Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5599
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 18:54:48 -
[61] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:If a system has a high amount of ganking/podding/etc, CONCORD starts to stage a higher presence there, ie the security status increases by 0.1 every so often. If a system has low activity, CONCORD vacates, causing the security status to decrease by 0.1 every so often. Actually I'd suggest it be done the opposite way - make it based on PvE activity. If a system has a hell of a lot of missioning going on it, the pirates are going to have their backs constantly against the wall, unable to field convincing forces in the asteroid belts because they're spending all their time defending their deadspace assets. If a system has a hell of a lot of trading (say, Jita), local security forces will increase their presence accordingly to ensure business stays smooth and isn't interrupted by filthy pirates. A system that's heavily mined will slowly expend its high-value materials, making the potential monetary gain for the pirates less and less.
Basically, if a system has a lot of "hi-sec stuff" happening in it, its security status goes up, meaning that the quality of minerals and the payout of missions goes down. Theoretically a hi-sec system that was neglected long enough could slip into low (but not null) security, while a heavily-trafficked and well-patrolled low-sec system (like, oh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, Intaki) could one day turn into hi-sec.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Dave Stark
7530
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:13:06 -
[62] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jeez, not this again...
yes, the thread where everyone suggests a logistical nightmare as the best idea since sliced bread. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
685
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:14:18 -
[63] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Chribba wrote:If you want to see pilots being docked even more then yes by all means, make it low/null-sec, and then of course watch as local gets more empty as pilots quit.
High-sec is a good social part of the game for those of us that are perhaps not so into pvp'ing every second you undock.
/c Yup. Highsec should exist for new players, risk-averse players, solo players, casual players and so forth. It's also why New Eden needs the New Order and other such sources of risk in highsec more than ever before. You mean all those alts of nulsecc'rs who make up "New Order" and other sources of risk, right?
If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts.
Nulsec, sov, pve and just living there needs to be sorted - Then and only then will highsec become less desirable.
** I got camped into a nulsec station yesterday by a gang of 5, simply because none of the other 19 people who were in station were willing to undock and engage. Talk about risk averse - These guys live in nulsec, scream about lack of content but stay docked when it is taunting them in local.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator
|
Dave Stark
7530
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:17:24 -
[64] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:** I got camped into a nulsec station yesterday by a gang of 5, simply because none of the other 19 people who were in station were willing to undock and engage. Talk about risk averse - These guys live in nulsec, scream about lack of content but stay docked when it is taunting them in local.
and what, exactly, were they to gain by engaging a gang of 5?
...
exactly. nothing. not wasting your time on an irrelevance isn't risk aversion. |
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12108
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:36:55 -
[65] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts.
I think this is fundamentally untrue. Null is plenty fun enough as it is, even with fozzie sov. The kinds of people who populate the groups you mention would be in high sec regardless of anything else, because that's where their preferred content is.
The idea that people from null are in high because they are bored is pure nonsense. |
Freya Sertan
Et Liberate Vos De Deus
726
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:44:09 -
[66] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts.
This is so false. My main here spends her time in null but not so much that I can't log my gank alt and have some highsec fun quite often. CODE. exists because EvE Online exists; quit trying to find a way to get rid of highsec ganking. T'won't happen.
New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.
Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
40
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:44:50 -
[67] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: and what, exactly, were they to gain by engaging a gang of 5?
...
exactly. nothing. not wasting your time on an irrelevance isn't risk aversion.
Five potential killmails? Fun? Something more exciting than station spinning? The real question is what did they have to lose by engaging? |
ashley Eoner
488
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:18:11 -
[68] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:I don't mind highsec existing. The original concept of Eve didn't involve a "highsec". New Edan was basically all 0.0, all the time. This became a problem when people who were not as "good" at Eve started getting ROFLStomped.
So yeah, there needs to be a little bit of a buffer to give us normal scrubs room to play alongside the leet MLG420noscope pros.
As for highsec being the most lucrative space in Eve...yeah, that needs a fixing. About the only "fair" way I could see that happening is to implement some sort of diminishing returns system on highsec living. And by "not as good at Eve" he means "doesn't have 20 friends to back them up".
Having no highsec was/is a stupid idea and a great way to ensure a short game lifespan. People in Null/low/WHs are just about as risk adverse as most of those in highsec. Why? because people are people and don't like losing.
Highsec isn't remotely more lucrative than null and only idiots and propagandists say so. The mere fact that null alliances can replace a capital ship fleet in a matter of (a) day(s) shows that. Those null groups aren't doing SRP with highsec income that's for sure.
My AFktars make more isk per hour AFK than you could dream of while semi-afk in highsec. You can easily do +1b an hour outside of highsec with a few accounts/people if you are willing to actually play the game actively.
CODE exists because people are lazy. Why bother spending time trying to find a fight you can win in null/low/wh when you could just log in and shoot someone you KNOW can't win against you? Code is basically the Call of Duty of eve. A pure sugar rush that requires little effort.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2984
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:20:55 -
[69] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:CODE exists because people are lazy. Why bother spending time trying to find a fight you can win in null/low/wh when you could just log in and shoot someone you KNOW can't win against you? Code is basically the Call of Duty of eve. A pure sugar rush that requires little effort.
If we're lazy, what is your personal definition of the people who hit the autopilot and go AFK?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
ashley Eoner
488
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:26:03 -
[70] - Quote
admiral root wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:CODE exists because people are lazy. Why bother spending time trying to find a fight you can win in null/low/wh when you could just log in and shoot someone you KNOW can't win against you? Code is basically the Call of Duty of eve. A pure sugar rush that requires little effort. If we're lazy, what is your personal definition of the people who hit the autopilot and go AFK? They are lazy too and sometimes stupid. AFK AP doesn't always imply stupidity but it does imply laziness. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16859
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:35:57 -
[71] - Quote
Damien Power wrote:Ive been playing eve since 2006 and i seen so much change over that time.
Null sec use to have major brawls all the time now its nothing but rental space and small fights here and there.
then Low sec you would see decent fights and gate camps everywhere and large faction warfare battles.
High sec use to be some what quiet and full of miners and ratters. I remember when you could tank a Hulk out and solo kill guys in them..
These days i see Nullsec alliances jumping into other alliances battles just to get kills, and some have to travel long distances just to find people to attack that are willing to engage becasue of the amount on rented space.
In low sec ! all you here about and see are cap ships getting ganked while trying to travel from one place to another.
And there is high sec! i see players/corps telling miners to pay a mining fee to mine freely or they get ganked
I see groups ganking indy ships all the time exp freighters.
even ratting ships getting ganked by players flying in the sites and hitting the site trigger to spawn the entire room and once that ratter is taking enough Dps you can eaily gank them as well.
Seems like high sec might as well go away and make all of eve a null sec and Lowsec game..
If they want a New player friendly area then make a syatem that has a low isk profit that allows them to learn and once they decide and feel comfortable they can leave the Small high sec area and cant return but there will be missions that send them in a low sec area that they cant be attacked until the click on something to agree to leave the safety of Hs Timed missions so they cant fly around just to say haha you cant attack me. after the timer is up you are free to attack.
All of this is just my opinion from what ive been seeing.. a full nusec and low sec would be kinda cool i think..
tl;dr: no
Longer answer: Hell no
Hi-sec serves a very different set of playstyles, and making hi-sec go away won't entice those players happily into nullsec. It'll just drive them into SW:G or whatever.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2985
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:36:51 -
[72] - Quote
Just so I'm clear, you dont see any distinction between hitting the autopilot and walking away, and fleeting up, getting on comms, working as a team to tackle and prosecute targets and linking killmails in local?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
ashley Eoner
489
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:51:12 -
[73] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Just so I'm clear, you dont see any distinction between hitting the autopilot and walking away, and fleeting up, getting on comms, working as a team to tackle and prosecute targets and linking killmails in local? See your bias is clear. You're comparing the most simplest form of APing against a relatively complicated form of ganking.
Logging in jumping into a catalyst ganking a retriever then calling it a day is every bit as lazy as logging in hitting a destination and hitting AP. Neither requires anything in the way of higher thought which is every bit as lazy as the dude who is AFK in the retriever. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2985
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:54:46 -
[74] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Logging in jumping into a catalyst ganking a retriever then calling it a day is every bit as lazy as logging in hitting a destination and hitting AP. Neither requires anything in the way of higher thought.
Whilst you certainly can gank like that, it's not going to yield anywhere near as many killmails as you'd like (hint: we generally aim for a 100% success rate). I don't know anyone who ganks like that, unless it's a specific target with a proven history of refusing to learn from the previous beatings they've recieved and insists on anti-tanking in a 0.5. Progress beyond that scenario and you at least have to scan the ship and check the fit against the amount of DPS you can apply in the time available, and you'll probably want to pre-pull Concord.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
ashley Eoner
489
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:59:39 -
[75] - Quote
admiral root wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Logging in jumping into a catalyst ganking a retriever then calling it a day is every bit as lazy as logging in hitting a destination and hitting AP. Neither requires anything in the way of higher thought. Whilst you certainly can gank like that, it's not going to yield anywhere near as many killmails as you'd like (hint: we generally aim for a 100% success rate). I don't know anyone who ganks like that, unless it's a specific target with a proven history of refusing to learn from the previous beatings they've recieved and insists on anti-tanking in a 0.5. Progress beyond that scenario and you at least have to scan the ship and check the fit against the amount of DPS you can apply in the time available, and you'll probably want to pre-pull Concord. I've seen dozens of people using the code troll doing exactly what I said.
You're adding complexity to the ganking side of things while completely refusing to add complexity to the AP side of things.
I don't find anything at all wrong with people being lazy in game. I have no problem with gankers being lazy and preying on the laziness of others. Why bother wasting hours in null looking for a decently fair fight when you can get instant satisfaction via ganking? |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2986
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 21:03:54 -
[76] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:You're adding complexity to the ganking side of things while completely refusing to add complexity to the AP side of things.
Actually, what I'm doing is asking questions based on what I've seen and done in Eve because I seek answers.
What complexity is there in auto piloting a freighter? I don't think I've ever "flown" a freighter that way even back when I was a carebear.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
ashley Eoner
489
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 21:05:55 -
[77] - Quote
admiral root wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:You're adding complexity to the ganking side of things while completely refusing to add complexity to the AP side of things. Actually, what I'm doing is asking questions based on what I've seen and done in Eve because I seek answers. What complexity is there in auto piloting a freighter? I don't think I've ever "flown" a freighter that way even back when I was a carebear. Mapping out a smarter path? Not using it to AP through obvious ganker areas? Gathering intel to make that possible? I could fluff this up more if you want. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
45
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 21:09:37 -
[78] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Actually I'd suggest it be done the opposite way - make it based on PvE activity. If a system has a hell of a lot of missioning going on it, the pirates are going to have their backs constantly against the wall, unable to field convincing forces in the asteroid belts because they're spending all their time defending their deadspace assets. If a system has a hell of a lot of trading (say, Jita), local security forces will increase their presence accordingly to ensure business stays smooth and isn't interrupted by filthy pirates. A system that's heavily mined will slowly expend its high-value materials, making the potential monetary gain for the pirates less and less.
Basically, if a system has a lot of "hi-sec stuff" happening in it, its security status goes up, meaning that the quality of minerals and the payout of missions goes down. Theoretically a hi-sec system that was neglected long enough could slip into low (but not null) security, while a heavily-trafficked and well-patrolled low-sec system (like, oh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, Intaki) could one day turn into hi-sec.
That makes sense. That would inherently take care of the gank-heavy systems anyway. Not that it's ever going to happen. This is too big of a change to be realistic in anything but a "it's fun to talk about/dream" kind of way. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1313
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 21:21:14 -
[79] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Chribba wrote:If you want to see pilots being docked even more then yes by all means, make it low/null-sec, and then of course watch as local gets more empty as pilots quit.
High-sec is a good social part of the game for those of us that are perhaps not so into pvp'ing every second you undock.
/c Yup. Highsec should exist for new players, risk-averse players, solo players, casual players and so forth. It's also why New Eden needs the New Order and other such sources of risk in highsec more than ever before. You mean all those alts of nulsecc'rs who make up "New Order" and other sources of risk, right? If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts. Nulsec, sov, pve and just living there needs to be sorted - Then and only then will highsec become less desirable. Nah, as long as there are entitled carebears acting like they should be safe in highsec, there will be people willing to shoot them to remind them what kind of game this is.
The New Order is many things, but it is fundamentally based on ideology. One such core tenet of that ideology is that risk vs. reward must be respected for Eve to function as a game. One could argue that it formed as part of a player-driven effort to restore some risk to highsec in opposition to years of continual buffs to highsec safety by CCP. Players of all sorts, including those in nullsec who look at the big picture see the damage an overly safe and lucrative highsec does to the whole game, including nullsec, by sucking players out of the other spaces. So you could say it is in their interests to increase the risks in highsec in order to build a more vibrant nullsec.
Another view is that the growth of the New Order was a more organic phenomenon, and piratical-minded players are just following the prey who were attracted by the favourable risk vs. reward on offer in highsec. It matters not - this is a debate for the scholars among us - but making nullsec more livable, and more lucrative relative to highsec will draw players, both predator and prey, reinvigorating that sector of space. This can be done by changing nullsec, but also by nerfing highsec income and/or increasing highsec risk as is the approach of the New Order.
Whatever happens the New Order wins as it always does. Either FozzieSov and the increased risk provided by the New Order produce a revitalized nullsec that ushers in a new golden age of conflict outside of highsec and Eve continues on for another 12 years, or the population continues to contract to highsec seeking the "safe" ISK available there just to become more of the "content" that has allowed CODE. to be the #1 ranked PvP alliance in recent months, at least for a while until the game completely fail cascades.
The failure of a proper risk vs. reward balance had made Eve quite sick. Thankfully, CCP seems to have finally recognized this and are implementing the changes necessary to fix things. Let's hope they are not too late. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
333
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 21:27:51 -
[80] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:Actually I'd suggest it be done the opposite way - make it based on PvE activity. If a system has a hell of a lot of missioning going on it, the pirates are going to have their backs constantly against the wall, unable to field convincing forces in the asteroid belts because they're spending all their time defending their deadspace assets. If a system has a hell of a lot of trading (say, Jita), local security forces will increase their presence accordingly to ensure business stays smooth and isn't interrupted by filthy pirates. A system that's heavily mined will slowly expend its high-value materials, making the potential monetary gain for the pirates less and less.
Basically, if a system has a lot of "hi-sec stuff" happening in it, its security status goes up, meaning that the quality of minerals and the payout of missions goes down. Theoretically a hi-sec system that was neglected long enough could slip into low (but not null) security, while a heavily-trafficked and well-patrolled low-sec system (like, oh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, Intaki) could one day turn into hi-sec. That makes sense. That would inherently take care of the gank-heavy systems anyway. Not that it's ever going to happen. This is too big of a change to be realistic in anything but a "it's fun to talk about/dream" kind of way.
Yep. But still, I think the whole system of PvE resources in EVE needs reworking. It's too static. When Group A and Group B both own space equally as valuable, and the value never varies, there's little reason for one group to mess with the other unless they have a growing membership and need more space. In the real world, conflict is driven by things like drought and gold rushes. Sometimes it's a natural disaster that chokes off a resource (like lack of rain) and sometimes it's manmade (like overfishing.) At the same time, oil or gold can be discovered in an area, maybe a busy place, maybe a little-visited one, creating a rush of individuals and groups trying to claim it for themselves. And unlike things such as Sleep Caches, which have innate difficulty balancing out their value, gold rush items can be at the same time both fantastically valuable and ridiculously easy to harvest - it'll be the players themselves that create difficulty in accessing the wealth.
When CCP buffed the benefits of IHubs in sov space, sure, in a sense they gave groups additional incentive to move out to null and claim sov. But they also essentially said "Hey, here are more reasons to carebear in space and avoid conflict as much as possible." Good for seeing your wallet balance tic up, but bad for wars and conflict since entities can get more ISK from the systems they already own without having to invade anybody. If systems in Deklein showed environmental damage from over-harvesting, such that available resources declined (and maybe there was even toxic waste that caused damage to ships?) we'd see quite a mass migration happen... (Would it cause a large population to unsub? Mmm, possibly; not sure about that one.)
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3592
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 22:45:05 -
[81] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:** I got camped into a nulsec station yesterday by a gang of 5, simply because none of the other 19 people who were in station were willing to undock and engage. Talk about risk averse - These guys live in nulsec, scream about lack of content but stay docked when it is taunting them in local.
and what, exactly, were they to gain by engaging a gang of 5? They would get to see explosions in space.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Dave Stark
7538
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 05:33:32 -
[82] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:** I got camped into a nulsec station yesterday by a gang of 5, simply because none of the other 19 people who were in station were willing to undock and engage. Talk about risk averse - These guys live in nulsec, scream about lack of content but stay docked when it is taunting them in local.
and what, exactly, were they to gain by engaging a gang of 5? They would get to see explosions in space.
exactly; nothing. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6773
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 05:55:02 -
[83] - Quote
They were probably afk anyway
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2423
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:43:21 -
[84] - Quote
I hope high sec doesn't go away, that's where I keep all my stuff.
That being said I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of a shift here and there of the fringe systems to lower security levels as a result of empires grasp on them beginning to erode. Would be nice to see a few new islands of high and low form as a result, because well, content.
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Lady Areola Fappington
2674
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 07:24:26 -
[85] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Lady Areola Fappington wrote:I don't mind highsec existing. The original concept of Eve didn't involve a "highsec". New Edan was basically all 0.0, all the time. This became a problem when people who were not as "good" at Eve started getting ROFLStomped.
So yeah, there needs to be a little bit of a buffer to give us normal scrubs room to play alongside the leet MLG420noscope pros.
As for highsec being the most lucrative space in Eve...yeah, that needs a fixing. About the only "fair" way I could see that happening is to implement some sort of diminishing returns system on highsec living. And by "not as good at Eve" he means "doesn't have 20 friends to back them up".
Actually, no. What I meant by "not as good at Eve" is exactly what I said.
People who, for whatever reason, aren't as good at playing Eve as other people. All jokes aside, the Concord mechanic is reasonable enough to protect the "not good" portion of the Eve playerbase from the MLGpro style types.
7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?
No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided.
--Eve New Player Guide
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5613
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 20:40:47 -
[86] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:The original concept of Eve didn't involve a "highsec". New Edan was basically all 0.0, all the time. Citation needed.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
691
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:02:46 -
[87] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts.
I think this is fundamentally untrue. Null is plenty fun enough as it is, even with fozzie sov. The kinds of people who populate the groups you mention would be in high sec regardless of anything else, because that's where their preferred content is. The idea that people from null are in high because they are bored is pure nonsense. So by that logic - the thousands who have let nul toons unsub, did it because they were having too much fun? Tell me, if living in, defending and or taking sov kept you busy and was engaging content - Would you have time to log in an alt and go ganking? I personally know a few nulsec players who have alts in ganking corps, they do it - because nul is boring 99.99% of the time. Not because "they would be in highsec regardless" - These guys (and at least 2 RL girls) live in nul and gank (play) in empire some of the time. (Do you really think people give you "all" their API keys when they apply to corp, having toons in different groups is, I find, a good way to find something to do) Do you know the name of the character I have in Test? Do you know the name of my character in Marmite?
Unless you enjoy spending 90% of your time chasing un-catchable ceptors or trying to convince 19 others undocking to kill the 5 guys camping the undock (instead of complaining about being camped in) would be good. Your options in nul are fairly limited.
But of course you do have the 40 man Rupture fleet that runs away from a fleet its own size because they are only there to engage small gangs of miners and solo pilots.. Or the 2 Legions with a Sabre who really want content and are there to pvp (they said so in local), as long as it only comes to them 1 ship at a time. (No amount of taunting in local from 2 prots and a flycatcher could get them to engage.)
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- Freya Sertan - Where did you get "trying to get rid of highsec ganking"? Spending time in nul on my main but logging in highsec ganking alt for fun - Sort of says a lot, does it not? NB; might be best not to respond with a comment that backs up what i said if your trying to disagree with me.
Ishtars online is all but gone (thank Bob) But was replaced with Ceptors online (curse Fozzie)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator
|
Panthe3 Black
The Branded Few Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:19:44 -
[88] - Quote
high sec is a training ground for later game stuff. should it go away, NO. we need it to get players into the game and it is a good place to take a break. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6515
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:22:11 -
[89] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Damien Power wrote:Lol look at it this way!
If there isn't a high sec then all the so called pirate/ merc corps will be free fire and you can get rid of having to wardec them if you want to kill them . it will make all of eve a rich pvp area :-) Yeah, because PVE never happens in 0.0 You know, the place in eve with the most PVE per capita.
Actually more people do pve in highsec, we just kill more things because you can do it almost entirely afk in super-tanked Ishtars.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Freya Sertan
Et Liberate Vos De Deus
731
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:26:26 -
[90] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Freya Sertan - Where did you get "trying to get rid of highsec ganking"? Spending time in nul on my main but logging in highsec ganking alt for fun - Sort of says a lot, does it not? NB; might be best not to respond with a comment that backs up what i said if your trying to disagree with me.
Says WAY more about you than me, bro.
And they're called "apostrophes". Please use them.
New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.
Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |