Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Miquela
Valheru Empire Science and Production Agency V3SPA Community
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:04:00 -
[181] - Quote
brilliant, not completely true but brilliant. and kudos for finding out how to kill them. |
Ines Fy
Heroes of the Past Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:04:00 -
[182] - Quote
OP has a point, so lets prove it by killing all miners and see what happens |
Bromothymol
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:05:00 -
[183] - Quote
James 315 wrote:Some words that are not words, but truths.
This man is the most beautiful man. |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:06:00 -
[184] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: It is amusing to see people who do everything they can to avoid losses complaining when they suffer losses. When you exploit a game mechanic to inflict losses in defiance of a game mechanic designed to control the level of loss you inflict, you should be expecting that exploit to get nerfed.
You have it backwards. Carebears do everything they can to avoid losses. Suicide gankers have a profession that by definition makes them lose ships constantly. |
Plekto
The Sp00n WHY so Seri0Us
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:07:00 -
[185] - Quote
I read it all, as should most people.
First of, when a player who has been playing the game for years longer than you tells you something, it might be a good time to at least take the time to read it. While it's grim, unpleasant, and sobering to read, it is unfortunately at least 90% true. He doesn't have it entirely correct, but it's correct in more than enough places to not change the overall outcome.
Eve is: Living And Dying In Space
If you cannot accept this core fact, you simply should play another game. All previous space sim games like EVE also had this core belief all the way back to Elite, the very first game of this kind. Space is dark, grim, foreboding, and it should be a dangerous place full of unknowns. If that scares you, get some shields, grab a gun, and maybe a friend or two.
Unfortunately...
CCP wants to cater to players who think all online games are essentially chat-rooms with stuff to do in the background. Kongregate in space, essentially. Pay your monthly fee for an online chat room. Because that's all my son plays. And all his friends play. Games like that. This is based upon over twenty years of online game playing and seeing many, many games come and go. CCP's direction is clear and likely won't change unless we unfortunately do much more than even he suggests. We simply won't affect the end decisions of CCP's directors and MBAs and programmers.
They are humorless, soulless middle-aged men who are in it for the money and their careers. Their agendas are entirely different than the players'. It's always been this way in gaming companies and always will be. So what does this mean for the players? If you watch the video on security from the fanfest, one phrase was repeated three times by the head of the department who is in charge of all of this. What was this?
"Death beams".
As in "instant death" by Concord. It's in the video - watch it and the context in which he talks about it. He's telling it to the people as if it's something what's in the works that he's not supposed to be leaking but is just to them. HE seems to like the idea and he's the guy in charge at CCP of in-game security.
He said it three times and its absolutely clear that we cannot win nor will we change CCP's mind on turning high sec into a separate non-combat server, in essence. And that's the goal - High is like a normal WoW or Everquest server and 0.0 is like a PVP server. With a tiny strand of low to serve as a zone between them, so the two "servers' act as one giant one. Sony is also certainly pressuring CCP on this as they absolutely never allow PVP and non PVP players in the same servers. And they have even less humor. To Sony, it's deadly serious business.
**** So what is the solution? I've been mulling this over for years in the back of my head as I've see the cancer grow. Something is dreadfully wrong with EVE and yet it goes beyond miners and all of that.
It's the idea that you can get something for no risk.
This is a space simulation game, after all. This affects high sec AND low sec. Both are entirely too passive and make isk too easily. In essence, all of the shiny objects in eve are easy to grasp and there's little risk. No need to go outside of either area. This causes the cancer - it's a stagnation where you have two equally dysfunctional communities side by side by never really interacting. Because you now have two entirely different player bases on the same game (and with Dust, a third!). What needs to happen is obvious. The best money and missions and rewards in eve need to be squarely in low sec where they force the two player bases to interact. Do it not with penalties but with real incentives - and let the players work it out, sandbox-style.
Basically what I propose is that all ores above veld and similar "basic" ores be the only thing you find in most of high AND 0.0. All of the rest is moved to low, with the ABC ores moved to 0.4. Incursions would only have the 1.0 multiplier in low. Not 0.0. Level 4 missions would force you to go into low almost always. Level 5 would be based in low (not 0). Most of the wormhole entrances would be in low. And so on.
There has to be risk for the rewards. You can mine or live your life like normal in high or low. Fine. I get it - I really do. But the best items and isk has to be nearby but just out of reach. It has to be at least a little bit dangerous to get rich. This would force high and 0.0 corps to fight over the resources in low and entice miners to low as it's just that ONE jump away... Pirates and bounty hunters would also get in on the action. Most of EVE would stay the same in high and low, and a good life could be had for either group of players. But the stagnation would be gone as you'd have to work and take risks to do more than idle through the month.
And it won't break the game to do so. We won't be seeing thousands of ships being blown up in a massive venting of rage that serves no real purpose. Yes, people are angry. But since we can't change CCP we can at least maybe get them to change the location of the best rewards and loot. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
658
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:09:00 -
[186] - Quote
Corbin Blair wrote:And I've been complaining about jump freighters, jump bridges and anything else with jump in the name just as much as I have about carebears.
Imo hi sec is the worst feature ever. Other PvP games don't have this crap.
Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec.
Hi sec is garbage to avoid PvP.
Wardecs are garbage because they add on the garbage which is hi sec. Suicide ganks are still garbage because they are another patch to hi sec.
In particular, hi sec introduced risk averse victims but also risk averse PvPers.
I am sure that if they removed hi sec, then the risk averse PvPers would stay permadocked and cry as much as their targets.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:13:00 -
[187] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:[quote=Stirko Hek]Any such mechanism will necessarily allow PvP-averse players to avoid wardecs, which is an acceptable contingency. An acceptable contingency for me to poop on. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1263
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:15:00 -
[188] - Quote
James 315 wrote:What is the alternative? Nullsec alliances, when someone enters your territory and attempts to take everything away from you, what is your response? Do you not defend yourselves? Do you not fight back? If possible, do you not kill them so they won't try it again?
No, what happens is a NAP, which will eventually be reset when one side gets bored of sucking on moon goo by the side of the ISK fountain,
Nullsec politics, drone poo, structure bashing, supercap proliferation, abuse of CONCORD avoidance and the desire of elite PvPers to avoid loss are what killed PvP.
If you are so convinced that CCP is changing the game due to the petitions of the carebears, perhaps you should play that game too: advocate for the revocation of the Unholy Rage buff to hisec ore spawns. Advocate for the transfer of all interesting ores to grav sites. Advocate for the tighter banding of ores to security status. Change the game out from under the carebears. They got rich and lazy because CCP wasn't watching just how much these people have exploited the loopholes.
I myself experienced some rage at the nerf to orcas in the last patch. I had become so used to the idea that I could invite anyone to my operations and they could take part as equals, that the inability for non-corp members to access the corporate hangars came as a complete surprise. What a shameful carebear I have become. I should know better than to invite people outside my corp to participate in the social activity of mining.
|
FastJack316
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:19:00 -
[189] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec.
Cynos and titanbridges are a huge source of risk in 0.0, though. It's a hell of a lot harder to be immune to the risk of a hotdrop than putting a scout in neighboring systems.
And if it wasn't for titanbridges and jump bridge networks we couldn't go roaming in Cobalt Edge halfway across eve while drunk and Deklein couldn't play host to roaming gangs from everywhere all the time. There isn't enough stuff or people in 0.0 to justify 'expanding' it by increasing travel time and even if you could you'd be removing conflict generators in doing so. |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:19:00 -
[190] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corbin Blair wrote:And I've been complaining about jump freighters, jump bridges and anything else with jump in the name just as much as I have about carebears. Imo hi sec is the worst feature ever. Other PvP games don't have this crap. Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec. Hi sec is garbage to avoid PvP. Wardecs are garbage because they add on the garbage which is hi sec. Suicide ganks are still garbage because they are another patch to hi sec. In particular, hi sec introduced risk averse victims but also risk averse PvPers. I am sure that if they removed hi sec, then the risk averse PvPers would stay permadocked and cry as much as their targets. I agree. My favorite MMO was Shadowbane. No more safe zone after the low levels. That's what high sec should be. Something to protect you while you learn the controls and stuff like that. You should have to leave after you're not a newbie anymore. |
|
Plekto
The Sp00n WHY so Seri0Us
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:20:00 -
[191] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corbin Blair wrote:And I've been complaining about jump freighters, jump bridges and anything else with jump in the name just as much as I have about carebears. Imo hi sec is the worst feature ever. Other PvP games don't have this crap. I agree.
But... unfortunately CCP has made it clear that the direction that they are going in is the way IT WILL BE. CCP is all about the money and careers and on on - it's a multi-million dollar *corporation* Unless we are pragmatic and start to speak their same language, we'll never get though to them.
We need to get CCP to change the risk/reward dynamic to be more honest and not to cater to either 0.0 or high. It's really the only solution that we have left since CCP simply won't do a 180 on their current path. |
Razgriz Shaishi
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:22:00 -
[192] - Quote
Read all of it, and I must say, I am amazed by the depths of your obsession. You have reached a new, never before seen level of obsession on the internet, and that is quite a feat. Now please register for residence in the nearest insane asylum. |
Valerius Kavees
Pilipino Corp C0NVICTED
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:26:00 -
[193] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec.
Cyno and JB are garbage?? please... Cyno and JBs are logistical structures! they are used for faster deployment of forces through out strategical vantage systems! and you say it killed one of the main factors of PVP?? IT IMPROVED PVP MORE! by telling this you are saying that there shouldn't be capital ships to begin with... |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:27:00 -
[194] - Quote
FastJack316 wrote:Cynos and titanbridges are a huge source of risk in 0.0, though. It's a hell of a lot harder to be immune to the risk of a hotdrop than putting a scout in neighboring systems. They allow you to 100% safely bypass gate camps. Hotdrops are yet more risk avoidance by people who can't handle engaging unless they can jump it about 5000% more backup than needed.
FastJack316 wrote:And if it wasn't for titanbridges and jump bridge networks we couldn't go roaming in Cobalt Edge halfway across eve while drunk and Deklein couldn't play host to roaming gangs from everywhere all the time. There isn't enough stuff or people in 0.0 to justify 'expanding' it by increasing travel time and even if you could you'd be removing conflict generators in doing so. They allow you to blob up your entire massive alliance almost instantly. I shouldn't even have to explain why that's a bad thing, but I'll give you a hint anyway. Notice how 0.0 is dominated by a few massive alliances now? It didn't used to be. It used to have more smaller groups. Cause, you know, they could come and take some space without a 1000 man instablob teleporting in. |
Plekto
The Sp00n WHY so Seri0Us
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:31:00 -
[195] - Quote
Razgriz Shaishi wrote:Read all of it, and I must say, I am amazed by the depths of your obsession. You have reached a new, never before seen level of obsession on the internet, and that is quite a feat. Now please register for residence in the nearest insane asylum.
So says someone with barely a year experience playing EVE. Unfortunately, most of you simply aren't old enough to have the perspective in this game like this man has, and so therefore are not really qualified to pass judgment on him. |
Valerius Kavees
Pilipino Corp C0NVICTED
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:33:00 -
[196] - Quote
Razgriz Shaishi wrote:Read all of it, and I must say, I am amazed by the depths of your obsession. You have reached a new, never before seen level of obsession on the internet, and that is quite a feat. Now please register for residence in the nearest insane asylum.
one doesn't simply say that without experience... |
Kitfox Mikakka
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:35:00 -
[197] - Quote
Whole lotta people in here who are mad. Mad about James 315 posts, despite them being goodposts. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1081
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:36:00 -
[198] - Quote
OP needs a girl avatar so my sexuality can deal better with how much I want to hug him. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
FastJack316
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:40:00 -
[199] - Quote
Corbin Blair wrote:Notice how 0.0 is dominated by a few massive alliances now? It didn't used to be. It used to have more smaller groups. Cause, you know, they could come and take some space without a 1000 man instablob teleporting in.
When I first joined EVE in 2007, five years ago, 0.0 was dominated by a handful of ******* enormous coalitions, so if you're appealing to some glorious pre-cyno balkanized nullsec I actually have no idea what it may have been like.
Even without titanbridges we still blobbed the **** out of everything possible all the time, we just spent ten times as long travelling to the fight and we'd hope the node didn't crash.
e: somehow I suspect that having an even smaller population density than 2007 it was mostly uninhabited |
Plekto
The Sp00n WHY so Seri0Us
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:43:00 -
[200] - Quote
note - for the record, if I had my way, Jita would go nova, concord would cease to exist, warp to 0 wold go away, and evey last bot miner and afk miner would get podded.
But it won't change CCP's goals or directions. Raging at the miners might work temporarily (until the next nerf), but the real goal needs to be that CCP *has* to make it so that the miners must do something to get their isk. Moving their best income to where they must engage with normal players and compete for it is not only fair but is also the ethical way to handle this.
But yeah, personally let Jita burn.
I just wish it would actually accomplish something. |
|
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:43:00 -
[201] - Quote
FastJack316 wrote:Corbin Blair wrote:Notice how 0.0 is dominated by a few massive alliances now? It didn't used to be. It used to have more smaller groups. Cause, you know, they could come and take some space without a 1000 man instablob teleporting in. When I first joined EVE in 2007, five years ago, 0.0 was dominated by a handful of ******* enormous coalitions, so if you're appealing to some glorious pre-cyno balkanized nullsec I actually have no idea what it may have been like. Even without titanbridges we still blobbed the **** out of everything possible all the time, we just spent ten times as long travelling to the fight and we'd hope the node didn't crash. And thanks to taking ten times as long people like my little corp could go out there and and do stuff without having people pull 200 caps out of their ass. Now you either bring a fleet capable of taking on the big alliances or join them. |
FastJack316
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:47:00 -
[202] - Quote
Corbin Blair wrote: And thanks to taking ten times as long people like my little corp could go out there and and do stuff without having people pull 200 caps out of their ass.
Frankly **** your ten man corp if means making the game miserable for my 8000 man corp. This isn't a point we're going to agree on, obviously, but I'm much happier with it being far more enjoyable to fight other giant coalitions at the expense of tiny corps not being able to take space.
I'm pretty sure wormhole space was made explicitly for the purpose of smaller corps having an opportunity to settle a frontier with unique, highly profitable resources that a tightly knit small group would have a dramatic advantage over, so I don't feel bad about 0.0 not being that place and don't think there's any reason for CCP to make it that place.
e: I like big space battles and I cannot lie, you other pilots can't deny that when a girl walks in with an itty bitty cyno and 2000 ships in your face you get sprung |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:49:00 -
[203] - Quote
FastJack316 wrote:Corbin Blair wrote: And thanks to taking ten times as long people like my little corp could go out there and and do stuff without having people pull 200 caps out of their ass.
Frankly **** your ten man corp if means making the game miserable for my 8000 man corp. This isn't a point we're going to agree on, obviously, but I'm much happier with it being far more enjoyable to fight other giant coalitions at the expense of tiny corps not being able to take space. I'm pretty sure wormhole space was made explicitly for the purpose of smaller corps having an opportunity to settle a frontier with unique, highly profitable resources that a tightly knit small group would have a dramatic advantage over, so I don't feel bad about 0.0 not being that place and don't think there's any reason for CCP to make it that place. Cause it's so fun living out of a POS. Let me build an outpost and maybe I'll give a **** about wormholes. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
658
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 08:57:00 -
[204] - Quote
FastJack316 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec.
Cynos and titanbridges are a huge source of risk in 0.0, though. It's a hell of a lot harder to be immune to the risk of a hotdrop than putting a scout in neighboring systems. And if it wasn't for titanbridges and jump bridge networks we couldn't go roaming in Cobalt Edge halfway across eve while drunk and Deklein couldn't play host to roaming gangs from everywhere all the time. There isn't enough stuff or people in 0.0 to justify 'expanding' it by increasing travel time and even if you could you'd be removing conflict generators in doing so.
I beg to disagree.
When I was alone I had to get to NPC Stain passing thru your sov (years ago). I got chased for 45 jumps by some particularly hell bent guys. Luckily I only found unmanned bubbles in the way and avoided others by warping to safes and planets. When I joined an alliance I went 1 jump in low sec, fleet warp to POS and Titan insta-ported us to destination, still "above" of your sov on the maps.
I can't call it "huge source of risk" and imo it's just sh!te.
Sure, "on fight" operations have indeed hot drops and my fleet has been nuked itself by carriers and crap because of it.
BUT
Hot drop is not really related to bridges, you can get hot dropped without them, it's 2 separate things, which I happen to despise both (expecially bridges). If you did not have bridges you'd actually risk being hot dropped WAY more, all the way to destination.
As for the conflict generation, imo in order to have a conflict you have to have warring factions.
When 0.0 was more "disconnected", you could have more and smaller entities in attrition instead of an handful of huge bored NAPs. Furthermore some of those smaller entities were varied, i.e. some were more industry focused. Yes it was probably before 2007. Last time I was there, instead, all I could find was pure PVP corps with no industry left. Industry was just left to a couple of officers, mainly for ships reimbursement tasks.
Now, if large 0.0 alliances did not come with their stupid strings attached (politics, stupid hours boring ops etc.). But they do, so only real fun for small 10-30 roamers corps is NPC or WHs now.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Stirko Hek
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:01:00 -
[205] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
As for wardecs and war evasion: CCP wants to find a mechanism which will prevent griefers from serial-wardeccing a corp. Any such mechanism will necessarily allow PvP-averse players to avoid wardecs, which is an acceptable contingency. As a serious PvPer, you know that you have the option to simply suicide gank the target.
Complaining about targets evading wardecs is basically saying, "I can't be arsed to suicide gank the target, because I am averse to losing the ships I necessarily must destroy to perform that attack." You are the carebear.
The new wardec system changes nothing. Griefers will still grief and continue to wage war against industrial corps, holing up in a station the moment any resistance is encountered. I don't know why CCP Greyscale is trying to fix it when it's necessarily broken.
Your post has many flaws and assumptions in it. Firstly, I have no problems with losing ships on a single gank. My expectation going in is that I will lose the ship, regardless. How does that make me a carebear?
Secondly, your concept of wardecs is, again, flawed. PVP-averse players basically want an escape function, the ability to just IDCLIP/IDSPISPOPD and run away from an ingame event with nothing to stop them, is your argument. Dear god, why? Why even bother playing EVE with that logic? My previous post had the point that fun and achievement are only felt when there is an actual risk component in what is being done. If there is no risk of failure or loss, then what victory or achievement do you even have?
I always considered that high sec should be a kind of "tutorial land". Many RPG's use this concept, the early points of the game are good for learning and character building, but as you go on both risk and reward in such a place are reduced.
The issue here is that we have an area where you are pretty much as safe as you would be in an early RPG start area, you can keep developing there as much as you want and the rewards actually rise rather than diminsh as you develop. Reward and risk should scale, but it would appear high sec miners want all the reward and none of the risk (via abilities to avoid war d |
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
132
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:05:00 -
[206] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corbin Blair wrote:And I've been complaining about jump freighters, jump bridges and anything else with jump in the name just as much as I have about carebears. Imo hi sec is the worst feature ever. Other PvP games don't have this crap. Cynos, bridges etc. are just garbage to avoid PVP and killed one of the main factors of risk in low and 0.0 sec. Hi sec is garbage to avoid PvP. Wardecs are garbage because they add on the garbage which is hi sec. Suicide ganks are still garbage because they are another patch to hi sec. In particular, hi sec introduced risk averse victims but also risk averse PvPers. I am sure that if they removed hi sec, then the risk averse PvPers would stay permadocked and cry as much as their targets.
I think you're over-generalizing what is generally perceived as risk averse PVPers. Highsec PVP differs from lowsec/nullsec PVP in the fact that due to the smaller gang size, the focus is more on being able to catch/kill everything that jumps through a gate rather than "can i run away from this situation if i get blobbed" and as a result the warfare has changed over time to reflect this. The reason highsec necessitates gank fits with neutral logi and sebo'd out heavy tackle is because the amount of time you have to lock down a target before he can burn back to the gate is much shorter compared to nullsec where you have drag bubbles that give you all the time in the world to take down a target. In nullsec, for example, you could kill a close range PVP fit BS that lands in a drag bubble 70km off a gate with a Rapier and minimal DPS through good piloting and range management because you have all the time in the world. In highsec, you can't do this because unless you can quickly thrown down lots of tackle, they can just gate crash and log off on the other side of the gate after jumping through clears their aggro and derez after a minute.
Anywhere else in New Eden, keeping eyes on the other side of a gate and warping off if you know you can't handle what is about to come through the gate is considered being smart, yet in highsec its considered being risk averse with a negative connotation. Why should I be considered a bad pilot who is "risk averse" because I know how my ship matches up against other ones and am good at recognizing bait?
Its a common myth that Highsec PVPers are the only people in EVE who only want "lazy/risk averse" kills, while nowadays even minor nullsec/lowsec alliances are able to cover an entire region with cyno alts and titan bridge blobs onto people. Using neutral logistics to hide your gang's fighting strength in a fleet engagement doesn't even come close to being able to having the ability to not only force project but also completely hide your entire gang over an entire region.
The moar you cry the less you pee |
Hikaru Kuroda
Shimai of New Eden
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:07:00 -
[207] - Quote
Go play WoW. |
Kestrix
UV Heavy Industries
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:08:00 -
[208] - Quote
I've not had time to read the whole document but I saw this.
Quote:The reason PvP largely went extinct in nullsec is that the nullsec miner went extinct.
Thats wrong, Null sec mining does happen and is very profitable. |
Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:11:00 -
[209] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:Thats wrong, Null sec mining does happen and is very profitable. Says the guy in the high sec corp. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
658
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 09:19:00 -
[210] - Quote
Pinky Feldman wrote: Its a common myth that Highsec PVPers are the only people in EVE who only want "lazy/risk averse" kills, while nowadays even minor nullsec/lowsec alliances are able to cover an entire region with cyno alts and titan bridge blobs onto people. Using neutral logistics to hide your gang's fighting strength in a fleet engagement doesn't even come close to being able to having the ability to not only force project but also completely hide your entire gang over an entire region.
I don't like that a lot too.
I won't bring in extreme examples I played like Darkfall Online (where you lose ALL including gold and you are only relatively safe in NPC towns).
I played other less intense PVP games a la DAOC or Warhammer, where PvE is lol more than EvE (and actually gets useless once you have got those 3-4 items, all the rest comes from PvP including gear and weapons). In those games you go out and kill or get killed. On open RvR servers at level 1 you can be killed right outside your camp, while questing, doing PvE etc, even inside instances.
In EvE "hi sec" I often team up with a mercs corp and protect certain people. Guess what if I see a known buttface I can't kill him. They are in NPC corps and immediately disband corp anyway. Plus they are many, can't be arsed to pick them all up. If this was a real PvP area I could kill and pod them in peace. A PvP area without the 0.0 burdens, plus unlike WHs it's packed of people and unlike FW / 0.0 little blobs. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |