Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:51:00 -
[451] - Quote
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:56:00 -
[452] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?
Actually it gets easier, even without insurance the money spent will be at best equal to the current state.
Unless we are speaking about 5 mil ISK, dessie, which is quite pointless honestly. |
Drakarin
Paladin Nine Eternal Pretorian Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:01:00 -
[453] - Quote
It makes logical sense, because no police force would allow an insurance payout to a criminal they just destroyed.
Imagine for instance you were in a death match race with another car and won but it was unprovoked. The police arrive and as punishment destroy your vehicle. Do you honestly think they would allow the insurance company to pay you anything? Of course not.
It makes no sense at all that you get insurance all the time, let alone from breaking the law. Personally, I say remove insurance entirely. It's one HUGE isk faucet and makes the game much easier. |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:01:00 -
[454] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?
No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:02:00 -
[455] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff?
in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.
It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.
If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:04:00 -
[456] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.
Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care and how much you aren't crying about it . |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:04:00 -
[457] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.
Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post.
Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ???
Just cant get it.
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:06:00 -
[458] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it.
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:07:00 -
[459] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:baltec1 wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting. Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care .
Im waiting for night to finish on minecraft so I can get back to building my temple without the creepers getting me |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:15:00 -
[460] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote:Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. See post 426 above.
Quote:That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (GÇ£freeGÇ¥ as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games.
Quote:After reading the QEN and finding out that 75 [percent] of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. There are quite a few ways to slice that number, and you should not that it does not count playersGǪ
Quote:Can I have your stuff? Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:15:00 -
[461] - Quote
useless ******* forum software GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
228
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:20:00 -
[462] - Quote
I'm gay. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
158
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:21:00 -
[463] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.
Please remove it as well. Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Victor Fenris
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:25:00 -
[464] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!
GJ CCP Victor Fenris
To the victor goes the spoils.... To Victor, not you!!!! |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:33:00 -
[465] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Inbrainsane wrote:Botters rejoice. Botters already rejoice, they rent space from alliances, plus of course plenty of "PvPers" use bots, the number of hypocritical nulltards is hilarious.
Mostly known as Goons lol They have ppl IN CCP and ppl are surprised they get away with it? Lol Goons have BECOME BoB so... if Goons won EVE but Goons are the same as BoB were... BoB WON EVE
Victor Fenris wrote:
Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!
GJ CCP
lol yes. To the qqing:
ADAPT OR DIE They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:41:00 -
[466] - Quote
Apollo Gabriel wrote:Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.
Please remove it as well. Insurance for self-destruct is what gives mineral value. Stop being mean to the miners. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
992
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:46:00 -
[467] - Quote
Tippia wrote:useless ******* forum software
PEND Insurance should insure forum posts c/d? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:47:00 -
[468] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space.
Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
|
Anna Hyperthron
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:49:00 -
[469] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it. EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, its not.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:55:00 -
[470] - Quote
I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.
In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification
Bye-bye freighter ganking.
High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.
You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.
Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.
You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change.
Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. |
|
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:01:00 -
[471] - Quote
The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post. In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification Bye-bye freighter ganking. High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot. You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most. Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly. You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is.
htfu or cry some moar your choice |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:02:00 -
[472] - Quote
Apollo Gabriel wrote:Insurance is SILLY.
Please remove it as well.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:12:00 -
[473] - Quote
Jack All'Trade wrote:The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post. In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganker gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self. Bye-bye freighter ganking. High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot. You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most. Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly. You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. htfu or cry some moar your choice
I'll got for option C; make another post quoting your post quoting my post.
|
Kheper Ra
Industrial Strength Killers Enlightened Violence
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:01:00 -
[474] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kheper Ra wrote:Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. See post 426 above. Quote:That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (GÇ£freeGÇ¥ as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games
The lower security areas of the game promote PvP. From the time a pilot joins EVE, they hear about the lack of safety in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. In fact when a pilot jumps from hi-sec to lo-sec or into w-space they are given a warning of how Concord can't protect them there. Hi-Sec is all about "relative safety" -- meaning that there are consequences for unsanctioned aggression. Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play.
Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all. ("free" as in speech, not beer). That is why we have the other "less secure" regions of space, and I use the term "less secure" very loosely. After all, it is a known fact that null-sec is relatively safe when everyone around you two and three regions over is blue. In fact it's quite a shame that null-sec is actually safer than lo-sec...but I digress.
As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers.
My favorite...
Quote:Can I have your stuff? Quote: Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over.
I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. Don't be that guy who picks on the 95 pound weakling. It's not good for your Battleclinic stats. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1283
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:29:00 -
[475] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote:The lower security areas of the game promote PvP. Nah. All of EVE is, largely because it's a PvP game. That's also why PvP is allowed everywhere.
Quote:Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play. Not quite. The starting areas are about learning how to play the game GÇö highsec is just an area where certainy types of gameplay are not available. Anyone who thinks he will be ineffective for the first 6-12 months is a fool and have failed to learn how the game works.
Quote:Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all. Of course it is. That's why you're free to attack anyone you like. In fact, it must be like this in order for the game to work. It is just an area where aggression costs, which makes people not be aggressive unless they can stomach paying for it. Hence why it's not free as in beer. The fact that you are entirely free to attack other players if you choose to is why it's free as in speech.
Quote:As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers. It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.
Quote:I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. So why did you try to make yourself out to be one?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Nikollai Tesla
Crytec Enterprises SRS.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:46:00 -
[476] - Quote
As long as there are people stupid enough to move high value cargo in weak tanked ships there will be ganks. This just moves the stupid cutoff mark.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11441587 |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
687
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:56:00 -
[477] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? No, its not. That's certainly a compelling and well-reasoned argument.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[478] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, its not.
The fact that players are ganked even in high-sec proves me right. |
Jita Alt666
467
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[479] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
Define safe and unsafe: If 6 players die in a 0.8 system with 600 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 1% death rate If 3 players die in a 0.0 system with 30 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 10% death rate Which one is more dangerous?
Define "ships destroyed in the last hour": How many died in missions? How many died to gankers? How many self destructed? How many died in consensual PVP?
Taking a map image as evidence of safety is not the most accurate way of gaining knowledge. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:05:00 -
[480] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |