These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#141 - 2016-08-12 15:26:43 UTC
Sandy Point wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Sandy Point][quote=Black Pedro][quote=Random Lurker]
First off they are 8 million ISK ships and second if you stopped over loading your mother fecking freighter this would not be an issue.

Red Frog Freight shows what can happen if you are prudent: You'll lose your freighter every 10,000 jumps. Assuming the average trip is 50 jumps there and back we are talking 1 freighter loss for every 200 trips. If you use your freighter 1x ever 2 days you'll lose a freighter 1 time every 400 days. And that is the average. It could be far, far less.

And FFS it is averse...risk averse, not risk adverse.

And FFS stop using risk aversion as if it were a bad thing. We are all risk averse and seek to minimize the possibility of loss.

Edit:

Seriously, if you put 8 billion in a freighter you are just begging to get ganked in this game. The expected drop is 4 billion. 4 billion pays for 500 good damn catalysts. 500. If you put 8 billion in your freighter you can pretty much expect to be ganked in short order. You might get away with it a few times, but one you are seen with that kind of cargo that's it. You are going to get ganked.

This is what I call being imprudent. IRL it would be like taking your 401k and putting it all in 1 stock....and then when that stock goes **** up you sit there and talk about how unfair it all is while it was your own greed and imprudence that lead you to the horrible situation you are in.

Stop being imprudent and you'll have very little to fear from gankers. Put no more than 800 million in your freighter, to be really safe limit it to 750 million. Put a tank on your freighter so that it takes more ships to gank you--i.e. make it more expensive. Use a scout, if you see lots of hostiles in system, dock up and wait. Use the standings function to set various ganking groups red so you can spot them in local more easily. If you really need to move through use a webber, but note that is putting you at increased risk.

Other alternatives:

1. If you are moving small volume/high value items look into a blockade runner. One of the fastest ships in game in terms of align/warp speed and it can fit a covert ops cloak so you can warp cloaked making you nearly impossible to catch in HS.
2. If you use a blockade runner use insta dock and insta warp book marks.
3. Use a jump freighter if you can afford one. Jump over gank spots vs. running through them.

Stop blaming everyone else if you behave imprudently. Learn from your mistakes and move on.

And yes, I have actually lost a JF, so spare me this crap I don't know what I'm talking about.

Or, just GTFO.

Edit II: And no, I am not telling people how to play I am giving my own view on how to play. You want to stuff your freighter with 8 billion ISK worth of goodies....well go for it. But do NOT come here and complain or I will point out what a God damn mother fecking idiot you were for doing such stupid fecking thing. But...by all means be as stupid as you want to be.

But realize the nature of this game is that if you are imprudent there are players who will show you exactly how imprudent you were.



Adverse/averse potato/patOto - look up the meaning before going off the deep end sucking and huffing and puffing, please relax.

I failed to mention I was speaking just the hull of a JF which usually run close to 7-8b last time I looked, not contents.

As for it being 3 million or 8 million per ganking ship, still peanuts compared to the loss of a JF compared to the losses of ganking parties.

Aren't you special, you lost a JF, proud of you. Now try to hang on to that temper.


just GTFO. LOL at this one because apparently from looking at the player numbers at this point, that is exactly what people are doing.


Since you mentioned looking up the meaning.

averse
əˈvəːs/
adjective
adjective: averse

having a strong dislike of or opposition to something.
"as a former CIA director, he is not averse to secrecy"

adverse
ˈadvəːs/
adjective
adjective: adverse

preventing success or development; harmful; unfavourable.
"taxes are having an adverse effect on production"

so risk averse is the correct usage, and that took me all of ten seconds on google to find out.

As for your JF comments you do realise that when used correctly a JF is almost impossible to gank right? There are only two windows of opportunity to gank a JF, as it undocks prior to jumping and if it bumps off a badly placed cyno, and both of them rely on the JF pilot being stupid enough to let his ship become vulnerable. As was pointed out above you also ignored the ability of blockade runners to almost effortlessly evade gank squads when used correctly. Are you spotting the theme in what people are saying yet? Using the right ships in the right way vastly reduces the risks of gatting ganked and its not like the information is hard to find, again i did one google search that took less than ten seconds to type and i got youtube guides, mittani.com articles, blog entries and multiple forum posts all offering advice on the subject.

Basically you're wrong, teckos is right, stop being an arrogant dumbass and actually think about what you're saying for a second.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Sandy Point
Doomheim
#142 - 2016-08-14 00:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sandy Point
Quote:


Basically you're wrong, teckos is right, stop being an arrogant dumbass and actually think about what you're saying for a second.


You're right and I was wrong about the averse/adverse. Thanks for bashing my head in and calling me names. (Unwarranted but thanks, simply shows the toxicity towards players.)

Game still has problems and the inability to speak with people without hostilities and name calling will get it fix. Awesome!
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#143 - 2016-08-14 08:00:29 UTC
Sandy Point wrote:
Quote:


Basically you're wrong, teckos is right, stop being an arrogant dumbass and actually think about what you're saying for a second.


You're right and I was wrong about the averse/adverse. Thanks for bashing my head in and calling me names. (Unwarranted but thanks, simply shows the toxicity towards players.)

Game still has problems and the inability to speak with people without hostilities and name calling will get it fix. Awesome!


Try not being arrogant and dismissive to everybody you talk to and maybe people wont be so 'mean' to you. I also cant help noticing you failed to address any of my other points, might want to get on that.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Sandy Point
Doomheim
#144 - 2016-08-14 16:05:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sandy Point
Teckos Pech wrote:


First off they are 8 million ISK ships and second if you stopped over loading your mother ~snip~ freighter this would not be an issue.

Red Frog Freight shows what can happen if you are prudent: You'll lose your freighter every 10,000 jumps. Assuming the average trip is 50 jumps there and back we are talking 1 freighter loss for every 200 trips. If you use your freighter 1x ever 2 days you'll lose a freighter 1 time every 400 days. And that is the average. It could be far, far less.


Awesome for Red Frog and what a great example of one of the larger groups of players in EVE who are risk averse. When you brag about such shining examples of the very thing you say is hurting the game, well, what can I say.

If Red Frog wants to run a hauling/transportation corporation then they need to put their NPC hauling alts in said corporation and play with the rest of us.

Teckos Pech wrote:


Seriously, if you put 8 billion in a freighter you are just begging to get ganked in this game. The expected drop is 4 billion. 4 billion pays for 500 ~snip~ catalysts. 500. If you put 8 billion in your freighter you can pretty much expect to be ganked in short order. You might get away with it a few times, but one you are seen with that kind of cargo that's it. You are going to get ganked.



My point exactly - You make another awesome point here. Who's taking all the risk? A broken system that allows a group of people with throw away alts to take advantage of an already vulnerable target with little to no consequence to themselves. Short of losing a T1 fitted T1 ship and sec status which means nothing. Thanks for pointing out the disproportionate advantages/disadvantages.

BTW - A 4 billion isk drop would buy a little under 3000 Catalysts. But I'm being trivial just to be trivial. However, had I posted this inaccuracy there would have been myriad of posts about how out of touch I am with EVE from the little corner of gankers wishing to perpetuate the extinction of any form of resource gathering short of going to null power blocks and mine for them. The reasons are simple, to derail conversations about subjects that force certain playstyle upon others who wish to play differently.

Teckos Pech wrote:


This is what I call being imprudent. IRL it would be like taking your 401k and putting it all in 1 stock....and then when that stock goes **** up you sit there and talk about how unfair it all is while it was your own greed and imprudence that lead you to the horrible situation you are in.

Stop being imprudent and you'll have very little to fear from gankers. Put no more than 800 million in your freighter, to be really safe limit it to 750 million. Put a tank on your freighter so that it takes more ships to gank you--i.e. make it more expensive. Use a scout, if you see lots of hostiles in system, dock up and wait. Use the standings function to set various ganking groups red so you can spot them in local more easily. If you really need to move through use a webber, but note that is putting you at increased risk.


Imprudence isn't the problem here, it's the disproportionate risk to loss ratio in favor of the ganker,

Teckos Pech wrote:


Other alternatives:

1. If you are moving small volume/high value items look into a blockade runner. One of the fastest ships in game in terms of align/warp speed and it can fit a covert ops cloak so you can warp cloaked making you nearly impossible to catch in HS.
2. If you use a blockade runner use insta dock and insta warp book marks.
3. Use a jump freighter if you can afford one. Jump over gank spots vs. running through them.

Stop blaming everyone else if you behave imprudently. Learn from your mistakes and move on.

And yes, I have actually lost a JF, so spare me this crap I don't know what I'm talking about.

Or, just GTFO.

Edit II: And no, I am not telling people how to play


Having lost one yourself makes you an expert. Got it!

BTW - very familiar with the use of blockade runners as well as I'm with players wanting them nerfed because they aren't easy enough to gank with minimal effort and cost.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Edit II: And no, I am not telling people how to play.


Really rich quote here, I like it!

The GTFO comment, well that is exactly what is happening. Dismiss it as summer break, people moving on, other games etc.

I'm sure those reasons are partly to blame, imo it doesn't come close to the root problem, in an attempt to avoid anymore name calling and chest beating - I will keep that opinion close chested as it is already apparent within my posts.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#145 - 2016-08-14 22:21:59 UTC
Errr Sandy you might want to try quoting things I actually said when you try and argue with me, unless you just messed up the formatting and were talking to Teckos, in which case thanks for proving my previous point perfectly.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Sandy Point
Doomheim
#146 - 2016-08-14 22:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sandy Point
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Errr Sandy you might want to try quoting things I actually said when you try and argue with me, unless you just messed up the formatting and were talking to Teckos, in which case thanks for proving my previous point perfectly.



Thanks and fixed.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2016-08-15 23:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Sandy Point wrote:
Awesome for Red Frog and what a great example of one of the larger groups of players in EVE who are risk averse. When you brag about such shining examples of the very thing you say is hurting the game, well, what can I say.

If Red Frog wants to run a hauling/transportation corporation then they need to put their NPC hauling alts in said corporation and play with the rest of us.


You keep using the term risk averse as if it were some sort of slur and actually not a virtue. It suggests you are completely ignorant of the concept. What it means is you seek ways to reduce your risk. You want to avoid the downside to it.

It is not risk aversion that is hurting the game. Nowhere have I EVER complained about anyone being risk averse. In fact, I have defended people being risk averse because it makes the game more interesting, not less.

BTW, you are so foolish you fail to realize that this supposed slur, risk aversion, it applies to you too.

Sandy Point wrote:
My point exactly - You make another awesome point here. Who's taking all the risk? A broken system that allows a group of people with throw away alts to take advantage of an already vulnerable target with little to no consequence to themselves. Short of losing a T1 fitted T1 ship and sec status which means nothing. Thanks for pointing out the disproportionate advantages/disadvantages.


The person taking all the risk is the stupid freighter pilot…and he does NOT Have too.

Sandy Point wrote:
BTW - A 4 billion isk drop would buy a little under 3000 Catalysts. But I'm being trivial just to be trivial. However, had I posted this inaccuracy there would have been myriad of posts about how out of touch I am with EVE from the little corner of gankers wishing to perpetuate the extinction of any form of resource gathering short of going to null power blocks and mine for them. The reasons are simple, to derail conversations about subjects that force certain playstyle upon others who wish to play differently.


A catalyst for ganking a freighter will cost 8 million. 8 goes into 4,000 500 times, hence 500 catalysts. Typically gank catalysts fit t2 guns, uses t2 damage mods, t2 ammo, and also rigs, IIRC if those are T2 also.

Sandy Point wrote:
Imprudence isn't the problem here, it's the disproportionate risk to loss ratio in favor of the ganker,


Then don’t take the risk. Overloading your freighter is something YOU do, not anyone else. If you don’t like that risk stop taking the risky actions.

Sandy Point wrote:
Having lost one yourself makes you an expert. Got it!


No I’m saying, I did something dumb, but I’m not here bellyaching about it. I looked at what happened figured out where I went wrong, and found a better way to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#148 - 2016-08-15 23:32:05 UTC
BTW, the guy loading up his charon with 8 billion ISK worth of cargo is risk seeking. Why is he complaining when the bad things happen? He was seeking it FFS. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#149 - 2016-08-16 00:17:34 UTC
So just to point out

If you want to work on player retention then you have to look at that 85% who quit having done no pvp.

As CCP said

We need more conflict not less, this means a reversal of the nerfs to combat over the last few years and injecting more danger back into the game.
Cika Brka
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#150 - 2016-08-17 10:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cika Brka
I think EVE is losing pilots more due to other factors then the High Sec Violence. Main reason in my opinion is due to wrong approach to the player community in general and a player as a person. For example we have the great Fun Fest but poor and unprofessional in game support. As Fun Fest is a way of marketing and support is not, its enough that they say they don't want to spoil you but in fact they don' t want to spend money on it, its better that it goes in to the marketing.

Same approach led in to many other in-game changes which resulted in lose of great in-game spirit EVE had years back.
Angry Onions
League of Angered Gentlemen
#151 - 2016-08-26 17:31:25 UTC
Ms GoodyMaker wrote:
whining ...

create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.


...more whining



Then stay in starter systems where it's a ban-worthy offense to suicide gank and in NPC corps where you can't be wardec'd. When you're ready to be a big boy capsuleer, you can join everyone else in the rest of the game.

S H I T P O S T I N G
Merchant Rova
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#152 - 2016-08-26 17:32:53 UTC
Cika Brka wrote:
I think EVE is losing pilots more due to other factors then the High Sec Violence.


highsec violence is good and it should be happening

RIP Merchant Rova's cheekbones, YC118-YC119. Forever in our hearts.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#153 - 2016-08-29 15:20:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We need more conflict not less, this means a reversal of the nerfs to combat over the last few years and injecting more danger back into the game.

So... When is PL resetting NCdot?

It's easy to discuss about how other people dont want to risk their assets. But when our own assets are in danger, we're all risk-averse. (Sure it doesnt have anything to do with me, I'm exceptional.)
Temba Mapindazi
#154 - 2016-08-29 16:33:30 UTC
The guys who invented EVE, you know CCP........ they are the descendants of Vikings.

Good luck on convincing them raiding defenseless or less powerful targets and looting the remains is not a preferred way to interact with others.

They like it.

They encourage group activity, not solo, thus a pack of gankers flying in cheap destroyers can take out a single pilot in a huge expensive freighter.

They make profit when your ship is exploded and you have to replace it, it's their business model. They have no interest in balancing defensive capabilities versus offensive capabilities in any consistent manner. Thus a freighter has no ability to carry a weapon but a tiny rookie ship one percent of it's size can.

Reality is CCP likes the game the way they want us to play it, not the way we might want to play it. Once you reconcile that inescapable fact you can perhaps still find enjoyment in ways CCP will tolerate.

A combat pilot must have two goals to survive,  #1 get the first shot in every fight , #2 get the last shot in every fight!
Arsala
Minmatar Mining and Manufacturing.
#155 - 2016-09-30 23:33:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsala
Temba Mapindazi wrote:
The guys who invented EVE, you know CCP........ they are the descendants of Vikings.

Good luck on convincing them raiding defenseless or less powerful targets and looting the remains is not a preferred way to interact with others.

They like it.

They encourage group activity, not solo, thus a pack of gankers flying in cheap destroyers can take out a single pilot in a huge expensive freighter.

They make profit when your ship is exploded and you have to replace it, it's their business model. They have no interest in balancing defensive capabilities versus offensive capabilities in any consistent manner. Thus a freighter has no ability to carry a weapon but a tiny rookie ship one percent of it's size can.

Reality is CCP likes the game the way they want us to play it, not the way we might want to play it. Once you reconcile that inescapable fact you can perhaps still find enjoyment in ways CCP will tolerate.



This idea of combat ships attacking non combat ships is a part of the problem. All indy type ships are designed so that they perform in a task with no though of combat. To fix A lot of these issues just make all Indy ships (mining, trade, whatever) combat effective even if it is only really good at defensive combat, hell make it offensive if you want. But do this and let it stiff perform its intended role. There would be no reason that any race of people who were under constant threat of attack, would not adjust there ship building techniques to reflect the change in there universe to better perform and provide a harder target. We see this in our own historical evolution of warfare start back with sticks and stone to atomic age weapons, and now into unmanned weapon platforms. How is it that in eve we still have mining barges and freighters with no thought about defensive or offensive armaments...seriously like wth???

If miners, traders, and/or, care bears were able to have combative styled ships of their professions then there would be less issue with an unfair gank and more of an issue of learn to play.

fix the ships and you will go a long way with fixing A lot of issues.


NOTE: I know that some will say that the shields and such are defensive....ya sure...but when you cant do anything but sit there and wait until your shields are drained or gone, that is not a form of active defense it is a horrible passive and not something anyone would use as a primary defense. It is only a partial method. After all of the ship rebalances and new systems that CCP has added the last change made to Indies way the mining barge nerf/adjustment (which ever way you want to look at it.) force them to want to upgraded into a bigger and better ship that still performs its desired task but make it capable of either putting up a fight or give it some sorta ewar bonus to confuse its attacker so it can safely disengage.

After all the wars and such I think someone would have made a safer or more combat oriented ship for trade and mining. And this would force indies to get their butts into combat oriented mindsets as in order to get into these ships they would have to learn some combat skills and such and then everyone is happy.

yes either the ship would perform poorly at the combat or at the assigned indy task, I know that is the most likely result you would say. Not really, we have tons of multi role ships that perform combat very well and their intended roles extremely well, indy ships could do the same and not break anything in game.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2016-09-30 23:36:37 UTC
Arsala wrote:
Temba Mapindazi wrote:
The guys who invented EVE, you know CCP........ they are the descendants of Vikings.

Good luck on convincing them raiding defenseless or less powerful targets and looting the remains is not a preferred way to interact with others.

They like it.

They encourage group activity, not solo, thus a pack of gankers flying in cheap destroyers can take out a single pilot in a huge expensive freighter.

They make profit when your ship is exploded and you have to replace it, it's their business model. They have no interest in balancing defensive capabilities versus offensive capabilities in any consistent manner. Thus a freighter has no ability to carry a weapon but a tiny rookie ship one percent of it's size can.

Reality is CCP likes the game the way they want us to play it, not the way we might want to play it. Once you reconcile that inescapable fact you can perhaps still find enjoyment in ways CCP will tolerate.



This idea of combat ships attacking non combat ships is a part of the problem. All indy type ships are designed so that they perform in a task with no though of combat. To fix A lot of these issues just make all Indy ships (mining, trade, whatever) combat effective even if it is only really good at defensive combat, hell make it offensive if you want. But do this and let it stiff perform its intended role. There would be no reason that any race of people who were under constant threat of attack, would not adjust there ship building techniques to reflect the change in there universe to better perform and provide a harder target. We see this in our own historical evolution of warfare start back with sticks and stone to atomic age weapons, and now into unmanned weapon platforms. How is it that in eve we still have mining barges and freighters with no thought about defensive or offensive armaments...seriously like wth???

If miners, traders, and/or, care bears were able to have combative styled ships of their professions then there would be less issue with an unfair gank and more of an issue of learn to play.

fix the ships and you will go a long way with fixing A lot of issues.


No ship used for hauling should be as combat effective as a ship designed exclusively for combat.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Arsala
Minmatar Mining and Manufacturing.
#157 - 2016-09-30 23:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsala
(*SNIP*)

No ship used for hauling should be as combat effective as a ship designed exclusively for combat.



why??

I see so many reasons that others have posted in so far as to why highsec players are targeted, is that because this is EVE and PvP is EvE. And that care bears, and what not need to not think EVE it is a solo game, however by getting combat oriented industrial ships the first response is no, that should not happen. Why not ? seriously, this would make the whole targeting of Industrials fun right? it would get everyone into a more combat oriented playstyle.

again why not? because it would make it harder to gank them..no that just means tactics would change. And it would definitely make them more lucrative with the mods being dropp other than mining upgrades. trust me gankers are gonna gank.

If you look at all high sec combat I would think you would see that Industrial ships are likely in 75% or possibly greater of those incidents.

my question is why wouldn't they have combat oriented ships in such a dangerous profession.

we used to have some cruisers and battle ships back in the day that were used to mine in. Not sure but those got reworked for other stuff. Its not like its a new concept.

Im not saying making it the best mission runner or make it the best gang support, or even the best in group ganking or solo ganking. I am however saying making it proficient in its role and combat, but it can choose to accell in either a defensive posture or a indy role but not both at same time. Just as you can not go full tank and full DPS in any ship or what ever. There is no need to make a hauler or a miner that is better than current ships out there who are combat role specific, but you do not have a single ship out there either that is best in all. each ship has its role where it is good, great, and some time OP. Lets do the same with a new industry line or some thing. Let them have a choice as everyone else does. right now indies don't, ever single hauler (except the gallente now) have exactly the same ships with different looks, miners suffer from this too. we cant go out and try to build cool new builds because the ships are old outdated relics.


The only reason that I think this is not something always thought of is because every game so far that i have seen other than some RTS that have space combat is that industry ships have always been non combative...

But so what this is EVE. And anyone who has visited or lived here, knows combat is EVE and that is why I don't think EVE should allow itself to be dictated by old none EVE concepts. Combat is in every part of EVE's creative life blood, but why is it not in the Indy side of the game, it should be.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#158 - 2016-10-01 04:28:25 UTC
Arsala wrote:
(*SNIP*)
Teckos Pech wrote:

No ship used for hauling should be as combat effective as a ship designed exclusively for combat.


why??


Because then we'd all just have 1 ship for each size of ship.

Or lets turn your suggestion on its head: Why shouldn't a combat dedicated ship have enough cargo space to haul 25,000 m3?

That is what you are asking for. We can simply remove the haulers, and increase the size of the cargo hold, or add specialized cargo holds to combat ships.

As for "this is EvE and PvP is EvE" you do realized that the name, EvE, if Everyone vs. Everyone....right?

Yes, the center position in this game is PvP. Market trading? A type of PvP. Even mining can have a subtle PvP element, if I get into the belt and start gobbling up asteroids faster than you I am getting resources you are not. Even in a NS alliance, if I get into a sanctum or haven first, then I have denied you that ISK. Only one moon miner per moon, so moons and their wealth are PvP, and in this case of direct PvP as in shoot each other in the face.

Some of the more...shallow...posters like to try and differentiate PvP with this errant Bravo Sierra nonsense regard "elite PvP" or "eBushido". These people should stick to playing asteroids on their classic atari systems. Bushido is Bravo Sierra and so is the e-version of it. If you are doing something to another player and they'd rather you not do...that is PvP.

And you can try to play EvE solo, but it is very hard because alot of the people who are going to try and push in your poop...they will bring friends, and their friends might bring friends and so om, and so on.

As for mining cruisers, yes, the scythe and osprey, etc. were the mining cruisers, but they were seen as an intermediate step to mining barges and then exhumers. People also used to mine in battleships, but in terms of yield and cargo hold they were not quite as good as the barges/exhumers, but you could fit a tank on them. So, go haul in a battleship, fit a tank on it and haul. Nothing stopping you.

Further, when it comes to large ships like a freighter these ships are essentially capitals and like all capitals they should require an escort. Now you don't need much of an escort, a scout will help reduce risk considerably. A scout with webs, or an additional ship to act as webber will reduce risk even more. Turning the freighter into a dread without a jump drive and a massive tanks is just not the right solution.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Li Poe
Aeon Abraxas
#159 - 2016-10-16 09:52:21 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
CCP statistics disagree with you.


This is an interesting video. Has there been any discussion or measurement on the relationship between subscriber drop off and the rate of change within in the game? The CSM minutes seem to show a dev concern with over balancing and the possible frustration of player goal realization. Has that concern been discussed in terms of the overall rate of change at a CSM level? As a group under NDA, it seems the CSM people might be able to provide some constructive insight into this?
Elsia Browne
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2016-10-17 18:54:42 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Arsala wrote:
Temba Mapindazi wrote:
The guys who invented EVE, you know CCP........ they are the descendants of Vikings.

Good luck on convincing them raiding defenseless or less powerful targets and looting the remains is not a preferred way to interact with others.

They like it.

They encourage group activity, not solo, thus a pack of gankers flying in cheap destroyers can take out a single pilot in a huge expensive freighter.

They make profit when your ship is exploded and you have to replace it, it's their business model. They have no interest in balancing defensive capabilities versus offensive capabilities in any consistent manner. Thus a freighter has no ability to carry a weapon but a tiny rookie ship one percent of it's size can.

Reality is CCP likes the game the way they want us to play it, not the way we might want to play it. Once you reconcile that inescapable fact you can perhaps still find enjoyment in ways CCP will tolerate.



This idea of combat ships attacking non combat ships is a part of the problem. All indy type ships are designed so that they perform in a task with no though of combat. To fix A lot of these issues just make all Indy ships (mining, trade, whatever) combat effective even if it is only really good at defensive combat, hell make it offensive if you want. But do this and let it stiff perform its intended role. There would be no reason that any race of people who were under constant threat of attack, would not adjust there ship building techniques to reflect the change in there universe to better perform and provide a harder target. We see this in our own historical evolution of warfare start back with sticks and stone to atomic age weapons, and now into unmanned weapon platforms. How is it that in eve we still have mining barges and freighters with no thought about defensive or offensive armaments...seriously like wth???

If miners, traders, and/or, care bears were able to have combative styled ships of their professions then there would be less issue with an unfair gank and more of an issue of learn to play.

fix the ships and you will go a long way with fixing A lot of issues.


No ship used for hauling should be as combat effective as a ship designed exclusively for combat.


Ever seen the Mad Max Movies....tell that to those guys....Or the new Death Race movie....Them Tractor Trailers are pretty effective weapons if they are fitted properly....just saying...