EVE General Discussion

Tbh, Malc explained it better than I did above. It's not just about ISK — it's about completely skewing the interconnected nature of the EVE universe and creating untouchable bases from which you can affect all of EVE.

…on and for the record, PLEX is not an ISK faucet.

And this is an great point and has been raised often.

Suicide ganking is neccessary because there is no "easy" way to kill without getting taken through a ringer. I think The Apostle once said that removal of corp jumping during a war-dec and automatic expulsion from NPC corps would go a long way to making it tougher AND fairer at the same time.

This could cause griefer corps to lock down smaller corps for fun but the "decshield" might also help make pointless "wars" quite pointless. A war declared is going to need to be done with dedication and a reason.

Insofar as null corps using alt corps for logistics, good intel could make this very, very dangerous for 0.0 corps to do with this kind of proposal.

So some things, i.e. changes making it harder and fairer and still provide for the Eve genre - are by and large quite possible. My main point in my OP is as much about this as the vehement defiance of ANY change - even if it might be good for the game.

And if suddenly 50 people a day stop turning up, will the prices increase or will it close down? Would 50 people a day affect McDonalds?

I also like food, but I understand some business's need to evolve to stay afloat

Yeah people keep referring to the test server. Roughly translated, however, it's like telling someone to go play another game. And that's exactly what a lot of people do....go play something else entirely.

I've never been on the test server. I have no desire to go to the test server. Telling people to do this is equivalent to CCP introducing a new feature and telling you it's only on the test server and will only ever be there. The tears would be ginormous.

Or would you have us believe that if CCP stopped development of Tranquility and only released new content on Sisi, you'd be happy with this? Somehow I think not.

Wow did you miss the point of Andski's post.

Greetings capsuleer,

You posed an interesting question. I have had to research large volumes of old-earth entertainment to understand some of what you are talking about. The way I understand this there was a time when people entertained themselves by using a physical interface to a virtual world. This was approximately 21350 years ago, around the year 2000 AD. Remember, the Yoiul Conference of 23236 AD established the use of YC.

No matter, I found some fragmented records around this. There appears to be two schools of thought on how this type of entertainment was presented.

One group, ones that seem remarkably similar to the capsuleers of New Eden, believed in what is loosely termed a sandbox environment. They had a lot of freedom to do what they will and as such those forms of entertainment attracted a certain type of person.

The other group were seeking to engage in activities that relate - well. Ludicrous as this sound they had locations termed as theme parks. This is where people would congregate for fixed entertainment using velocity, motion and copious quantities of salty and sugary foods to induce vomiting. Some of these games followed a similar model to theme parks. This attracted a different type of person.

It was a common belief at the time that the two forms could not mix in a logical fashion as they conceptually had different target audiences.

Thus it amuses me to read your response above. From what I can see you are arguing for a break from the core principle of one form in favour of the other. In that context, your analogy above is flawed. I believe you should have written it as:



Then your analogy would not be harmonic with the core concepts and would thus create the logical jar that it should.

Strangely, I'm curious why 0.0 members are contributing to this thread? It's not that you can't or shouldn't, it's why?

Correct me if I am wrong, after much complaint, bitching and whining, 0.0 alliances have just become the proud parents of substantial nerfs that makes 0.0 safer.

Odd they find it neccessary to defend the norm in highsec.

Oh ****, I didn't see it was you. Sorry for feeding.

The average age that plays WoW is 13years old.

The average age that plays EVE is 35years old +.

WoW is a game for the uneducated masses (The Mist of Pandoria - Kung-fu Panda anyone?)

EVE is a niche game (Sci-Fi meets Slasher films).

'Nuff said.

/thread

As soon as EvE gets over its "solo" hurdle for newer players then it'd be a better game for it, and ALOT more likely to retain newer players. Generally as it stands, you'll be thrown into a newbie corp with a large group of people who are full of anti grouping venom, yeah your questions will be answered, but generally you'll get a completely skewed idea of the game.

Incursions have helped, and there is the occasional vet in the newbie corps who'll take newbies into level 4 missions. Generally though we should be pushing for more stuff like mining ops, an epic arc that involves grouping that kind of thing, something that'll really get an inclusive feeling going, while retaining the option of solo for those who are less sociable (but maybe make it not as rewarding)

Yes there will always be gankers and grief, but when in a group, that loss becomes a lot easier to bare, as you have that common ground.