| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 04:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nick Asir wrote:I dont think that CCP wants solo players. Why would you play solo anyway? Seems every aspect of the game is much easier in even small groups.
Because you can't trust any other player?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 02:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Not trying to light any fires, but, the current state of Eve encourages solo players. And I don't mean bots. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
79
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 22:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:
If you want to ramp up your isk in comparison and are not afraid of fleet/group play, might I suggest incursions then. Plenty of social, and lots more isk than L4 mission running. Also more challenging, and requires you to be more alert.
I think that is a little misleading. If you want to join an Incursion fleet you have to have a shiney ship, and fleet members who understand Eve terminology.
For instance: ' Vulture pilot, FC - E, seeks shield fleet'. The response? "Not enough DPS".
Doh.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
If the number of players who want less non-consensual PvP is larger that the number who want more, what does that suggest to you?
The 'hard-core' players don't seem to have any problem telling the less hard-core to quit whining. If the majority of the players didn't mind getting involved in the forum flame wars so they could have their say, who would be the whiners then?
Every issue has two sides, or it probably wouldn't be an issue. The current societal paradigm seems to be "Do what does the most good for the most people", as a guideline to make decisions about issues.
It appears to me that the hard-core players are a special interest group trying to dominate the discussion by making the loudest noises. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:If the number of players who want less non-consensual PvP is larger that the number who want more, what does that suggest to you?
If 9 out of 10 people think that 3+3=5, they're still wrong.
And that is relevant because . . . ?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
it all boils down to whether ccp want a popular game, or a good game. wow is popular but it isn't good, for example. 50 shades of grey is popular, but it isn't good. the list goes on.
What CCP wants is a profitable game. They don't seem to realize they have been shooting themselves in the foot on a regular basis while trying to get there.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
it all boils down to whether ccp want a popular game, or a good game. wow is popular but it isn't good, for example. 50 shades of grey is popular, but it isn't good. the list goes on.
What CCP wants is a profitable game. They don't seem to realize they have been shooting themselves in the foot on a regular basis while trying to get there. Thats implying CCP doesnt make profit. If thats the case, they wouldnt exist anymore. edit: removed the rest. no point trying anyway.
It wasn't intended to imply anything. Certainly not that CCP isn't making money. The game has it's good points, but it has bad points, too. CCP just seems to be listening to the vocal minority and expanding on the bad points instead of the good ones. My opinion only, of course.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:
Like with the minority comment. He only sees what he wants to see, projecting his beliefs even onto CCP.
I thought this whole thread was about who the majority, and the minority are. ??
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:If the number of players who want less non-consensual PvP is larger that the number who want more, what does that suggest to you?
The 'hard-core' players don't seem to have any problem telling the less hard-core to quit whining. If the majority of the players didn't mind getting involved in the forum flame wars so they could have their say, who would be the whiners then?
Every issue has two sides, or it probably wouldn't be an issue. The current societal paradigm seems to be "Do what does the most good for the most people", as a guideline to make decisions about issues.
It appears to me that the hard-core players are a special interest group trying to dominate the discussion by making the loudest noises. Why are you playing EVE? EVE doesn't have consensual PvP, it never has, and it's never been intended to have. CCP didn't make a game full of non-consensual PvP because they thought it would attract 10 million people. EVE has just as many people playing it as any other subscription baed MMO that isn't WoW. Are you the same guy that buys a Ford and then cries to Ford that it's not a Benz? What you're doing in EVE is just as stupid.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Karrl Tian wrote:Malcanis wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:If the number of players who want less non-consensual PvP is larger that the number who want more, what does that suggest to you?
If 9 out of 10 people think that 3+3=5, they're still wrong. Not if they beat up the guy who keeps pointing it out. EVE isn't made for the democratic majority. Some people in this thread aren't getting that. It is not made for MORE people, it's made for a subset of people. EVE is not marketted to the casual solo guy, or the hardcore PvPer. It's marketted to the sandbox player who wants a game built on interacting with other players. If you do not want non-consensual PvP, you're supposed to leave. The fact so many of you bads are here posting obviously means you want it. Otherwise you geniuses would have left a long time ago. You haven't though; you're here player, and saying it needs to be changed. You're here. Stop crying. It makes you look bad.
So you are saying that, when there are six people still paying for the game, all goonies, trying frantically to bump each other to death in their pods, your dreams will be fulfilled?
I don't think that is going to happen, for a lot of reasons.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Batelle wrote:
I'd also like to point out that you shouldn't confuse hard-core with solo player. Lots of solo players are hardcore, and do engage socially in the game. I know solo pilots that live in 0.0, I know hardcore players that play solo in hisec. And none of these things is a guarantee of weather they want more or less non-consensual pvp. You can't forget the casual ganker either.
I've been trying not to confuse hard core players and solo players.
I realize that there are hard-core solo players, but the discussion is about, I think, who is the majority, and why.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
WoW is made to try and appeal to EVERYONE, EVE is not.
I think that CCP would disagree with this.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
WoW is made to try and appeal to EVERYONE, EVE is not.
I think that CCP would disagree with this. i don't. pretty sure ccp agree with the whole "eve is a cold harsh place" and generally, cold harsh places aren't for everybody.
Even if it means more corporate personnel layoffs?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
i wasn't aware that a company that was able to fund a project like dust were also laying people off.
You must not have been around for the Incarna Disaster. :)
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
i wasn't aware that a company that was able to fund a project like dust were also laying people off.
You must not have been around for the Incarna Disaster. :) correct, i was not.
The point is that CCP, like most other corporations, is trying to reach their goal by successive approximations. Incarna nearly ruined them. I don't want to have to quit the game because it isn't there anymore. But I'm afraid that is what is going to happen if they don't start listening. Not to the vocal minority, but to the silent majority.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:EVEs' PCU record for Tranquility it's 63k users online, and that was right before Incarna. Retribution's record is on 57k, which was the record in 2010.
Albeit CCP may be enjoying more subscriptions than ever after relaunching the Chinese server (Serenity), the fact is that Tranquility has been slowboating on the verge of stalling after recovering from the Incarna drops. And that has come at a high price in marketing efforts to draw in returning customers and improve the initial retention of new players. More effort to stay in place is always the precursor of negative growth AKA going to hell. hmm i see, i guess i must have been confusing the number of accounts with the number online records etc. however, if the subscriptions are there, the funding is there, that means the bills get paid and the servers don't get turned off. *shrug*
The point that I'm trying to make is that, if they can't even return to previous levels of users on line, where are they going?
If they want to make this a total niche game, that's their prerogative, but is that good for either them or the player community?
I really don't want to quit this game, even though it has become a major disappointment, and I am preparing to shut down the 4th of my 5 accounts.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
i wasn't aware that a company that was able to fund a project like dust were also laying people off.
You must not have been around for the Incarna Disaster. :) Good example. EvE almost died when CCP released themepark/carebear expansions. The fact of the matter is, EvE is 10 years old and is still growing. The game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg, it's a niche game. That why we love it.
You're are missing the point. Eve nearly died after Incarna. Is that what you want to see happen again? Eve isn't growing. It's stagnant. Spend a few minutes on line each day and you will see that.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:EVEs' PCU record for Tranquility it's 63k users online, and that was right before Incarna. Retribution's record is on 57k, which was the record in 2010.
Albeit CCP may be enjoying more subscriptions than ever after relaunching the Chinese server (Serenity), the fact is that Tranquility has been slowboating on the verge of stalling after recovering from the Incarna drops. And that has come at a high price in marketing efforts to draw in returning customers and improve the initial retention of new players. More effort to stay in place is always the precursor of negative growth AKA going to hell. hmm i see, i guess i must have been confusing the number of accounts with the number online records etc. however, if the subscriptions are there, the funding is there, that means the bills get paid and the servers don't get turned off. *shrug* The point that I'm trying to make is that, if they can't even return to previous levels of users on line, where are they going? If they want to make this a total niche game, that's their prerogative, but is that good for either them or the player community? I really don't want to quit this game, even though it has become a major disappointment, and I am preparing to shut down the 4th of my 5 accounts. considering this happened in 2011 and we've only just got in to 2013, so it hasn't even been two full years, i think it's a bit early to assume they'll never get back to player levels they had back then. i don't think turning it in to a niche game is an issue, provided there is enough demand for said niche. just out of curiosity; what is it that's disheartened you so much about the game that you've been canceling some of your accounts?
Non-consensual PvP in Hi Sec, to be honest. I've spent too much time and too much ISK on training those other characters. I don't feel like dangling them out there to entertain 1%ers.
I think you would be surprised to find out how small the niche is.
Not assuming anything. They could do it a lot faster and a lot easier, though.
I suspect that the summer expansion is going to be a mini-Incarna. They seem to be incapable of learning.
I'm not incapable of learning, I'm just incapable of accepting things I know are cow poo.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Corporate personnel layoffs caused by trying to cater to the solo, casual player through microtransactions and single-player activities. CCP learned its lesson from that, a lesson it soon won't forget.
I think you need to read a little more about the Incarna Disaster. It had nothing to do with the majority of the players. The Solo players.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
i wasn't aware that a company that was able to fund a project like dust were also laying people off.
You must not have been around for the Incarna Disaster. :) Good example. EvE almost died when CCP released themepark/carebear expansions. The fact of the matter is, EvE is 10 years old and is still growing. The game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg, it's a niche game. That why we love it. You're are missing the point. Eve nearly died after Incarna. Is that what you want to see happen again? Eve isn't growing. It's stagnant. Spend a few minutes on line each day and you will see that. No, the EvE player base is growing. Also i want to play EvE Online, the sandbox mmo-rpg, not EvE Online, the themepark space game. EvE is a niche game, that why we love EvE, that's why we play EvE, that's why EvE is still growing after all this years.
I would suggest that you quit then. If CCP ever gets their heads out of there ****, there won't be a place for you.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:
So you are saying that, when there are six people still paying for the game, all goonies, trying frantically to bump each other to death in their pods, your dreams will be fulfilled?
I don't think that is going to happen, for a lot of reasons.
Do you not WANT non-consensual PvP? Non-consensual PvP is an integral part of EVE and the economy. The entire game is built around it. EVE has a "real" economy BECAUSE it has non-concensual pvp. It's a poor player driven market that doesn't have non-consensual pvp. You appear to advocate the removal of non-concensual pvp. Yet, you're playing EVE and it has non-consensual pvp. You must understand, there are people who play eve who aren't interesting in the pvp, but we don't care that it's there. Just because we are not the majority of gamers doesn't mean we're some tiny segment. "Carebears do not like PvP" is a lie. Yes, they absolutely do. I got to watch first hand what happens when you give a bunch of carebears a reason to fight, in another game. They started slaughtering each other left and right; for a ******* title. Do not tell me carebears do not like pvp, and will not engage in it if it's worthwhile and meaningful. I watched carebears on a WoW PvE server, run around and kill each other in droves, to collect honor points to spend on gear, and a title. Anyone who plays EVE and complains about non-consensual pvp is a bigger ***** then a world of warcraft carebear on a PvE server. It's just sad. PS: And I'm talking about before WoW ever introduced battlegrounds and dishonor points.
Sorry. You are on the wrong end of the stick. The majority of Eve players probabaly don't want you around at all.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Corporate personnel layoffs caused by trying to cater to the solo, casual player through microtransactions and single-player activities. CCP learned its lesson from that, a lesson it soon won't forget.
I think you need to read a little more about the Incarna Disaster. It had nothing to do with the majority of the players. The Solo players. People like the OP, a solo player advocate, are also the greatest defenders of the Incarna expansion and the biggest champions of its continued iteration. That is not a coincidence. Incarna, and its predecessor Tyrannis, were great examples of the folly of catering to the solo player, the casual carebear. And when one of them asserts their claim to the reigns of New Edene, it behooves ye to caste them out.
What have you been smoking? :) |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'm sure I don't fit your mold, and lots of other play eve who are just like me.
WIS? To quote a few words from a song from the 1960s. "What is it good for?"
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Sorry, Mara, but your opinions are pretty much irrelevant. As a 'Yes' person for CCP, you are doing well, though.
You missed the point totally. It's not all about YOU. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Don't get started on mining. It isn't what the thread is about, and I doubt that most of you know anything about it, no matter how many Orcas you have. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Drakthon wrote:
If you want to go big, go rat in a carrier for funsies, watch the 34m tickers roll in every 5 minutes then come back and tell me level 4 missions are more profitable. Same as above, it's not going to happen.
I've never even heard an extreme braggart claim more than 20 mil every 12 minutes. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 01:38:00 -
[27] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: In otherwords, you want CCP to remove all non-consensual PvP.
You're a bad.
Totally wrong. You just don't see the big picture, do you?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 01:44:00 -
[28] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: In otherwords, you want CCP to remove all non-consensual PvP.
You're a bad.
Totally wrong. You just don't see the big picture, do you? I get it. "EVE is dying" and you can save it by removing PvP from high sec. Because you're a bad.
Reading is one thing. Comprehending is another. :)
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
81
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
First off, I don't think I have ever said, anywhere, that all non-consensual PvP should be taken out of the game. If i did, sorry. Cutting all non-consensual PvP wouldn't solve the problem. (It would be interesting to see what it would do, though.
Returning to the theme of the thread, IMHO, the current game mechanics seem to me to attract players who are not player friendly. For instance, I travel a lot and watch local chat. I may go months before I see any one say or do anything friendly. The majority of what is posted in those channels isn't even civil. No. I'm not advocating that the chat channels be moderated.
But look at the chat channels from a new player's view, or even an experienced solo player. If they don't watch the Forums, and most people don't, the chat channels are probably where people get an idea of what the game is really about, and who is in it with them. So ask yourself when was the last time you saw something in a local chat channel that made you want to join a group for something?
The problem isn't the chat channels, or non-consensual PvP, or a lot of other things. It appears to me that the problem is the mindset of the vocal minority of the players. Scamming, ganking, griefing and piracy aren't for everyone. If that is what you do, then you need to realize that you may have trouble finding people who want to quit soloing, and do it with you.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
81
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:First off, I don't think I have ever said, anywhere, that all non-consensual PvP should be taken out of the game. If i did, sorry. Cutting all non-consensual PvP wouldn't solve the problem. (It would be interesting to see what it would do, though.
Returning to the theme of the thread, IMHO, the current game mechanics seem to me to attract players who are not player friendly. For instance, I travel a lot and watch local chat. I may go months before I see any one say or do anything friendly. The majority of what is posted in those channels isn't even civil. No. I'm not advocating that the chat channels be moderated.
But look at the chat channels from a new player's view, or even an experienced solo player. If they don't watch the Forums, and most people don't, the chat channels are probably where people get an idea of what the game is really about, and who is in it with them. So ask yourself when was the last time you saw something in a local chat channel that made you want to join a group for something?
The problem isn't the chat channels, or non-consensual PvP, or a lot of other things. It appears to me that the problem is the mindset of the vocal minority of the players. Scamming, ganking, griefing and piracy aren't for everyone. If that is what you do, then you need to realize that you may have trouble finding people who want to quit soloing, and do it with you.
Except that is not the "vocal minority". That is the target audience. By your own observations stated in that very post, the vast majority of what you see is "unfriendly". That's EVE bro.
Are you saying that no effort should be made to bring the soloers into the fold, or to make the game more survivable by new players?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
82
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
I should leave your post alone. It speaks volumes about you, but . . .
I've lost more than a hundred ships. One of my characters may have the worst killboard record in the game. So far that hasn't made me quit all the way.
But you need to realize that I don't pay cash for PLEXes to buy my ships with. Each one of those ships represents hours of effort that I have put into the game to earn ISK. Yes, ISK is play money, but the effort involved in earning it is little different from the effort involved in making real money. The office is just in a much worse neighborhood. :) |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote: I should leave your post alone. It speaks volumes about you, but . . .
I've lost more than a hundred ships. One of my characters may have the worst killboard record in the game. So far that hasn't made me quit all the way.
But you need to realize that I don't pay cash for PLEXes to buy my ships with. Each one of those ships represents hours of effort that I have put into the game to earn ISK. Yes, ISK is play money, but the effort involved in earning it is little different from the effort involved in making real money. The office is just in a much worse neighborhood. :) If each ship costs you "hours of effort" you suck at EVE. I have billions upon billions of isk I could spend on ships, and I put in very little effort to get it, without having to buy any plex to do so.
If you don't have to put any time or effort into your ships, I can understand why you are so eager to throw them away. But not everyone is like that. It's not all about you.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:49:00 -
[33] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There needs to be more reason to be out in space (even when there are aggressors) rather than just docked. Perhaps as something that could potentially work as part of the mythical pos revamp - make it far more desirable to have your own little tower (in highsec that is), and make it so players may actually want to spend more time "living in it" rather than just flying to it occasionally to flip on switch for research or whatever. Make it matter much more if someone decced you (you wouldnt want to lose it to them blowing it up, or abandoning it by jumping corp)
How do you think that is going to decrease the number of solo players?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:53:00 -
[34] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There needs to be more reason to be out in space (even when there are aggressors) rather than just docked. Perhaps as something that could potentially work as part of the mythical pos revamp - make it far more desirable to have your own little tower (in highsec that is), and make it so players may actually want to spend more time "living in it" rather than just flying to it occasionally to flip on switch for research or whatever. Make it matter much more if someone decced you (you wouldnt want to lose it to them blowing it up, or abandoning it by jumping corp)
How do you think that is going to decrease the number of solo players? There's no reason to decrease solo players.
Well, maybe not, but I kind of thought that was what this thread was about.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 18:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
There are two barely on-topic things I would like to bring up.
I don't play the same game that the 1%ers do. I use the same server, but don't play the same game. I don't want to and there is nothing to force me to do it. I enjoy doing constructive things, like mining, manufacturing, and, yes, null sec anti-pirate roams. I will continue until CCP makes it impossible, because that is what I enjoy.
I know for a fact that I am not alone.
Second, I'm not sure where all the talk about people holing up in station due to war decs comes from. I've had a number of corporations over the years. I stopped counting the number of times they were war decced at 16 for some reason. During those war decs, I don't think I ever lost a ship, or paid an ISK. My definition of war decs doesn't have anything to do with killing anyone's ships, especially mine. I believe that the winner is the one who maintains their income during a war and doesn't lose anything, especially the fee you have to pay to maintain the war dec.
I don't stay in station. I don't need to. I've been doing this too long to not know how to deal with extortionists and other 1%ers. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ana Vyr wrote: I did the whole alliance corp nullsec deal way back about four years ago and found it really not to my liking, people were dishonest, teamspeak was required, and we were expected to dance to somebody elses tune. I just don't have the time for that, but if that's what makes you feel happy, I have nothing against it at all.
This is the best description of the whole Null Sec experience I have ever seen. I applaud you.
Not all people who prefer Hi Sec do so because they have never been to Null. Many of the prefer Hi Sec because they have been to Null, and it is just as Ana stated. (Based solely on the year that I spent there.)
Someone else was talking about the financial benefits of being in Null Sec. As for mining, no one seems to mention incidents like a corp trying to keep 700,000 units of Compressed Zydrine, because it was worthless. Hmmm.
Plexes? I ran some when I was out there. For me, the big difference between running complexes and running Level 4s is that I don't like running complexes. Level 4s I don't particularly enjoy, but I don't dislike them.
The amount of ISK available is NOT a good reason to move to Null Sec, for me, and it wouldn't be even if CCP nerfed the ore.
Null Sec is basically for a special kind of people. Most are so special that they risk their ships every time they leave Null. I have no desire to be one of those people, and no one can force me to be one. I do just fine with my limited means and aspirations. :)
Once again, I strongly suspect that I am not alone. As a matter of fact I suspect that there are more players who feel the way I do, than there are players who want to be 1%ers.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:18:00 -
[37] - Quote
Newt Rondanse wrote:
So, what's your take on the need for a place where people can fail at EvE without being pushed out of the game completely?
I'm sorry, but I don't think that is going to get you a polite response.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:(usual l33t PvP bitching-bragging about how EVE is too safe). As usual, you left out another important part: if you burn my house, I will kill you so you don't have any chance to burn it again.
That might be considered anti-social behavior, but that's also what I would do.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:02:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
But a game that calls itself hardcore should never promote failure. Failure in eve comes at a steep cost, and that's part of what makes EVE great. It's sad that some people don't accept that.
The problem is that a failure early on drives a lot of people away. Suppose you have a Trial Account and you are doing tutorials, and you get your first real frigate. You undock and have an instance of non-consensual PvP.
You've got nothing invested in the game except hopes. What incentive is there to try and find out if you could be the most successful Eve player ever, in whatever field you choose?
I'm not sure what I would have done if I had lost my first real ship on my first day in the game. They didn't have the "This Is How To Lose A Ship' tutorial then.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:07:00 -
[40] - Quote
Newt Rondanse wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Newt Rondanse wrote: So, what's your take on the need for a place where people can fail at EvE without being pushed out of the game completely?
High Sec already exists. Kidding aside, The whole game is a place where people can and do fail (I know i do, like the time i auto piloted an empty frieghter to jita and went to sleep...... .....without bother to check if my alliance at the time was war-decced....... But a game that calls itself hardcore should never promote failure. Failure in eve comes at a steep cost, and that's part of what makes EVE great. It's sad that some people don't accept that. I think that's mostly the point of highsec, and the point of the way NPC faction content is setup. Even if someone fails at the game completely they can pick themselves back up in pretty short order.
Only if they want to. Only if they didn't lose the desire to play this particular game. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:25:00 -
[41] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
the problem isn't really to do with the profitability of ores in regards to low sec mining, it's just that low sec is a **** environment to mine in.
In my half-vast experience, the only sensible use for Low Sec is as a pathway to Null Sec. :) |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:58:00 -
[42] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
i wouldn't disagree with this comment. then again, there are places where high sec goes directly to null. pretty sure i accidentally stumbled across one when going from scalding pass to jita once.
More fool me. I always did Scalding Pass to Sasta. Oh well. 
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
84
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 22:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
Marius Deterium wrote:People who play multi-player games solo are idiots.
People who complain about other people, who play their own game on the same server you use, are also idiots.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 00:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Davith en Divalone wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
But a game that calls itself hardcore should never promote failure. Failure in eve comes at a steep cost, and that's part of what makes EVE great. It's sad that some people don't accept that.
The problem is that a failure early on drives a lot of people away. Suppose you have a Trial Account and you are doing tutorials, and you get your first real frigate. You undock and have an instance of non-consensual PvP. I thought I read somewhere that griefing trial accounts and people in tutorial systems was one of the few no-nos of this game. And I suspect that suicide ganks of cheaply-fitted frigates are relatively rare. There's no profit in it, and I've read no screeds promoting it. For that matter, suicide ganks of transport and mining vessels appear to be uncommon compared to the number of people using those ships.
It sounds like you haven't been playing for very long. But I have no way to know. Believe nothing that CCP says, nothing you hear in local, and half of what you see. It won't help you, but it's the best noise filter I have found.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 00:19:00 -
[45] - Quote
Marius Deterium wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:Marius Deterium wrote:People who play multi-player games solo are idiots. People who complain about other people, who play their own game on the same server you use, are also idiots. No, if you log into a massive scale multiplayer game with the intention of playing by yourself, then you are stupid. Why not just play X3?
Because we aren't the ones who are stupid? Just a question.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 00:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:(usual l33t PvP bitching-bragging about how EVE is too safe). As usual, you left out another important part: if you burn my house, I will kill you so you don't have any chance to burn it again. Usual troll who doesn't know who they're talking too. Find me on a killboard, then come back and apologize for your rediculously stupid assumption, based entirely on the word under my name. PS: That's kind of the point of burning down your house genius. Now try and find me on a killboard.
Are you talking about a RL killboard? Don't fool yourself, or be a fool.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 00:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tebb1288 wrote: Except if they were worth 50% or 100% more than I would have to consider mining them. I mine in high sec. 20% more isn't enough to make me leave for lowsec. or nullsec. The increase in profit has to outweigh the risk of loss, or else it is not worth doing.
I take it you don't do anything in high sec except grief people? If you took a minute to understand why people stay in high sec you could understand what it would take to draw us out.
Also, I do have an alt to suicide gank miners. Not because it is fun, but because killing someone else mining in my belt and having that ore to myself outweighs the cost of losing that ship.
I have mined everything everywhere. Low sec is not a matter of 50% or 100%. It's a matter of being able to do it or not. Doing in low sec means giving up on any kind of AFKing (a big factor miners appreciate a lot, to the point of mining ice instead of 400% more valued minerals). Plus you give up on soloing and that's another big "no" factor for a casual / solo miner. The minimal setup that worked for *us* was: 1) Go in a one entrance only quiet low sec system, away from FW routes. Not many of them. 2) Send PvP guys to scan and close down WHs. 3) Send a cloaky alt beyond the gate to warn about incoming ships. If too many came, all had to promptly dock. 4) Place from 3 to 5 ships camping the gate, depending on availability of infinipoints. Have enough people to guard the gate for the whole mining op duration. 5) Congratulations, now - if you really stay on your toes - you are relatively mining in peace on roids that are barely better than hi sec (but much larger). As you see, you have to split the income with all those guys, you had some heavy logistics (we had to weekly organize 5-7 freighters trains for 7 low sec jumps to hi sec nearest hub, we had to field 30-50 ships to escort them). What kind of better yield / quality / % premium would you need vs hi sec to make it worth? Certainly not just 50% nor 100%.
Exactly. Very well said, again. :)
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 01:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I won't get the enjoyment of being fail-hunted on a single player game.
Maybe not, but it might be a better place for you anyway. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 01:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Not Politically Correct wrote:
Are you talking about a RL killboard? Don't fool yourself.
You could at least try and be funny. Thinking and doing are two different things.
Apparently not for goonies.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 01:48:00 -
[50] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:I'M THE MAJORITY !!
Sounds a lot like "I, me my", to me. A legend in his own mind. All hail . . . whatever his name is. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 01:56:00 -
[51] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:
You'll just keep proving that i'm right.
I'm helping to prove that you are the majority? Hmmm.
As far as I know, you have a single personality. In order for that singles personality to be the majority of players in the game, it would have to be the only one, since the only whole number less than 1 is 0. Where are you going with this? Almost all of your posts have been off topic. What are you really trying to say? |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 02:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:I'M THE MAJORITY !!
edit: sorry, i edited my post above and you responded to it before i was done. you might want to adjust yours too. otoh, it doesn't matter.
You'll just keep proving that i'm right. That you really hate all of us and that you are far superior to any of us, because ...
... Ignorance is Strength, right ?
I don't hate anyone, especially in game. There are a lot of people I don't respect, and a lot of people I would avoid, given the opportunity, but you are trying to push the wrong buttons here. I would never loan you my lawn mower, but I don't hate you.
And, 'No.' Ignorance is bliss, not strength. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:31:00 -
[53] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
With all due respect, i think you are playing the wrong game.
It doesn't really matter. It's the only game I play and I will continue to do so. I just won't maintain as many accounts as I did when I felt that things were 'better', whatever that means.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 21:10:00 -
[54] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:I just started reading the CSM winter minutes. On page 10, fourth paragraph. CCP Unifex. Quote:the lurking single players who are already subscribed, are the majority of characters on Tranquility. The "lurking single player" makes the biggest group of characters. Characters. x players have y characters, with x being in between 0 and y-1, btw. y represents the sum of all characters. As was pointed out in the minutes, they can't reliably tell how many characters a player has. The quote above means that most players have solo playing characters in their character slots. It does NOT mean that in EvE, solo players are the majority ! Why, i hear you ask ?? Because the solo character can easily be an *alt* of the player who heavily socializes ! This thread now dies. Please change your title, it's officially wrong.
What you are suggesting is that no 1%er has an alt. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. I believe that 1%ers have more alts than the average Eve player. How else could they finance their PvP losses?
But, let's assume that 1%ers and solo players have the same number of alts per player.
Ooops. You lose. I think the title is fine.
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 21:11:00 -
[55] - Quote
BTW, you FINALLY took a look at the minutes? No wonder so much of what you have posted has been off topic. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 21:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ghazu wrote:^ lol roleplayers
Are you trying to say something about the topic? Or was this a mis-post?
|

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 04:25:00 -
[57] - Quote
Ryuji Takemiya
And besides, you meet the most interesting people in low sec. [:pirate: wrote: And this is the weird part... after they blow up your ship, some of them will even give you advice on how to be better prepaired next time.
There is nothing interesting in Low Sec. I've been there. There isn't much of anything in Low Sec except people who can't make it in Null. I've been there, too.
I would be willing to bet that you have never given or received advice on ship fits after losing one, or killing one. Another urban myth.
Bottom line is there are two possible interpretations of 'GF'. Think about it. |

Not Politically Correct
Veerhouven Ventures
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 14:42:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ryuji Takemiya wrote:
Seriously? You've never blown someone up, seen their fit, and been like... 'That poor guy needs help. I'm going to deposit some good karma with the Universe and offer some advice. Maybe make a new friend'.
The only ships I blow up are Concord red. No. I don't want the pilot as a friend. No. I don't want to help him improve his fit.
|
| |
|