What!!! It is a balance issue because that level of risk is too much for hisec, there are no entities that can take on CODE or PIRAT in hisec to defend their stuff. CODE has grown on the naff bumping mechanic and PIRAT, well bot supers was certainly a major part of it. Both entities are totally unbalanced for hisec, they blow the level of risk.
So you misunderstand what hisec is basically and CCP does too.
I looked at the risk when I was in hisec and assumed that the risk was too high to put up structures.
When I asked for the CONCORD office in a war deckers structure in hisec to enable more than 5 war decs I was looking for a strategic vulnerability. I have come to the conclusion that Jinâtaanâs suggestion is better, but depends on a number of things. Here is the rub, at this point I can go all out with a number of others who have also been war decked to try to end the war decs, that is the risk that the War Deckers need to have and the sooner the better.
Nonsense. We might as well argue that new players shouldnât even be allowed to put up this many assets for the same reason. Only do players not need protection from it, because it is just a game. Itâs only destructive to the freedom of choice, to do whatever they want in EVE, when we limit the game this way.
Some players are just not good at losing. Why should we protect them from it when what they really need is to be exposed to it? Delaying the exposure only makes it worse and that some players take it really hard isnât the fault of they game. If anything itâs the fault of our society, which some times can be over-protective. Those who want wardecs removed are in fact an example of this over-protective behaviour. Itâs just a game.
Iâm imagining an over-protective version of Monopoly⌠where you donât go to prison, but you first get probation and community work, because someone might take it too hard to go straight to prison. And according to some here could this make Monopoly more popular and improve itâs player retention.
And this is incorrect. CONCORD does not protect it is entirely reactive. If you are spotted in a blinged out ship there is good chance youâll get gankedâŚand CONCORD will not protect you. It will destroy the gankers, but it will not protect the gank victim.
I agree. And maybe it is time to consider the social corporation or something like it. Give those players who really want to dodge wars and donât want to stay in an NPC corp an option. But trying to balance risk when it is largely based on player actions is not going to work. Youâll end up with a morass of rules that will start to eat away at the sandbox, IMO.
Also, CCP needs to work on how to get across to players that risk is largely dependent on what they do in game. That HS is safe(ish) but you can still lose considerable Stuff⢠if you are foolish and imprudent. In my view things like freighter ganking could be solved if players just stopped taking excessive risk for so damn little reward.
And people need to understand risk and reward. If I take on risk I am pretty much by definition creating a reward for somebody else in game. Trying to balance that by imposing constraints and restrictions on those who would benefit from my risk taking basically insulates me from my imprudence and foolishness. It is not good either, IMO.
Those arenât risk. There is no randomness there. I know for certain if I shoot you HS the gate guns and/or CONCORD are going to be a factor. When the probability of something is 1 there is no risk.
This is not true at all. Like the casinos the risk is small so their losses are small.
That you do not have a valid response is duly noted. I have been avoiding using slurs about your chosen professionâŚI guess it was too much to expect similar courtesy from you. Then again cognitive dissonance is a tough thing for most people.
I have already acknowledged this point as being a problem. My point is that if a player is foolish and another player/players take advantage of it, there is not really a balance issue there. So yes, a 500 man war dec alliance is not something most (none?) HS player groups can take on. Be being an idiot and undocking with a bling fit ship and you and your buddies coming and ganking meâŚthat is my problem.
I would like to see the levels of money flowing into CCP examined from the aspect of where a personâs main toon/activity is located. If there are many more individual toons in HS, but a NS person has multiple accounts to counteract the ratio of HS/NS, the following argument loses some validity: that the large number of HS players subsidise the NS player playstyle through less game asset utilization. In other words, the needs for new servers to reduce tidi in large fleet battles, the use of programming skills to make big changes in NS warfare, WH creation and modification, new ship classes and ship designs,etc. If the HS community is paying for content that they arenât using, then the rest of EVE community is recieving content that they wouldnât get at the current monthly cost. IF, and granted it is an if, the above is true, why would anyone argue that it makes good business sense to keep losing ( and applaude the loss) of these players? Even if the utilization of CCP assets are merely just equal in ratio to the source of income, why would you want to keep mechanics in that help drive potential bigger customers away? Just crazy.
Well to be fair, if heâs referring to your usual âwardeccersâ like PIRAT, Marmite etc, thereâs no real risk. Overwhelming firepower (compared to the targets chosen), the mechanics of gates and stationgames, countless neutral logi and so on and so forth pretty much eliminates most risk.
Thereâs some, obviously, and when things do go wrong they can go very expensively wrong, but itâs so rare and out of the ordinary that itâs not really any âriskâ attached to the isk cost of what is being fielded.
This is why Iâm more in favor of the system of giving defenders an incentive to come back after a wardec (and increasing that payout if they fight back/remain active through the wardec), as well as providing more engaging gameplay.
One of the big problems with âIâll just go play on my altâ is that most games do 1 account, with multiple characters. And while you canât advance character simultaneously, the gameâs built to expect advancement only when youâre playing. EVEâs built so your character advances even when youâre not playing, by accruing skill points. But you canât have 2 characters advancing at the same time without sacrificing a lot of your advancement on either one of them. So people who are conditioned to not run a second account, or havenât figured out that they should yet⌠theyâve got 1 character, really, so when that character canât be used⌠thereâs nothing to do.
Iâm not sure thereâs a decent fix to that without a significant restructuring of the game, though⌠other than encouraging HS players to have multiple accounts for the times when they canât run on their main.
Why are we changing the criteria of risk just because were associating it with certain groups?
If I undock then iâm risking something, using clever tactics to keep yourself alive lowers that risk but doesnât remove it and doesnât guarantee anything.
If there was zero risk, there wouldnât be losses.
Iâm not sure âthe guys who want to kill me canât see how many logi I have and canât shoot my logiâ is a âclever tacticâ so much as âchrist, datâs broke afâ.
I donât agree with neutral logistics but its a requirement for our game play, not because we donât want to die but because if our enemies are using them, we need to as well.
To be fair, most big fights our logistics come in house⌠its only day to day gate crap that they stay out.
Look at it this way though, Neutral logistics may seem bad but least we donât tether hundreds of capitals on structures and send fighters 1000km to kill a structure. Yet were seen as risk adverse ones.
I suppose the question is irrelevant and not helpful for a one-sided discussion, but whose logis are you talking about? The wardeccersâ logis or the defendersâ logis?
Thatâs pretty much broke af, too. And youâll notice, I donât claim thatâs clever, either. Tetheringâs a big problem, and we want a solution for it, too.
The wardeccersâ. Because the big wardec corps, when they go to hit someoneâs structure, do bring neutral logi.
In fact, lemme expand upon this with a sentiment most of our guys would echo:
If highsec wardecs are AIDS, the state of capitals and supercapitals in EVE right now is diabetes: it may not have seemed too bad at first, but if you donât get it under control, it will destroy absolutely every function in your body. Heart, kidneys, liver, nerves, immune system, everything.
You rather have players make their crushing experience in low- and null-sec, where itâs possibly gonna hurt more, and instead use high-sec as a safe haven where they can build up wealth and so creates bigger explosions in low- and null-sec. Hmm. I like how you think, but no. Letâs keep the crushing experience in high-sec where it belongs and gets players exposed to the harsh reality of EVE sooner rather than later, and for the sake of the new players who still need to make it. Otherwise, yeah, cool idea to increase the hurt factor. Maybe theyâll never come back when they get to make it later in the game.
