These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Does WAR make players leave Eve?

First post First post First post
Author
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#141 - 2013-11-07 04:54:34 UTC
infinitesec

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Princess Bride
SharkNado
#142 - 2013-11-07 04:59:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Cambarus wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
Confirming this thread has popped up every few months or so for the last 7 years, if not more.

Non-consensual pvp is one of the core aspects of the game, asking to have it changed is like asking eve to be a fantasy game, or asking to be able to grind for levels.


Straw man argument. OP never asks this.

And besides, non-consensual pvp has been changed many times over those 7 years. But again, you're off topic.

I'm really not, because the op is suggesting that non-consensual pvp (or at least one of its facets) be changed from something that is done frequently and easily to something that is done as a "last resort". That's not a small change, it's a big one, and a big change to one of the things that makes eve the game that it is will be frowned upon by people who actually like the game for what it is, also known as the people currently paying CCP to keep playing their game.


Actually, the OP seems focused two themes: 1) He asks if wardecs cause new players to leave. 2) He suggests substantially raising the cost of wardecs. The first is a valid question. The second would indeed be a big change if implemented. However, it's also been done before, and guess what, it didn't break Eve. So I think the question of whether to raise the cost again is also a valid one.

Quote:

What it boils down to is this:
Would eve be a better game if it were safer?
Eve is fairly well known for filling its server with people who would gladly say no.

It's kind of like suggesting that eve should have multiple servers. It's not that the idea itself is without merit, or that there aren't people who would like to see it happen, but were it actually implemented you'd be losing one of the core aspects of the game, and in the end it would suffer for it.


Whether or not Eve is full of people who would gladly support your position is irrelevant because that is argumentum ad populum. What it actually boils down to is this: Would Eve be better or worse off if the cost of wardecs went up substantially again? Would that change help new player retention without causing the loss of too many butthurt bittervets? Although the OP does use words like "last resort", he does (multiple times) reaffirm the need for wardecs and suggests upping the price as a solution (multiple times) so that's really what we're talking about here.

And sorry but no, increasing the cost of wardecs is not a core aspect of the game comparable to changing to multiple servers. That's just plain ol' exaggeration.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2013-11-07 05:02:17 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
infinitesec

Can I mine there in peace without all these pesky gankers?
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#144 - 2013-11-07 05:16:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:

I agree, 100%. OP also seems to agree with this.


Where he and I diverge, however, is his assertion that wardeccing as a concept is responsible for lack of player retention.

Which is simply not true. The game has plenty of reasons for low player retention, the ludicrously complicated UI being among them, and the actions of other people can be easily discounted.

One does not enter into an MMO without being aware that people are involved, large numbers of them. And large numbers of people will mean negative interaction is basically a given.



I think you may be oversimplifying OP's assertion. My interpretation is that he feels that the low cost of wardecs may contribute to the lack of player retention. To me, that's worth discussing. While I agree that it may not be the only factor, I don't think it's ridiculous to consider if it's one of the factors. OP never suggests removing wardecs "as a concept" or otherwise, and reiterates the importance of wardecs to the game several times.

I also agree that negative interaction "happens" and I am not advocating the removal of all negative interactions nor of wardecs.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#145 - 2013-11-07 05:23:14 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:

I agree, 100%. OP also seems to agree with this.


Where he and I diverge, however, is his assertion that wardeccing as a concept is responsible for lack of player retention.

Which is simply not true. The game has plenty of reasons for low player retention, the ludicrously complicated UI being among them, and the actions of other people can be easily discounted.

One does not enter into an MMO without being aware that people are involved, large numbers of them. And large numbers of people will mean negative interaction is basically a given.



I think you may be oversimplifying OP's assertion. My interpretation is that he feels that the low cost of wardecs may contribute to the lack of player retention. To me, that's worth discussing. While I agree that it may not be the only factor, I don't think it's ridiculous to consider if it's one of the factors. OP never suggests removing wardecs "as a concept" or otherwise, and reiterates the importance of wardecs to the game several times.

I also agree that negative interaction "happens" and I am not advocating the removal of all negative interactions nor of wardecs.


I would ask you then, if you feel that wardecs do not cost enough, and they should be more expensive, whether you would be in favor of removing (or de-incetivizing) dec dodging.

Because the cost of deccing someone is commensurate to how incredibly easy they are to just brush off with no consequences.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Princess Bride
SharkNado
#146 - 2013-11-07 05:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I would ask you then, if you feel that wardecs do not cost enough, and they should be more expensive, whether you would be in favor of removing (or de-incetivizing) dec dodging.

Because the cost of deccing someone is commensurate to how incredibly easy they are to just brush off with no consequences.


I am not 100% sure that they should be more expensive, but I think it's a worthwhile topic of discussion. As for how incredibly easy they are to just brush off with no consequences....I'm not sure I would characterize the situation that dramatically either. The current system is better than the Decshield days. Yes, people can drop out of their corps if decced, but that can have consequences if it's a "real" corp and not just a tax shelter. If it was as easy, painless, and simple to avoid decs as you describe, then why do they cause enough grief to start threads like this one?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2013-11-07 05:50:03 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:


I am not 100% sure that they should be more expensive, but I think it's a worthwhile topic of discussion. As for how incredibly easy they are to just brush off with no consequences....I'm not sure I would characterize the situation that dramatically either. The current system is better than the Decshield days. Yes, people can drop out of their corps if decced, but that can have consequences if it's a "real" corp and not just a tax shelter. If it was as easy, painless, and simple to avoid decs as you describe, then why do they cause enough grief to start threads like this one?


I'll tell you why. The same reason why miners spill out buckets of tears when you tell them that they could avoid ganking if they fitted a tank and orbited rocks.

"I shouldn't have to". One of the most dangerous mentalities found amongst humans.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#148 - 2013-11-07 05:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Princess Bride wrote:
Whether or not Eve is full of people who would gladly support your position is irrelevant because that is argumentum ad populum. What it actually boils down to is this: Would Eve be better or worse off if the cost of wardecs went up substantially again? Would that change help new player retention without causing the loss of too many butthurt bittervets? Although the OP does use words like "last resort", he does (multiple times) reaffirm the need for wardecs and suggests upping the price as a solution (multiple times) so that's really what we're talking about here.

And sorry but no, increasing the cost of wardecs is not a core aspect of the game comparable to changing to multiple servers. That's just plain ol' exaggeration.

If the cost of wars goes up, then players who declare wars will band together into bigger groups to more easily afford the fees by virtue of distribution. All this will do is push the little groups of sociopath butt-buddies out of the picture. It will do NOTHING to address the actual problem of pvp happening where it SHOULDN'T. The only way to do that is to REMOVE WARS FROM HIGH-SEC ENTIRELY, like it should have been in the first place. HIGH-sec means HIGH safety, not NO safety, like the way it is now.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Princess Bride
SharkNado
#149 - 2013-11-07 05:55:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:
Whether or not Eve is full of people who would gladly support your position is irrelevant because that is argumentum ad populum. What it actually boils down to is this: Would Eve be better or worse off if the cost of wardecs went up substantially again? Would that change help new player retention without causing the loss of too many butthurt bittervets? Although the OP does use words like "last resort", he does (multiple times) reaffirm the need for wardecs and suggests upping the price as a solution (multiple times) so that's really what we're talking about here.

And sorry but no, increasing the cost of wardecs is not a core aspect of the game comparable to changing to multiple servers. That's just plain ol' exaggeration.

If the cost of wars goes up, then players who declare wars will band together into bigger groups to more easily afford the fees by virtue of distribution. All this will do is push the little groups of sociopath butt-buddies out of the picture. It will do NOTHING to address the actual problem of pvp happening where it SHOULDN'T. The only way to do that is to REMOVE WARS FROM HIGH-SEC ENTIRELY, like it should have been in the first place. HIGH-sec means HIGH safety, not NO safety, like the way it is now.


2/10 (for persistence)

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#150 - 2013-11-07 06:03:21 UTC
And yet you haven't rebutted my argument.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#151 - 2013-11-07 06:04:29 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And yet you haven't rebutted my argument.


You kind of don't have to bother with a rebuttal for things that have no merit.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#152 - 2013-11-07 06:11:07 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:

Actually, the OP seems focused two themes: 1) He asks if wardecs cause new players to leave. 2) He suggests substantially raising the cost of wardecs. The first is a valid question. The second would indeed be a big change if implemented. However, it's also been done before, and guess what, it didn't break Eve. So I think the question of whether to raise the cost again is also a valid one.

1)Getting wardecced, and later on wardeccing people, was what caused me and most of the people I know in this game to stick around. As both targets and aggressors it gave us something to work at as a group, and provided a level of incentive that simply does not exist within the pve side of the game. It may be anecdotal, but then so is claiming that new players are driven away by wardecs. There will be people who leave because of bad wardecs, absolutely, but here's the thing:

They're leaving because they don't like eve.

2)It has been done before, but not to nearly the extent suggested here. The last time ccp upped wardec costs they did so to the detriment of a very small number of corps/alliances who were essentially at war with everyone. (there have been others, but those changes were largely negligible in terms of what they did to wardeccing) The OP's suggestion would be a death sentence to the majority of the smaller wardeccing corps out there. It would kill wardeccing for smaller corps, and is therefore a terrible idea.

Princess Bride wrote:

Whether or not Eve is full of people who would gladly support your position is irrelevant because that is argumentum ad populum.
You're trying really, REALLY hard to sound smart. Key word here is trying.
1)Among those people are the guys who actually made this game
2)We're literally talking about what makes the game popular. If you're willing to cede that people who don't think the game should be safer are the majority in eve, then you can't really argue that it should be safer based on perceived potential losses, given that there would be equal, if not greater, potential loss if wardecs were made stupidly expensive.
If you're NOT willing to cede that point with regards to this discussion, then you can't claim that it's irrelevant.
Princess Bride wrote:

What it actually boils down to is this: Would Eve be better or worse off if the cost of wardecs went up substantially again? Would that change help new player retention without causing the loss of too many butthurt bittervets? Although the OP does use words like "last resort", he does (multiple times) reaffirm the need for wardecs and suggests upping the price as a solution (multiple times) so that's really what we're talking about here.

See, you're wording this question in a way to make it seem reasonable, when it really isn't. PVE in this game is boring as ****, there's literally a thread (one of many that pop up all the time) about just that on the front page of GD right now. It's not just the vets that you have to worry about losing, it's all the newer players who, without the fear of loss looming over them, have little reason to stick around. I've been playing for 7 years now, and I'd not have made it to 7 weeks if people in this game only ever wardecced corps as a last resort.

I mean come on, how many MMOs have you played where people actually make the complaint that the entirety of the game's pve is terrible, while still actively playing said game?

Princess Bride wrote:

And sorry but no, increasing the cost of wardecs is not a core aspect of the game comparable to changing to multiple servers. That's just plain ol' exaggeration.
The main impact on sharding the server would be to massive null alliances, I actually think making small scale wardeccing prohibitively expensive would probably change how the game works for more people.
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#153 - 2013-11-07 06:24:00 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I agree with the OP because THE GRIEFING IN THIS GAME HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. It is ridiculous that players can't undock in high-sec (NOTICE THE WORD 'HIGH") without immediately getting blown to bits by basement-dwelling sociopath teenagers with no lives who have never even held hands with a girl before. EVE is DYING and if CCP doesn't do something about it soon then this game won't even last TWO YEARS. To be honest I don't get why they don't simply ban all the griefers from the game, because the game would obviously become a much better place without them. The high-sec pvp mechanics are remnants of an OLD ERA, created by CCP employees who obviously didn't have the vision and understanding of their customer base that allowed them to hold on to their jobs. GUESS WHAT, most people are well-adjusted individuals and want to create, not destroy. The few psychos out there who can't wrap their minds around that simple fact DO NOT BELONG in this game, and much less society as a whole. We should be able to play how we want, not how others want us to. Plenty of great ideas like pvp flags have been proposed, and it goes beyond my understanding why CCP won't implement something as rational as that. There's plenty of null-sec out there for players to duel other in, for those who want to. At the very least, they could make it so that wars would have to be mutually accepted, or maybe make the attackers pay the defenders for every ship they destroy. It's common sense, people. Save EVE and say NO to wars in high-sec.


"If the cost of wars goes up, then players who declare wars will band together into bigger groups to more easily afford the fees by virtue of distribution. All this will do is push the little groups of sociopath butt-buddies out of the picture. It will do NOTHING to address the actual problem of pvp happening where it SHOULDN'T. The only way to do that is to REMOVE WARS FROM HIGH-SEC ENTIRELY, like it should have been in the first place. HIGH-sec means HIGH safety, not NO safety, like the way it is now."

For the love of Bacon please tell me this is a troll. Shocked
Please? Shocked
You aren't actually serious, are you? Roll
I will feed in hopes it's just a troll...
PVP'ers are not evil psychopaths for the most part.... this is a pvp game... Wars pretty much only matter in hi-sec... high security != safe... nowhere but docked in a station is truly safe, nor ever has been... I'd go on, but I think your post may have given me cancer. Ugh

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#154 - 2013-11-07 08:31:14 UTC
* cough *

* wheeze *

I'm about to be moved to first aid because of a partially collapsed lung. I blame that post.
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#155 - 2013-11-07 08:44:58 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I agree with the OP because THE GRIEFING IN THIS GAME HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. It is ridiculous that players can't undock in high-sec (NOTICE THE WORD 'HIGH") without immediately getting blown to bits by basement-dwelling sociopath teenagers with no lives who have never even held hands with a girl before. EVE is DYING and if CCP doesn't do something about it soon then this game won't even last TWO YEARS. To be honest I don't get why they don't simply ban all the griefers from the game, because the game would obviously become a much better place without them. The high-sec pvp mechanics are remnants of an OLD ERA, created by CCP employees who obviously didn't have the vision and understanding of their customer base that allowed them to hold on to their jobs. GUESS WHAT, most people are well-adjusted individuals and want to create, not destroy. The few psychos out there who can't wrap their minds around that simple fact DO NOT BELONG in this game, and much less society as a whole. We should be able to play how we want, not how others want us to. Plenty of great ideas like pvp flags have been proposed, and it goes beyond my understanding why CCP won't implement something as rational as that. There's plenty of null-sec out there for players to duel other in, for those who want to. At the very least, they could make it so that wars would have to be mutually accepted, or maybe make the attackers pay the defenders for every ship they destroy. It's common sense, people. Save EVE and say NO to wars in high-sec.


U mad bro?

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club

Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#156 - 2013-11-07 08:47:00 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I agree with the OP because THE GRIEFING IN THIS GAME HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. It is ridiculous that players can't undock in high-sec (NOTICE THE WORD 'HIGH") without immediately getting blown to bits by basement-dwelling sociopath teenagers with no lives who have never even held hands with a girl before. EVE is DYING and if CCP doesn't do something about it soon then this game won't even last TWO YEARS. To be honest I don't get why they don't simply ban all the griefers from the game, because the game would obviously become a much better place without them. The high-sec pvp mechanics are remnants of an OLD ERA, created by CCP employees who obviously didn't have the vision and understanding of their customer base that allowed them to hold on to their jobs. GUESS WHAT, most people are well-adjusted individuals and want to create, not destroy. The few psychos out there who can't wrap their minds around that simple fact DO NOT BELONG in this game, and much less society as a whole. We should be able to play how we want, not how others want us to. Plenty of great ideas like pvp flags have been proposed, and it goes beyond my understanding why CCP won't implement something as rational as that. There's plenty of null-sec out there for players to duel other in, for those who want to. At the very least, they could make it so that wars would have to be mutually accepted, or maybe make the attackers pay the defenders for every ship they destroy. It's common sense, people. Save EVE and say NO to wars in high-sec.


OH WOW

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#157 - 2013-11-07 08:48:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:
Whether or not Eve is full of people who would gladly support your position is irrelevant because that is argumentum ad populum. What it actually boils down to is this: Would Eve be better or worse off if the cost of wardecs went up substantially again? Would that change help new player retention without causing the loss of too many butthurt bittervets? Although the OP does use words like "last resort", he does (multiple times) reaffirm the need for wardecs and suggests upping the price as a solution (multiple times) so that's really what we're talking about here.

And sorry but no, increasing the cost of wardecs is not a core aspect of the game comparable to changing to multiple servers. That's just plain ol' exaggeration.

If the cost of wars goes up, then players who declare wars will band together into bigger groups to more easily afford the fees by virtue of distribution. All this will do is push the little groups of sociopath butt-buddies out of the picture. It will do NOTHING to address the actual problem of pvp happening where it SHOULDN'T. The only way to do that is to REMOVE WARS FROM HIGH-SEC ENTIRELY, like it should have been in the first place. HIGH-sec means HIGH safety, not NO safety, like the way it is now.


And still mad.


Guess what, CCP themselfs said that High-sec is more safe, not completely safe.

So HTFU or get out. If yiu want risk free gaming...Hello Kitty Online might be for you.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#158 - 2013-11-07 09:01:36 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:

Are you guys really trying to say that ANY change to wardec mechanics that might help new players would result in a broken, unplayable, and unpopular game abandoned by anyone who signed up before 2013?


No, we are sayign that things are already TOO easy for them and further pushign there wil make eve losoe the veterans that made eve what it is and make the real content of the game that makes eve suyrvive and not become some meaningless game about lcick f1 and nothign else.




THings shoudl be even EASIER to make wars.

ALL players over 1 year old should be EJECTED from the NPC corps safe from war dec and NEVER allowed to come back. They shoudl be moved to a NPC corp that can be wardecced.

LEaving a corp in war shoudl make you drag your war for 1 week, same way as a corp leavign an alliance does. Erasign your corp and making a new one should contaminate the new corp with the war!



THis is a PVP game! MEchanics shoudl push for MORE pvp, not less

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2013-11-07 09:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I agree with the OP because THE GRIEFING IN THIS GAME HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. It is ridiculous that players can't undock in high-sec (NOTICE THE WORD 'HIGH") without immediately getting blown to bits by basement-dwelling sociopath teenagers with no lives who have never even held hands with a girl before. EVE is DYING and if CCP doesn't do something about it soon then this game won't even last TWO YEARS. To be honest I don't get why they don't simply ban all the griefers from the game, because the game would obviously become a much better place without them. The high-sec pvp mechanics are remnants of an OLD ERA, created by CCP employees who obviously didn't have the vision and understanding of their customer base that allowed them to hold on to their jobs. GUESS WHAT, most people are well-adjusted individuals and want to create, not destroy. The few psychos out there who can't wrap their minds around that simple fact DO NOT BELONG in this game, and much less society as a whole. We should be able to play how we want, not how others want us to. Plenty of great ideas like pvp flags have been proposed, and it goes beyond my understanding why CCP won't implement something as rational as that. There's plenty of null-sec out there for players to duel other in, for those who want to. At the very least, they could make it so that wars would have to be mutually accepted, or maybe make the attackers pay the defenders for every ship they destroy. It's common sense, people. Save EVE and say NO to wars in high-sec.



There are almost no sociopaths in eve, there are altough a lot of IDIOTS, that cannot grasp that HIGH is not complete and that this is a PVP game. That cannot grasp that The fun in this game is destroying stuff.. and that is why 95% of ships have GUNS!

Cowards that hide in a tiny 8 man corp so that you can disband it when a war comes. People that should not be here degradating this game with a lackluster presence.


But we will open an exception for you... wil request for our directors to approve you for our list of "Wardec forever"

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Azzakelle
#160 - 2013-11-07 09:17:22 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Quote removed due to health concerns.
Oh my, someone is asking to be wardecced or ganked.
Enjoy your bounty by the way.