EVE Search - Why not end the pretence and make highsec a safezone?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why not end the pretence and make highsec a safezone?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:16:00 - [1] Barring wardecs I mean, make it so you can't even target someone elses ship or activate a smartbomb unless in a wardec with them. I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine, but doesn't it make sense? Let's see: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. 5. Don't frustrate wannabe suicide gankers with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the older PVP crowd with and old and long undermined ideal of making eve cold and harsh where nowhere is safe. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in lowsec or nullsec. 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. Does this not make sense?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:18:00 - [2] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine Good call.
Fados Radically Awesome People Eaters	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:19:00 - [3] you actually might be on to something there...
Letias Caldari Poofdinkles	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:21:00 - [4] No, cause like you said then you have to make it idiot proof which this game should never be, if you miss click you pay, ask any long time trader.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:22:00 - [5] Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:24:00 - [6] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Barring wardecs I mean, make it so you can't even target someone elses ship or activate a smartbomb unless in a wardec with them. I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine, but doesn't it make sense? Let's see: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. 5. Don't frustrate wannabe suicide gankers with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the older PVP crowd with and old and long undermined ideal of making eve cold and harsh where nowhere is safe. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in lowsec or nullsec. 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. Does this not make sense? Your suggestion has if nothing else the merit of honesty. It's where things are going anyway, so why not cut to the chase and stop pretending? Of course if this does come to pass, then I will start seriously pushing for the "promised lands" idea mooted in my other thread.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:25:00 - [7] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:26:00 - [8] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 01/09/2008 23:27:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it. Let's at least wait until the suicide gank change takes place in Tranq before we judge. And then after that let's wait to see what they do with Empire war decs.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:27:00 - [9] Yes. Yes it does. Most of the "hatred" and bile that is seen spouting on these forums comes from a differing perception of what the game should be. CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. They havent come right out with it and said "safe zone" and they still pay some lip service to the "cold hard universe" but the recent nerfs leave nobody in any doubt whats really going on. Its a slow process of nerfing, but with insurance from concorded ships next , and wardecs firmly in the firing line - I would agree its time to drop the presence and make this game "Two Zone" It will also end these farcical situations CCP allow (multi alt corp wardeccing of your own corp to prevent it being wardecced, circular corp jumping to avoid wars etc). These sorts of things make CCP look like idiots and the game as a whole look cheap. It will save a lot of arguing, and a LOT of bad feeling as people see the drip drip dilution of the original devs vision for the game. Once its done, peeps can feck off and leave if they don't like it - many will but I doubt it will be to many as CCP have a monopoly on this sort of game, and dont they know it. Any future subscribers who join wont know anything different. In terms of balance, perhaps the rewards of high sec can be gimped (as has been suggested in another thread). The PVE should be made a lot harder, or the no risk easy isk earners (lv4s etc) moved out of the area. SKUNK
Brother Nightfall Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:28:00 - [10] I'm fine with banning shooting in high-sec, just as long as they don't ban looting. YOINK!

Armoured C Gallente The Aztecs Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:43:00 - [11] banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire IS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually have to use brains
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:45:00 - [12] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 01/09/2008 23:27:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it. Let's at least wait until the suicide gank change takes place in Tranq before we judge. And then after that let's wait to see what they do with Empire war decs. Yes, let's see how they fix the "pay to grief" system, shall we?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:45:00 - [13] Originally by: Armoured C banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire WAS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually HAD to use brains Corrected your grammar.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:46:00 - [14] Originally by: Armoured C banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire IS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually have to use brains um... Youve missed the last 18 months of the forum havent you SKUNK
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Le Skunk They havent come right out with it and said "safe zone" and they still pay some lip service to the "cold hard universe" but the recent nerfs leave nobody in any doubt whats really going on. Except poor Zulupark. I guess he doesn't get to log on much. or maybe he doesn't think wardecs are "real" PvP...
Armoured C Gallente The Aztecs Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:48:00 - [16] yes =''''( havent been on since i stopped factional warfare reports ( i was working at my new 0.0 space =) )
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:53:00 - [17] By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:54:00 - [18] Originally by: Ruze By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection. Why bother? Remove PvP from hi-sec, and then "non PvPers" will only be competing against each other.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Ruze By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection. Some balancing would most defiantly be in order - but that could be discussed at leisure and without the ranting that has characterized the forums of late. Perhaps not allowing POS in high sec? The "concord tax" discussed in another post. The removal of lv 4s. Whatever - there are many many options which would begin with CCP stopping ****ing around and cutting though the propoganda. There is no way to have "sensible" wardec system in high sec. Its a bloody ludicrous idea in the first place - but its saving grace was its a lot of fun. Not one person has come up with any workable idea for them - as they were nonsense in the first place. Lets bin them. Toss em out the window. SKUNK
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:59:00 - [20] I gonna be a Minmatar night elf mage!

Clinically Gallente ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:00:00 - [21] Still voting for the remove high-sec all together and make it just low-sec and 0.0 option.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:01:00 - [22] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:01:37 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Ruze By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection. Why bother? Remove PvP from hi-sec, and then "non PvPers" will only be competing against each other. PVP IS being remove from high sec. As soon as insurance is removed from suicide ganks, that it out the window. The harcore will remain in alt thrashers ganking shuttles perhaps. Wardecs have been called by a CCP bod "a pay to grief system". And are "high priority". They are next. The OP is saying - drop the bullshit CCP - get your thinking caps on and rebrand the game. Then let people choose if they want to play it. STOP LYING STOP THE CONS STOP THE DRIP DRIP PROPOGANDA TAP and please.. make your minds up. SKUNK
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:04:00 - [23] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:04:54 Originally by: Le Skunk Why bother? Remove PvP from hi-sec, and then "non PvPers" will only be competing against each other. PVP IS being remove from high sec. As soon as insurance is removed from suicide ganks, that it out the window. The harcore will remain in alt thrashers ganking shuttles perhaps. Wardecs have been called by a CCP bod "a pay to grief system". And are "high priority". They are next. The OP is saying - drop the bullshit CCP - get your thinking caps on and rebrand the game. Then let people choose if they want to play it. But is this REALLY what CCP is doing? Yes they are making High Sec safer by making suicide ganking less profitable and changing the mechanics of war decs. But that's a lot different from turning High Sec into a PvP-free area. I think it's the wrong approach to operate under the assumption that it's CCP's intent to actually remove PvP from those areas, and asking them to just go ahead and do it is shooting our collective selves in the foot (or at least those of us who don't want High Sec PvP removed.)
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:14:00 - [24] Edited by: Malcanis on 02/09/2008 00:17:01 Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:05:55 Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:04:54 Originally by: Le Skunk PVP IS being remove from high sec. As soon as insurance is removed from suicide ganks, that it out the window. The harcore will remain in alt thrashers ganking shuttles perhaps. Wardecs have been called by a CCP bod "a pay to grief system". And are "high priority". They are next. The OP is saying - drop the bullshit CCP - get your thinking caps on and rebrand the game. Then let people choose if they want to play it. But is this REALLY what CCP is doing? Yes they are making High Sec safer by making suicide ganking less profitable and changing the mechanics of war decs. But that's a lot different from turning High Sec into a PvP-free area. I think it's the wrong approach to operate under the assumption that it's CCP's intent to actually remove PvP from those areas, and asking them to just go ahead and do it is shooting our collective selves in the foot (or at least those of us who don't want High Sec PvP removed, even if we do want some changes made.) What options exactly do you think will remain for PvP in hisec once the "high priority" changes to war decs have been made given that it's already officially an exploit to change corps to enforce a wardec, but perfectly legitimate to cycle corps to evade one? I'll tell you: Wardecs will essentially become a limited consensual PvP flag. And that will be it as far as hi-sec goes. Yes, it's a terrible shame that corps like yours will basically lose their professions. But bear in mind that the OP isn't arguing that these changes should take place. He's just asking CCP to admit that they have decided that they will take place and to just get it over with and implement them.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:16:00 - [25] Originally by: Valan Originally by: Le Skunk CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. SKUNK No they haven't they've stated clearly millions of times nowhere is safe. I can search out the posts from the Devs and put them up there for you to see its even in the player guides and FAQ. Can you? no because they don't exsist. If they wanted it out they would've eliminated with the latest patch. I don't mind people putting across a point of view that differs from mine. But thats just telling porky pies now isn't it? On the one hand, what CCP say On the other hand, what they're doing. See any contrast?
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:17:00 - [26] Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. This is where I stopped. Another noob who doesn't know what griefing is. When I suicide pod some noob thirty times straight in 1.0 space every time he undocks, that's griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's hauler full of dysprosium and T2 salvage, that's not griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's Hulk with the 30M mining upgrades and deadspace shield booster fitted, that's not griefing. If I wardec your corp to get a shot at your CNRs (unless you pay me to drop the wardec), that's not griefing. Griefing? This... is... EVE
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:17:00 - [27] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. This is where I stopped. Another noob who doesn't know what griefing is. When I suicide pod some noob thirty times straight in 1.0 space every time he undocks, that's griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's hauler full of dysprosium and T2 salvage, that's not griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's Hulk with the 30M mining upgrades and deadspace shield booster fitted, that's not griefing. If I wardec your corp to get a shot at your CNRs (unless you pay me to drop the wardec), that's not griefing. Griefing? This... is... EVE The noob in question is a CCP dev.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Valan Originally by: Le Skunk CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. SKUNK No they haven't they've stated clearly millions of times nowhere is safe. I can search out the posts from the Devs and put them up there for you to see its even in the player guides and FAQ. Can you? no because they don't exsist. If they wanted it out they would've eliminated with the latest patch. I don't mind people putting across a point of view that differs from mine. But thats just telling porky pies now isn't it? This is why i said "indicated". You are obviously paying no attention to the way the wind is blowing, and the many many recent and furute planned "balances" to remove pvp from higsec. Your a 0.0 player. And like them, you pay scant regard to whats happening in low/high sec - but cling to some weird fantasy of what eve was like 2 years ago. SKUNK
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:21:00 - [29] Edited by: Valan on 02/09/2008 00:23:25 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Valan Originally by: Le Skunk CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. SKUNK No they haven't they've stated clearly millions of times nowhere is safe. I can search out the posts from the Devs and put them up there for you to see its even in the player guides and FAQ. Can you? no because they don't exsist. If they wanted it out they would've eliminated with the latest patch. I don't mind people putting across a point of view that differs from mine. But thats just telling porky pies now isn't it? On the one hand, what CCP say On the other hand, what they're doing. See any contrast? There was an epidemic of high sec ganking hence the need for a balance, to be honest rightly so it was far too easy. However, people need to take note. After the patch you can STILL GANK it'll take more effort and the target will have to be more profitable. It's been balanced not irradicated if you wander out in a T1 hauler with billions after the patch thinking you're safe you're not. Granted it looks like a tone down but this is a less severe patch than the one to counteract the zombie incident YEARS ago and the high sec gank is still here. EDIT: It had to be balanced because the nature of the game has changed the player base is a lot dumber than before.
Glengrant TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:21:00 - [30] No to arbitrary limitations like that. And no - I'm not a pirate and I'm more likely to be a victim in high sec than an attacker. But the small (tiny actually) risk of something bad happening keeps things interesting. Re suicide ganks: My fav solution is to not pay insurance to the aggressor in high sec (unless war dec). Works and even makes sense. It's stupid that the insurance company pays after a ship has been destroyed by CONCORD for an illegal act.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.