So you’re against CCP, all that it stands for, are actively fighting against it, but when push comes to shove, you ask them for help like the awkward if somewhat possibly in-need-of-professional-help person that you are.
Well, let me just introduce to you a concept that I hold very dearly to me. It’s a concept, through and through, that has been tested through trial and error! It holds true no matter what the circumstance is! Good or bad! Life or death! Light versus dark! Awkward insanity versus craved delusions of grandeur! (wait they might be the same thing let me check)
I feel like if I were to use high school psychology to diagnose you, it would grade you as severely handicapped and most definitely not in-touch with your actual self-image.
In other words, you are completely normal. Completely. Don’t listen to anyone else in this thread. You are clearly… absolutely… 100%…
Totally out of your mind let tell you. That’s as normal as some people get! I applaud you for maintaining your sanity thus far!
Because clearly, we, the not-you’s, are all the insane people here.
I remember once watching Rookie Help and some girl saying we were all just neets trapped inside one of the ISD’s basements. Funniest comment I read while trying to get help to do the tutorial.
I didn’t realize it was actually true for some of us.
Are rare ores in high sec?
Are high isk value rats in high sec?
Is ice largely in high sec, or low and null?
Gas?
how about concord spawning in low/null?
Its clear, that low/null sec is designed, by nature, to make more isk. hence a risk-reward nature is clearly applied to them. Thus, high sec is designed to be a safer area. even the people on these forums will tell you there, its an argument they use often against me when i advocate for isk income buffs to high sec activities.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you advocating that high security space also receive these same things?
I’m still uncertain of what you mean by “safe”. Do you mean that the space is supposed to be entirely combat free? That players need to opt-in to fight? That they can’t duel one another, or what? Your concept of “safe” appears to be very vague and ambiguous, especially when you relate it to the idea of making ISK in-game.
I am also confused about your premise. I don’t understand why you believe that buffing ISK incoming is necessary. Like, is it an issue with the game overall? Has the community, as a whole, determined that it needs to be addressed?
The question isn’t aimed at you but the OP and those that think like him; but please do feel free to share your opinion on it as you bring up a good point.
Is it non-consensual interaction if consent is implied by the act of logging into a game where such interactions may occur?
Most of them do not want to do pvp (60%+) On this position alone, its clear that appealing to groups like code, that abuse the mass population is a bad design and business position
Instead of looking at the security of space (types) as being “risk, reward” we should be looking at the types of content, and making them “risk, reward” based on what is in them, not where they are based.
Each type of space should be set up for specific pvp / pve, or a mix there of affinities.
High sec should have no criminal actions (suicide ganking etc) (things that spawn concord)
High sec wars should only include what is called “mutual wars” in the up coming patch next month.
Non-consensual wars should only be used for low, and null sec.
Freighters need to gain “Scan immunity” and potentially 3 rig slots and the ability to use a self-microwarp drive (current warp drives will teleport near by players with them, so one for freighter teleport only to avoid “bumping” would be a good solution to this abuse, especially if the frieghters got a bonus in recharge time for this module)
Something has to be done about “alt corps”
Something has to be done about “war dec spam”. This point can be ignored up until
Low sec should probably obtain some benefits for pvp, such as “reduced rates on criminal security gains” So for example, in high sec if you get -2, and up to -5, you lose access to low. In a similar war, you should get less punishment for criminal actions in lower security space. For example, poding in low should give - 1 security status in 0.4, but maybe only - 0.4 security status in 0.1
I personally like the idea of a special module that only “pirate faction” ships can use, that is designed to “Steal” cargo from the target. If the low sec area’s are more toward danger that is not geared or encouraging ship destruction (but still allowing it) it would be a more gradual transition for players to null
Low sec gate and stations need to deal more damage to criminals, significantly more, to the point of preventing gate /station camps from happening at all in low sec. If high sec players can more easily transit to stations and through low, its more likely they will “try it out”.
Isd ations are being recorded at this point, and cataloged. If their leadership will not properly police the people who police you hooligans, I will post the actions publicly, on the web (and all over it) to make sure there is political fall out against ccp that will result in them reinforcing their rules upon your devious abuse of the forum mechanics and members of its community.
Your days of group-trolling, and group-flagging opposing idea,s are long over. Grow up, or ill make you grow up.
Maybe the first few threads, but it has gotten to the point where there isn’t anything new he makes threads for the sole purpose of saying the same exact thing all over again. It gets locked and he does it again.
For the claim of “60%+ of people don’t what to do pvp”, do you have a citation for this?
What is this “something” you are claiming?
As for the rest of your “suggestions”, you still haven’t addressed the main point. Why? Why do you believe these changes are needed and/or necessary? You keep spouting off a lot of “suggestions” but don’t support them with arguments of why your suggestions will be good for the game or address a pressing issue that needs to be looked at.
Would you be able to address the question of “why are you suggesting these changes?” or will you ignore the point and just spout off more nonsense?
