open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked No more PVP on High-Sec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 22:57:00 - [1]
 

I don't know how often this topic stands under discussions but EVE has a big Bug. This Bug is the War-System which allows all Cops./Alliances to force for War at High-Sec. This is very stupied and bad vor all High-Sec PVE-Players.

So my Question is, for what we need High-Sec with this stupid War-System? It destroys many Corps./Alliances and decrease the game play. Is the game play to low, the Gmaers would leav the Game.

So I've think about this topic and have the following Ideas for PVP and for the stupied War-System:

At first, no Corp. can force for War with out any reason. The reason "politic" will no longer accepted becasue it's a standart reason so there must be mor than simple "politic".
Than the Corp. can accept or not accept the War if they're on High-Sec (the Headquarters of the Corp. must be on a High-Sec Sys).

Secound Idea is, that War can be on High-Sec, but only at 0.5 to 0.6/0.7 otherwise we don't need High-Sec for EVE and all can go into Low-Sec. That means, that 0.7/0.8 to 1.0 are free PVP zone (no PVP, no War).

The last Idea which I've is, that only Alliances can force for War other Alliances; but not a single Corp. can force for War another single Corp. (this rule is for High-Sec).

These are all my Ideas. You can add some more Ideas if You want our discuss the other Ideas. These Ideas should be make the High-Sec for PVE-Players better because not all Players like PVP. Additional there are many PVE/Mining Corps. on High-Sec because they won't any PVP (e. g. War) otherwise thes Players wher on Low-Sec.

I hope, that the PVE/Mining - Players like my Ideas. You can also talk about this topic in-Game at the Chatchanel: pvp-on-high_sec (please read the Channels MOTD-Line for the Rules).

So long,

Chaos2341

Monstress
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:03:00 - [2]
 

Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite...

As you may not yet know, EVE is a PVP oriented game. The economy itself would not move without PVP. All PVE activities ultimately contribute to the needs of PVP.

That said, in my opinion, CCP needs to find more ways to encourage PVP in high sec, not just high sec but everywhere. More people blowing up ships is good for the economy. It's a cold, harsh universe and you're never safe anywhere, the way it was meant to be.

Malken
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:12:00 - [3]
 

ccp needs to fix the wardec system so you arent immune to wardecs.
if you cant figure out how to do it then theres always the npc corps for you

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:16:00 - [4]
 

If CCP think about PVP than it can be, that many Players leaf EVE.
That EVE should be an PVP based Game? No! Otherwise we don't need a High-Sec - for what? To wait for War?

CCP should switch the course to more PVE on High-Sec or CCP should disable the High-Sec. On my Eyes EVE isn't a PVP-Game. It's a PVE/Mining - Game with missions and enough Low-Sec for PVP.

How many Players are angry because they lost there Ship on War or at Mining? Ok, that no Player is safe on EVE is true. But don't forgett CONCORD which attacks You, if You attack a normal Player on High-Sec out of War.

I've written my Ideas at the first post and this wouldn't change because PVP on High-Sec is stupied (My opinion).

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:18:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Chaos2341 on 01/08/2011 23:21:44
Edited by: Chaos2341 on 01/08/2011 23:20:34
Originally by: Malken
ccp needs to fix the wardec system so you arent immune to wardecs.
if you cant figure out how to do it then theres always the npc corps for you


Well, if this is the Way to get safe for War, then we don't need a Corp./Alliance-System.

EDIT: You see, CCP has many to do on EVE for Gameplay. The way of "only PVP" or "only PVE" is false. From all a little bit. But no PVP on High-Sec because many Players don't like it.


(Sorry for dubleposte)

Monstress
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:23:00 - [6]
 

The whole point of mining and missions is to support the PVP market. You do realize that by removing high sec PVP your ISK output from mining or missions will drastically be reduced?

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:26:00 - [7]
 

Why?

I don't use PVP to get ISK. I only make my Mission, my PI and my Mining alone ore with the Corp.-Members in my Corp. (I'm not the CEO from this Corp.!)

zus
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:27:00 - [8]
 

Stats

Raised by: Dierdra Vaal
Submission Date: 27-05-2008
Issue ID: 0017

Summary

Current war declaration mechanics are very one-sided, they favour the aggressor for two main reasons:

The aggressed has no control over how long the war lasts.
The aggressor tends to be better prepared for the war.

Since it is highly unlikely a corporation/alliance will declare war knowing/thinking they will be steamrolled, it is fair to assume parties will only war dec when they are prepared and ready to fight, and when they know/think they will be able to handle or beat their opponent. The party being war dec'd does not have this luxury, so on average, you will find that aggressors are better prepared to deal with the war than the aggressed.

In addition to this, empire war is one of the few mechanics in Eve that has no direct consequence associated with it for doing badly. Whether a party is performing excellent during a war, or whether they are being steamrolled, it has no impact on the actual war. This makes war almost meaningless, turning them into little more than a license to kill. Of course, ships will be lost, and excessive losses can get expensive, but ISK is not too hard to make and losses can be sustained for quite lengthy periods of time before they become a real reason to end a war for many players. This and the very low war declaration cost mean that wars can be sustained by the aggressor indefinitely.

Potential Solutions

Meaningful war through victory conditions
I propose the introduction of a Victory Condition. A victory condition could be ISK damage done (calculated by Jita median price of the destroyed ship). The aggressor would specify the exact Victory Condition in their war declaration (for example, 1bil ISK damage done), and the aggressed is notified of this in the CONCORD mail.

If the aggressor makes or surpasses his Victory Condition, and prevents his enemy from doing the same, the aggressor officially 'wins' the war. This gives them the option of continuing the war another week. Should the aggressor fail to meet their Victory Condition, or be unable to prevent the enemy from reaching the Victory Condition, they officially lose the war, and will be unable to redeclare war on that specific target for the duration of the previous - lost - war.

By allowing both parties to meet the Victory Condition, we encourage the use of a fair Victory Condition. After all, if the Victory Condition is very low, it will be easy for an opponent to meet this as well, while a very high Victory Condition will be a difficult mark to reach for the aggressor. A Victory Condition also gives both corporations a real, strategic goal to work towards, giving more meaning to empire war declarations.

Wins and losses should be announced or visible somewhere ingame, whether it is the Wars page in the corporations window, or on CONCORD billboards.

Pros
Both aggressor and aggressed have equal control over the duration of the war.
Wars become goal oriented, giving it more meaning to the players.
Performance in the war matters, and encourages involved parties to actively participate.
Cons
Corporations can stay docked (‘turtle’) for a week, denying the aggressor kills and thereby forcing a loss on the aggressor.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:31:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341
So my Question is, for what we need High-Sec with this stupid War-System?


To destroy the illusion that you are actually safe in high-security space.

Originally by: Chaos2341
no Corp. can force for War with out any reason. The reason "politic" will no longer accepted becasue it's a standart reason so there must be mor than simple "politic".
Than the Corp. can accept or not accept the War if they're on High-Sec (the Headquarters of the Corp. must be on a High-Sec Sys).


Congrats... now all corps will place their HQ in high-sec to avoid war. And what corp is going to "agree" to a war anyways (with the exception of "training corps")? If my history is right, no war in the history of... well... anywhere has been mutual (I know, I know... shouldn't compare RL with games).

Originally by: Chaos2341
Secound Idea is, that War can be on High-Sec, but only at 0.5 to 0.6/0.7 otherwise we don't need High-Sec for EVE and all can go into Low-Sec. That means, that 0.7/0.8 to 1.0 are free PVP zone (no PVP, no War).


What prevents a corp from running into 0.8 and higher system to avoid war altogether? There are many 0.8 and higher systems where people can run missions and mine.

Originally by: Chaos2341
The last Idea which I've is, that only Alliances can force for War other Alliances; but not a single Corp. can force for War another single Corp. (this rule is for High-Sec).


Sooooo... what would be the incentive for people to create alliances in the first place? Currently, it is in a corporation's interest to join an alliance as it costs upwards of 100 million ISK to dec a corp in an alliance versus 2-4 million against a solo corp.

No, you'd instead see people creating "informal" alliances... an alliance in all respects except being "offical" in order to avoid war-decs.

Originally by: Chaos2341

These Ideas should be make the High-Sec for PVE-Players better because not all Players like PVP. Additional there are many PVE/Mining Corps. on High-Sec because they won't any PVP (e. g. War) otherwise thes Players wher on Low-Sec.



Repeat after me: high-sec is safer... not safe.

No place in the game was ever intended to be completely immune from PvP, not even high-sec. The reason?
One part of it is principle. The DEV's dream of a "wild west" space game where "the rules" are fuzzy, profit comes only to those willing to risk themselves, survival is not guaranteed, and collaboration is rewarded.
Another part has to do with the way the in-game market is structured. Quite basically, the market depends on ships being sold. People only sell ships when other people need ships. Other people need ships because they have either lost that ship, they are "upgrading," or they need to fill a role. tl;dr... more ships destroyed in PvP means more ships sold on the market.

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:47:00 - [10]
 

@zus:

The Victory Condition sounds good. Is this option still under construction or on the game avalible? I don't have see or hear about it.

-------------------------

@ShahFluffers:

You're right. I've not think about the marked.

Well, then the Wardec must be optimated like the Post from @zus. Single PVP is not War. That no Player is save in High-Sec I know.
Hmmm ... it must be able to find a solution for this Topic.

It seems that a little bit PVP is required for the game. But at the moment ther is to many PVP on High-Sec. Thats the Problem which is to solve.

Cunane Jeran
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:53:00 - [11]
 

If anything we need MORE highsec PvP.

PvP is what keeps the market turning, without ships blowing up on a regular basis, the market would die, minerals would become worth about as much as my urine etc

So your idea is terrible. If anything it should be easier to attack people in highsec. (As well as low and nul of course)

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.02 00:02:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Cunane Jeran
If anything we need MORE highsec PvP.

PvP is what keeps the market turning, without ships blowing up on a regular basis, the market would die, minerals would become worth about as much as my urine etc

So your idea is terrible. If anything it should be easier to attack people in highsec. (As well as low and nul of course)


I see - You don't have understand the situation. It's current to much PVP on High-Sec!
We don't need more PVP on High-Sec. For PVP go to Low-Sec or to nul.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.02 00:30:00 - [13]
 

"guys guys i just want to mine without my hulk getting popped X("

There is nothing in this game that should make you immune to interaction with other players, friendly or not. Either accept that and learn how to play the game, or find another. The vetting process is working as intended.

Monstress
Posted - 2011.08.02 00:51:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341
Why?

I don't use PVP to get ISK. I only make my Mission, my PI and my Mining alone ore with the Corp.-Members in my Corp. (I'm not the CEO from this Corp.!)


I suppose you're also one of those people who think if you mined it yourself it's free.

Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.02 00:55:00 - [15]
 

@Andski:

Sry, but a litle smile must be because Your funny sentence on line 1.

Ok, that PVP on High-Sec is needed have I understand now. But it's to much jet.
My Corp. have a War and many other Corps. too.

Singl-PVP is not the Problem but War on High-Sec is a Problem. Another Idea which I've is, that the Corp.,
which has have had a War can only get force into a new War after a "cool down time/deadline" like 1 Month (e. g.).

Otherwise a Corp. can be instand in War and this is not the sense of War. For me a War should solve a unsolved conflict between
two or mor Corps./Alliances with a reason. But War without any reason is stupied and to expensiv if the aggressed still stands on Station.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.02 00:56:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341
I don't know how often this topic stands under discussions but EVE has a big Bug. This Bug is the War-System which allows all Cops./Alliances to force for War at High-Sec. This is very stupied and bad vor all High-Sec PVE-Players.


Why has nobody said this yet? I am disappoint.


It's not a bug. It's a feature.

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:00:00 - [17]
 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the only pvp that happens in high sec is wardeccing. I'd venture to say that more people lose ships in high sec in non war situations than the other way around.


E man Industries
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:11:00 - [18]
 

War decs are a part of eve and should remain so.

0.0 alliance run there logistics through empire using these corps and are thus war-dec-able. Picking off empire players with tons of isk is a play style. Pirates exist in eve. It makes eve more than other lame mmo's.

It adds excitement to the game, risk, and maybe even some forethought. If your wardec'd there is a reason.
The corp attacking thinks your worth there time to fight or they have been paid to fight you.
Had both happen to me..I mined to much in an area and was wardec'd by mercenaries and encouraged to move...awesome. what other game has that? Or would we have held hands and skipped around the belts?
why should you be 100% safe.

also defeating a war dec is easy...don't feed them kills. Or join another corp, hire mercs, fly cheap ships..or any of a million options.Long as you have 2 brain cells to rub together you should figure out how to beat the war dec.

You may have to put some thought and effort into effort free pve and minning...oh the horor....I say this as character who has spent most of his time in empire running level 4's.

Eve is great because of pvp and how everything you do has risk....it is up to you to manage it.





Chaos2341
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:34:00 - [19]
 

Thanks for Your Post.

The Problem is, that many Players can't PVP so they use PVE/Minig. On EVE is no Tutorial for real PVP on low or high.
Well, I don't know anything of PVP only PVE/Mining. If there where an option to learn PVP directly, I would do it,
if I can. But on EVE is no "PVP - School" so PVE is my only way.

Since EVE was deployed an shown on the Games Convention in my town, i liked the Game. I liked the Missions and the Miningotions.
But PVP? I haven't seen so much PVP since my first time on EVE.

How are the old times? On the first officiel deployment there aren't so much PVP - Ok, I've had a break over 3 Years so many changes on EVE where done.
On this time the PVP must be extended on EVE becaus on the beginning there where the High-Sec safer as know.

...

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:10:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Chaos2341

The Problem is, that many Players can't PVP so they use PVE/Minig. On EVE is no Tutorial for real PVP on low or high.
Well, I don't know anything of PVP only PVE/Mining. If there where an option to learn PVP directly, I would do it,
if I can. But on EVE is no "PVP - School" so PVE is my only way.



Tutorials don't really teach players how to create BPCs or T2 stuff either. Or how to use POSs. Or do higher level missions. So that argument falls flat.
Most of the "advanced" stuff in the game is gained through other players or by being "hands on" and just doing it. The main difference between advanced mining/industry and PvP is that you "waste" ISK directly to learn mining/industry whereas you "waste" ships learning how to PvP.

As far as your ignorance regarding PvP... you have only yourself to blame for that. You don't need an "uber" ship to PvP... most of the "good PvPers" learned by jumping into a frigate with minimal skills (which take less than a week to train) and figuring out how to best turn the situation in his/her favor. Others (such as myself) learned by attaching themselves to people who KNOW how to PvP.

That said... many, many, many corporations offer lessons on how to PvP "effectively." EVE University, Agony Unleashed, and Red vs. Blue are just a few off the top of my head. There are also a multitude of "smaller" corporations that can teach you if you can find them.


Originally by: Chaos2341

Since EVE was deployed an shown on the Games Convention in my town, i liked the Game. I liked the Missions and the Miningotions.
But PVP? I haven't seen so much PVP since my first time on EVE.



This is because the game itself is "PvP-centric." Even the market is a form of "PvP" as industrialists and traders are constantly "at war" with each other to offer the lowest prices while still gaining profit.

Originally by: Chaos2341

How are the old times? On the first officiel deployment there aren't so much PVP - Ok, I've had a break over 3 Years so many changes on EVE where done.
On this time the PVP must be extended on EVE becaus on the beginning there where the High-Sec safer as know.



Back in the "old days" there never used to be "high-sec." Everything was "low-sec" and "null-sec." "High-sec" as it is now was introduced some 5 years ago (I think) so that newer players could establish themselves a bit better before venturing out into the rest of the game. However, it was NEVER meant to be "safe." War, conflict, and PvP have always been major themes in EVE.

As far as "high-sec" being safer in the past... that can largely be chalked up to there not being as many people are there are now. With a larger population it should be expected that there will be more "predators" about.

Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:23:00 - [21]
 

maybe a tutorial on how to play eve from an NPC corp ?

Nezumiiro Noneko
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:32:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Nezumiiro Noneko on 02/08/2011 02:32:56
don't like war decs...

if a one man, learn to corp hop. Close corp, make new one...and voila, 24 more hours to run free. Do this till you or the deccer gets tired of it.


Or...


jsut run in npc. yes it has a tax. Tax that keeps your uber tengu/cnr/golem/nm/etc in one piece.

If you have done nothing to warrant the decs (that means no Ima kick your ass chats in local with a vulture even)...chances are they want your faction/ds mods and don't have the ballz to run a proper gank. Its a sad world world where you can respect an honest ganker when you have these deccers running around too scared to take the sec hit for your mods in a gank lol.

Nominh Ehre
Posted - 2011.08.02 05:51:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: ShahFluffers

Back in the "old days" there never used to be "high-sec." Everything was "low-sec" and "null-sec." "High-sec" as it is now was introduced some 5 years ago (I think) so that newer players could establish themselves a bit better before venturing out into the rest of the game. However, it was NEVER meant to be "safe." War, conflict, and PvP have always been major themes in EVE.

As far as "high-sec" being safer in the past... that can largely be chalked up to there not being as many people are there are now. With a larger population it should be expected that there will be more "predators" about.


Back in the old days it was exactly the same setup as it is now, with high,low and 0.0. Just had to say. Empire war was introduced in 2004 when they realized that EVE needed high sec pvp.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.02 06:54:00 - [24]
 

First of all, PvP and high-sec must never be used in the same sentence, you risk collapsing all of space-time by creating a paradox.

Should it be as easy and cheap as it currently is? No.
Should it stay as an option? Yes.

Revise all the exploitive mechanics like neutral assists, Orca escapes etc. and high-sec pew might become something that real men do rather than kids who have run of ants to fry with their magnifying glasses.

CanIPost Please
Posted - 2011.08.02 11:20:00 - [25]
 

They could make it so that other corps and alliances could declare non-neutrality, if the "victims" requested assistance. That way, if a predatory corp of PVPers declared war on some noobs or industrialists or PVEers, they would open themselves up to being counter-decced by a group of players that was prepared to confront them. If they didn't like it, they could retract their war declaration.

I would have counter-decced some corps, for sure. It sucks having to just sit there and watch people get picked on.

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:52:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN on 02/08/2011 15:54:50
Corps shouldn't be allowed to just run around war deccing other corps that they have no experience with simply because they know they're a carebear corp and can wax them.

There is a huge flaw in the war deccing in reguards to this.

There is no purpose to war deccing another corp in high sec without some kind of ties to them.

My point is that war deccing in high sec, most of the time, is nothing more than players that are too scared to get involved in real pvp but they wanna feel special and blow up someone else's ship, so they pick on ppl that can't really defend themselves.

It's a flawed mechanic allowing wanna be pvp'ers to take advantage of the known fact that pve vessels stand no chance in pvp.
This is also why mission griefing works so well for the aggressor.

There are very few times where a ship fitted for pve has won a fight against a pvp fitted ship.
Hell, can probably count the times on both hands.

If the price of war deccing is increased then it allows meaningful wars to continue because the aggressor actually cares enough about the war to continue with the war deccing.

It makes the price too costly for carebear hater corps to go around war deccing just to blow someone up.

For those corps/alliances that continuously war dec the same corps/alliance because they're actually in a meaningful war meant to either take systems from one another or completely demolish the competition and remove them as competition all together, then the cost of the war decs slowly split with their enemy.

Reason for this is because if the corp/alliance that was war decced is unwilling to relocate and continues to fight the battle, then they are showing that the war is just as important to them.
So over times the more they resist the deccer the more they have to start paying for the war and the less the war deccing corp has to pay, until they're both paying an even amount.

This would allow war dec's to actually be a meaningful thing instead of

Wanna be pvp'ers popping carebear pve ships.
I hate this soo much because we all know this is no more difficult than running a lvl 3 mission in a drake.

So it should have to cost them a lot of money to just play around like this.

War deccing should be specifically for the corps/alliances that are serious about war.
A war dec should be required to take soveriegnty from another corp/alliance.(not sure if that's how it works now or not)

This is just a suggestion, but make the cost of war possibly 1 billion isk for the deccing corp.
Every week that the war continues the price of the wardec is shifted onto the decced corp until they're both paying 500mil isk. If the war still continues after that, then the price for both corps begins to reduce until they're only paying 50mil.

This can be placed in conjunction with the win/loss paramiters that another player suggested.

The victory conditions can be anything from losses done to systems taken.

The victory conditions will be attainable at any time during the war dec no matter how long it lasts.

The reason for the victory conditions is to allow the attackers to know what they have to get to end the war in their favor and if they don't then the cost of war deccing that target corporation again is increased to 2bil but will still level out at 500mil, so they have an extra 1bil worth of isk to pay to start a dec with that corp again.

If they win they get the areas and the war dec price stays what it was at when the conditions were met.
The decced corp has the option at anytime to forfeit the war, in which case the war ends but they lose the targeted soveriegnty areas. If it's a dec for total losses in isk, then the decced corp has to pay to get out of it, but that money is just dumped from game (not given to other corp)
Deccer is allowed to forfeit as well. They don't have to pay to end war, but will have to pay more to start a war with that corp again. Every loss means more money to dec that corp

SGT FUNYOUN
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:59:00 - [27]
 

I am going to tell you no and then I will tell you why.

First...

no.

Second...

Because PVP IS THE POINT OF EVE. Eve is a PVP game. Period.

Every activity you do in EVE; from running missions and selling the salvage and loot, to mining clouds and belts and selling the minerals or using them to build stuff; is meant to fuel, build, fit, arm, and repair combat ships. These ships and mods are built, bought, and sold to and from carebears, JUST LIKE YOU, for the express purpose of killing other players characters.

"Mankind is a violent beast that roams the land seeking his own destruction." - Anonymous.

We humans like violence. We find it entertaining. Just look at the UFC. If you want to play a game where there is no blood shed or war; or where there are parts of the game that are perfectly safe... play Farmville or WOW.

Me I'll stick with killing s#!*.

CRIMSON KNIGHTINGALE
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:12:00 - [28]
 

Im putting through the vote for war as i speak thank you for this thread

Last Star Fighter
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:33:00 - [29]
 

Increase NPC corp tax to 50%.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:22:00 - [30]
 

This whole thread makes my head hurt...

It's been said a million times already (but I suppose it bears repeating) -- EVE is a PVP-centric game.

Anything and everything that is not in infinite abundance is the ground for PvP and/or a wardec.

This is including, but not limited to:

  • That Veldspar rock that Chribba just mined out? PVP (though anyone who would dec Chribba would have half of EVE deccing them back...Twisted Evil )

  • That <Planet> Command Centre you just dropped? PVP

  • That hisec moon you just set a POS up on? PVP

  • Selling that implant 10 ISK cheaper than another guy? PVP

  • Buying a BPO, then re-listing a region over (where it isn't found)? PVP

  • Building $STUFF to sell on the market? PVP



Yeah, it does suck being in a smallish corporation that has zero skill (desire, whatever) to engage in PVP. However, the problem here is twofold. Note, these are massive generalizations, and may not hold true in all cases.

1. Industrialist players don't have the skills (desire, etc) to fight, and generally are in corporations of like minded players who have no skill (desire, etc) to fight. They *may* have missioners in their ranks, who are afraid of losing their over-priced faction ships...

2. PvP players think that the industry guys are "wasting their time" with their chosen profession, and merely see indy guys as easy targets to pad their killboards with. They're more likely to join corporations that are "all PvP all the time" than a more well-rounded corporation...

BOTH of these viewpoints are broken to some degree...

1. The industry guys need to catch on that PvP isn't always bad (and sometimes can be fun -- see: nano frigate with points... Cool). Just accept that there is nowhere SAFE in space, and act accordingly. Don't be afraid of loss, just prepared for it... 'virgin' jumpclones help here.

2. The PvP guys need to realize that the industrial guys aren't to be looked at as nothing more than easy ganks (OK, they are... but bear with me). There are benefits to having a group who can help you rebuild a fleet in mere hours... or keep a small stock 'in house' in the event of bad things happening...

I've been in both types of corporations (PVP w/indy wing, and indy w/PVP wing), and the best corporations have always been the ones where both sides worked together on goals BOTH sides could achieve. These were sometimes simple as fortnightly weekend FRIGATE (or noobship, hehehe Cool)roams with T1 trash (so everyone could join in), where the 'off week' was a (lowsec) mining op where the PvP guys would be the defence fleet or in whatever they could fly with Industrial 2/3... and the mins would go toward corp wallet and/or building next weekend's lol fleet...

Obviously there were roams that the indy guys wouldn't join, just as there were mining days that the PvP guys would decide to go on a roam... but everyone had their fun, and the corporations were significantly stronger (IMO) than a "PVP only" or "Indy only" corporation because of that camaraderie...


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only