[SERIOUS] How would you re-design Highsec if you could?

You should run for CSM.

EVE needs more PvP.

1 Like

I think you mean industrial nerfs. Unless you are talking about rolling back the null sec industrial buffs.

1 Like

honestly, i’ve always thought they should’ve kept WHs pos only, citadels would be null only, and PI should also be null only. If you are npc corp you live a sandbox life, if you’re military, you can declare on other militaries, if you’re a corp, you should be invulnerable to other players, if you’re a pirate, you can kill npc corp players using concord rules


Does not work. I have ample experience with user-based policing and it just does not work. Besides, there is 6/7ths of space available where people can police their own space. High sec doesn’t need the same failed treatment. This is a stupid fantasy of someone who doesn’t understand people and just wants totally unimpeded piracy in securer space because they are afraid of unsecure space.

… to create even more unused space? Good idea.

The first of the quoted posts was not constructive. It’s a “slippery slope to disaster” argument with no supporting content. That “Risk/ISK” thing is just one more version of the least useful trope in the EVE forums: “Predator vs Prey”.

The remainder (unquoted) of the second post shows you’d like to be constructive, but like most EVE players you’re on one side or the other, and don’t understand the other side.

Right now - early 2019 - would be a very good to figure out a compromise that works for all parties rather than trying to push the “evil PvE/PvP players” out of the game in favor of the “saintly PvP/PvE players”.

I recognize the same stupid polarizing arguments from when i first played EVE over ten years ago. The sides are the same. The words are the same. The game is the same …

… but the MMO world has changed, while EVE has not.

thats opinion.

If you learn developer statistics, you will learn that nearly 42% of this game (subject to 3% variance on game, and person pulling data) will not willyfully engage in pvp. Do you think the risk of death, with the adversion of pvp, is a viable option to them? more likely they will quit.

When we talk about helping eve grow, these points need to be talked about and considered seriously.

Lets look at some math for a moment.

@ 25,000 players, 45% of the poplation would of been around 11,250 players.
Imagine if eve has another 11,250 players. That would put us up to 36,250 online. Do you understand this is just shy of 750 people for the concurrent (average over eves life) players online?

Imagine if we had the 37,000 and increased it by another 45%. We’d have around another 16500 people (rounded), Or even if we take the peak online in eves history, of 65,000 and increased it by 45% we’d have almost another 30,000 players.

DO you understand how huge of an effect this would be on activity, interaction, and social bonds in eve? Even on eves income, and over all wellfare.

Now i ask you, Is it worth it that we have positions like “kill everyone no matter where they are” Or will be stop and think about if this is actually good for the health of the game. After all, the inflation and upcoming economic changes to eves business model is effecting you (and me) not them, they already left.

Ps. Dont forget, when korean and chinese servers go online, tranquilities population will drop even more (maybe another 2000-5000 people)

This is very true.

CCP MUST negate from its positions in design. They must evolve and change the game significantly from its current constructs, if they want to see this game survive. I could fix this game easily, if i had created rights over it. They are unwilling to do what needs to be done.

Increasing Concord timer actually does work if you give ALL industrials and miners etc. decent pg, CPU, slots and self protection capabilities.
Then there isn’t the issue of the escort sitting idle for hours on end doing nothing.
Sure afk miners will explode. Tough luck they went afk. But at keyboard miners mining in a fleet would be better off with a longer Concord timer assuming the above.

1 Like

That would require a big paradigm change and a comprehensive rework of lots of related. It could certainly work.

The strangest thing about the Predator/Prey “false dilemma” is that there probably hasn’t been a single new EVE player in 15 years who didn’t expect EVE to be a PvP game, and didn’t think a PvP game would be fun.

It’s a reasonable conclusion that almost nobody - possibly not one current player - wants all of EVE to become 100% safe.

  1. We know there are players who want part of EVE to be relatively safe. But EVE has (had?) this already - the newbie systems. It’s not game-destroying, - but it would have to be implemented very carefully.
  2. We know there are players who like “100% unsafe” areas. But they are very few. In general, areas that are technically unsafe are taken over and made safe for a select few. Which is approximately what PvE players want, except for the need to conquer and occasionally defend.
  3. We might suspect (but can’t prove) that most players would be happy to be in a group that owns or controls territory - i.e. if there’s a player-retention issues with (2) is that “exclusivity” issue, which isn’t unique to EVE.

In my opinion the only problem EVE has ever had is handling zones that allow unrestricted ganking/griefing, and that they could be implemented in a fair and interesting way by making control (formal or informal) difficult to achieve and unstable (hard to keep). That’s where the best income should be possible. Not nullSec, which converges towards ownership and farming.

IMO the rule should be “safe areas - no matter how they become safe - do not generate high incomes”.

And a PS, because I believe this is related. Two examples of things “old EVE” has too much of, and that drive away rational gamers:

  • Established players have very large advantages, and it will take a very long time for a new player to catch up. Modern gamers don’t fall for this trick
  • Obviously unfair aspects of the game that cannot be avoided. Two examples are: one-sided PvP (which is really boring for one party), and lack of access to efficient income because someone much richer and better established in the game is already grinding that income source

See that is where your assumptions are very wrong. You assume that I don’t know what it is like to be a miner or an anti-ganker because I am a New Order agent. I’ve actually spent an equal amount of time batting for both teams. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: I know how the carebears roll.

You are saying that EVE has not changed in 10 years. Are you just trolling or just lying?

This statement is downright disingenuous, especially right after High Sec wardeccing just got nerfed. Funny thing facts are, they can actually be checked.

Proves my point. You are not really looking for a compromise. You are a dishonest carebear just looking for the next nerf… Just one more nerf…

A real compromise would be taking a step back, and a re-balancing between Risk and ISK, which would put an end to inflation.

But we’ve already determined that your dishonest with others and with yourself.

Mostly cause your the OP posting with an alt, trying to add cred to your post.

First I wanted to change it with you can be in noob corp and do trouble.
If you want to fly something bigger than Cruisers or T1 Miners you must be in the faction war corporation or player corporation.
Steals or otherwise makes piracy.
Must be possible to declare against you and your corporation. Even if you don’t have stations.
All the carebear pirates and thieves lying and hiding the NPC corporation must get out of their hiding.
It is time for them to take responsibility for their own actions as we others do.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.