As most of us know by now, Goonswarm is in the process of trolling high sec residents and Gallente capital ship/POS holders pretty damned hard. I don’t have to spell out how the economics of this works, but in short: The DCF dries up the supply of Oxygen Isotopes, demand is static, supply diminishes, price goes up. It notably affects two groups of players: Carebears and capital pilots.
Capital pilots, especially supercap pilots, don’t care so much. Nullsec is just as dangerous as ever a place to ice mine, but TEST and Gents are probably having a field day carebearing it up to supply the
beleaguered Oxygen Isotopes market, and if not, they’re pocketing the ‘topes for their own pilots. Supercap pilots are generally rich enough that they can afford the massive hike in fuel costs, though it
is a bit inconvenient. Mission-running carebears don’t care; miners and ice miners in other pockets of space don’t care (if anything, the demand for alternative isotopes will rise, so it’s to their benefit as
well); subcap pilots in low and nullsec likely don’t care either. If they do, it’s just because they like to have something to whine about, even if it doesn’t directly affect them.
Nonetheless, a small group of EVE players are bawwing hard, and CCP is listening.
Here’s the gist of it: CCP can’t afford to lose more subscriptions. With the Incarna debacle still in recent memory, CCP is trying hard to both hold onto the subscribers they have and regain the trust of past
subscribers. It’s not that there’s thousands of ice miners that they’ll lose if nothing gets done, but rather, a few hundred players who each have multiple subscriptions. Or, consider the player who has a nullsec PVP pilot and a few carebear pilots who roll in the ISK while said player is off having a real life. Is he going to drop only his carebear subscriptions, or all of them?
This is a risk CCP can’t afford to take. In recent interviews, Hilmar and Co. have indicated that they’re looking seriously at this issue. Goonswarm has shown them exactly how easy it is to force PVP on players who want nothing to do with PVP. It’s like going to a steakhouse and being forced to eat a spoonful of tofu between every bite of steak. Given, for me, the analogy works the other way around
(PVE is like a particularly bland miso soup and PVP is the brisket) but there are many players for whom the analogy fits.
While EveNews24 has been covering this, and the possibility of High Sec becoming a ‘PVP-free’ zone has resulted in many expressing disappointment or shock, I’d be completely supportive of it for these
reasons:
1. Risk-free carebearing reduces RMT. An article about botting posted months ago stated that RMT was a lot easier with EVE than WOW because the risk of high-yield botting (example: your 75-bil officer-fit Nightmare that gets suicide ganked in a mission) meant little competition and a lot of demand. In WOW, on the other hand, PVP-free zones means anybody can set up a bot and make their gravy risk-free, which is detrimental to RMT because players who might otherwise buy ISK with real money could make it a lot more cheaply (and with less risk) with a bot.
2. Risk-free carebearing drops prices. What if jet-cans couldn’t be flipped? Then miners in high-sec would have absolutely no risks to encounter. Players alienated from mining due to can flipping would
return to the belts and drive down prices of minerals. As a result, the cost to build T1 ships drops. I fly and lose ships. My income is fixed, based on yields from ratting in null-sec. So when the price of
a Hurricane drops, the amount of time I spend ratting to buy that Hurricane drops as well. Like most of my corpmates, I don’t rat simply to horde ISK: I rat just enough that I can PVP for a few days
to a week and stop. And I hate ratting, so the less time I have to do it, the better.
3. High-sec residents want it. And for Reason #2, low and nullsec residents should want it too, even nullsec carebears (since the price of quality minerals wouldn’t be affected by such a change). And if
everybody wants it, why fight it?
Discuss.
- Evan Drakes
[spoiler show="Did we mess up?"]
We want to give you guys the best possible intel, to post as fast as we can confirm it, but Eve being :Eve: is quite confusing. If we messed up with our intel, please contact us directly [email protected], provide the proof of it and we’ll correct it immediately noting the change and bringing the correction on top of the article list.[/spoiler]
If you would like to send intel or contribute, feel free to use the form below:
[spoiler show="Submit Intel Here"]
[/spoiler]
What in the love of fuck? Troll News 24.com is it now?
EVE is a dark and harsh world…. But everyone is cryn like babys. nerf this… and nerf this…
No it isn't, you get given infinite lives, with virtually no cost for losing that a life.
Simon come back. WOW misses you.
Simon, you are a moron. Our noobish beyond all reason. Lets explore why:
When you die in EVE, you lose a ship, of which a small portion can be payed back via insurance. The mercy of dying ends there, sooner if you have no insurance. Then you may get podded, which means another clone. A clone can cost a mere few thousand to a whopping 150mil isk. And don't forget the implants you will never get back. And if for whatever reason you die AGAIN before a clone upgrade, say good by to a number of skill points (GallenteBS 5 REALLY!?)
EVE. Is. Harsh. Period.
P.S. The only thing I could imagine it any worse is if you restarted your account everytime.
Play some other games, hilariously the "cuddly" minecraft is harsher, in hardcore mode if you die once, you lose everything.
Dying in Eve (unless you are dumb enough not to keep your clone upgraded) is less of a penatly than most MMO's that have full PVP loot, becuase in most the gear takes more time to get & is relatively more valuable than most ships / implants in Eve.
The idea that a game is harsh, where your insurance stays the same regardless of how many claims you make, where you get insurance even when commiting crimnal acts and where the authorities literally let you get waway with murder until you've murdered numerous civillians, is a joke.
Eve needs balancing in many areas, one of which is ganking in hi-sec, which is way too much in favour of the ganker at the moment.
And yes I PvP, I don't gank miners, because it is frankly dull piss poor PVP for scrubs too scared and too lacking for real PvP, but then I guess that is why I play Eve less and FPS more currently as I get more real competitive PvP than Eve, and I gues why Eve as so few players in comparision.
I agree with most of these comments with one exception. Perhaps a dead end 3 systems or so where newbs can live until their skills reach a determined limit then have to leave. To make it real in the sandbox we could say the stargazes restrict access to the "Newb Nursery" of sorts. The population would always have to transition to high sec. I completely agree that the sandbox is the reason for the game. As a 0.0 guy for the last 2 years I don't really care one way nor tother. But I can see a limited concession to new players safety.
oh oh i get it highsec bears…how about ccp gives u isk every time u guyz login. its pretty risk free isnt it…??! :
protip: if u dont like can flipping how about u join a mining corp and use industrials or orcas not shitty cans…
Itty 5 with 3 Cargo Optimizer rigs, 5 Cargo Exspander IIs, and a tractor beam can more than handle the logistics of a small(2-5) mining gang of exumers with darn near 50k m3. Think about it before you spam the partition button.
1 – LOL! Everybody, let's bot in safe empire, this will reduce RMT and botting, i'm seriuoz !!!11 Let's make it like WOW!
2 – A general lowering of prices will actually drive away people from Empire, because only with bots you would see any real income. Who, without a bot, would mine ice or minerals, if prices are low?
3 – Simply no. Just a group of crying brats can make a lot of noise.
Very retarded article, even worst motivations.
p.s. i live in 0.0 atm.
I the make "High Sec becoming a ‘PVP-free" a will lose all the respect to CCP
Higher rewards should mean higher risk. It's a simple philosophy that is completely negated by local announcing everyone who arrives into a system.
Oh i serously hope that you don't work in CCP. That would make me unsub my two accounts and buying a Type 59 real fast.
See you in WoT.
eve is based on being the ruthless and smart, if you cant hack it don't play.
This idea sucks
No it isn't, that it what some deluded adolescents think they when they play games like Eve, which are in reality simple and based on repetition.
So you think making high sec a PVP free zone will stop repetition and make it more interesting.
That doesn't add up , by the way don't take my comments so personally as it makes you look bad. Just saying
I didn't take your comment personally, I disagreed with it, MMOs are simple they do not require you to be smart, they are based on repetition, nor does it take much to be "ruthless" in a computer game where they are no real consequences, nor for that matter does ganking miners have anything to do with the notion of ruthlessness.
Where did I say it should a PvP free zone, I'll give you a clue I didn't. The issue I have with it is the risk vs reward is all out of balance, far too much in favor of the ganker. I gave one suggestion to partially remedy that at the bottom of this page, make Eve more realistic and don't payout insurance to those who lose their ship in the process of committing a criminal act.
Another suggestion would be to introduce a couple of tanky mining ships that are less efficient miners, but have a hull + slots suited to be genuinely tanky so they can actually take a beating as opposed to the feeble efforts to deck out paper thin mining ships as tanks. Hence miners would have to make a choice between mining output and reduced chance of being successfully ganked.
Both of which would still allow ganking of miners for those adolescents who aren't up to real PvP.
Also don't make silly assumptions it makes you look bad, just saying.
Don't know if you have a a issue with your memory but you stated in a earlier comment that i was a deluded adolescent, I would say that is personal.
My occupation in eve is a merc so understand that this does not affect me any shape or form.I don't suicide gank in high sec
I agree with your comment about insurance and maybe new mining ships is a good idea my disagreement is about making high sec completely safe ,nothing more
I stated "eve is based on being the ruthless and smart" was the thinking of deluded adolescent, quite how you think that is me taking things personally I don't know…
We succeed in eve despite the risk, nearly every other mmo out there no longer challenges me or my friends, hisec can be dangerous, you can mitigate that risk by using your brain by adapting, all of us here who have fought, lives and made our own place in eve we share an accomplishment that most mmo players can never achieve so I say this hoping that most agree with me..
You ever fucking turn my eve into this hello kitty crap and I will leave and never return, go back to wow with your riskless and lossless pvp, with your dungeon finder and lowest common denominator gameplay..
My second experience of pvp was a canflip, I got sooo owned rofl but it taught me some thing, some of the BEST pvp I have had lately was against pirates who came into my corps mission in Isikemi, bloody hell was it fun, tooth and nail combat at its best, they expected to skool some hisec carebears instead they found carebears with teeth and a nice little neut dominix sitting 1 million of ready to say hello, both pirates and us had great fun and respect was give.
Do NOT you fucking dare!
Speaking of amping up the risk. Have navies and concord pod kill bad security pilots. That should help reduce unwanted ganking, and still allow it for those hardcore dudes out there. If you can't get enough kills in low-sec/null-sec you're doing it wrong.
Why is everything so black and white with eve players?
IMO things like suicide ganking, and docking games have nothing to do with pvp anyway, but if fighting in high sec is really what you want you can always declare war, shoot somebody with terrible security standings, can-flip or challenge somebody to a 1 vs 1.
Have some balls and come to low/zero sec if you want to pvp, at least your opponent knows what you're up to and have a fair chance of shooting back.
but thats just it, the A-holes who don't want even 1.0 and .9 to be pvp free, are the people who don't like getting shot back at. There the ones who don't want to go and do TRUE pvp, they want to be able to kill someone without them ever shooting back and love collecting the tears of the ones who got ganked in local. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and its the very people who cause the crying are the ones who are crying themselves. Like I said, paybacks a bitch.
"small group of EVE players are bawwing hard, and CCP is listening" – wtf is this, what has it to do with (c)ccp?
Its all about game and profit, people are using game mechanics, tho for goons im not sure people is the right word, and they are counting with concord retaliation, to make moar isk in long term.
I
t has NOTHING to do wit boting, rmt'ng and csm'ng. This is example of using game mechanics, and this is ccp's favorite quote, and we all agreed with it in eula. And now those ccp retards, who instaleld mitani in csm, wanna move/bound game border and create " better enviroment for future eve players" by changing game mechanics !!
Why does it stink to ccp after someone didnt flush the toilet, and when cccp shits all around the same toilet, its like in mcdonalds ?
ps, and yes, goons are still gontards for me, and mitani is still rmt'er
SImple solution (or at least a partial one that evens things up a bit, but still allows for ganking) make Eve a bit more realistic, if you lose your ship through a criminal act (hi-sec ganking), you don't get an insurance payout.
You could join the eve PVE server and see how it goes….
Whatever you say – but it called "HiSec" – no one should be shoot down there . . . when you want pvp, searching for us in Low- or NullSec : ) . . . you carebearkiller – woar!
sure… but let's remove most of the highsec ores then, as well as the ice.
The big issue is actually that high-sec Eve players have no way to defend against many attacks as either Concord or the 5 friends of that guy will kill you. Once ppl realized that, the amount of high-sec harassment has dramatically increased over the years. Just go to Jita on a Sunday afternoon and count the ship kills and you learn that 0.0 isn't that violent after all.
I am all for CCP to fix that.
I agree that pirates shouldn't be able to insure their ships or receive their isk back when they commit a criminal act but making high sec a no risk area is a really bad idea. Botting would become out of control and that could hurt ccp and eve even more, not to mention the thousands of suicide gankers and pirates who might quit eve because a large part of eve would become off limits to there . No risk when playing eve, wheres the fun in that.
The flaw is the risk / reward is way out of balance in several ways. The cost to the ganker is minimal (they can even make a profit if they do it right), the cost to the miner is not. There is little the miner can actually do about it (particularly agiainst organised gankers that use cloaked ships to spot), hitting scan every 2 secs is not an option, the point of mining is a more relaxed playstyle (and the trade off for that is far less ISK).
Then there is risk / balance compard to running missions, mining in hi-sec earns around the same (a tiny bit more) than l3 missions, it is however a long way behind ISK per hour for l4 missions. Yet a miner is easy & cheap to gank, if you want to gank an l4 mission runner you need better ships, how on earth is that balance?
I spent a good portion of my life in hisec. I can attest that, yes, there were a lot of ganking attempts. I can also attest that, short of doing something to make them possible, they can all be avoided. Well, suicide ganking being a possible exception. Most can be avoided by inaction or certain actions. Most ganks happen when someone does something stupid or doesn't pay attention. Can flipping is annoying, but it shouldn't kill you. Best way to defend against Hisec harassment is thinking. Like this guy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U
eve is a pvp game there is no avoiding it. no pvp = no eve
EVE has problem with bots and RMT.
Solution : Let's give everyone equal oppertunity to run bots in perfect safety.
*facepalm*
We need a working bounty system first and then maybe, maybe, I might consider beefing up Concord even more.
That aside, insurance payouts to gankers is still silly.
Hot diggidy – if you want to play in a Nanny State go play Sims or something… This is EVE. Its about dangerous situations and the victory is about outsmarting the enemy…
As far a using "Risk-free carebearing reduces RMT" as a motivation for buffing High-Sec; Derp!
Stop treating the symptoms. Existing game mechanics is not the cause of RMT and making changes to it is short sighted. ppl breaking the EULA should be dealt with through mechanisms outside of the game. Inevitably your screwing the game for the majority to deal with the external minority.
Game Tip: How do you beat the Goonz? Join a Null Sec Alliance in Gallente space and mine ice in Null Sec…
hey riverini, screw ratting i can write bullshit like this all day long, at 50m a pop whadaya say?
If Hilmar wants CCP to start making more money, then yes, have a place where non-pvp players can do whatever the fuck they want.
EVE Online is NOT a pvp-only game. Its a reflection of would-be-life in space, with all its hazards and all its limitations. So yes, certain designated high sec areas should be pvp free. Considering the majority of players loves to pvp, these areas should however be with very limited borders.
The good thing about EVE is it's such a sandbox that it can deliver to the need of every type of player. If CCP is smart, they listen to ALL of their customers. Anyone paying for his or hers subscription has a right to demand things from developers. That's not a right limited to pvp peeps only.
If you don't agree, no one cares.
and en24 prooved once more that it sucks ass. if anything is breaking the game, its this gay trolling side and riverine.
because clearly you are forced to read it?
or because obviously it has a direct effect on the game?
and for god's sake, get a dictionary and learn to spell. side? prooved? you're making my eyeballs hurt. I'd expect more from his mom really.
The problem here is not that Hi-sec PVP should or should not be an option. Plainly it should be an
option, and pretty with the mechanics as they are (although I do think remote repping should make you inherit your targets aggression timer).
The problem is that new players (and hence new subscriptions) are driven away by hi-sec pvp. I think that the answer is to implement some kind of low-sec based pvp that is relatively n00b friendly. Factional warfare would be ideal.
1) Limit ship types and potentially numbers in FW plexes. e.g. current small plex lets in faction frigates (as they count as Tier 1), this means you bring faction or you loose. If there was a plex that *only* let Tier 1 frigates in that would be good for new players.
2) Make plexes (and system occupancy) rewarding both financially and potentially with other mechanics. So new players are actually encouraged to pvp, as they have fun and generate cash.
Once you have a method by which new players can get into pvp easily, I think the game will grow again.
I reckon a lot of griefing would die down if there were no insurance payouts when you get killed my concord. should be fairly simple to implement (check corp flag of killing blow). it won't remove the ganking altogether but it would simply cost more isk. ccp wants to have isk-sinks afterall.
as far as nonnews: I assume this is part of the drive to get bloggers to post opinion pieces here. might be nice to mark them down clearly as such so most peeps can ignore it. news should be based on fact, opinions should be ignored, unless they match your own
Wait, didn't anyone else think this was a troll?
I mean, nobody in their right mind would think this
I think its a great idea. It will make all the lame high sec gankers and pvp carebears come out and shoot people who know how to, and want to shoot back. All those high sec corps that want no risk war decks against indy corps are the only looser with this.
Get out
Risk free, no. There should be more consequences for those who do it in high-sec, though, including different kill rights (say whole corp or alliance can now hit that hi-sec criminal), a "hardened criminal" flag – > take progressively longer to recover sec, and/or a working bounty system.
This is not necessarily an anti-griefer issue either: make it less easy, less amateurs around, less ganking, bears get more confident and go out with more loot, and the griefing rewards increase.
i don't think high sec should be a pvp free zone but i do think miners need to get some help regarding suicide ganking. Being able to one volley hulks is a tad unfair to miners…. improve the miner's tanking ability & fitting options (more pg and cpu) would probably be enuff also t1 mining barges need more mid slots so they can actually fit a tank.
they would still be gankable but gankers would need to work in groups to alpha one.
Let's see, hi-sec mining earns around the same (a little bit more) as l3 mission running, ganking miners is cheap and easy. Yet a hi-sec L4 mission runner earns way more, are far more difficult to gank & require the ganker to spend more on better ships/equipment, where exactly is the balance in this game?
I guess there is a reason Eve only as 280k subscribers… (What is the real numer of subscribers once you take out alts? 100k?)
So CCPs response to something they cannot control in-game is to change the mechanics, yet when someone is caught "abusing" said mechanics they are reprimanded / penalized / banned? Hypocritical much?
Makes more sense to boost Concord response in those affected area's, even if Concord has to camp the ice belts 24/7 (23/7). But they are just NPC right, stupid bots…
Think about it this way, CCP (yes that means CCP should be raising an eyebrow). The sandbox has been written, to change it means you change the principle of the game. These types of moves will only cause you to lose players. Think of this lil problem In RL terms, i know it's a game but bare with me. You can't change the principles or laws of nature, we have to find ways around them. So if a city was to receive an upswing in bank robberies, would you make it so the banks cannot be robbed? No you can't, this philosophy is flawed as you can't stop people from doing whatever it is they are hell bent on doing.
more…
continued….
So you must respond to this type of activity, given the above scenario you would see a beef up in security, from local law enforcement as well as private industries in an attempt to protect banks and merchants as well as detour future heists in those affected areas. Is this flawless, no, but is a lot more effective than changing the way the game is played, at some point it will not be cost effective for a would be high sec assailant to continue their endevours as the response from authorities would be too great.
And if it's really that bad then give concord the ability to set a would be offender, Deklein and affiliates in this case, to -10.0 standing with concord so that they are popped on in gates until they cease hostilities by measure of a written statement to the players and concord. Both ideas are responsive in nature but both will work and stop this foolishness, as changing the mechanics is a RASH idea and not very well thought out.
~just 2 cents worth
In RL terms, insurance wouldn't payout to a guy who lost their vehcile through committing a crimnal act, the police (concord) would actively try and track down perpertrators after a single offence,not just at gates, but everywhere in their juristicition (hi-sec), mining companies would design ships that could defend themselves (or in the case of Eve tank effectively), criminals would not be allowed tofly about just becausethey are in a Pod, etc..
I like the way you think, revoke insurance contracts to those who get popped by concord. Why should they be reimbursed while committing a criminal act?
…another detourant to add to the list. Since players can't design ships, which is too bad, your second response is a back burner issue. (i'm not suggesting that mining barges be buff'd in their tankability, that would be a last resort measure, but still on the table of possibilities above chaning mechanics of the game.)
a pod is a pod, let them fly around in high-sec in their pods, no threat. As soon as they re-ship and undock, concord game-on.
Not happy to see eve going down hill so quickly. WoT is also going downhill, just not quite as fast.
Ok, fine. You want PVP-free land? Make it one system in each empire region where there is nothing but 1 station, 1 asteroid belt, 1 ice belt, and nobody can fly anything larger than a cruiser. There would only be lvl 1 & 2 mission agents there. If you want to do something profitable, you must wander out. I personally do not want to see this, but if it will shut the fucking whiners up, so be it.
What a narrow-minded small-minded bunch of idiots so many of you "hardened PVPers" are.
You may be PVP-hard, but your minds are a soft slurry of oozing moaning emotional sludge that dulls your intellect into the gray porridge fed to THX 1138, that you then spray all over any medium that offers you the privilege of commenting and contributing to a meaningful debate or discussion. UGH!
EN24-slamming; CCP-slamming; riverini-slamming, and the endless whining of you "hard" ninnies is the greater train wreck here.
Got your attention? Good.
EVE needs more players. More players means, eventually, more PVP. The griefing (harassment) of hisec noobs and rookies drives out players and causes them to give up (and while that could be a larger debate about player quality, the fact is that it's driving off players we and CCP need if this game is to survive). The frackwits who specialize in rookie killing and griefing are one of this great game's worst enemies and hold the game back from reaching a broader audience which when reached will enable so much more fun and…PVP.
Consider if you will those of you who are lackwitted pseudo-intellectual nincompops, that carebears will eventually become pvpers; there's no option for them but to do that, or quit and play something else because eventually you're an uber-miner/hauler whatever, but you're hooked on the game.
So now what are the options of the player who has reached this level of industrial skill? PVP.
And boy is that carebear player equipped for PVP, he can turn out more ships than you can blow up, you "hard" 'Pissythink Version of a Person-er'.
You won't lose PVP opportunities, you're just gonna have less opportunity to demonstrate your lack of PVP prowess and skill by preying upon the ignorant and confused. Poor babies, "losing my pvp" Pfft!
Jeez I'd like to see some more intellect in this group of so-called "PVPers" whose only focus is "PVP". EVE is NOT just a PVP game. That's such a limited and false perspective of what it is, that the dumbassedness of it is asstounding! [sic] and more boring than mining. Which is only really boring if your social skills are completely pixellated.
Requiring carebears to move into lower sec status systems to use some of the better ships (anything above Retriever for example) and with a higher target value, would also force so-called carebears into riskier situations and enable and empower more PVP. It's a simple, easily effected solution. "You want to have a hulk so you can mine more? Well move to a 0.5 system and you can have one."
Think in terms of solutions instead of whining like a bunch of emo-hype-babbies all plugging into the same mindless 'smackatrix' about issues and emote/agreeing with the first whine you read and then whining the same things over and over and over again. That's not a mind thinking and communicating anything new; it's just a reactionary blurt of sludgy goo that has no nutritional intellectual value and adds no substance whatsoever to a debate or conversation.
To the better quality posters and responders – good job. Keep it up. EVE needs more quality players with minds that work like you guys.
To riverini, Jester and the many other posters who daily keep EN24 running….great job! Don't be discouraged by these lack-witted moroffs (more-off on account of they're not more-on when it comes to their intellectual faculties). And to CCP, I admire your indomitable fortitude and spirit. I'll maintain my subscription and continue to support game development, in every direction possible.
If you really love your PVP, start being constructive in your criticism and support CCP with intelligent argument and comment. Cos if this great game dies, it won't be CCP's fault….it will be yours.
Wow, all I heard was "neeener neeener neeener neeener and codine, and god damnit you lil mother fucker if you aint got something nice to say then don't say nuttin' " EM-N-EM XD
…or as an intelligent arguement, the sandbox IS the game. Alliances and corps are formed because of these types of threats. So people band together (in high-sec as well) so that these types of threats can be opposed. Forcing a no-pvp game style in high-sec will diminish the overall affectiveness of the sandbox in this regard. Changing game mechanics in such a way that changes the game should not be imposed on it's players. And someone already stated, that if you are mining in an orca, or whatever the heck miners fly, you are NOT new to the game.
PVP is eve. You call out ppl for being narrow minded yet you show how narrow minded you are by thinking pvp is only about ship to ship combat. The best eve players (the ones who know what the hell there doing) know all aspects of eve can be considered pvp. pvp stands for Player vs Player. Your fighting the other guy to be the best at combat/mining/industry whatever your trying to do. So 90% of what your saying is just rubbish and shows you dont have the first clue on how much of eve works.
Now more importantly, the argument of removing ganking and such from high sec. The argument that there's nothing you can do to avoid it is false there are many things you can do to avoid being ganked. And even ways to fight back, you just need to get creative. However I do believe there should be some tweaks to the response time of concord and or as some have mentioned the denial of insurance payouts to those who have commuted a crime in high sec.
P.S
Side note, a bear maxing out bearing skills dosnt necessarily mean they will then turn to ship to ship combat thats not the only route for them. Once again you show your own narrow mindedness by stating that all will eventually join in ship pvp.
I see a number of comments about bots in hi-sec and I'm sensing hyprocriscy, how many big alliances rent out areas of nullsec and don't ask many questions as to where the rent is coming from, answer – quite a few, and I bet quite a few on here are part of those alliances…
Actually there is no HighSec anymore in eve. This will bring more damage to the game in long term than making so called "HighSec" more secure for miner.
The last time CCP made their decisions based on "what's best for the business", we got Incarna. Leave hi-sec how it is.
Hmm, so SNAFU ?? It can't stay this way, because "Eve is Real" or at least it should be.
So what happens in real life when someone gets harrassed ?? Right the cops will come.
So what happens in real life if this is organized ?? Right it is considered a crimimal organization.
Goons are behind this, so basically they harrass player within soverenity borders of a faction -> drop their sec status continuously, and if they dont stop ?? Well low sec is a nice place too.
If this is real life and Blackwater corp members start shooting cars/ppl in the streets of New York because the management says so, then I want to see ONE of you guys that says "Ohh thats Ok the world is a grim place don't do nothing about it".
Well I have 4 accounts I'd cancell if they did this.
IMO baning pvp completely would be a mistake (and this is coming from a carebear) but then i also don't like/approve of cowardly "pvpers" feeding their griefer addiction by killing would be eve players before they discover how awesome the game really is. When i ask around my friends who have tried eve, very very few keep on playing it, precisely for this reason.
I think a good solution would be to buff concord fx by giving them faster response times, letting them patrol belts in 1.0 (and maybe 0.9) belts and removing insurance on ships killed by CONCORD. This would mean that it would be harder and less profitable to gank n00bs but not impossible. Then, hopefully, we could get some more players for this great game and the sad ppl ganking in highsec might finally have their balls drop and go and do some real pvp in low/null/WH.
Also corporations would still have the option to go to war to fight over the good belts or just have some fun.
[...] following is a counter/response to the highly controversial opinion and discussion piece we published on October 29th titled “Evan Drakes – An Argument for PVP-Free High [...]
This is the worst idea in the history of bad idea's… Never ever take away PvP from any part of Eve Online and I'm a high sec miner with 4 accounts and I want those gankers there to keep my mining exciting and fun, I do not want a pvp free area, it makes high sec mindless grinding and it's why I've stopped playing other MMO's.
If u tanked ur hulk No cargo extenders + DC t2 + shield tank + shield extender rigs………cut productivty for safety less ganks will be sucessful not saying they wont try….
problem isent the ganker its the victim for allowing them selfs being a victim….
As a high sec miner, I dont agree with a High Sec PvP zone. However, the greifer corp attacks have gotten way out of hand. My corp has been under war decs for 8 out of the last 10 months. My corp has lost more money in this time than all the greifers corp who deced us combined. That is total BS. Why should it cost me more than it costs them. They are the aggressors. I say that CCP should raise the War Dec fees. 250 Mil percorp/500 mil per alliance for the first week. It should double on each week after that, so that by the third week it cost the aggressor corp 1 bil to maintain a War Dec against another corp. Wars are not cheap and CCP has went way out of its way to catter to the greifer corps. It time for that to stop. Stop patting the bullies on the back and start treating them for what they are. It wont change the dianamics of the game, but will create some balance. If my corp has to lose 500 mil or more per week, should theirs also lose something besides a meazzily 2 mil. As far as the Goon seige goes, Federation Navy should have step in and stopped it or why even have a faction navy at all. Why have faction navies if they do absolutely nothing in the game, but threaten to blow up people ships. CCP needs to recognize that having employees as apart of the Goonswarm is a conflict of interest to every other player in the game. If they dont do something soon, they are going to have more Rage Quittings, including me. I can spend my money somewhere else. CCP needs to stop making war so easy for the aggressor corps. Thats not realistic, just like having the Fed Navy NOT repsond to the Goon take over of High Sec systems is not realistic. If your going to claim that you are just trying to keep it realistic, then do so. Dont manipulate the rules, so that everything is to the advantage of one alliance.
yeah i dont like the idea, keep hisec the way it is, as a mission runner/miner i like the idea of being kept on my toes just in case someone warps in or decloaks off my 6. It makes Eve more interesting than WoW.
If CPP abolishes unconsented and unexpeted PvP in High-Sec, it looses one of its unique selling points and to my eyes major part of the core identity of EVE => much moaaaar subscribers loose faith in EVE than any cancelled account, which was cancelled due to the goon campaign.
Except that Eve isn't really a full sandbox it has numerous restrictions, limitations and limiting game mechanics (More than what I would call real sandbox games) that a player has absolutely no control over.
Someof which actually contribute to the problem, for example if ship building was more sandbox like (less limiting) and less bog standard MMO like (I.e – you could design / choose everything – just getting a certain numbe rof points to spend per tier), then miners could design anti-ganking ships that mined less effiecntly / had less cargo space, but were much more able to tank. Hence the miner would have a choice better mining vs less likely to be successfully ganked.