Completely onboard until the bold part (my bold). There isn't a problem. Don't change the game from what it is. Don't change it into something it isn't.

Then you turn around say there's a problem because hi-sec is a theme park where people can fly around... etc. If it is a perfectly good game then don't change anything.



OT but reminds of Obama in 08: Come, join me as we change this great nation of ours.. um, if it is so great then why do we need to change it?

No maam, I'm saying that people like the OP would be perfectly happy if CCP did something like make PvP non viable in high sec, because obviously high sec pvp is only happening because we're not forced to shoot at each other.

By doing that they're showing they would be perfectly happy if high sec turned into a themepark where you just fly around and farm all day with no worry about losing anything.

High sec is most deffinately not a themepark, and I hope that it never becomes one, because it would ruin the market and economic side of the game that many of us play EVE for.

So, GOONSWARM will unite all players under their Banner? Everyone will be blue, goons win eve.

Or will goonswarm pick on individual targets in attempt to enslave them? Denial of fun is something that EVE can deliver. Cloak + Dock.

Enslaved people will stick into NPC starter corps. They can't be war decced. Suicide ganking is way too expensive in high sec. Finally enough kill rights and enough noobships. People can be more cost effective at defense in high sec.

Goons don't want to make the game unfun, we want the game to be more fun.

The only people that think we want to make EVE unfun are the poeple that already dislike PvP. Those guys are the ones that want to make EVE unfun by removing high sec pvp.

No one should be able to hide in an an NPC corp to avoid pvp, and there seems to be a number of people who think that that is what the NPC corps are there for.


Maybe if some of these groups that are supposed to be dedicated to teaching new players in EVE stopped teaching people to dock up when there's a war dec so they don't lose a ship, fewer people would be complaining about how unfun it is to PvP in EVE, and they'd learn to be less risk averse in the process.

Trying to understand where you are coming from so please do not take offense, but I am pretty certian you told us yesterday you do not pvp.

I don't pvp, but my playstyle is dependant upon people getting blown up. EVE's PvE content isn't sufficient for ensuring people get blown up, and if people in high sec don't get blown up it adversely effects my playstyle in null.

A lot of people seem to think that high sec is high sec and that playing in high sec only effects high sec. It does not. High sec activity impacts EVERY area of New Eden. If you can fly around farming loot, and generating isk without any loss it would adversely effect the economy throughtout the entire game.

PvP is the only tool CCP has given the players to impact the ecoomy in high sec. Every time they make it harder to blow stuff up in high sec, it has an effect on aspects of the game that don't actually involve shooting other people.

Namely, my gamelay experience and play style.

No, but nice try. :)

Can you point me to the dev blog where they said high sec will ever be risk free, I would not mind reading this.

Goons don't want to make the game unfun, we want the game to be more fun.

The only people that think we want to make EVE unfun are the poeple that already dislike PvP. Those guys are the ones that want to make EVE unfun by removing high sec pvp.

No one should be able to hide in an an NPC corp to avoid pvp, and there seems to be a number of people who think that that is what the NPC corps are there for.


Maybe if some of these groups that are supposed to be dedicated to teaching new players in EVE stopped teaching people to dock up when there's a war dec so they don't lose a ship, fewer people would be complaining about how unfun it is to PvP in EVE, and they'd learn to be less risk averse in the process.

I've never said that CCP said that.

That doesn't mean they haven't been actively making ganking "harder" in the sense they they're making it require larger investments or harsher penalties on the agressor; which they have been doing.

Removing insurance payouts
Buffing mining EHP
FFA flags for "theft" (I do understand this is more about the baiting of people)
Public kill rights
Bounty system
Gankers are allowed to be profitable to kill, but not the person being ganked.

All that after the ganker is guaranteed to get blown up by an ominipotent force that they aren't allowed to fight back against.

They're pitching this idea that they want people to be "pirates" in high sec, yet they've steadilly implimented changes that make being a high sec pirate as much a pain in the ass as posible. The only reason you would do that is because you're attempting to dissuade as many people from engaging in such activities as you can, without coming out and simply removing high sec pvp.

They've said they will never remove ganking, but that doesn't mean they won't make it as undesirable as they possibly can untill the players themselves just stop doing it. This is my biggest concern. Not that they'll remove the potential, just that they'll make it so undesirable to do that only a very few people will ever do it.

It's like a polotician saying they won't raise taxes, or create any new taxes for the middle and lower class, and instead they eliminate tax breaks those people recieve. It's the same difference.

According to everyone else on the GD, there is already lots of PvP. So there is no way to remove it. Buying and selling is PvP according to them. So you have to be wrong in most of your post based on their definition of PvP.

You are saying fun is blowing people up or getting blown up (if I understand your definition of PvP). Not everyone wants that. That is the basic difference in most arguments in EVE. Some people think EVE is all about shooting/combat/blowing things up. Some people think EVE is all about everything else in the game. No one is wrong but it's how you define fun which causes the difference in opinions/sides.

So WTF is my point? We don't need any major changes. It's just fine the way it is.

(and I appreciate your thread because you are using PvP in the form which most people use it!!)

Unfotunetly PvP is the only activety in the game, where when people complain that it's not fun and something they don't want to do in high sec, changes get made to make it tougher.

CCP doesn't make mining less viable becaue, I imagine, the majority of people think it's unfun.

They don't make trading less viable because some find it unfun.

Manufacturing, invention, exploratioin, none of these things are made more tedious or less fun to the people that do enjoy those activeties, because other people find them unfun.

Interstingly, all those activities impact you whether you participate in them or not, but it's only pvp that gets screwed aroudn with because some peope think it's unfun.

We don't all have to like it, but we should all be accepting it because IT IS a part of the game.

Hey, some people don't like large scale pvp, or blobing, and they want CCP to change this. CCP has never limited the number of people that can engage in pvp at once outside of how many people the server can support in a given area; they infact developed technology to support "blobbing".

So...PVP flag?

So why not allow people to flag themselves as pirates? with the mining/indy EHP buff concord doesn't have to be *instant* if you fit a damn shield tank to an exhumer. and a pirate flag would allow people to attack said person without concord intervention. but if you do, concord's not going to protect you for taking the law into your own hands. ganking a freighter automatically sets you to open season in high sec and you start getting shot on sight. bonus if concord autotallys a bounty on your ass worth 20% of the hull you fly, in similar fashion to the belt rat bounties.

Make it a month-long cooldown without shooting some indy and you'll get plenty of PvP opportunity in highsec. wouldn't even need to shoot indys after a point.

Basically make suicide gankers effectively war targets. it would draw PvP their way, and bluntly 99% of the people they suicide gank will just whine and ***** and cry and say things are broken, while a few people like me would be gleefully fitting a megathron to chase you down and die horribly to the inevitable ambush you've arranged with your buddies.

Is any of this workable? probably not, I'm not a game designer. But I think things could afford to be a little more dynamic, rather than X + Y = CONCORDUKEN!

But there should be consequences for pirate lifestyles. Dont ask me how to balance them out because I suck at that ****.

Plus no matter how many people you please, there will be a vocal minority who will scream about how you ruined the game. I don't see a risk-free highsec as anything but completely boring and I hang there. Belt rats in a .5 system can't even break the tanks on my indy ships so they're automatically discounted as a threat.

So why not allow people to flag themselves as pirates? with the mining/indy EHP buff concord doesn't have to be *instant* if you fit a damn shield tank to an exhumer. and a pirate flag would allow people to attack said person without concord intervention. but if you do, concord's not going to protect you for taking the law into your own hands. ganking a freighter automatically sets you to open season in high sec and you start getting shot on sight. bonus if concord autotallys a bounty on your ass worth 20% of the hull you fly, in similar fashion to the belt rat bounties.

Make it a month-long cooldown without shooting some indy and you'll get plenty of PvP opportunity in highsec. wouldn't even need to shoot indys after a point.

Basically make suicide gankers effectively war targets. it would draw PvP their way, and bluntly 99% of the people they suicide gank will just whine and ***** and cry and say things are broken, while a few people like me would be gleefully fitting a megathron to chase you down and die horribly to the inevitable ambush you've arranged with your buddies.

Is any of this workable? probably not, I'm not a game designer. But I think things could afford to be a little more dynamic, rather than X + Y = CONCORDUKEN!

But there should be consequences for pirate lifestyles. Dont ask me how to balance them out because I suck at that ****.

Plus no matter how many people you please, there will be a vocal minority who will scream about how you ruined the game. I don't see a risk-free highsec as anything but completely boring and I hang there. Belt rats in a .5 system can't even break the tanks on my indy ships so they're automatically discounted as a threat.

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

Each faction is tied to another faction just like FW, but has it's own ruleset that only allows people to shoot each other from the tied factions. If you're Caldari you can shoot gallente people, and vice versa. Allow people to switch factions as long as standing allows.

And then nerf random ganking into the dirt so that people get a few months in the NPC corp to learn the ropes, and if they join a militia in high sec the only people they have to worry about is gusy of the apposing militia.

Have the navy respond to high sec agression between militia members instead of concord, and have the navy react with a size and force appropriate to the player force.

Have systems nearer the the interior of each empire have considerably higher navy presence to make them extremely difficult to enter.

Have guys that aggress more recieve lower standing towards the apposing miltia and the lower it gets the harder the navy force will be to deal with that spawns.

Keep lowsec the place that militias and corps can go to fight for control of systems for their empire. They could even tie the success of each faction in low sec to high sec by having higher navy prsence for the winning sides.

Have destroying high sec navies have some small impact on conditions in null, perhaps lower navy forces in low sec systems where lots of navy ships are destroyed in high for that faction.



I know that the people who use the NPC corps to avoid wardecs and minimize their expose to pvp wouldn't like it, but it would reinforce the fact that the empires are all at war, and that high sec isn't a safe place to be, while hopefully keeping to a minimum the number of peopel that are allowed to pvp in high sec to ensure people are being blown up.

Please note: Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.

So a complete change in the way the game is currently played?

I'd rather they just made it so that after a few months you are required to either join a player corp, or you have to pick a faction to play for.

+

Stuff

Quit trying to redefine things.

PvP == Player verses Player

This can be spaceship combat PvP, market PvP, diplomatic/political PvP.

If you can't stand being pitted against other players, then don't play a massively multi-player game.

Yeah...

It's more of a, "If I was going to do it from the ground up sort of thing" and not so much something "I think" they should do.


I think that the years of NPC corps might have had a slight effect on the way that some people expect high sec to work. As in, "I'm in an NPC corp, that means i don't want to pvp and shouldn't have to".

Mostly because I've seen people saying literally that in some threads.

If it had been done from the ground up to reinforce the idea that pvp is as much a part of high sec as it is any other place of the game, it's just a little safer here is all, then maybe people would "get it" more.

So when a player posts they want to learn how to PvP, you are going to train them to buy, sell and make stuff?