EVE Search - PvP required for access to High End Content???

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

PvP required for access to High End Content???

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.08 06:51:00 - [1] There is a long running debate within Eve, often characterized as between "carebears" and "PvPers", as to what is proper in the game. The debate has a 1000 facits and 1000s of posts here, but I think it all can be summed up in one core question: Should exposing one's self to PvP be "required" in order to access any high end game content? Or should those who don't expose themselves be restricted exclusively to low end content? I'll state what I believe, and I'm sure others will express their opinions. With very few exceptions, even the most hardened empire carebears don't mind that some high end content is exclusively in low security systems (there are a few silly carebears who seem to think non-consensual PvP should not exist, but they are rare). However, the Concord lovers want access to at least "some" high end content too, without going to low security. In my personal opinion, I love the way things are now. A player can largely "choose" his own level of risk, putting control of his game, and responsibility for his game, in his own hands. Fanatic that I am on the concept of free will, I think this is great. I also think that having multiple playing styles (not just variations of ONE style...) in Eve adds depth to the game that few truly appreciate. I reject the notion that ALL playing styles that access high end content must be some sort of PvP style. Eve has a long running habit of trying to slowly put more and more of the game into "PLAYER" hands. The multiple playing styles that are Eve go well with that. I've never really understood the urge of some players to make high end empire carebearing impossible, except maybe some false assumption on their part that it would result in them having more targets. I strongly approve of some high Content forcing a player to expose themselves to PvP. It gives us stuff to fight over in 0.0. But not "all" high end content. Above all, repeat, above all, I believe it would be wrong to force Concord lovers to be forced to be limited to only "gimped" high end content (gimped more than it is anyway....). snip This type of comment has no place in a signature, please remain courteous - Pirlouit
Caleb Paine Itchy Trigger Finger Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:01:00 - [2] more reward = more risk It's what EVE is all about ----------------- Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back.
Cattraknoff Caldari Sha Kharn Corp Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:03:00 - [3] It's down to risk vs. reward, CCP likes the reward to match the risk in obtaining it. 1.0 space has little to no risk so the rewards are smaller. 0.0 space on the other hand can involve a great deal of risk especially in a territorial alliance (you could lose all your space, and thus all your assets in it.) that and you're fair game to pretty much anyone who wants to shoot you. 0.1-0.4 is what I would call moderate risk, there is a high risk of piracy, in some cases higher than 0.0, but you can't lose your access to that space so you have your assets and could retreive them at times when there's few hostiles about. I agree that there should be some decent content for empire people, but I don't think you should be able to get tons of isk and such with so little risk. If they want the higher end content, they should really venture a bit into unsecure space, sure they might die, but it really isn't as bad as they think.
Maximillian Pele	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:07:00 - [4] Edited by: Maximillian Pele on 08/08/2006 07:08:09 PvP or not to PvP, that is the question.....does not apply in EvE. EvE is PvP in that you are competing with other players in all aspects of the game. Firstly there is no safety unless you remain docked and in a NPC corp. But even then if you buy and sell you are dealing with other players, and competing with them whether you realise it or not. You can be attacked anywhere without reason - concord is just there to clean up afterwards. The value of everything from your Veld to the value of the named loot a rat drops is determined by the player base of EvE as a whole. What any player chooses to do in EvE is up to them. EvE imposes various rewards and punishments of various behaviour so that perticular playing styles don't become dominate. Risk = Reward. Some EvErs will choose not to experience parts of the game, but that is their choice and their choice alone. But EvE is a PvP game with some PvE elements.
Eilie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:11:00 - [5] Originally by: Cattraknoff It's down to risk vs. reward, CCP likes the reward to match the risk in obtaining it. 1.0 space has little to no risk so the rewards are smaller. 0.0 space on the other hand can involve a great deal of risk especially in a territorial alliance (you could lose all your space, and thus all your assets in it.) that and you're fair game to pretty much anyone who wants to shoot you. 0.1-0.4 is what I would call moderate risk, there is a high risk of piracy, in some cases higher than 0.0, but you can't lose your access to that space so you have your assets and could retreive them at times when there's few hostiles about. I agree that there should be some decent content for empire people, but I don't think you should be able to get tons of isk and such with so little risk. If they want the higher end content, they should really venture a bit into unsecure space, sure they might die, but it really isn't as bad as they think. Risk vs. Reward is great but the balance is currently screwed up IMO: Hi-sec: Med Risk due to mission bugs (40+ ships aggro ftw lol) and Med Income. 0.0: Low Risk (if you're in a large alliance) and High Income. Lo-Sec: High Risk and Negative Income.
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:14:00 - [6] There is no two legged beast in Eve called "Risk vs Reward". The creature does not exist. There is a three legged creature call "Risk, Work and Reward". Its three aspects exist in varying degrees in many Eve activities. snip This type of comment has no place in a signature, please remain courteous - Pirlouit
Jack Z Gallente Herrscher der Zeit	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:16:00 - [7] Originally by: Eilie Risk vs. Reward is great but the balance is currently screwed up IMO: Hi-sec: Med Risk due to mission bugs (40+ ships aggro ftw lol) and Med Income. 0.0: Low Risk (if you're in a large alliance) and High Income. Lo-Sec: High Risk and Negative Income. /me agrees ---------------------------------- Jack Z.
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:16:00 - [8] NPC hunting, mining and missions are all zero risk for a player who is able to pay attention and knows what he is doing. Even in 0.0. No risk. Fighting other players is where risk resides. snip This type of comment has no place in a signature, please remain courteous - Pirlouit
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:18:00 - [9] there are plenty of ways to pvp in jita without losing your ship. it just involves freighters instead of guns. would like to say this though: LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:19:00 - [10] Edited by: Face Lifter on 08/08/2006 07:21:13 Originally by: Maximillian Pele EvE imposes various rewards and punishments of various behaviour so that perticular playing styles don't become dominate. Clearly that is not so, as great majority of players remain in small portion of safe space. While vast portions of 0.0 space are occupied by a small minority. There's no good balance between risk and reward yet. I don't really know what original poster meant by high end and low end content.
Eilie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:22:00 - [11] Originally by: Double TaP LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY. That should fix the balance (cause right now low sec has nothing to offer over high sec or 0.0) and it will also cause tons of carebears to quit!
Ta chaina	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:22:00 - [12] I dont belive there should be any limits to anything no matter where you choose to live in EVE. Sure if you stay in empire it's going to take longer to get it but why limit anything, its just a game after all. The way it is now CCP is limiting the games growth let people fly any ship anywhere they want. We have wars in empire just not with all the ship types that are out in lower sec space. I say if your corp is empire based bring anything you have skills to fly to the fight. Think of the fun of someone using a titan in Jita or any of the other high traffic systems for a gate camp or to use as a one time macro miner killer. Just think of the sight of that super weapon going off near some station with all the ships around going pop. I say let the good times roll lol.
Militis Kolosok Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:31:00 - [13] More pvp = fun, as long as lag remains low :D
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:35:00 - [14] it's what makes it mmo. You cannot have interaction between players without some form of competition between them. That's why I don't like those "coop" pve games where 40 ppl hack on same stupid scripted npc monster all day long. -------------------------- MWD Cap Penalty?
Eilie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 07:38:00 - [15] Originally by: Luc Boye it's what makes it mmo. You cannot have interaction between players without some form of competition between them. That's why I don't like those "coop" pve games where 40 ppl hack on same stupid scripted npc monster all day long. QFT! There's nothing more fun than 40+ people repeating the same action over and over on some stupid AI for 6 hours and than one stupid person (who you had objected to joining your group) screws up and your 6 hours is lost!
LWMaverick	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Eilie Originally by: Cattraknoff It's down to risk vs. reward, CCP likes the reward to match the risk in obtaining it. 1.0 space has little to no risk so the rewards are smaller. 0.0 space on the other hand can involve a great deal of risk especially in a territorial alliance (you could lose all your space, and thus all your assets in it.) that and you're fair game to pretty much anyone who wants to shoot you. 0.1-0.4 is what I would call moderate risk, there is a high risk of piracy, in some cases higher than 0.0, but you can't lose your access to that space so you have your assets and could retreive them at times when there's few hostiles about. I agree that there should be some decent content for empire people, but I don't think you should be able to get tons of isk and such with so little risk. If they want the higher end content, they should really venture a bit into unsecure space, sure they might die, but it really isn't as bad as they think. Risk vs. Reward is great but the balance is currently screwed up IMO: Hi-sec: Med Risk due to mission bugs (40+ ships aggro ftw lol) and Med Income. 0.0: Low Risk (if you're in a large alliance) and High Income. Lo-Sec: High Risk and Negative Income. I disagree, even in large alliances, there are a high risk doing whatever it is youre doing in 0.0(npc'ing, minning and so on). Going 49 jumps through chokepoints, blockades and so on, to get whatever you just spend hours and hours on collecting(ores/loot/whatever) to a safe system, where it can be sold, compared to a jita-mission runner which can just drop it off at the nearest station with no risk, should be taken into consideration. And ofc there is mission bugs, and things fu.cks up from time to time, but its the same thing with complexes I would say that 0.0 = High risk & Semi-High Reward /Mav <3
LWMaverick	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:25:00 - [17] Originally by: Double TaP LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY. Amen. <3
Tehyarec	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:46:00 - [18] Heh, sure, make level 4 missions low-sec only, and then watch the following things happen: 1) A large number of players quitting because their play-style is then "nerfed" 2) More people drowning the forums in whines about it. 3) "Zero-zeroers" whining when they now can't get good prices for their faction mods and ships in empire - not many will risk them in low-sec mission running, and as such prices would most likely drop by a lot. Or then people would just simply not buy. Would probably have more consequences than that. While I myself would still do missions if they're moved to low-sec, I still very much rather doing them in high-sec. Call me a "carebear" or whatever such supposedly "insulting" name, I couldn't care less, but sometimes I just want to do stuff that's profitable without always being high-wired and paranoid about everyone in local. If anything, belt ratting could use a boost instead of high-sec needing a nerf. Even in 0.0 belt ratting isn't THAT profitable unless you go quite far from empire. True-sec would really need to be quite close to -1.0 to get the profitable spawns. Silverleaf Foundation Website & Shop
Zaldiri Caldari Automated Industries	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:57:00 - [19] All high end content should involve some form of pvp. But that pvp should not have to be combat. If you want to make billions outcompeteting other producers in high sec or playing the markets from the comfort of new caldari, that fine becuase you are competeing with other players. The problem with level 4 missions is that there is no compertition anywhere, yet they are pretty high level gameplay. So either compertition has to be indroduced into the mission structure somewhere, or the whole thing has to be exposed to compertition by dumping it into low sec. ----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 09:08:00 - [20] Edited by: Malachon Draco on 08/08/2006 09:10:23 Edited by: Malachon Draco on 08/08/2006 09:09:51 Originally by: Tehyarec Heh, sure, make level 4 missions low-sec only, and then watch the following things happen: 1) A large number of players quitting because their play-style is then "nerfed" 2) More people drowning the forums in whines about it. 3) "Zero-zeroers" whining when they now can't get good prices for their faction mods and ships in empire - not many will risk them in low-sec mission running, and as such prices would most likely drop by a lot. Or then people would just simply not buy. Would probably have more consequences than that. While I myself would still do missions if they're moved to low-sec, I still very much rather doing them in high-sec. Call me a "carebear" or whatever such supposedly "insulting" name, I couldn't care less, but sometimes I just want to do stuff that's profitable without always being high-wired and paranoid about everyone in local. If anything, belt ratting could use a boost instead of high-sec needing a nerf. Even in 0.0 belt ratting isn't THAT profitable unless you go quite far from empire. True-sec would really need to be quite close to -1.0 to get the profitable spawns. There are a few things at stake here. 1. Risk vs. Reward. 2. Limited resources. 1. is important or otherwise everyone will be doing the least risky thing for the highest reward. 2. is important because limited resources breeds conflict, and conflict drives the game for many. From the perspective of 1. there seems to be a problem with highsec missions being more profitable than living in 0.0. This is a problem for 2 reasons. First, it encourages alot of people to stay in empire, i.e. from an economic POV, you're stupid if you live in 0.0. Secondly, it can prolong conflict in 0.0. Say 2 alliances go to war in 0.0. Currently one of them could just have alts in empire, churning out lvl 4 missions to fund the wareffort in 0.0. War drags on. Even if the other alliance is highly succesful, takes the good mining and ratting systems, the other one has a huge source of safe income from missions in empire. 2. is the reason why I think making 0.0 ratting more profitable (say, more -1.0 truesec systems) is not gonna work out well. (Even though I live in 0.0 exclusively really, and would greatly benefit from more -1.0 systems). Resources need to be scarce. If everyone has its own -1.0 sec systems in abundance, reasons for conflict are decreased. I've had some of my funnest PvP over 10/10 complexes, fighting off pirates so we could run the plex. Why did we fight over this plex? Well, it generates a billion+ a day in isk/loot and there's only 4 or 5? in our territory, which can be run only once or twice a day each. If we had 50 10/10 complexes in our space, we wouldn't be bothered by 1 being run by a bunch of pirates as long as they left us alone. Forgot to add: Level 4 also violate the second 'rule' in particular. There is no limit to resources with level 4 missions. 10 people can work an agent, 100 can work an agent, 1000 can work an agent. And each of these people can make the same amount of isk. From which my conclusion would be that level 4 (and level 3) missions, shouldn't exist at all. They make resources too abundant.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 09:11:00 - [21] Edited by: Malachon Draco on 08/08/2006 09:12:23 Bloody forums...
Infinity Ziona Space Elves of Ragnoroth	Posted - 2006.08.08 09:22:00 - [22] The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly. Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts). I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1. To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use. We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content. While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships). If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please. Infinity Ziona 'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein
Matori Kar	Posted - 2006.08.08 09:38:00 - [23] Originally by: Double TaP LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY. And losing 50% of the player base helps pay off the devs mortgages how? Stupid people make stupid suggestions.....or maybe you just want more noobs to shoot in low sec? ah yes, thought so... Originally by: Eilie That should fix the balance (cause right now low sec has nothing to offer over high sec or 0.0) and it will also cause tons of carebears to quit! Lol, 0.0 ratting in alliance space (large alliance) is pretty much risk free atm, less risk than runnnig dumb empire missions at any rate. People have not moved to 0.0 because they want to be poor
Matori Kar	Posted - 2006.08.08 09:43:00 - [24] Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly. Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts). I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1. To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use. We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content. While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships). If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please. Infinity Ziona Q F'in T
Eilie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 10:14:00 - [25] Originally by: Matori Kar Originally by: Double TaP LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY. And losing 50% of the player base helps pay off the devs mortgages how? Stupid people make stupid suggestions.....or maybe you just want more noobs to shoot in low sec? ah yes, thought so... Originally by: Eilie That should fix the balance (cause right now low sec has nothing to offer over high sec or 0.0) and it will also cause tons of carebears to quit! Lol, 0.0 ratting in alliance space (large alliance) is pretty much risk free atm, less risk than runnnig dumb empire missions at any rate. People have not moved to 0.0 because they want to be poor You seem to have missed my first post where I said the same thing! 0.0 ratting is much better than running dumb empire missions... BUT 0.1 - 0.4 has almost nothing to offer compared to the increased risk which is why moving all Level 4 missions to lo-sec will balance the risk vs. reward.
Eilie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 10:18:00 - [26] Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly. Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts). I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1. To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use. We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content. While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships). If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please. Infinity Ziona Yea, cause people don't try to exploit, log off, etc in Empire Wars...
Loka Gallente adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.08 11:08:00 - [27] This debate is as old as my character. Always the carebears asked for more ISK/Content in Empire and the PvP Hardcore pilots/Pirates asked for the oposite, because they want more targets. The fact is that both needs each other. An Industrialist or miner wont do any ISK without ships getting blown up. PvP is the best income for this kind of proffessions. Even Agentrunner most time do their Agent mission to get new ships and to get access to the BPO lottery probably. The income of this ppl would be the same, but you will get bored without a threat around. Who wants to run Agent after Agent without even having a little thrill? EVE is all about PvP and economic. It needs both. The economic needs a lot of demand, which PvP can offer and PvP need cheap ships, which the Empire based pilots make true. The extremists of both PvP and Carebears dont see the symbiotic live between them. Each can exists without the other. Period. 0.0 may look risk free, but as stated above its all about coordination. Were in Empire you can do your soloplay as long as you wish. In 0.0 today it can be completle riskfree and tomorrow you have a huge alliance attacking you because of something, cutting you off your assets. I still have hundred of millsion stuck in Delve and Querious, dozens of millions in Syndicate, thousand of minerals in Tribute and lot more in other 0.0 space i dont have access to it anymore. 0.0 can be riskfree, but this can change in few days. Also you have to spend hours of hours securing, camping gates and patroling an empty space, without any action as your normal duty in your alliance or corp, while other in empire continue to make ISK. Even one pirate in local can prevent all ppl in that system to continue their effort making isk, because of the threat. They will have to fit for PvP and camp the system until the pirate is gone. Atm doing lvl 4 mission in a noobcorp is what really is riskfree and gets you good money. The only risk you take are pirates at low sec gates, which isnt that hard to evade. Just fit WCS in lows and you are safe. No bubbles in Empire, you remember. And because there are plenty of stations, you can just refit before warping to the NPC¦s. _________________________ Iam back
Silthis Marna Dragons Of Redemption Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.08 11:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Sergeant Spot I also think that having multiple playing styles (not just variations of ONE style...) in Eve adds depth to the game that few truly appreciate. I reject the notion that ALL playing styles that access high end content must be some sort of PvP style. and then... Originally by: Sergeant Spot I strongly approve of some high Content forcing a player to expose themselves to PvP. It gives us stuff to fight over in 0.0. But not "all" high end content. Above all, repeat, above all, I believe it would be wrong to force Concord lovers to be forced to be limited to only "gimped" high end content (gimped more than it is anyway....). Until I read these two parts, I was thinking "Oh no, another PvP-carebear whine". Now all I can think to say is "Hear Hear!", at which point I believe the correct behaviour is to stand up and start clapping with my papers. The very thing that attracted me to EVE is that it's a huge sandbox that allows players to play in many ways. I know people who love to pit themselves against other players on the markets. Out buying, bidding, and out selling others. And they do well at it. I know others that for some obscure reason love to mine. As in, rip roids apart every waking hour they can spare. They like to compete mining. I don't understand it myself, but all the more power to them. And then there's the people who like to run contraband, and they compete against other contraband runners. The range of activity is huge, and the field of competition is just as large. The characterisation of PvP as purely blowing up other people's ships is very narrow when viewed in the context of what EVE as a sandbox is capable of.
Matori Kar	Posted - 2006.08.08 11:49:00 - [29] Originally by: Eilie You seem to have missed my first post where I said the same thing! 0.0 ratting is much better than running dumb empire missions... BUT 0.1 - 0.4 has almost nothing to offer compared to the increased risk which is why moving all Level 4 missions to lo-sec will balance the risk vs. reward. Apologies, comprehension/reading ftw!! I still disagree with you. The existing agent system is okish(!). L4s are fine in empire space, restricting them to low sec WILL drive people from the game. However, I hope that CCP will deal with the inbalance of low sec by making all Kali factional warfare agents and missions low sec based. This IMO would also be a bit more realistic - basing hostilites on the fringes of empires.. It is with factional warefare placement in low sec that I hope the differences between pve and pvp can be blurred. Make no mistake, as it exists, the agent mission system is just a carebear activity regardless of location. Instead of removing content, I hope by adding low sec content (factional warefare) more people will be attracted to low sec - trying to force people to move to dangerous areas is erm...DUMB...inducement is what is needed :)
Sorela Gallente	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:31:00 - [30] Personally I don't mind risk or PvP or any of those things. What bugs me is that the high end content seems to be encouraging bigger and bigger alliances. That can be really dangerous if it's allowed to escalate. Games like Shadowbane and Lineage 2 have shown that if the numbers game continues entire servers can die when a mega coalition forms and finally kills off all competition securing control of nearly all high end content. Luckily due to eves large size we're nowhere near that yet. Humans are communal creatures though so it's still a danger. To the OP though I suspect faction fighting in Empire is supposed to be a kind of solution to what you are discussing.
Zhelavar Gallente CONsordium Infinate	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:49:00 - [31] High End content for me is going to be building the bigger ships and wider trading. I'm not seeing much PvP in my endgame. I'm not saying I won't find it engaging and fun when it happens, but I don't see PvP being a big slice of my pie in the future.
nahtoh Caldari Bull Industries	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:23:00 - [32] Originally by: Double TaP there are plenty of ways to pvp in jita without losing your ship. it just involves freighters instead of guns. would like to say this though: LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY. Then make low secgate camping impossable then, you actualy have to probe out mission runners instead of sitting on your ass waiting for them to jump into the system... Or put the rewards back up to what they used to be... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:27:00 - [33] Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 08/08/2006 14:27:44 It's kind of a pointless argument when, because of the way EVE is configured, "High End Content" and "PvP" are the same thing. (Please note I'm not simply talking about "PvP combat")
Moghydin Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:32:00 - [34] Originally by: Sergeant Spot NPC hunting, mining and missions are all zero risk for a player who is able to pay attention and knows what he is doing. Even in 0.0. No risk. Fighting other players is where risk resides. QFT. It's summarizes the best possible way the false formula of risk vs reward in high vs low sec. It was exactly my alliance experience when I was in an alliance, and my alliance din't have as strong grip on its territory as BoB has. Actually it was a war time in the war, we were slowly losing. And again, most of the time it was nearly ZERO risk.
Zeknichov Amarr Black Avatar	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:32:00 - [35] Yes PvP should be required.
Rab	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:43:00 - [36] As far as I was aware, highest end content was in pvp only areas. 8/10 to 10/10 complexes being the highest end. Level 4 missions seems pretty far from those, or does this apply to all level 4 missions or only combat ones? This post seems to be asking instead: should highest end solo play and and mid-level group play level 4 missions and perhaps any complex past 4/10 be high sec? Which is another statement of: My game is fine, its great, honest, but can you change other peoples to suit mine a bit more? Lets hope instead they add some higher end than the higher end that low-sec has already, that way you can perhaps tempt more out without forcing people into a new game than the one they presently play. - 4 month old carebear -
digitalwanderer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:58:00 - [37] Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly. Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts). I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1. To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use. We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content. While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships). If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please. Infinity Ziona All i can say after reading that is....AMEN
digitalwanderer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:02:00 - [38] Originally by: Eilie Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly. Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts). I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1. To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use. We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content. While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships). If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please. Infinity Ziona Yea, cause people don't try to exploit, log off, etc in Empire Wars... They do,but we're talking pure risk vs rewards,and adding a few content issues as well,wich i agree conpletely with btw...

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.