EVE Search - My Views On Hisec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3182	Posted - 2015.08.21 00:56:32 - [1] - Quote I'm no fan of NPC corps, but wouldn't requiring them to pay extra taxes when using the market shut them out of trading? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3182	Posted - 2015.08.21 01:09:29 - [2] - Quote Damnskippy wrote: On removing high- sec incursions: I would be more inclined to nerf the income instead of removing them entirely. CCP actually did this once - they took 10% off. Turns out, all those carebears that run incursions for the community and the teamwork were flat-out lying (carebear liars, who would have thought it? :P). The tears were so bad that CCP reversed the nerf very quickly. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3184	Posted - 2015.08.21 05:09:37 - [3] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: admiral root wrote: I'm no fan of NPC corps, but wouldn't requiring them to pay extra taxes when using the market shut them out of trading? I thought about this too when I read it... but since trade alts rarely undock, why not corp them? Its an incredibly low price and very short train. That would be the smart way to adapt to such a change but we're talking about the electorate. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3189	Posted - 2015.08.21 22:01:10 - [4] - Quote Faylee Freir wrote: I think this is a waste of time. None of your proposed changes do anything to directly benefit anyone that isn't a merc, griefer, and/or content creator. You take away without actually doing anything to balance the other side of the coin, which is silly. Why would any high-sec dwelling person that isn't "like me" agree to your platform and vote for you? The other part to this is that Aegissov is in need of fine-tuning and most everyone is concerned with more important things than war costs and agent relocation. Kudos to you though... You lost any shred of credibility you had when you said "griefer". Griefing is prohibited under the ToS and EULA, and rightly so - report that stuff to CCP if you ever see it. Many of the changes would help restore balance to the game as a whole, so that it's more viable for non-highsec residents to do their thing in the space they normally live in. It's the current imbalance that has so many players using highsec alts to make obscene amounts of isk in almost-perfect safety and anyone who can't see that is either blind or selfishly milking highsec for every last dime before it does ultimately get fixed. The rule should be that you make the most money in nullsec and wormhole space as they're the most dangerous places mechanically. The exceptions are that there's no accounting for a confluence of a fool loading 50 billion into a freighter in Jita and the loot fairy smililng on the ganker, and that greedy people will always fall for scams in Jita. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3203	Posted - 2015.08.25 12:51:41 - [5] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: blanket wardecs stifling new player corp creation. Is this a bad thing? As it is, there's way too many corps being created by people who don't have the first clue about running an Eve corp, either because they assume it's just like running a guild in any other MMORPG, or some other reason. Is it possible that a genuine newbie who has a bad experience in their first player-run corp will be less likely to bother trying again, and that the more unprepared CEOs that are put off creating a bad corp, the better? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3216	Posted - 2015.08.27 14:44:05 - [6] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers. I'm being completely serious here, but like the trade and negotiation system in Civilization. Half duplex, each side takes turns making offers until they are either accepted or one side walks away. I would fully expect most of the NPCs we wardec to be as unreasonable at the negotiating table as the civ NPCs are. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3218	Posted - 2015.08.28 18:21:52 - [7] - Quote Malt Zedong wrote: The idea of having people to bully the defenseless is ever present Wardecs aren't bullying. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3220	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:33:15 - [8] - Quote Yong Shin wrote: BAW wardeccing another merc corp is not bullying. A experienced merc corp deccing every small newbro/mining/pve corp on the other hand... ... is not bullying. People need to grow a spine if they feel bullied by people using the mechanics of an internet game about asploding virtual spaceships against them. Actual, honest-to-Bob, bullying is serious. It's also far less of a problem in the virtual world because of killfiles, or whatever the media buzzword for them is these days. You right click on the asshat and you click block. A newbro corp shouldn't exist unless it's got competent leadership that not only has a passion for herding cats, but also for teaching and they need to know the facts from the myths from the malicious lies. We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3222	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:37:40 - [9] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: We need to better educate new players that them starting a corp is, in most cases, a terrible idea. And since CCP sucks at education, the solution is to raise the barrier to entry for player corps, in both skill points and cost. Or leave the barrier where it is and make a graphic example out of some of these corps from time to time? I dunno. Sometimes I think we should just have a CTA across the whole of the New Order, and invite all our "sociopath" friends, and camp out the newbie help channel for an entire month, verbally ganking anyone who gives bad / wrong advice. We could even hunt the offenders down in space, too. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3222	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:43:40 - [10] - Quote Yong Shin wrote: I'm all for trying my hand at pvp, but I'd have to be stupid to think we have even the slightest chance of achieving anything meaningful. The logical (albeit cowardly) thing to do would simply drop corp, or hide in order to save my ships and assets from meaningless death. If war dec mechanics gave me some kind of direct tactical combat advantage to compensate for our lack of size, however, I would certainly love to try defending my new corp, especially if some of the incentives mentioned in this thread exist. I dunno, Vimsy is pretty terribad at PvP. Seriously, though, yes, current mechanics promote disbanding the corp. Incentives to stay are preferable over the knee-jerk reaction of nerfing NPC corps into oblivion, though some stick to go with the carrot would probably make sense. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

admiral root Red Galaxy 3223	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:47:37 - [11] - Quote Malt Zedong wrote: CCP is not the entity responsible for creating the definition of english words. And CCP as far as I know always spoke in terms of saying it is legal or illegal to do things in game. Saying it is ok to do it, doesnt change the fact that it is by definition a certain kind of behavior defined by a direct word. The definition of bully as used in its accepted verbal form is the act or effect of : : to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person) : to act like a bully toward (someone) : to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force So regardless of what CCP defines as being LEGAL or ILEGAL, the word used to describe the action of a peson who does bullying is correct. CCP cannot rule the definition of the term, they only can rule, as they DID, if it is legal under the Terms of Use and EULA or not. Blowing up your internet spaceship in a game about blowing up internet spaceships isn't bullying. It's probably bullying under English law, but to any rational person it's simply playing the game within the rules. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3237	Posted - 2015.08.29 21:38:03 - [12] - Quote I'm not sure how one group raising seven hundred and thirty-eight billion invalidates the argument that ganking isn't a sustainable activity. How many other currently active ganking groups can you name that have that sort of money to fund operations? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3238	Posted - 2015.08.30 07:29:26 - [13] - Quote Avvy wrote: I think the process of joining a corp in this game is different too, like full api required. Whereas in other games you just join one often with no real requirements. Sadly, there are frequent stories of people getting in to corps and wreaking education and havoc because people do accept applications without any requirements or, more importantly, any kind of effort on the recruiter's part to check out who it is they're letting in. Still, I like the low barrier to starting a corp - newbros who comprehend what sort of a game this is may find some creative uses for them. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3238	Posted - 2015.08.30 07:49:07 - [14] - Quote The social corps that CCP have been talking about (corp lite, in your example) are terrible and whomever came up with the idea should be forced to read Jita local for an entire work day. They're just going to de-centralise the problem known as NPC corps, which should have been scrapped before they were implemented. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3239	Posted - 2015.08.30 08:19:23 - [15] - Quote Aoife Fraoch wrote: To clarify, in my proposal, they are still subject to wardec Then no-one will use them and it'll be a waste of dev time coding them. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3245	Posted - 2015.08.31 14:58:46 - [16] - Quote Malt Zedong wrote: The thing is: IF you want the system to provide things, that is what NPC corps are for. You are not making private corps better by taking the controls and decisions on how to benefit your members from the private interests who run it. The system provides corp hangers, not corp leadership. Are you saying NPC corps should get them and player corps shouldn't? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3248	Posted - 2015.08.31 21:49:36 - [17] - Quote If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3248	Posted - 2015.08.31 22:00:51 - [18] - Quote I welcome changes that increase highsec content and address the current imbalance in risk and reward. If, in some biazzaro scenario, yet another nerf to ganking would be good for the health for the game, I'd be all for it. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3268	Posted - 2015.09.06 09:52:23 - [19] - Quote Avvy wrote: Veterans choosing to stay in high-sec stay there for a reason, probably partially because it's safe in NPC corps, except against suicide gankers and partially for the isk. There's nothing you can do to force them into low-sec or null, if they don't want to be there. If you try, all they will do is leave the game. The only ones you may force to go to low-sec or null are the alts of those that are already in low-sec and null. Even some of those alts are probably in high-sec just to take a break from low-sec or null instead of playing/doing something else. Even the op sayings he's had enough of null. Plenty of those vets would prefer to play in other areas of space. Common sense is what's keeping those players in highsec, and will do for as long as it's the best place to make money and the safest. Stop talking about forcing people to do x, y or z. I've never seen a single post from a credible person talking about wanting to do that. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3268	Posted - 2015.09.06 10:35:20 - [20] - Quote Avvy wrote: Black Pedro wrote: If you made all PvE in lowsec say play 10 times the amount it does now, do you not think that many players would move there? There are terrible downsides for the economy for that proposal so I am not advocating it, but I am sure there would be a mass migration of players out of highsec. I can't see missioners wanting to go to low-sec even with 10x the reward. The cost of a lost ship and the rep hit just wouldn't be worth it. And yet people do run missions in low-sec, even with the rewards and safety currently being better in highsec. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

admiral root Red Galaxy 3269	Posted - 2015.09.06 11:01:02 - [21] - Quote So you agree that players do currently run missions in lowsec, which makes nonsense of your claim that no-one will do it if the risk / reward imbalance is corrected? Excellent. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3269	Posted - 2015.09.06 11:50:06 - [22] - Quote Avvy wrote: I was talking specifically about those that don't have any ties with low-sec. Then you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations. If your revised claim is that there are people who have always lived in highsec that wouldn't give lowsec / nullsec / wormholes a try as a result of risk and reward being fixed, you're still wrong. Avvy wrote: I wasn't talking about faction warfare missions either, just in case you also include that. I was talking about people who run level 5 missions. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3269	Posted - 2015.09.06 12:28:42 - [23] - Quote Avvy wrote: Most solo missions in high-sec. Can level 5s even be soloed and what would be the cost of a ship and fittings that could actually solo a level 5? Pretty sure you can solo them in a nighthawk - you certainly could in the past. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3271	Posted - 2015.09.07 12:15:26 - [24] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game. One of the many nerfs to ganking over the years was the utterly ******** decision to make Concord invincible. This leaves us with no option to stay docked between ganks and greatly reduces the opporunities for interaction. If undocking didn't mean certain death (I'd be fine with reasonably certain) we'd spend a lot more time undocked. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3271	Posted - 2015.09.07 12:27:20 - [25] - Quote Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation. Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3272	Posted - 2015.09.07 20:09:50 - [26] - Quote Some kind of beacon going up whenever a player goes GCC would be cool. I generally don't read blogs; are we talking about invincible Concord ships, or just a new line of ships that require Concord LP to source? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3276	Posted - 2015.09.08 13:20:42 - [27] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? As you're not posting in GD I think we can allow you to admit not knowing. :) Yes, once someone engages a -10 player they can return fire without invoking a Concord response. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3277	Posted - 2015.09.08 17:55:43 - [28] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status. That's because response times were buffed some years back, probably because of carebear complaints. +1 for reversing that, at least partially, in incursion systems. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3280	Posted - 2015.09.09 11:13:21 - [29] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: I swear I remember reading somewhere that CONCORD was made invincible after a group of players was able to basically perma-tank CONCORD, take over a highsec trade hub and kill everything that moved. Maybe someone here was around when that happened? Seems like it would just happen again. That would be awesome fun. It'd be even more fun if the whinebears put down their pitchforks and undocked to do something about it. After all, they outnumber us by tens of thousands. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3287	Posted - 2015.09.09 13:16:00 - [30] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: There's scarcely more than thirty thousand people logged in at a given time Your point? Demerius Xenocratus wrote: and over half of those are alts. Your source? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

admiral root Red Galaxy 3287	Posted - 2015.09.09 22:44:45 - [31] - Quote Zihao wrote: I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility. 30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts. Except your post is an educated guess (based on a figure released by CCP?), which is perfectly reasonable. He's stating a "fact" that probably isn't a fact at all because grrrr, ebil piwates. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3291	Posted - 2015.09.10 14:09:42 - [32] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: That's still a ton of alts. And really my point was that for CODE/goons to claim that highsec bears would outnumber them by tens of thousands when there are only 20-30k players on at a time in the entire game is disingenuous at best. Because the math changes where players you don't like are concerned? Seeing as you want to narrow this to just the players who are online at a given time, we're still vastly outnumbered. Refute that. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
admiral root Red Galaxy 3303	Posted - 2015.09.14 23:16:20 - [33] - Quote Nighthawk The Assassin wrote: Nothing but a thread with "destroy all npc corps, force every one to pvp, make high sec more kill newb friendly" WTS Clue Your reading comprehension is appalling. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)

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.