These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#421 - 2015-02-13 18:03:23 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:


Run that past me again. How do gankers create content? I'm sort of slow with this "man behind the curtain" stuff. Gankers have increased considerably over the past year. The amount of ships on the market hasn't. So...do whuh??


And here lies one of the greatest misconceptions of content - that it has to be a specific 'thing' in the game. Gankers create content by creating conflict, story, purpose, etc. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc. Really not that hard to figure out if you put your mind to it, so rather than assuming you're just slow, I'll assume you're being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous.



same for carebears then. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc.

if gankers didn't have carebears they wouldn't be anything.


'Carebear' is a pejorative I don't like any more than 'griefer'. If we could all stop using them, I think we'd have a friendlier conversation, but since that's never going to happen, let me clear something up.

Firstly, when I address a misconception directed at a particular playstyle, I'm not addressing any other playstyle but that one. I'm wholly aware that 'carebears' are entirely capable of creating content if they put their mind to it, and in fact encourage it routinely.

Secondly, the risk-averse exist in all playstyles, and it is the risk-averse that will be least likely to create content, and most likely to support changes to games that reduce the effort they have to make to mitigate the risk to themselves for the same reward.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2015-02-13 18:04:40 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Run that past me again. How do gankers create content?
By creating a boogie man for people to rail against, by creating conflict and stories.
Quote:
I'm sort of slow with this "man behind the curtain" stuff.
What does the Wizard of OZ have to with it?
Quote:
Gankers have increased considerably over the past year. The amount of ships on the market hasn't. So...do whuh??
If the number of gankers has increased, but the number of ships for sale on the market hasn't, what does that tell you?
It tells me that more gankers are required to do the job, by virtue of ganking having been nerfed repeatedly.



it tells me the ship makers have outsmarted the gankers and the gankers are having a hard time adapting like the ship makers have


You do realise that shipbuilders are the single most likely entity to profit from ganking in the entire game, right?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#423 - 2015-02-13 18:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Serene Repose wrote:
So...while we're walking the caverns of your imagination...
Believe me, you don't want to go there, 'tis a silly place.
Quote:
what "job" is this that needs to be done? More "gankers" to "create content?" Why.
The job is to provide risk. Gankers have, by necessity due to mechanics changes, switched to smaller, cheaper ships in greater numbers to do so, which in turn requires more pilots to fly them.
Quote:
That would mean the job isn't being done NOW. SO this "gankers create content" is just a THEORY.
The job is getting done, although it has gotten harder over the years, and yes gankers create content, as evidenced by the amount of people that complain about them.

Lady Rift wrote:
same for carebears then. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc.

if gankers didn't have carebears they wouldn't be anything.
I don't disagree in principle, everybody, including carebears, is content for somebody else. The bit about carebears providing risk is incorrect though, the means are there for them to do so, but most refuse to use them thus becoming hapless victims.

Quote:
it tells me the ship makers have outsmarted the gankers and the gankers are having a hard time adapting like the ship makers have
You do realise that some of the sponsors of gankers are ship makers, they pay gankers to increase demand for their products hence their sponsorship is a marketing expense.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#424 - 2015-02-13 18:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:


Run that past me again. How do gankers create content? I'm sort of slow with this "man behind the curtain" stuff. Gankers have increased considerably over the past year. The amount of ships on the market hasn't. So...do whuh??


And here lies one of the greatest misconceptions of content - that it has to be a specific 'thing' in the game. Gankers create content by creating conflict, story, purpose, etc. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc. Really not that hard to figure out if you put your mind to it, so rather than assuming you're just slow, I'll assume you're being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous.


+1000

some people are so blinded by hatred (of people playing a video game in a fashion they find distasteful) that they can't see the benefits of having such people around. I bet they'd also like to Star Wars with no Darth Vader or Storm Troopers, Or Star Trek with no Klingons/Romulans/Dominion/Borg etc.

Their kind of thinking is foreign to me, because for almost 8 years the 'greifers' that they so fear and hate have been entertainment to me. In Soviet EVE, Jenn Griefs them (by denying them a single killmail)..
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#425 - 2015-02-13 18:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Lady Rift wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:


Run that past me again. How do gankers create content? I'm sort of slow with this "man behind the curtain" stuff. Gankers have increased considerably over the past year. The amount of ships on the market hasn't. So...do whuh??


And here lies one of the greatest misconceptions of content - that it has to be a specific 'thing' in the game. Gankers create content by creating conflict, story, purpose, etc. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc. Really not that hard to figure out if you put your mind to it, so rather than assuming you're just slow, I'll assume you're being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous.



same for carebears then. They create content by being part of the risk of EVE Online, something to rally against, a story to tell, etc.

if gankers didn't have carebears they wouldn't be anything.



This is true. The problem is the 'carebears' (the real ones, not all pve'rs are carebears) spend just enough time to complain about gankers, but not a single second thinking about defending themselves or turning the tables on them (like undocking a blingy arty Vargur and making sure the scanner guy in the undock sees it, warping, dropping a depot to put on a mjd, then warping to the right mission, going through a gate and mjding, getting to watch a gank squad come through a gate and lose flimsy ships to npcs).

It's because carebears are the mentally defenseless types that gankers exist at all. I don't know a single carebear freighter driver who travels with a web alt that is also a "suicide ECM bursting alt" to disrupt gank squads if all else fails. I do and i've never lost a freighter to a gank, but thinking is hard.

The hatred of gankers is really the 'carebears' trying to rationalize away the fact that (due to personality limitations) they suck at a video game. Meanwhile real PVE players find ways to punish them for their insolence (I've waited years for the opportunity to use that phrase btw).
Dalloway Jones
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#426 - 2015-02-13 18:49:37 UTC
For the most part the nerfs to ganking in high sec make sense from a game and "lore" point of view. When the game first came out CCP put rules into place that were a deterrent to ganking people in high sec. As with all things in life people are determined and found loopholes and ways around these deterrents.

Some of the loopholes have been closed. And what could be seen as "lore" driven changes to security as a response to these acts of terrorism.

Concord response times, sec status penalties, buffs to industrial ships, no more insurance payouts. These all make sense from a lore standpoint. In a game filled with big NPC corporations who are all about profit wouldn't they take steps to stop acts of terrorism from hurting those profits?

Things like reshipping in space, or drone mechanics are loopholes or game mechanic issues. Things that were not working as intended and have been fixed.

As for the boosting off grid issue I agree that is something that doesn't make sense. But boosting in PvP (where everyone is meant to be on grid anyway) and boosting miners are two very different things. They would have to look at making asteroid belts larger if they changed Orca boosting or there would really be no point to mining fleets as existing belts would be cleared out too quickly.

One thing I will say after observing these sorts of complaints going on for years...gankers are just as whiney as the people they are ganking. The two groups that are perfectly suited for each other.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#427 - 2015-02-13 19:51:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Jenn aSide wrote:
Meanwhile real PVE players find ways to punish them for their insolence (I've waited years for the opportunity to use that phrase btw).


Sad that you wasted such a good post by trying to put the punch on a sentence as relevant as "real PVPers do X insetad of Y".

You waited years to make a "no true scotsman" type of remark...
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#428 - 2015-02-13 20:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Dalloway Jones wrote:

..
Some of the loopholes have been closed. And what could be seen as "lore" driven changes to security as a response to these acts of terrorism.
...

What is interesting is we haven't seen a lot of loopholes getting closed to increase conflict and content creation though have we?

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....

Yet *mysteriously* you don't see loopholes like that being closed, do you? Funny how that happens right.

The answer is obvious. In the new mental calculus nerfs are being rationalized as 'closing loopholes', 'mechanics fixes', etc -- but must NOT be discussed as the simple nerfs to conflict and content-creation they are, because THEN CCP and CSM's asleep at the switch would have to answer for their crimes against HTFU and sandbox.

tldr;
I fully acknowledge CCP's right to roll the dice and nerf the hell out of hisec in pursuit of MOAR SUBS. What they don't get to do however, is pretend innocence any longer to the community that they aren't doing that.

F
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#429 - 2015-02-13 20:54:55 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....


That's quite a leap. How many executives do you know that are held personally responsible for their corporations. By default individuals and their assets are separate from corporations they represent. Sue a company and it folds you can't really go after the Janitor. Still have to pay those legal fees though.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2015-02-13 21:03:43 UTC
Lupe Meza wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....


That's quite a leap. How many executives do you know that are held personally responsible for their corporations. By default individuals and their assets are separate from corporations they represent. Sue a company and it folds you can't really go after the Janitor. Still have to pay those legal fees though.


You're conflating video game mechanics with real life, making this an invalid analogy.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#431 - 2015-02-13 21:13:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I don't know a single carebear freighter driver who travels with a web alt that is also a "suicide ECM bursting alt" to disrupt gank squads if all else fails.
Which means you never met my hauling alts. Good.


That said, I have removed some rule breaking posts.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#432 - 2015-02-13 21:16:55 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lupe Meza wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....


That's quite a leap. How many executives do you know that are held personally responsible for their corporations. By default individuals and their assets are separate from corporations they represent. Sue a company and it folds you can't really go after the Janitor. Still have to pay those legal fees though.


You're conflating video game mechanics with real life, making this an invalid analogy.


What? The "real life" definition of what a Corporation is? If there is a significant difference between what the definition between the real life and eve representation for the purposes of this argument please share.

It is the wardeccers fault for targeting an entity that can simply close it's doors just like a corporation going bankrupt. If your target has no assets and nothing for you to gain from declaring war in the first place, that is poor judgement on your corp. If you declare war on an entity that stands to loose too much by just closing up shop they won't; but this is a perfectly legitimate tool for smaller, frankly insignificant entities, who gain nothing from throwing resources away defending...nothing.

Complaining about a corp being destroyed as a result of a wardec is just strange since isn't the mission accomplished anyway? The dissolution or capitulation of the corp. You win. Yay.

Now if "gud fites" are the goal there a myriad of corporations more than willing to oblige and would appreciate the targets without the hassle of sec status hits or concord; or corporations too big to fold.

But any flaw is not with the corp mechanic, it's with the person clearly using poor judgement in their target selection.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#433 - 2015-02-13 21:30:24 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Dalloway Jones wrote:

..
Some of the loopholes have been closed. And what could be seen as "lore" driven changes to security as a response to these acts of terrorism.
...

What is interesting is we haven't seen a lot of loopholes getting closed to increase conflict and content creation though have we?

For example, many would (rightly) argue the ability for a player to just drop corp to shed a war in progress (which was paid for a week) a 'loophole' and the war should follow that player....

Yet *mysteriously* you don't see loopholes like that being closed, do you? Funny how that happens right.

The answer is obvious. In the new mental calculus nerfs are being rationalized as 'closing loopholes', 'mechanics fixes', etc -- but must NOT be discussed as the simple nerfs to conflict and content-creation they are, because THEN CCP and CSM's asleep at the switch would have to answer for their crimes against HTFU and sandbox.

tldr;
I fully acknowledge CCP's right to roll the dice and nerf the hell out of hisec in pursuit of MOAR SUBS. What they don't get to do however, is pretend innocence any longer to the community that they aren't doing that.

F




Have you ever wondered if all this nerfing of highsec might be the agenda of nullsec and not some carebear conspiracy or CCP out to make money?

Let's set aside the possibility that my joke about most of nullsec having highsec incursion alts is true and think of another motive.

Scenario A: +13 Highsec (by your chart).
- noob starts trial account.
- noob gets in trouble. Ganked, griefed, mission loot stolen, whatever.
- maybe noob tried PVP (in spite of the NPE) and gets turbo-PWNED
- noob does not stay in game from either a recognition between the gulf of SP and ISK with himself and older players or
- noob after getting griefed and told HTFU, decides to vote with his wallet and not go beyond a trial account for whatever reason (most likely on the idea of "If I wanted to put up with people like that I'd find a way to get paid to instead of paying to" )

Scenario B: -13 Highsec.
- noob starts trial account.
- noob is for the most part left alone to do those tutorials and starter missions
- noob recognizes the gulf of SP and ISK and realizes he might have to wait a while or
- noob does not have all of the time in the world to advance in the game
- noob might try PVP (in spite of the NPE) and fail, but at least has the ability to stage efforts out of highsec (roams, trips to "Dangerous System", etc) without getting decced, ganked, etc. while reading up on the topic and learning about fits and tactics.
- noob may ultimately end up going to lowsec, FW, or nullsec, leaving highsec behind, after whatever given amount of time based on experience and level of casualness that the noob has control over (or not from RL obligations). That is, nobody is pressuring the noob with excessive HTFU


Scenario B helps nullsec. Nullsec relies on lots of cannon fodder. F1-click is not so effective when your fleet only has 50 people in it instead of 100. It's even less effective when the people flying bigger ships have had to leave the game from RL issues or from lack of field support (meaning they lose cap ships). There's also the attrition of players flying command ships, T2 specialized hulls, logi... (the people who if they stick around might end up running highsec incursions to pay for said expensive ships).
SOV mechanics and the so-called blue donut have also done a lot of damage. 2014 saw a great malaise in the game. These very forums would scroll a topic down to page 2 in mere hours before that time. Eve had progressed into a "game of denying the playing of a game".

I would even say, comparing the two scenarios, that the problem once again is not carebears or noobs, it's the more experienced players finding the travel, "denial mechanics" and SOV just as grating as any noob might (I think noobs would be even more tolerant if that's all they knew) being just as bottled up in highsec and bored as the noobs.

IMO I think there is a long term plan to make highsec a starter zone and make experienced players WANT to leave it. But you can't just "hurrr durr nerf highsec stop nerfing HTFU" ham-handedly because there's a fulcrum point where they establish the balance they are looking for through adjustments in mechanics versus simply "bleeding out" of a player base.

Highsec is on it's way to being a starter zone, like it or not, but all of the problems that low and null have need to be fixed first or else the PVP/HTFU crowd will be right behind the noobs as they unsub.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#434 - 2015-02-13 21:56:32 UTC
BTW in any case, if I were in charge of the universe, if anybody is wondering, I would just drop a huge hammer and do "the great breakout" of highsec.

Were it all up to me, this is what I would do to "fix" Eve (trigger warning: this is harsh and probably impossible so don't worry)

- All SOV is dead. No more SOV mechanics. Let the players handle it.
- All resources would be finite. This means an entire system can be completely cleaned out of resources. Moons can be sucked dry. Roids can all be vacuumed up. Even NPC pirates, getting killed aplenty, would figure out they are committing suicide and leave. Mission agents would just run out of missions. Just about all human conflict is over resources. The blue donut would be gone faster than Homer Simpson could eat it. Andf if people want to farm highsec to death, highsec will be farmed to death. Even the ice belts. Even Sansha would stop bothering to invade it. Only when a system is left alone will NPC pirates come back to it after a while, only when moons and belts are not being turbo-harvested for a while would these resources return. So "good systems" versus "bad" systems for moon goo and ratting would be dynamic and change over time.
- No more gate mechanics and "fatal funnels". People who want to kill everything that moves have to hunt for their food. Let every ship dial in system to system warp. Gates could still exist outside of highsec but let the players have to maintain and "feed" them if they want them (rather redundant though with existing mechanics). Yes this would be the end of gate camps. We need "HFYF" (Hunt for your food) to be right alongside HTFU. Note if a gate is taken offline in a system then there is no more local. IDENT works through gates and stations.
- change the targeting mechanics. As a radar tech for fighter jets we found that too much electronic reflection from too many sources under the same band could cause a lock break. Well... how is it that 20 ships can lock one small ship and nobody has a problem? Ship signature would translate how many ships can lock a target with the "signal focusing" skills (existing) changing that. This means that the 20 to 1 gank is going to need some serious module-fu to make all 20 ships so specialized in being able to do that they won't even have CPU left for weapons. And the size of a tracking system would matter too - meaning if big battleship locks the frigate, then the other 19 ships lose their lock. (but smaller ships by the dozens can lock up a capital ship because it's freaking huge man). In addition to a probable maximum locked limit, the more ships lock on the more unreliable the locks have, intermittently breaking off or loss in accuracy. Yes drones too.
Yes this would be the end of "Primary". So what. F1-Click is probably the biggest letdown of being in a fleet. Imagine wings and squads of the fleets under their own wing and squad commanders having to duke it out instead of "everybody follow FC broadcast F1-click".
- let all ships fire in "dummy mode" if they can't lock. Bombers can fire directionally without lock so this is not a rewrite of the game.
- end station games: no ship under fire is going to be towed in. Hey guess what, if I was Scotty will I want to tow a ship being fired upon towards me and end up with UXOs in my open docking bay? Wellllll that's an easy one.
- put an activity timer on all clients to save bandwidth. No activity after a given time you get logged off. Period. Anybody using a mouse jiggler or some other automated "stay logged in" programs gets banned for botting.


Make those changes and the game becomes a bubbling cauldron of PVP that everybody says it should be.

Don't make those changes and... well we can always complain about the differences between highsec and the other secs in these forums.
(forums that used to be more lively)

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Solops Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2015-02-13 22:42:18 UTC
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#436 - 2015-02-13 22:51:04 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
BTW in any case, if I were in charge of the universe, if anybody is wondering, I would just drop a huge hammer and do "the great breakout" of highsec.

Were it all up to me, this is what I would do to "fix" Eve (trigger warning: this is harsh and probably impossible so don't worry)

- All SOV is dead. No more SOV mechanics. Let the players handle it.
- All resources would be finite. This means an entire system can be completely cleaned out of resources. Moons can be sucked dry. Roids can all be vacuumed up. Even NPC pirates, getting killed aplenty, would figure out they are committing suicide and leave. Mission agents would just run out of missions. Just about all human conflict is over resources. The blue donut would be gone faster than Homer Simpson could eat it. Andf if people want to farm highsec to death, highsec will be farmed to death. Even the ice belts. Even Sansha would stop bothering to invade it. Only when a system is left alone will NPC pirates come back to it after a while, only when moons and belts are not being turbo-harvested for a while would these resources return. So "good systems" versus "bad" systems for moon goo and ratting would be dynamic and change over time.
- No more gate mechanics and "fatal funnels". People who want to kill everything that moves have to hunt for their food. Let every ship dial in system to system warp. Gates could still exist outside of highsec but let the players have to maintain and "feed" them if they want them (rather redundant though with existing mechanics). Yes this would be the end of gate camps. We need "HFYF" (Hunt for your food) to be right alongside HTFU. Note if a gate is taken offline in a system then there is no more local. IDENT works through gates and stations.
- change the targeting mechanics. As a radar tech for fighter jets we found that too much electronic reflection from too many sources under the same band could cause a lock break. Well... how is it that 20 ships can lock one small ship and nobody has a problem? Ship signature would translate how many ships can lock a target with the "signal focusing" skills (existing) changing that. This means that the 20 to 1 gank is going to need some serious module-fu to make all 20 ships so specialized in being able to do that they won't even have CPU left for weapons. And the size of a tracking system would matter too - meaning if big battleship locks the frigate, then the other 19 ships lose their lock. (but smaller ships by the dozens can lock up a capital ship because it's freaking huge man). In addition to a probable maximum locked limit, the more ships lock on the more unreliable the locks have, intermittently breaking off or loss in accuracy. Yes drones too.
Yes this would be the end of "Primary". So what. F1-Click is probably the biggest letdown of being in a fleet. Imagine wings and squads of the fleets under their own wing and squad commanders having to duke it out instead of "everybody follow FC broadcast F1-click".
- let all ships fire in "dummy mode" if they can't lock. Bombers can fire directionally without lock so this is not a rewrite of the game.
- end station games: no ship under fire is going to be towed in. Hey guess what, if I was Scotty will I want to tow a ship being fired upon towards me and end up with UXOs in my open docking bay? Wellllll that's an easy one.
- put an activity timer on all clients to save bandwidth. No activity after a given time you get logged off. Period. Anybody using a mouse jiggler or some other automated "stay logged in" programs gets banned for botting.


Make those changes and the game becomes a bubbling cauldron of PVP that everybody says it should be.

Don't make those changes and... well we can always complain about the differences between highsec and the other secs in these forums.
(forums that used to be more lively)



The resources thing just pretty much guarantees whoever is on top will stay on top as they'll have more resources to then go an get more resources. It may not be the big players, but rest assured eventually there will be a king of the hill and you really won't have a chance in hell. The game will just stagnate even worse.

Love the idea of removing gates and having ships just warp distances. But then you'd just run into the same problems that jump fatigue wanted to sort out I'd imagine with power projection. Unless of course we need fuel and the bigger the ship the more fuel it uses to cover the same distance as a smaller ship or something. I think you can get the same desired effect though just reworking ALL gates to be interconnected to multiple gates or maybe all gates at a given distance to remove choke points.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#437 - 2015-02-13 23:19:20 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Highsec is on it's way to being a starter zone, like it or not, but all of the problems that low and null have need to be fixed first or else the PVP/HTFU crowd will be right behind the noobs as they unsub.


Hi Sec makes literally the worst 'starter zone', because it teaches you bad habits while boring you to death. How much of the 'This is Eve' trailer happens in Hi Sec? Perhaps it's anecdotal in lieu of hard numbers, but I'd wager a much higher new player retention rate for players that joined BRAVE during their time in Barleguet than new players that joined and lived in Hi Sec.

The number one issue in the game, that is causal of so many other issues, is how badly balanced bottom up income across security bands is. If Low Sec was more viable for new players, we wouldn't even be having this discussion about Hi Sec.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#438 - 2015-02-14 00:33:56 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Highsec is on it's way to being a starter zone, like it or not, but all of the problems that low and null have need to be fixed first or else the PVP/HTFU crowd will be right behind the noobs as they unsub.


Hi Sec makes literally the worst 'starter zone', because it teaches you bad habits while boring you to death. How much of the 'This is Eve' trailer happens in Hi Sec? Perhaps it's anecdotal in lieu of hard numbers, but I'd wager a much higher new player retention rate for players that joined BRAVE during their time in Barleguet than new players that joined and lived in Hi Sec.

The number one issue in the game, that is causal of so many other issues, is how badly balanced bottom up income across security bands is. If Low Sec was more viable for new players, we wouldn't even be having this discussion about Hi Sec.



If we don't encompass all of the factors across the game in these "grrrr highsec" threads we'll continue to chase our tails until there's 30K players left and CCP is having to introduce space vampires and "Larping in station".



Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#439 - 2015-02-14 00:44:37 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Highsec is on it's way to being a starter zone, like it or not, but all of the problems that low and null have need to be fixed first or else the PVP/HTFU crowd will be right behind the noobs as they unsub.


Hi Sec makes literally the worst 'starter zone', because it teaches you bad habits while boring you to death. How much of the 'This is Eve' trailer happens in Hi Sec? Perhaps it's anecdotal in lieu of hard numbers, but I'd wager a much higher new player retention rate for players that joined BRAVE during their time in Barleguet than new players that joined and lived in Hi Sec.

The number one issue in the game, that is causal of so many other issues, is how badly balanced bottom up income across security bands is. If Low Sec was more viable for new players, we wouldn't even be having this discussion about Hi Sec.



If we don't encompass all of the factors across the game in these "grrrr highsec" threads we'll continue to chase our tails until there's 30K players left and CCP is having to introduce space vampires and "Larping in station".






Eve has already bottomed out and lost most of the players it gained after the this is Eve video.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#440 - 2015-02-14 00:56:57 UTC
Ah yes, well if eve is dying, there's no need for a second shard.

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 ?