EVE General Discussion

Why would they make a pvp-centric (and advertised) game cater mainly to pve players?

Fixed your source. If you're going to reference something, reference the part that provides the information you're using.

Anyway, that all depends on how those battleships were lost. It doesn't really qualify as “dangerous” if you choose to blow up your own ship, now is it?

False dichotomy. They would make it less rewarding to promote other activities. This does not have to make the game less enjoyable — quite the opposite. Moreover, just because it's activity the largest number of players do as their primary activity doesn't mean that it's the activity most people engage in or that it's an activity that is particularly important to the overall well-being of the game.

Statistics indicate that this this "Pvp-centric" game's most used activity is PVE, regardless of how they advertise themselves this is the choice of the majority statistically speaking of their player base which one would assume they would like to make the game enjoyable for. Statistics

This is what I always say. The OP is an example of the kind of High-sec player thinking that drives me nuts (they always do the "appeal to CCPs wallet").

I don't care how or where someone plays, but a simple look at eve tells you it's an MMO with heavy emphasis on pvp and player interaction. You can play solo, but that's not the games theme. You can play in high sec, and some hi-sec , but the game's economy revolves around consumption so the most natural progression i from high to low to null/WHs, not the other way around. You can play "casually" but EVE is a game that for most activities rewards actually being around a lot to make Friends and form/kill empires.

The High Sec only, NPC (or self owned player) corp, casual solo player has a place in EVE, but they are confining themselves to second class citizen status in many ways. Rather than accepting this OR doing the very simple things needed to participate in the larger game, some of them come here and "tsk tsk" at for ignoring the "reality" of the fact that it seems most people live in high sec and thus want a solo/casual game.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why not play something like Star Trek online (or the game Mirime mentions) which is designed to be more the casual, independent solo players cup of Tea? Why do some choose to bang their heads on a brick wall that won't move (EVe has been EVE for almost 10 years now)?

If I weren't a pvp/null sec exploration pve type, I would simply leave EVE without complaining, there are other games to play.

You could have gone out silently ... but no, you had to go out publicly crying like a babby.

Fine by me:

It just means that I make more money, more easily, exploring out there in the wastelands.

I like that for more reasons than just the obvious:

It makes space feel huge and epic, and "real" in the sense of being in an environment that is absolutely inimical to all life, and that's always been a big part of why I am addicted love EVE so much.

There is no new carebear mentality, the only thing that has changed is the anti carebear mentality. This nonsense of calling everyone in high sec 'afk miners', afk missioners', etc. Though I would like to see more pve content I really would rather see more null and low sec content to keep those muppets entertained so they can stop being whiny elitist 12 year olds.

Indeed, I would absolutely love to see more, more meaningful/challenging/immersive PvE content--especially exclusive to losec, it's been begging for it since day 1--But, in that aforementioned last year-odd, the carebears--the wrong kind of carebears for EVE--have been doing a totally insane "whinge-blitz jihad," which hasn't really seemed the case in years past.

Moreover, CCP seems to be listening to them, at the expense of the whole sandbox, PvP and PvE, and everything in-between be damned.

I hope that I don't need to explain why this is not a good thing for EVE's future?

…and when you ask them, they will say no, because running missions is not how they defined their EVE experience and they won't particularly care if missions are ”improved” (in fact, they might resent it since it breaks their habits).

If you want to expand the categories to that extent — “anyone who does X is an X:er” — then you've made them completely useless. With that logic, everyone is a PvP:er so this noise about the game being mostly PvE is just nonsense.

…except that buffing or nerfing it has nothing to do with game enjoyment. You could nerf it into the ground and still make the game more enjoyable, since people have to move on to different things that are inherently more fun to do. In fact, history has shown that buffs of that kind rather had the opposite effect: it made more people do more of the newly-buffed activity, and less of what they actually wanted to do (because the latter became a relative waste of time).

To make the game enjoyable, activities should be made less important by the addition of worth-while alternatives. Nerfs may very well be part of that package.

No, it shouldn't be. The way it is currently is pretty much perfect. The only change that should be made is to increase the rewards in low-sec. And I'm speaking as a player that stays almost exclusively in high-sec. The only times I go to low-sec is for exploration and the only times I go to null sec is for bp research.

The way high-sec is setup currently allows for players to generate all the income they would need in relative safety. In fact it generates waaay more isk than the effort/risk it takes. Buffing that would be ridiculous. Nerfing it would also be bad since people are already used to it. Making more incentives for people to leave high-sec should be the most important thing for CCP. And those incentives should be mainly directed towards solo players since that's the type of people that stay in high-sec.



Then we need to discuss what "improving pve gameplay" means.