^Typical carebear response. Completely uninformed posting in defense of their mindless play with the assumption that they should be able to play in a 100% safe environment, by themselves (themepark), at the expense of the fun of others who would prefer a risky and exciting game environment (sandbox).

The biggest thing that prevents EVE being a genuine sandbox is the meta-gaming whereby large (mainly bluesec) entities prefer to coerce CCP into changing/nerfing/buffing aspects of the game to suit their particular needs rather than evolving their own in game solutions.

It can never be a true sandbox when forum whining is allowed to result in game changes.

Harassing CCP to change the game to suit your needs does not constitute "content creation".

Nerf... Erm... Everything but the way I play??

Also, as the Doc is nowhere to be found (maybe the kitties ganged up on him), Features and Ideas

^Typical carebear response. Completely uninformed posting in defense of their mindless play with the assumption that they should be able to play in a 100% safe environment, by themselves (themepark), at the expense of the fun of others who would prefer a risky and exciting game environment (sandbox).

You seem to be referring to the constant carebear nuthugging, as I've seen nothing but sandbox nerfs and themepark buffs for around 3 years now. I'm posting in the name of balance, not BUFF MY ISK FAUCET like the carebears do. As a matter of fact, most of the changes I'm asking for would not help my mission baiting at all.

You know, taking away Concord's invincibility is not a bad start...

The original post clearly states possible solutions. The problem is largely agreed upon. There are plenty of themepark games to choose from. Some of them I would play if they were not themeparks and I had a glimmer of hope they would last, mainly Star Trek and Star Wars.

There is only one EVE.

Once you take EVE too far towards a themepark, then other games look attractive, and the core players actually leave.

People come to EVE after reading of massive space battles, legitimate isk doubling, corporate infiltration, etc. They don't join because they heard about mining lasers and mission grinding.

The awesomely complex economy EVE has needs all player types. But if CCP simply goes back to basics and focuses on what makes EVE special, the rest will take care of itself.

your right, lets remove mining, the market, all pve content and no was for any one to make isk and see how far the game goes.

im sorry this game has areas outside that allows other players to gain isk that they spend with little disregard.

maybe LoL or WoT will be better fitted for you trolling gankers since than you can kill players all day there with no safety....oh wait those can get you killed right back

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

your right, lets remove mining, the market, all pve content and no was for any one to make isk and see how far the game goes.

im sorry this game has areas outside that allows other players to gain isk that they spend with little disregard.

maybe LoL or WoT will be better fitted for you trolling gankers since than you can kill players all day there with no safety....oh wait those can get you killed right back

If you'd play the game, instead of ganking/scamming errm, sorry, "pvping" in high-sec, you'd know that this already exists. It's called Sleeper AI, and does everything you've listed above.

This sounds like a brilliant idea actually. It's been stated that the only reason anyone plays EVE is for the pvp against other people. Obviously that's what the OP wants, the ability to find more meaningful PvP.

So lets just remove missions, mining, industry, trading, and all that other carebear nonsense straight into the dumpster.

Instead we can Have isk be paid to players for winning in the Arena of Combat! Where when you log in, you purchase the ship you wish to fly, and then you fly around on the pre designated team you've been assigned and fight other combatants.

That's definitely how EVE should be. Is there a petition I can sign? I'm so excited thinking about how EVE is suppose to be that I don't even really want to waste my time with all the other ridiculousness this game provides.


*edit* I'm mining AFK in hi-sec and my clone is outdated.

Harassing CCP to nerf my content creation ruins my sandbox.

EVE needs carebears to function, but their carebearing activities need to more closely resemble playing in an interactive environment with other players who might wish to interact in a manner inconsistent with the carebear's fantasy of a single player game.

EVE needs carebears to function, but their carebearing activities need to more closely resemble playing in an interactive environment with other players who might wish to interact in a manner inconsistent with the carebear's fantasy of a single player game.

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

TL;DR - Make players have to learn about the game and its mechanics in order to be successful.

I'm still not quite sure how you guys twist my original post into me forcing you to PvP. I do not want to force you to PvP, I did not say that at all. I do however think that actions with inherent risk should be rewarded more than those without, that's my main point. 0 risk is infinitely more safe than even the slightest risk, so risky actions need to be infinitely more profitable or the game will devolve into a whos-MR-battleship-is-shinier e-peen contest with no real depth.

edit: your arguments are a tell as to the level of your intellect, and it is in line with the lack of intellect that I prey on daily. I CANT MAKE COHERENT ARGUE SO IMA JUST PERTEND U SAY WHAT I THINK U SAY AN RESPOND TO DAT HURRDUURRDURR

Harassing CCP to nerf my content creation ruins my sandbox.

Sigh another nerf high sec thread hey ? I knew one was due!

What the op says will never happen. If you look at the map and statics you will see that most of the active playerbase is currently in high sec. Always was and always will be the most active areas of space.

That is a lot of custom to loose by fcking their game and content up and driving them out.

This is a myth.

A huge chunk are null sec alts who are only in high sec for the isk and there will be no mass unsub, high sec bears always threaten to leave but never do. CCP should fix game imbalances and ignore the people who defend said game imbalances.

Bears fill up games like WoW to the tune of millions. Wonder what CCP wants, more paying subs or more ISK for nullsec to RMT away.

Bears fill up games like WoW to the tune of millions. Wonder what CCP wants, more paying subs or more ISK for nullsec to RMT away.

...

SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:

1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid
....

Wanna-be sociopath tears are quite simply the platinum standard of tears, don't you know?

[quote=hellokittyonline]
[...] "pvping" in high-sec, you'd know that this already exists. It's called Sleeper AI, and does everything you've listed above.

I only see independent parties here, who is engaging is sockpuppetry?

NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

If you share somebody's sentiments you must be an alt!

Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship.

Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship.

So essentially you just want to make sure you don't ever have the risk of losing ship by skipping the baiting and go straight in with a pvp T3 and kill the poor mission runner in a hilarious way. There are already plenty of areas to do so. But perhaps those areas are too much risk for you?

let me guess: if you are god-like pvp-er and never lose your ship you do "pvp without risk"?

So it's like this:

OP and supporters want to ruin others game play. Because they cannot, they feel as though their game play is being ruined.

So basically, a griefers uncontrollable urge is not being satiated and it's causing him physical distress.

CCP you are griefing this poor fellow by not letting him grief. By you selfishly choosing to let people not be as vulnerable to him as he would like, it is causing him unhappiness.

It's like reverse griefing. Blue balling.

This is unacceptable. You need to implement all of his ideas ASAP.

"My sandbox is becoming a themepark"

It's not YOUR sandbox.

/thread

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

I will say, I am impressed that you're willing to publicly link such a mediocre kill board.

I'm still not quite sure how you guys twist my original post into me forcing you to PvP. I do not want to force you to PvP, I did not say that at all. I do however think that actions with inherent risk should be rewarded more than those without, that's my main point. 0 risk is infinitely more safe than even the slightest risk, so risky actions need to be infinitely more profitable or the game will devolve into a whos-MR-battleship-is-shinier e-peen contest with no real depth.

edit: your arguments are a tell as to the level of your intellect, and it is in line with the lack of intellect that I prey on daily. I CANT MAKE COHERENT ARGUE SO IMA JUST PERTEND U SAY WHAT I THINK U SAY AN RESPOND TO DAT HURRDUURRDURR

HAHA there is an isk to risk ratio right across the universe. In fact, as we speak there is more risk of being ganked in high sec than there is getting caught by pubbies running null space.

My opinion is that its already quite balanced.

We have on the other hand null seccers claiming otherwise but I have spent the last week in null from fountain to Tenal and I was pretty much the only soul around. Many many plexes, data sites and Sanctum anons litter these systems.

Null is definitely more profitable that high sec for the average player so imo it's already a good balance!

If null is more profitable why is it empty?

Null is definitely more profitable than high sec for the average player so imo it already has a good balance!

Bullshit.

It's his, mine, everyone's. The sandbox belongs to the players as much as it does to CCP.

The themepark only belongs to the people who own it, and the people who ride are customers, not players.

Precisely. It's no single player's sandbox..

Take level 4 missions OUT of highsec.
As well as decrease highsec incursions payment to 1\3.

And dozens of other games have died trying precisely that.

Blizzard is the exception, not the rule. They're hanging on by their fingernails, poisoning their once beloved IPs by catering to the casuals, what's more.

Take level 4 missions OUT of highsec.
As well as decrease highsec incursions payment to 1\3.

WoW "catered to the casuals" from day one. Wow was never hardcore and vanilla raiding was a joke. All you needed was 15 or so people to somewhat know what to do for the 40 man raid to work.

And like I said, they've poisoned the well as far as their previously existing IPs were concerned.

Blizzard's last good game was Brood War.

They poisoned it so much they ended up with the biggest most profitable MMOrpg in history.

And like I said, they are the exception to the rule. Or are you telling me that every other MMO in history has died a miserable death by coincidence?

Because you guys are greedy and have way more space than you can actually use or need for that matter!

We have 30k pilots in the CFC alone so it stands to reason that at least one area of our space would have a large number of people in it. Fact is that the only place you will find a lot of our pilots is either vfk (our market hub) and our deployment system. Just about all of our space is empty.

Also we have the fact that 80% of bots are to be found in high sec. So if null is where the isk is why are almost all of the bots in high sec?

We have also run some very detailed tests to see exactly how much isk each area will bring in per pilot and high sec will earn you more. All evidence gathered tells us that high sec is the best place to be earning isk when running combat pve.

Millions of reasons. Almost all if not all not for the reason you wish.

Where's this fact at?

I also highly suggest you share your technique with CCP since you apparently have not only found a fool proof bot detection method but you're also able to count every single one.

Keep telling yourself that. All those themeparks, faded into obscurity or the arguably worse free to play, while EVE alone has kept up continued growth. Which is something even WoW can't say for itself, since it's at about half the subs it was during Wrath.

But it can't be that commonality that they all share, nope, not one bit. It has to be that WoW wasn't a fluke, and that themeparks actually are a good idea somehow, it's just all those trivial little details that killed every other MMO out there.

CCP are the ones who told us where the bots live. Turns out caldari space is the most bot infested space of all.

For every "themepark" hundreds of sandbox games faded too. As much as I hate blizzard WoW is not at half the subs it had in WOTLK..

"hundreds" for every one themepark game?

Oh, please do prove that wasn't a lie. It's late, but I will make the time to wait for you.

And yes, WoW is at half the subs it had at peak during Wrath(which was a staggering 15 million). That would be according to their last quarterly report. You see, thanks to the fact that the Mrs. plays WoW and keeps up with all of that, I actually have numbers that I didn't pull out of my ass.

So let's hear about those "hundreds" of sandbox games that died, please. By my count you're looking at about seven thousand, and that's a generous estimate.

Themeparks are a recent adventure. There's been thousands times more regular sandbox style MMOs released since the early 90s.

So you're saying that CCP is in league with the botters then. Since CCP knows where all the bots operate and how many there are then clearly the only reason there's still bots is because CCP is letting them run free.

That was a very moronic thing to say.

In Exchange for taking level 4 missions out of high sec and decreasing high security incursion payments.

You will concede to cutting concord response timers in half and limit the amount of active war declarations a corporation/alliance may have to 2.

Give and take. Be fair.

You're the one that made the astounding claim. I'm just wondering why you think CCP is in bed with the botters. It's quite a conspiracy you have going there.

You're the one that made the astounding claim. I'm just wondering why you think CCP is in bed with the botters. It's quite a conspiracy you have going there.

All he said was that CCP themselves has said that the vast majority of accounts banned for botting were highseccers.

You're the one who decided to take it off on a tangent he didn't imply, in order to attack a strawman.

But when your only basic point is such stupendous lies like "thousands of sandbox MMOs failed for every one themepark MMO", I'd be trying to attack a strawman too.

So how about listing of a few (dozen) more of those sandbox "MMOs" you were telling me that fail by the hundreds and/or thousands for every themepark MMO that has gone belly up?

And don't try to bullshit me by saying that a multi-user dungeon counts somehow. The first M in MMO means Massively. 30 people playing Rifleman at a community college in the 90s isn't an MMO.

Because otherwise, you're just lying through your crooked teeth, and themeparks always fail.

I need a definition for themepark before I can really list anything.

PREFACE FOR PERSPECTIVE: I have made (and continue to make) all of my isk PvPing by baiting high-sec mission runners and stealing their ships. I use this isk to fund hellokittyonline's endless rampage in low-sec and PLEX my 3 accounts.

SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:

1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid

2. Knowledge of Game Mechanics - pinning a battleship with a frigate while tanking his entire lvl 4 mission (though this is much easier than it sounds... most of the time)

3. Creativity - because only an idiot would fall for that... right?

4. Risk Management - training 3 accounts and making a large initial investment so that you can execute a ridiculous scheme with no guarentee that this scheme will pay-out enough to plex said accounts or even pay for your initial investment.

THE PROBLEM: Far too many players are mindlessly farming NPCs in an all-but-0-risk environment and there is no longer any incentive for those players to enter a risky environment because they can make far too much bank with little-to-no knowledge about combat or game mechanics. Now this in and of itself wouldn't be a problem in your typical MMO but in EvE these actions slowly but surely dilute the sandbox aspect of the game as players are not required to use any creativity, knowledge, or people skills to move forward in the game. One merely has to play by themselves (IN AN MMO) for a few hours a day in order to afford pretty much anything they desire. Furthermore, the longer players have access to the I-Win button(s), the more subscriptions CCP stands to lose by taking it away (ie: balancing their game becomes a conflict of interest).

CCPs STANCE: Has been to continuously bubble-wrap the risk-averse making it increasingly difficult (in extremely superficial ways) for us content-creators to inject risk into their environment. EXAMPLES: Swapping ships with an orca was nerfed because we were killing too many mission runners, EHP of miners was buffed because we were suiciding too many miners, CONCORD was buffed because we were suiciding too many industrials, mission NPCs aggro mechanics were changed because we were stealing too many LEWTS, crimewatch (and the green safety) was added because too many players were dying inadvertently (even though it was already completely avoidable by simply understanding aggro mechanics). Even when CCP decides to throw us PvPers a bone (Faction Welfare) it all-but-immediately devolves into a cloaked, stabbed, farm-fest. Furthermore, when they add content for the PvEers (Incursions) the isk/hr is completely out of hand, liquid, and 100% riskless.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

TL;DR - Make players have to learn about the game and its mechanics in order to be successful.

Why? You're singlehandedly (re)defining sandbox, so why would you need my help?

Tell me again how the tech nerf helped us and how we gain from having to give up our afk domi fleets.

Unrelated items. Each element is a different factor of balance and is to be considered independantly.
This kind of "trsding of advantage" that you endorse is antithetical to good design.

CONCORD timers are fine as they are in high-sec. CONCORDs function is punitive and indirectly limitingnof ganking as a dunctiin of how many ships/players you jeed to organise in order to succeed before CONCORS arrives. Yournsuggestion implies that CONCORD should act preventatively, which is not their function.

War decs are, again, an unrelated issues and being discussed in its own context.

Balance is not a matter of comparinf your interests with mine. It is a matter of a better game for all.

The kind of "advantage trading" your position implies, is abhorrent to good game design.

Isn't it slightly disingenuous to suggest that you are losing "your" afk domi fleets when CFC complained endlessly about drone assist and then said they would abuse the mechanic until CCP was forced to change it?
Especially as it was so you could nerf your opponents sentry carrier fleets.
Also you personally hate the Domi and only like megas. Honestly i only see upsides for you here.

stuff

We can call it backpayment for all of the nerfs to pvp in high sec and all he nerfs seen in low and null.

...

No.

Sorry, but I guess you're just going to have to

#dealwithit

or quit.

I think the server is up. I'm going to go mine, mostly AFK. in high sec.

We have 30k pilots in the CFC alone so it stands to reason that at least one area of our space would have a large number of people in it. Fact is that the only place you will find a lot of our pilots is either vfk (our market hub) and our deployment system. Just about all of our space is empty.

Also we have the fact that 80% of bots are to be found in high sec. So if null is where the isk is why are almost all of the bots in high sec?

We have also run some very detailed tests to see exactly how much isk each area will bring in per pilot and high sec will earn you more. All evidence gathered tells us that high sec is the best place to be earning isk when running combat pve.

So we should just let game imbalances remain because why?

False. Better game design and balance is not a matter of "trading of advantages".

To be incapable of grasping that difference is juvenile, literally, as outlined in Kohlberg's Moral Development.

The universal good of the game goes before all personal entitlements and perceived advantages.
There is no "us against them", in good design, except from the perspective of an individual who is morally limited to perceiving only their own advantage, rather than the betterment of the whole.

Your use of the royal "we" is misplaced. You have no personal army, nor are you empowered or delegated to any position of "negotiating". You represent only yourself, and is apparent from your posts, only your own personal interests, not those of the game and community overall.

...

Come on, 30k alts but never 30k active players!. We know the truth by rough counting all the people active / docked in stations. And futher to that, You guy don't actually get 1500k players online at given time other wise you would have k's of players deployed in warzones during war from CFC alone.

Are you telling me that for example when 2000 (guestimate) CFC members deployed in the last war, the other 28000 members were bearing it up in high sec?

Where would isk come from then? While it's true that bounties (and plex) bring money into the game, it's also true that pvp removes it. None of the other activities produce any form of isk, they just make it trade hands.

You're just trying to apply a negative label to remove legitimacy from a way of playing the game that you don't like.

Which is precisely what you're accusing someone else of while you're doing it.

Take level 4 missions OUT of highsec.
As well as decrease highsec incursions payment to 1\3.

All he said was that CCP themselves has said that the vast majority of accounts banned for botting were highseccers.

You're the one who decided to take it off on a tangent he didn't imply, in order to attack a strawman.

Wow. It almost sounds like you are describing Wspace.

Difficult NPCs? Check.
No Bounties/ISK stealable? Check.
Risking being bubbled or ganked on the far side of the hole/on the way to the hole if you aren't watching D-scan? Check.
No Safety nets, anything but supercaps goes? check.

TL: DR Already in place.

Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship.

I hate wading into these "nerf this playstyle" threads. They never go anywhere and it always devolves into a threadnaught of ****, gets locked, and the issues and discussions to remedy the issues end up unresolved and leaving both extremes in the discussion bitter and aggravated.

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

I will say, I am impressed that you're willing to publicly link such a mediocre kill board.

Pointing at bots and suggesting their indicative of anything is a strawman. One that the Master of the Mega uses often. While it is true that during the FanFest 2013 Security presentation, a graph showing the vast majority of bots operating in HighSec were found in Caldari Space and most notably in The Forge, it makes no direct correlation to any disparity in income. It is quite possible that the majority operate in Caldari and specifically The Forge due to it's proximity to

On bots according to CCP the second most botted activity is mission running, given that both low and null mission systems are sparcely populated at best that means there is only one place they can be.

On bots according to CCP the second most botted activity is mission running, given that both low and null mission systems are sparcely populated at best that means there is only one place they can be.

The information is pertinent to where bots are found not where they continue to operate. A bot not found continues to operate, CCP can not report on where they operate until they are found. I would advise caution on inferring facts from the data. These threads already have enough speculation. The only things that the data being discussed in this matter reveal are:

CCP found most bots in The Forge.
CCP found the second most bots were running missions.

Any inference based on this is opinion and not fact.

Why not?

There are far too many coincidences here for it to be anything else. The lack of bots found by ccp as well as players not finding bots in null that often. That CCP have found that the second most botted activity also just happens to be running missions in high which have been shown to earn more isk than belt ratting or running anoms.

The evidence is somewhat overwhelming.

Uhm....you just contradicted yourself. You want to take a sandbox and remove tools from that sandbox that others use for content creation. Essentially forcing others into your play style. That is a theme park.

So just another why can't everyone play my way thread.

It's overwhelming evidence of what?

It is overwhelming evidence that:

CCP found most bots in Caldari space, most notably The Forge and
That CCP found the second most bots running missions.

I suppose you could realistically and responsibly infer that "Most bots are not found in Null Sec" and that "Most bots are not running missions".

Anything more than that is just speculation.

It's overwhelming evidence of what?

It is overwhelming evidence that:

CCP found most bots in Caldari space, most notably The Forge and
That CCP found the second most bots running missions.

I suppose you could realistically and responsibly infer that "Most bots are not found in Null Sec" and that "Most bots are not running missions".

Anything more than that is just speculation.

^Typical carebear response. Completely uninformed posting in defense of their mindless play with the assumption that they should be able to play in a 100% safe environment, by themselves (themepark), at the expense of the fun of others who would prefer a risky and exciting game environment (sandbox).

You guys dont think it would have anything at all to do with the aggression mechanics vs hi-sec to null as to where most bots worked?

Who does your thinking for you during your day?

You guys dont think it would have anything at all to do with the aggression mechanics vs hi-sec to null as to where most bots worked?

Who does your thinking for you during your day?

Why not?

There are far too many coincidences here for it to be anything else. The lack of bots found by ccp as well as players not finding bots in null that often. That CCP have found that the second most botted activity also just happens to be running missions in high which have been shown to earn more isk than belt ratting or running anoms. The evidence is somewhat overwhelming.

Oddly enough in the next six months we are expecting to see more ice bots in low a null. Mining is about to be a bigger earner in null than anoms...Go figur.

CCPs toolbox means they whack bots without us reporting them a lot of the time so if there were bots evenly spread out we would not see 80% getting whacked in high sec. Equally given that there are very few pilots running mission in null and low sec that can only leave high sec missions.

Its the only place where we see the numbers needed given the amount of bots. So yea, we can take this as a fact because its the only way CCPs data makes any sense.

CCPs toolbox means they whack bots without us reporting them a lot of the time so if there were bots evenly spread out we would not see 80% getting whacked in high sec. Equally given that there are very few pilots running mission in null and low sec that can only leave high sec missions.

Its the only place where we see the numbers needed given the amount of bots. So yea, we can take this as a fact because its the only way CCPs data makes any sense.

What exactly can we take as fact Master of Mega (I use this term out of respect and fun ).

Here are the facts you are now citing:

CCP found most bots operating in Caldari space, most notably in The Forge.
CCP found that the second most bots were running missions.
CCP whacks bots without us reporting them.
There are very few pilots running missions in null and low sec.

What is it that you are inferring from these facts?

That despite the age old claim (by high sec people) that null sec is all bots, the fact of the matter is that high sec is more likely to be botter's stomping grounds than null sec is.

What information do yo have to dispute this?

What exactly can we take as fact Master of Mega (I use this term out of respect and fun ).

Here are the facts you are now citing:

CCP found most bots operating in Caldari space, most notably in The Forge.
CCP found that the second most bots were running missions.
CCP whacks bots without us reporting them.
There are very few pilots running missions in null and low sec.

What is it that you are inferring from these facts?

The fact is the last nerf hit bluesec. The fact is now that cfc control most of blue-sec any nerf to income to any other space would only benifit them. Where do alliances go to recover once they are run out of sov? Right, low-hi-sec.

Nerfing that income potential would help keep putting the beat down on your defeated enemy.

I dont understand how its even possible to Bot a mission Oo

That despite the age old claim (by high sec people) that null sec is all bots, the fact of the matter is that high sec is more likely to be botter's stomping grounds than null sec is.

What information do yo have to dispute this?

Logic my good man.

There is a large number of bots running missions.

They cannot be in null, there is simply not enough activity.

They are not in low sec as again, there is not enough activity. FW missions migh account for some of this number but not enough forthe bulk.

This leaves highsec. Given that 80% of bots are found in high sec its clear where the bulk of mission bots are. There is no guesswork involved unless you want to assume that the bulk of mission bot run caldari navy missions which would explain a few other things.

Just like how the bulk of mining bots are known to be in high sec by literally everyone although ice bots are expected to start moving to low and null ice systems now that ice is on the up.

CCPs STANCE: Has been to continuously bubble-wrap the risk-averse making it increasingly difficult (in extremely superficial ways) for us content-creators to inject risk into their environment. EXAMPLES: Swapping ships with an orca was nerfed because we were killing too many mission runners, EHP of miners was buffed because we were suiciding too many miners, CONCORD was buffed because we were suiciding too many industrials, mission NPCs aggro mechanics were changed because we were stealing too many LEWTS, crimewatch (and the green safety) was added because too many players were dying inadvertently (even though it was already completely avoidable by simply understanding aggro mechanics). Even when CCP decides to throw us PvPers a bone (Faction Welfare) it all-but-immediately devolves into a cloaked, stabbed, farm-fest. Furthermore, when they add content for the PvEers (Incursions) the isk/hr is completely out of hand, liquid, and 100% riskless.

Then you need to understand the history. For years the high sec crowd has been claiming that null sec is bot land (which some even claiming that null sec players are somehow universally lining their wallets with real life money because of this).

Then CCP nuked a bunch of bots (and talked some about the tools they use to find botters, of which reporting is only a small part, they also use their own automation to detect bots and CCP employees check out botter websites) and posted a graph of where they are. Lo and behold, THE FORGE (the heart of high sec) was the actual bot land.

It was the same kind fo thing as when high sec people scream about how safe null is and how much more pvp happens in high sec then CCP put up a blog post dealing how null had 3.5-4 times the pvp kills of high sec despite having only 1/5th the population.

What many high sec people (self servingly) believe about the game isn't just wrong, it's completely backwards.

Even when CCP decides to throw us PvPers a bone (Faction Welfare) it all-but-immediately devolves into a cloaked, stabbed, farm-fest. Furthermore, when they add content for the PvEers (Incursions) the isk/hr is completely out of hand, liquid, and 100% riskless.

Not at all, as the playstyles that this post is pointed at require no thought or creativity and just serve as an easy way for uninformed players to make isk. I don't want them to play my way, I want their way to be as challenging as it would be to come up with something completely original in order to encourage more players to play the game their own way (ie sandbox) instead of following a prescribed I-Win tutorial (themepark).

Because you guys are greedy and have way more space than you can actually use or need for that matter!

I can appreciate that. What I'm failing to understand I guess is why a claim that had not been made in this thread needed to be refuted.

I do not want Hi-Sec to be 100% safe in any way shape or form. But High-Sec should be safer than it is for the people who want to play there full time.

What Baltec was saying is that if Null is this land of milk and honey like the guy he was replying to seems to think, why are most botters found in high sec.

Why the reference to botters? He could have just as easily said, "If NullSec is so kick ass why are so many NullSec line members running missions in HighSec?"

Botters has nothing to do with this.

Also, if I do not respond to posts in a timely manner forgive me, this thread dropped right before I went to work and as much as I like to **** around at work, I do get paid to work so...

I have, they chose to attack me on the botting so I answered.

We have 30k pilots in the CFC alone so it stands to reason that at least one area of our space would have a large number of people in it. Fact is that the only place you will find a lot of our pilots is either vfk (our market hub) and our deployment system. Just about all of our space is empty.

Also we have the fact that 80% of bots are to be found in high sec. So if null is where the isk is why are almost all of the bots in high sec?

We have also run some very detailed tests to see exactly how much isk each area will bring in per pilot and high sec will earn you more. All evidence gathered tells us that high sec is the best place to be earning isk when running combat pve.

Edit: HELOO LP

WoW has lost millions of subs in the last two years and every MMO that copies it crashes in less than a month. EVE is the only MMO to do nothing but grow.

arrogance

What Baltec was saying is that if Null is this land of milk and honey like the guy he was replying to seems to think, why are most botters found in high sec.

seeing as that may be who actually knows if subs are new players or just new accounts.. but beyond that CCP regardless what players may think makes this game for profit. if you take all their funds away the game will die within a year. same with every game. fact stands wow is losing players left and right. at the end of last year there were around 7.7 million wow players. that means on 1 year at 7.7 million wow has made more than ccp has in its entire life .. counting only for subs. "side note here the estimation was done assuming eve had 500k players since day 1 which is FAR from true

If you count plexes we will just throw in the actual cost of the game. and blizzard will have blown ccp out of the water again. so trying to say wow sucks or wow is dying may be true to you and some of our 500k+ eve players there are over 7 million that disagree.

And you cannot compare the 2 companies they are in different leagues
CCP
eve online 500k+
dust 500k?
Blizzard
world of warcraft 7million+
star craft 2 - 3 million +
do i really need to post more?

so according to the general population since everyone here loves comparing blizzard vs ccp. blizzard has a far better buisness model CCP could go for another 10 years and still not touch blizzard

They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.

2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.

3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.

4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.

When you make the difference in isk made in high sec and no sec even larger than it already is you hand over pretty much everything to nullsec groups. You can't nerf highsec without nerfing low and no sec aswell in possibly major ways.

Also, EVE is a very daunting game and it absolutely needs new players to come along once every now and then - Those need to be eased in to the game to make sure they stay for the long term.

There seems to be this strange notion that EVE will be fine if no new player ever signs up, or that there's enough players to sustain a system which is even more skewed to PvP than it already is. I'm fairly sure CCP would go bankrupt within a year if 'hisec is removed so we can all just focus on pewpew'. Most of the suggested changes in the OP would pretty much result in a much lower conversion rate of new players which is bad for everyone.

That said, somewhat more challenging missions would be nice, but then in the form of restructuring mission levels alltogether. PvE has needed a makeover for years now but simply nerfing level 4's as they are now is a shortsighted solution which in the short term only massively benefits nullsec alliances.



Although, me thinks the OP is only looking for easy targets. I suggest you either go play with people who actually shoot back or play Duck Hunt. I'm fairly sure the latter one would probably be the preferred choice of the OP if only those two were available.

Seriously, if you're having trouble shooting people who usually don't even shoot back, you really need to take a look at yourself if you want to be called a 'pvp'er'.

because 0.0 lords ordered their peasants to not report?

I would argue the current state of bots has nothing to do with the difference between blue-sec vs hi-sec mission income but the sheer volume of players in hi-sec vs blue-sec.

Where would you try and hide? In the herd with the other wilderbeast? or alone in blue-sec where any frigrate could tackle and kill you free of concord??

Its less about the isk and all about not getting caught.

Nullsec was once stuffed full with bots. Botting supers and a raven in every system was a real thing back in 2008.

a certain corp makes all their alliance corps continually fraps their game and upload the footage to certaincorp.com to be checked for bot reports

Both of these are myths and given that CCP scalps most bots without reports also pointless.

How much safer?

I understand what you're saying but it needs a quantifier. How much safer does HighSec need to be, in your opinion?

They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.

Truthfully?

Not a real whole lot I guess. Since I am the first one to say just now much I hate, hate hate, nerfing, I don't want to see any more nerfs. Maybe faster Concord action, and/or more penalties for doing "bad stuff" in hi-sec. Simply, bigger consequences...

I see that most folks are just attacking the OP's playstyle... It's just not just any one playstyle that has been affected.

In short, it is not up to CCP to make HIghSec safer or less safe. It is up to players.

Wouldn't you agree?

it's not a myth one of the oldest players in npc corp chat told me