outlaw status. They get this if they are really successful at thier job. You get warning signs before blinky red. it be pay attention yellow.


Except that it completeley misses my point, since you can easily buy yourself out of it.

You need to get to -5 or lower to be attackable, you can do a lot of kills before reaching that point, and its not really expensive to get out of it again. And not difficult to farm out of it.

They still are super safe in highsec, and protected much better by concord than their victims.

What would be wrong with them being "perma" blinky after enough kills? Its not like they couldnt do their job anymore, as I said, only players should allowed to attack them,not NPC. Only difference is that they can be attacked too, so they get more pvp. Great, isnt this exactly what they want?
Or could it be that they dont want to have actual pvp, but prefer perfect safety until they make their guaranteed kill with zero risk for themselfs? Well here we are again at "everyone is a carebear" and "nothing should be safe". I can understand that they want the safety for themselfs, I just dont see any reason why they should have it.

Zhaceera Armerarram wrote:
You cant earn even 0,1% of what null offer in hisec. The risk however, due to CCP regulations and "make bad pvpers happy" policy, is very close to the null risk.


That is not correct. You can make about the same money in highsec as in nullsec and are much safer while doing it. Some player who live in nullsec are actually doing it, because its easier, safer and still offers a great payout.
Of course you have to do it right, afk mining in a non tanked mining ship is not the way to do it. But with incursions and mission blitzing you get about the same as in nullsec. But with much lower risk.
Thats why I do not want to nerf the ability to gank in highsec, just put the gankers to some risk themself.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#96 - 2015-09-29 10:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Syn Shi wrote:
Alice in Wonderland game mechanics because its too hard for CCP to actually fix.

AKA - Emergent gameplay.
Amongst the many errors in your posts, I'll point out two.

1. You assume because of how you feel about the mechanics of the game, CCP somehow have made a mistake in that regard. You are wrong in your assumption, how you feel has no bearing on how the game should work. Seeing as Eve has always been a space game based on water physics, your feelings are irrelevant.

2. You also assume there is something to fix and CCP is unable to fix it. CCP have quite often made changes to how ships interact when bumped, they do, have and can make changes in that regard. But seeing how they looked into this situation over many months and decided to allow what they deemed emergent gameplay with intended mechanics, to continue. Your assertion of the need of a fix, holds no water.

As usual in these cases, you and your ilk rely upon 'feelings' as proof of something wrong. Whereas those of us who love the game and it's core, rely upon facts.
Come back when you have the latter.

Marranar Amatin wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
Its called outlaw status. They get this if they are really successful at thier job. You get warning signs before blinky red. it be pay attention yellow.


Except that it completeley misses my point, since you can easily buy yourself out of it.

You need to get to -5 or lower to be attackable, you can do a lot of kills before reaching that point, and its not really expensive to get out of it again. And not difficult to farm out of it.

They still are super safe in highsec, and protected much better by concord than their victims.

What would be wrong with them being "perma" blinky after enough kills? Its not like they couldnt do their job anymore, as I said, only players should allowed to attack them,not NPC. Only difference is that they can be attacked too, so they get more pvp. Great, isnt this exactly what they want?
Or could it be that they dont want to have actual pvp, but prefer perfect safety until they make their guaranteed kill with zero risk for themselfs? Well here we are again at "everyone is a carebear" and "nothing should be safe". I can understand that they want the safety for themselfs, I just dont see any reason why they should have it.
So what about a player like myself? I lived in low sec for years, never killed in highsec whilst I lived there and gained my much loved -10 status all in low. When a friend in game asked for my assistance in high sec, I travelled to the relevant station and paid with tags and ISK to revert my sec status to 0. I must admit I didn't like it, but he asked and it was done.

Are you now suggesting that my time in low, should be permanently punished with -10 sec status? That even though I play the game as defined, haven't broken any EULA rules. That I should be forever frozen in the game, to one particular game style?

Should we then suggest that because I and others dislike mining immensely, that anyone who has ever partaken that style of play, should be forever warped to belts and held there to mine roids?

How is it you can define, what is and what isn't 'actual' PvP? Are you privy to some knowledge in this, that the rest of us somehow missed in the term player versus player?

Or is it: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."
Is that what you really mean?

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

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-09-29 11:15:49 UTC
I didn't see my idea as 'One more nerf' but rather a case that:

If a player corp wants the benefits of a POS in hisec they should be expected to defend it (citadels will hopefully fix this).

If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS.

This would depend upon how the citadels shake out though I think.

An XL defended citadel named Tortuga for pirates could be a fun place though :D
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2015-09-29 11:19:32 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.


Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk.



The FW one is foobar though. They don't allow it in lowsec, but the space faeries make them allow it in high?

It's weird.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#99 - 2015-09-29 12:20:43 UTC
afkalt wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Docking in highsec for criminals and enemy fw players is a joke. A joke that Rise supported. I guess I can see the reason why they have made this stance but it does break the internal consistency of the game. It would be like being a nightelf and sitting inside orgrimmar and being left alone because its a city and apparently the home defence only functions outside the walls of the city.

There's a lot more to it than that.


Actually, there's a lot less to it than that. The stations are owned by for-profit corporations who really don't give a damn who you are, they just want your isk.



The FW one is foobar though. They don't allow it in lowsec, but the space faeries make them allow it in high?

It's weird.


I guess that's a case of things are probably different at the Coke factory in Mogadishu (assuming it's still operational) being in a warzone than they are in one in the US. I don't do faction warfare so I can't really comment.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#100 - 2015-09-29 12:32:08 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If a pirate wants the benefit of operating in hisec without CONCORD interference they should be expected to use a POS and thus be just as at risk of wardecs as the player corps with a POS.


Risk comes from players, not mechanics, and as long as the vast majority of those in highsec are going to sit on their butts and scream impotently for Someone to do something(TM) I don't see why CCP should waste any more time on you whinebears. CODE. have had POSes up multiple times over the years and no-one has had the fortitude to come at us (even the people who had declared war on us at the time), so what makes you think this would magically change if we were driven out of stations in your crusade to nerf highsec into the ground?

This all sounds a lot like "if highsec was much safer, players would have time to accumulate enough isk to progress to PvP in lowsec and nullsec". Followed by "if carebears had this" and "if carebears had that". You have more than enough tools to deliver risk directly and indirectly to our pods - use them.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff