EVE Information Portal

Why are people in 0.0 alliances if they require a safe haven to recover from their losses?

Instead of facing the obvious, there is an uncomfortable expectation that the game needs to be changed to accomodate these people, who're quite literally doing it all wrong.

Dear CCP, I don't happen to have arms or legs. I'm typing this through tactical headbutting and a special attachment. Obviously you need to rewrite your entire game for me, if you can pop me an email when you're done it'd be much appreciated, TIA.

/agreed

However, I would still like to state that CCP needs to stop focusing on making high sec more dangerous and start focusing on how to make those quite reasonably safe null zones more treacherous...
Like I've said, it's null sec.. There should be on going battles all the time for everyone. CCP needs to find a way to force the alliance to actually have to defend their territories instead of just setting up a border fence and calling it good.

I don't know how they'd do that, but i'm not a game designer so I shouldn't have to figure it out for them.

However, I kinda get the feeling that CCP is protecting and easying the null sec way of life because it's their way of life.

CCP needs to split up those of them that play Eve into 4 equal sized groups. 1 for high sec life, one for low, 1 for null, and 1 group for wh space. This way they could perhaps have equal representation by the different player bases of Eve and we can all get equal opportunity. Since the players of CCP seem to be more focused on the null sec way of life, then they tend to make their own lives better and seemingly punish those that don't share their way of life.
Hence the former wardec system in which alliances would have been overly protected through cost of war, while the average sized 20-50 man high sec corps become very lucrative targets.


CCP, stop messing up the war dec system just because inferno is about war. Wars exist in two other areas as well. Low sec and null sec. TBH, null needs the most tweaking in the war department cause there's not enough of it between the major alliances.

P.S. - why does the thread on POS's get a crap ton of CCP comments, some of which actually stating things besides we';re here and we're working on it while all the other threads including this one which was created by CCP go unattended by CCP and even if they do drop in, it's just to say they're dropping in.

Seriously, between this thread and this - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=104991 - we could really use a CCP comment that either gives info on your plans or at least sets CCP's view on them.

We understand that if you give us info it's subject to change at any time. All you have to do is put that disclaimer at the top.
At least seeing ya'lls ideas behind this would help y'all to get some feedback from the player base.

Kind of annoying that y'all always sit back and release the info to the live server without getting feed by on the suggested changes before they're implemented which leads to rage in game and on the forums because it's being exploited for the bad implementation it was.
Let us know what your current plans are and we'll discuss them. Sure, we're not going to agree, but that's Eve. However, if you give us the current plans then maybe you'll find a better balanced solution before it's implemented and leads to mass rage quits of high sec players.

Some people just don't want to be in 0.0 alliances (gosh, 72% of them). It's a big time commitment, some people want more casual gameplay.

Do you misquote people intentionally or do you just have difficulty following English? Understandable if it's not your first language.

I was speaking about 0.0 alliances who rely on alts in "safe" space to prop up their terrible empire. Which accounts for a large portion of that 72% you're talking about.

This is what you wrote:



If by saying this you were talking about "0.0 alliances who rely on alts in safe space to prop their empire", i apologize for not being able to read your mind over the internet.

Btw I'm not "pro-carebear" as it might appear. I'm simply saying that it's a bit strange that CCP isn't acting in their own interests, which is alienating people who just want relatively safe and steady growth. Carebears are casual players ,they are not on the forums and will not defend their interests. There are groups of friends who just like to run some hisec missions or do some safe mining for steady growth. Forcing those groups of friends to drop out of their corps is unproductive and silly. They might fight a bit but they'll definitely lose to professional griefers. They might quit or drop to NPC corps and just be annoyed about not being able to play "together". Mission accomplished I guess? (player annoyance)

Having said this i'd be perfectly happy if CCP completely messed up the game to below critical sub mass cuz then I can quit along with others and play more BF3 :) So hmm, i guess i should stop making useful suggestions then :)

You guys do realize that the game will not be sustainable just by hardcore PVP players? I bet there's just not enough subs coming from those to cover CCP's operating expenses. So yeah by all means go ahead and convince CCP to suicide EVE. Go individual wardecs, free unlimited ganking, we should even have a module for auto-lock and fire on red targets, so that griefers can just leave 20-30 tornados outside of station in afk mode and chill while their 3-man mining corp target tries to undock. Hells, turn all of EVE into 0.0 so that newbies and players who just lost their first battlecruiser they've been saving for for a week have absolutely no chance to recover. Finally, add a super-titan - a ship that can destroy NPC stations and with them all players in there wiping out their SP permanently. This is not a game for sissies, this is for real hardcore players. Carebearing sissies who need to dock in safety of hisec have no place in Xorv's "sandbox PVP" vision. So step up to your own high standards, you want safety of docking in station? That's weak. Penalties in "real pvp" should be real. When you die that should mean you are dead.

It was the post I was answering that I expected you to read, the one that said:



I'm sure now I've explained this to you, you can see perfectly what I meant about misquoting out of context or just not being able to comprehend. This is the problem when you leap into a thread reading only the last couple of posts. No need to apologise to me personally, just bear this in mind in future. If you aren't able to follow all the details whether through mental disadvantage or simply English not being your native language then it maybe beneficial to post less and read more.

Actually you were answering to my quote directly, context had nothing to do with this particular exchange.

Regardless, your statement doesn't seem to make much sense, with or without context. It sounds like by this you are trying to say that the net income from 0.0 operation is negative and people still run it with hisec income? And that's a problem somehow? This has nothing to do with hisec per se, only with strategic or irrational actions of individuals who run a negative balance sheet enterprise at the expense of a positive one. It's like sucking all the profits of a positive running division in the company to support a negative. OK, you know what that happens a lot in real life and sometimes it pays off. Hisec or not, some people could decide to run a base in Delve at the expense of an op in Outer Ring. Is that also a problem in your book? What exactly are you trying to make a point about? That people shouldn't be allowed to "prop" their operations in one region with profits from another? Or with profits from anonymous alts based in other nullsec region? Ok, what does hisec have to do at all with what you are saying? Are you frustrated with inability to completely shut somebody down including all their alts? Well you know what, if you do those people will quit and will stop paying CCP. This is not what CCP wants obviously. Also CCP is not going to disallow alts. It would be interesting indeed if it was possible to have an "identity" associated with accounts so you can id all the alts of a given character, but i doubt CCP would support that.

Anyway.. sorry dude but your implied massive mental advantage or superior knowledge of English don't really seem to shine all that much here.

It can be interpreted both ways.

Regardless at least I hope you are not emotionally abusive at home to your wife and kids? You seem like the OCD controlling type who also tries his hardest to hurt other people with vitriolic remarks.

Incorrect use of English/Latin stemming from misunderstanding of the meaning of the words used. I wasn't making a personal attack in an attempt to discredit your statement (your actual statement was challenged in the part that you didn't want to read because of presence of question marks), i was simply genuinely concerned about emotional well being of people close to you.

Ha. #1000. Gotta add something constructive here.

I think CCP understands the present issues with corps/wars. They do understand that a POS removal mechanism is needed. The Merc hiring mechanism ties into that very well and the merc market seems like a cool mechanic. But do they understand that the rest of the motivation for wardecs in hisec is poorly rationalized at fundamental level (forcing hisec players without POSes who do not want to fight into leaving player corps)?

I think we can only guess into their thought process because for political reasons they will never be fully open about it. Some of it may have to do with development costs, some with simply trying to control the possible political unrest from the "i just wanna PVP anyone" crowd that tends to be very vocal and sometimes rather irrational (like in the last meaningless unrest about NEX store). I still think the best move would be to disallow engaging pilots in wardecced corps and only allow to engage POSes/POCOs until they are defended by pilots. This would solve the problems with meaningless griefing, meaningless dropouts to NPC corps and remove the polarizing and poorly rationalized part of the wardec mechanism.