Might want to review this post.
1 Like
all tthose Orca miners with 20 accounts are doing this too against all small guys
All those fleet of Freighters flying together are doing this too against the little guy in a T1/T2 hauler
All those frigate Abyss T6 runners multiboxing 3 frigates are doing this against all newbros running T1 Abyss in a Cruiser
And so on, then in the end it’s Everybody V Everybody, which means EVE
1 Like
So anyone that thinks overpowered gankers in highsec is a bad thing must be a five year old?
Other areas of space have way higher rewards, but even then there are far more ship and fitting options in all other areas of space because it’s easy to spot hostiles and you have many more options for dealing with them. In high sec you have intel flooded with random people and your attackers can be using any character because it’s takes a very short amount of time to build a ganker alt. Your options are then “run away” or “get blown up”.
You’re derailing into a discussion about ganking anyway, which is not the subject here and there are plenty of threads about. The topic here is around how PvE modes would be built if they were implemented, and I’m still waiting for you to let me know if with your idea the PvE only players would see capsuleers. If there is no interaction or visibility between the two then there’s absolutely no reason to have them on the same server.
all you have to do is search for the FoB rats or the owners of the Fobs to see the losses, ppl dyign to them are the same lazy, stupid, afk ppl most of us say just need to go.
Did I hurt your little feelings? Aren’t you one of the “HTFU!” crowd? Like I said, weak.
Adults can tell the difference between identifying speech that is simply inflammatory and rule breaking versus someone actually being hurt by the speech.
1 Like
It was an analogy to try and explain why changing mechanics in a game to be fundamentally different is naive. I wouldn’t expect anyone playing this game to be as naive as the child in this example. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic. In any event, this analogy was to highlight that seeking to change Eve to be PvE only is akin to removing the snakes from snakes and ladders - the only reason to make a PvE only version of Eve would be to remove the possibility of loss to other players - i.e. making it so that losses are essentially non-existent. If you can’t see that this is removing all setbacks in playing the game (so that number can go up in peace), I’m not sure how else to explain it.
I also disagree that gankers are overpowered currently, but as you rightly say that’s a different conversation.
It may be easy to spot hostiles in some other areas of space (certainly not wormholes though!), but you still have to both react to them, and fit accordingly. Exactly the same as in highsec - you can fit for maximum return and take the (unlikely) loss to gankers as a cost of doing business thing, or you can fit for max tank and suffer the repercussions to income, or you can fit for maximum slipperyness to sneak away if someone hostile lands on your grid. Exactly the same as how you do it in every other area of space. There is no difference in highsec at the moment - you make a trade off in your fitting and ship choice depending on how you wish to approach the chance of being caught by hostiles.
What you are asking for is to have highsec be the only area of space where you do not have to make these compromises, which would give new players far less opportunity to learn about how ship fitting works in Eve, leaving them grossly unprepared for the game outside of highsec.
I’ve been as clear as I can about how my “civilian mode” idea would work. I don’t feel the need to go over it any further.
You have as of yet to explain to me or the others that asked you…
HOW ARE GANKERS OP?
Like the speech telling everyone that doesn’t want to be ganked in a Venture how pathetic they are? Aiko says that, and worse constantly in the forums. I’ve never seen her corrected.
Yet game mechanics have been fundamentally changed multiple times since the start of EVE. It’s not naive, you just happen to not like the idea of changes like this and rather than seek to have a proper discussion about it you’re trying to reject the entire notion of making the change under the false claim that fundamental changes should never be made.
Put simply if your argument is “this should not change as its fundamental to EVE” then your argument is about as valid as “this shouldn’t change because I don’t want it to”. That’s not to say it’s invalid, as every opinion is valid, but it is just a raw opinion based on taste.
You do have to react and fit accordingly, but in other areas of space you can fit for different things. Am I going to pull distance and attack? Am I going to close range brawl? Am I going to run away? Am I going to shelter in place and batphone support? In highsec the fittings are pretty much tanked or untanked, and the options are run away or explode. Gankers are unlikely to land on you without doing the very simple calculations they need to do to work out required DPS, and there’s pretty much no chance of you fighting back unless they are entirely incompetent, so the options are heavily limited.
Yeah, that is what I’m asking. I’m asking for high sec to be high security. For it to be the place that filthly casuals live. I don’t subscribe to the viewpoint of “If you don’t want to be my target then CCP doesn’t want your money”.
You should just ignore posts like that as they are baiting you into responding, but it’s noteworthy that in the post you are quoting of his he implied you were a child, which is inflammatory itself.
It is best to just ignore people like that and stay on topic.
1 Like
The game would be much more fun for me if I could just fly wherever I wanted, invulnerable to gate camps. Having to worry about people warp scrambling me then shooting me is such a bother. Could I just have a button that makes me invulnerable when I want it too. That way I could fit my haulers for max capacity, and not worry about not having a tank. Also, I would like to just go right to the systems that I wanted to go to, the bullets of those pesky griefers bouncing right off my ships as God intended!
Once I was there, I could just shoot the people I wanted to shoot, then leave, again invulnerable to gate camps and bubbles. Yes, the game would be much for fun if I was never limited by the rules of the game!
Being in a small industrial corp, we have wanted to set up our own structure, but haven’t because defending it was problematic. But if this magic button made my structure invulnerable to all attacks too, that would be grand!
Think of all the gameplay this would open up to me as long as I could be safe and invulnerable when I wanted!
Hurt people, hurt people. It’s clear that this individual is purposely being inflammatory with the sole intention to derail the discussion, get this thread close and baiting people into making inappropriate (in terms of the forums rules) responses back.
PVE is pretty well protected in high sec. The only real danger are gankers. I think if ganking is removed from high, then the rewards earned by pve activities in high should be severly nerfed.
2 Likes
Out of interest, how many times have you been ganked in highsec? And how many times have you ganked someone?
For all your complaining about people (me) “derailing” the topic into talking about ganking, let’s be honest here - that’s what it’s about, yeah?
If you think there are only those options available to you in highsec, you have a whole lot to learn, friend.
For example: what ship are we talking about? What activity are we talking about?
Is it Level 4s? If so, you can run many of these in blinged T3Cs that should be more than slippery enough to run from a local spike. Or you can run them in cheap T2 fit battleships. Or command ships with appropriate links.
Is it mining? You can run nano-fit covetors, or brick tanked higgs exhumers, you can solo a bait tanked orca if you don’t mind being afk. Max yield hulks were always my jam.
Is it incursions? Don’t get me started. There’s enough DPS on grid to melt anything but a co-ordinated gank fleet, and if you don’t notice local spike that’s on you.
Is it hauling? If you don’t have the skills for T2 haulers, you can still run a variety of ways (though yes any determined ganknwill.get you in the end) - nano’d out the wazoo, MWD cloak and hope for the best is probably your best option.
There are literally hundreds of different ships in Eve to try out. There are dozens of viable ways of running any given task that you can think of. If you paint yourself into a corner of only using one ship type in one of two ways, that is more a limitation of your own imagination than it is a problem with how the game works.
If you genuinely are only a month into the game, this is fine and normal. Go find a corp with a few ex-scary space people in it, have some conversations and see if you can’t learn a thing or two to try out.
If, however, as I suspect you are a more experienced player with a forum bait alt attempting to generate sympathy, or salt, or whatever just… stop. Be honest (or at least, be genuine - this toon ain’t my main).
1 Like
I don’t like the fact that knights can jump over other pieces in chess. To me that is griefing, and unfair. I think I will hound the International Chess Association and their forums relentlessly until they alter the game so I am no longer a victim of 500 years of the way chess has always been played.
Do the rats report it or ? I thought nothing was auto uploaded these days.
But yeah you have to poke the hornets nest to lose to these guys or simply land on grid and not care enough to look out the window.
With you it’s never a discussion.
repeat that until you fall asleep, every day. Get well, soon.
Actually, when diamond rats were introduced and the Triglavian invasion took place, they were complaining about the rats shooting them and asking for them to be removed, and those complaints (for a period of a few months) vastly exceeded complaints about PvP losses.
People just forgot about this.
It’s not actually nice and simple, because the development effort required for this would be immense.
It’s much more easy and practical to make changes that are database/state adjustments, which is how most of EVE’s development is handled these days, plus the addition of art/graphical assets and such.
And that’s one of EVE’s biggest problems today; lack of development initiative. CCP is either afraid, or doesn’t have the resources (maybe even both) to implement creative new game mechanics into EVE, such as a bounty system that makes actual sense. So the extent of the changes we get is limited to a switch being flipped somewhere that moves docking access from all security ratings to -5.0 and above (I can almost guarantee that such a variable already exists in the game engine, despite not being truly utilized until now), or some minor stat changes to a few ships.
The survival genre of games isn’t a “twisted view.”
EVE Echoes, which follows a “safe” high/low-sec and a “dangerous” null-sec has almost no people residing in null-sec and doing PvP. Most players are within a few jumps of Jita. If people aren’t utilizing the PvP feature in a “mixed setting” game like EVE Echoes, an argument can be made that the game might actually get more players if null-sec would be safe too, since players would actually go there for the additional game content, instead of ignoring it entirely.
Also, isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to call for PvP to be removed from high-sec, but then argue against someone when they propose to remove PvP from other areas of space as well? Most contemporary video game players do not, in fact, like/want PvP, as is evident from non-PvP games comprising a significantly larger share of the market than games with PvP in them. It stands to reason that an EVE without any PvP would do better than an EVE that has some elements of non-consensual PvP in some areas of space. Aren’t you in favor of EVE being more popular and drawing in a larger player base? 
I mean, I get and appreciate the whole sensationalist false-flagging angle, but it just doesn’t work with an “it’s just my opinion and I’m entitled to it” argument instead of “my way is the only valid way and everyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot and/or a troll.”
Do you really think that someone using terms like “batphone” is a month-old player?
2 Likes
And that’s fine. If you genuinely feel the rules should be changed you are more than welcome to voice your opinion. It hsould also be noted that the rules for chess have changed throughout history.
Never a discussion? When have we even interacted before?
@Destiny_Corrupted
I’m not surprised that echoes has few null players, because it’s a mobile game and null takes a lot of effort. There’s not a huge number of players that play mobile games with that much dedication, it’s mostly casual players playing a little bit here and there.
I’m not arguing against their proposal to remove it everywhere, mainly because they aren’t really proposing that. They don’t want PvP removed everywhere. What’s happening is PvE players say “let’s have one area that is safe for PvE” and people who oppose that respond with “Let’s make a server with NO PvP AT ALL! Then we’ll see how many people play it!”.
If they really were arguing for a PvE only server because they actually wanted it I’d be fine with them pushing for that even though I don’t agree with it, but in this context it’s more like a variant of reductio ad absurdum where what they want is no change, but they know a server with a safe area would be too popular, so they need an exaggerated position to attack.
Sure. most don’t want PvP, but a sizable portion want the option for PvP, so a server with a safe PvE area and optional PvP areas seems reasonable.