EVE Search - Should High sec go away?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Should High sec go away?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 74	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:56:14 - [1] - Quote Lalaideur wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: because they have a huge aversion to even imaginary loss. What some people don't seem to understand is that there is nothing like "imaginary" losses in EvE. Either you lose RL money investment because you bought a PLEX to buy the things you just lost, or you lose the time you spent earning that ISK in game, for example with the terrible PvE it has. If most ways to make ISK in this game weren't so boring that they were sensed like a second job, I'm convinced people would be more willing to risk their ships. If you're worried about losing time in a game then you shouldn't be playing one. Games are effectively a time sink. PLEX doesn't have a real monetary value when its redeemed and becomes part of the game it has an isk value. Problem is people start to compare what it cost before it entered the game and start to make comparisons, like that carrier is worth such and such (real monetary value). When in fact the carrier is only worth isk. I bought 2 PLEX when I started and sold them in Jita, I don't think of that isk as having a real monetary value the value is restricted to in-game. Yes you can use isk to buy PLEX and extend game time, all you are really doing is getting a free month whilst the person buying the PLEX from CCP is paying for it and when the PLEX is redeemed in-game and sold they get the isk from the person buying the PLEX off of the in-game market. So the barrier to loosing space pixels is created by the people wrongly considering game time and isk as having a real monetary value.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.12 23:30:23 - [2] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Zhanethor Hakaari wrote: As a sort of newbie player, highsec is a must. Mining for ISK and same time waiting time on getting skills up takes up a lot of time. At present today my waiting time on skills is 14 days. So cannot engage in any sort of pvp or lose everything so am forced to take my time in highsec waiting and waiting..... Looking at the market, lot of the ships am interested in are quite expensive so going to take a lot of mining and selling ores or minerals after reprocessing and yet have to learn skillbooks to get the best results which adds to the waiting time....... Here a possible solution, though do not think CCP would/could do it. Create a pure pvp servers for pvpers only and a pure pve server for pve players/corps. restrict it so that a player/accounts cannot be on both servers. If CCP goes this route, then they get a win-win and keep getting more players to play the game, while at same time the pvper can have fun again on a pure pvp server where is there no high sec, low sec, just wide open pvp space with no concord around... The pvp'rs don't want this because it would show that their play style is not the dominant play style. Which we already know. This would also force the hi-sec pvp'rs who keep going on about everyone being risk averse to actually have to fight the pvp'rs who actively play in null and low. Again, they do not want this. In the end it all doesn't matter because the so called pvp'rs will just carry on with more posts. It's not very practical anyway. splitting the community in two, when you have such a large universe. Plus CCP wouldn't be able to say something along the lines of all players in one universe. Which is a selling point for some people. They would also have to have twice the amount of servers/hardware. On top of that they would have more programming to do as both PvE players and PvE players would require different things. So two lots of software to update and maintain. It simply wouldn't be worth the cost.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.13 00:10:28 - [3] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Terminal Insanity wrote: I think CCP needs to do more to push players into low and nullsec. They should make it clear to beginners that highsec is more of a training ground, and not the main game. I know a lot of bears will hate that statement, and they can continue rubbing the highsec ores if they choose, but we need to change the way new players perceive low&null, so they aren't so afraid of it. We also need to make clear to new players that they are expected to loose ships, and that if you are not losing ships, you are not playing the game properly. Make it clear that mining in 00 can be safer than highsec, due to alliance intel channels, and being surrounded by blues most of the time. The Missions need to provide a clearer path to transition into nullsec, with agents giving instructions on how to deliver their valuable goods into a lowsec, and nullsec system safe(ish)ly. Have the agents talk about how much more money there is to be made out there, etc. Introduce some extra taxes to highsec. Have station taxes increased if you belong to a corp that isnt favored by an empire faction. Have FW change highsec sov, so your station might not always favor you. When we start getting more players shifting into nullsec, then we can start shrinking highsec a bit too Are ships not blown up in high sec too? All these posts make it seem like high sec is this place where no one ever dies, instead of the place where ships die the most. It shouldn't be about trying to make null more populated it should be about making the whole universe more useful. Biggest problem I see for getting people into null is they need to be able to join corps there and with such low sp they're not that useful to those corps anyway. Off grid using neuts doesn't exactly sound that interesting.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.13 00:23:49 - [4] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Avvy wrote: It shouldn't be about trying to make null more populated it should be about making the whole universe more useful. Biggest problem I see for getting people into null is they need to be able to join corps there and with such low sp they're not that useful to those corps anyway. Off grid using neuts doesn't exactly sound that interesting. Low SP people are plenty useful in Null, if they have the time to participate in the corps activities and match the corps timezone with often & regular play sessions. The real barrier to play in Low/Null/WH's is time and availability. You need to be able to invest a lot of time into EVE, and have a regular availability that is good for the corps. If you shift work, live in an irregular time zone, or only play a few hours a week, you are pretty much s* out of luck. And that is the real reason so many people play in high. It's easier to be a 'casual' in high. Ok, thanks for that info. So it's unlikely trying to force players into low and null would work anyway in that case.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.13 00:50:50 - [5] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The game has been out for 10+ years. If the dominant play style isn't in your part of the sand box do you really think forcing that play style on them is magically going to change that? What is the dominant play style? Low-sec and null essentially PvP. High-sec PvE, you can't really count very new players as you don't know what their play style will be in the end. You can't count pirate corps plus you can't really count the alts that do PvE so that their mains can PvP. You can't count corps that wardec. So you can't really claim PvE is the dominant play style in EVE.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:06:34 - [6] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Avvy wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The game has been out for 10+ years. If the dominant play style isn't in your part of the sand box do you really think forcing that play style on them is magically going to change that? What is the dominant play style? Low-sec and null essentially PvP. High-sec PvE, you can't really count very new players as you don't know what their play style will be in the end. You can't count pirate corps plus you can't really count the alts that do PvE so that their mains can PvP. You can't count corps that wardec. So you can't really claim PvE is the dominant play style in EVE. Yeah actually you can. From CCPs own data, to player stats, to looking at the dotlan stats. PVE is the dominant playstyle of this game. PVP is the focus. There is a difference. Depends on what the data is looking at. Even traders PvP, but I wouldn't mind betting that they appear in those stats as PvE. New players will appear as PvE because that's what the game gives them at the start. There also seems to be PvE alts propping up their PvP mains, only reason they PvE is to get the funds to PvP. I wouldn't put too much faith in those figures. Edit: Also until recently PvPers had to do missions for standing for jump clones or get them though their player corps or those kind enough to run a jump clone service.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:26:03 - [7] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: The data looked at the time each PLAYER spent on each activity, across their accounts relative to play time, and grouped them into types of players based on ratio's of that time ratio. Of which the group that did almost no PvP and large amounts of PvE relative to play time was significantly larger than any other group. So yes, I think we can put reasonable faith in those figures. A lot more than your wild unsubstantiated claims anyway. Problem I see with that data if it's set over a period of time, is PvP players won't be blowing things up as quickly as PvE players A PvP player will have to look or wait for their targets. So how did it collect the data during the periods when the PvP players were hunting or just waiting for potential kills? How did it categorises the PvP players during those times?
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 95	Posted - 2015.08.13 08:08:59 - [8] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Avvy wrote: The problem I see with that data is, PvP players won't be blowing things up as quickly as PvE players A PvP player will have to look or wait for their targets. So how did it collect the data during the periods when the PvP players were hunting or just waiting for potential kills? How did it categorises the PvP players during those times? However it did it, it obviously identified players who spend all their time on PvP just fine, as that group of players existed. It was just a much smaller group. So no, there is no significant bias in CCP's figures based on 'Gate camp waiting time' or anything else. Especially since CCP figures actually match the in game experience. That I don't believe. Because I can't see how it can't identify the difference between someone flying around hunting for targets and someone just flying around. Also it wouldn't be able to tell the difference from someone waiting to pounce on a target and someone afk. PvE is a lot easier to identify than PvP. It's not surprising to me that PvP didn't do as well as it should in the data as some aspects of PvP were being ignored.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 97	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:28:00 - [9] - Quote Sarrgon wrote: What I think is ironic, always got those that feel everyone should PVP or do this that or another, to them this is how the game SHOULD be played, but the said person pays to play this game, whether it is real life money or earns enough ISK to plex every month. To me, let that said person play the way they want to, they payed for it. But if you want to solve the high sec problem, double the amount of concord ships and double their response time. Can still get ganked, but will take more people in bigger ships, make them more pick and choose on what to gank instead of anything they mostly feel like. Think most will agree that ganking and war decs are out of control. Paying to play a PvP game and you would like players to be able to PvE without anyone attacking them. So PvE players would become isk making machines as they would have next to no losses. Both PvP and PvE players share the same markets, so why should PvE players get a huge advantage over PvP players in a PvP game, where the markets and making isk is concerned? As for wardecs how can they be out of control as it's a PvP game? They should get rid of CONCORD altogether. What seems to be out of control is PvE players trying to turn high-sec into a PvE area.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 97	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:18:21 - [10] - Quote Sarrgon wrote: Eve is also one big PVP arena, but those that not want to pvp, shouldn't have to WoW as an example; A PvP server allows you to play in low level regions without fear of PvP. That's because characters have levels and the game has levelled regions so it allows new players to get used to the game. At about level 20 iirc regions turn to PvP regions and from that point there is no safe PvE except for instanced content. So if WoW's PvP servers are not PvP safe why should EVE's be? EVE is a PvP game, only way to not PvP is to try and avoid it.

Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 97	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:48:08 - [11] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Avvy wrote: That I don't believe. Because I can't see how it can identify the difference between someone flying around hunting for targets and someone just flying around. Also it wouldn't be able to tell the difference from someone waiting to pounce on a target and someone afk. PvE is a lot easier to identify than PvP. It's not surprising to me that PvP didn't do as well as it should in the data as some aspects of PvP were being ignored. That's extremely presumptuous. We don't know how PvP was quantified, thus any notions of an omission or inaccuracy are theoretical at best unless you have actual proof otherwise. The concerns you've voiced could very well have been accounted for in full. So how would the system collecting the data be able to tell if someone is waiting or afk? Also how would the system know who is searching for targets and who is out sightseeing?
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 97	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:15:59 - [12] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Why should the 2 be distinguished? If a players aggressive intent doesn't manifest, why is it worth cataloging? Camping a gate probably shouldn't count as PvP until something gets shot, otherwise it is just sitting in space. And if they do so long enough they will have shot something and will be classed accordingly. Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything. Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period. Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 97	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:09:36 - [13] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Avvy wrote: Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything. Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period. Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been. A camp isn't PvP if it doesn't engage anything. Things that leave the gate without being engaged aren't interfered with, much less things which never show up on that gate. Similarly roaming is a zero sum until some form of confrontation or denial occurs. It's entirely legitimate to say PvP isn't occuring while waiting for prey as there is no one to PvP against. Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed. So a fairly pointless exercise then. A bit like comparing a carrot with a banana. But anyway, if you want to follow the reasoning read posts 121, 123, 125 and 132. Also ref 151
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 98	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:54:54 - [14] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Before answering your scenario, I agree that it is a flawed metrc, You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be. That was the point to show that it was flawed.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 98	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:10:07 - [15] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Avvy wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Before answering your scenario, I agree that it is a flawed metrc, You don't need to answer it as we both know what the answer would be. That was the point to show that it was flawed. Your response doesn't answer the request for proof it was used. We have some stats from CCP, to which you objected to a portion stating PvP was difficult to account for and from the looks of it presented this flawed metric on your own. Hence the question, where was it supposedly used? The kills came from what you said here below, because in PvE what else would you do with a ship you aggressed. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Also, no, the metric wasn't PvP, but rather being the aggressor, as in actually initiating ship to ship combat as far as player classification goes. That requires a ship be aggressed.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 98	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:54:35 - [16] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: That never stated nor implied a direct 1 to 1 count be used, and was stated far after you brought up the subject of this activity miscount. So we still have no reference to where this actual classification of players occurred much less using this method. You'll have to find someone else to troll now, as this discussion is terminated with you.