EVE General Discussion

You have not one shred of evidence that people are driven from the game by gate camps.

And even if you did, then what? Should CCP somehow make changes to EVE Online because some human beings over the age of 13 (EVE is rated 13 and up) can't deal with minor inconveniences in a video game ?

Like I said, if you care about 'new players' do 2 things, teach them and tell them to ask themselves if they truthfully believe that they have the mental disposition needed to enjoy and thrive in EVE Online. Because if they don't have that, no amount of nerfing people you don't like (gate campers) is going to help them.

In fact, trying to 'legislate away" gate campers with development changes would follow the same stupid script as the past. People whined about other people before, like "gankers". They pleaded with CCP for help rather than learning to outplay the gankers. CCP did so with EHP buffs to some ships and anchor rigs and buffing CONCORD and new rules etc.

The end result? Ganking got worse and spread to affect more people. Turns out that nerfing someone's playstyle in order to help hapless people who already had all the tools they needed to help themselves only serves to tick off and embolden the group that got 'nerfed'. You think "gate campers" will just say "whelp CCP nerfed us, i guess Ill go away now.

No they won't they will examine the game mechanics and find ways to keep doing what they are doing, just more so.




You may ask why I care, I don't gate camp and don't have a real horse in the fight. Well , let me tell you Hakawa. I find it irritating in a way i can't really describe to see the same BS happen over and over again. It annoys me in game and in real life that people (the supposed top of the food chain) just can't learn simple lessons.

I can't talk about real life stuff here because of the forum rules, luckily there are mroe than enough in game examples. One example was Dominion Sov which CCP claimed would "open up null to smaller groups" . The null haters rejoiced , thinking CCP was about to "fix null" and "break the power of the big coalitions. What actually happened is that those groups got stronger and null turned in to Renter-stan. Goons spent SIX YEARS punishing the game for CCP's mistake.

Or like the safety buffs I mention, before all that all you had to worry about were some bored Goons ganking in high sec or burning jita from time to time, but CCPs safety buffs CREATED CODE in the same way that [insert real life situation where invading people in the name of freedom creates a worse enemy than the one you just killed here].

It's the same with everything people keep complaining about from cloakcy campers to local in null...I could go on and on about the backfires. But what heats my hide more than anything is that you simply can't get some people to understand the basic concept and the even more basic truth. Which is this : You simply cannot game design your way out of human nature. You CAN adapt and defeat others (gate camps are easy to avoid and even beat), but not with game rules changes....

This forum certainly makes me laugh a lot, but almost always for the wrong reasons.

Ammo is consumable - you use it and it's gone.
Ships vary, but some (like a ships used for highsec suicide ganking) are similar to ammo: destroyed on use.

But it seems the meaning of "consumable" is being is morphing as a result of my applying it to people /lol. I can only assume that a serviceable word, that's had a stable meaning for at least a century according to wikipedia, has suddenly been redefined by EVE old-timers because they're not comfortable with the implications of the thread title and the OP.

As ever, cognitive dissonance produces weird and sometimes paradoxical results /lol.

When I've used "consumable" with regard to new players it's the usual "pre-EVE-morph" dictionary meaning. It doesn't mean destroy a ship or a pod. It means do something that suggests to the player that the effort vs reward of EVE doesn't justify the time and effort required to get started in the game.

"You should leave the game" is a great suggestion for minimizing a new player's errors, but it's a stupid lesson to teach.

Is that really what CCP Falcon meant? Does CCP want players to casually drive other players from the game, thereby losing their subscription money?

This forum certainly makes me laugh a lot, but almost always for the wrong reasons.

Ammo is consumable - you use it and it's gone.
Ships vary, but some (like a ships used for highsec suicide ganking) are similar to ammo: destroyed on use.

But it seems the meaning of "consumable" is being is morphing as a result of my applying it to people /lol. I can only assume that a serviceable word, that's had a stable meaning for at least a century according to wikipedia, has suddenly been redefined by EVE old-timers because they're not comfortable with the implications of the thread title and the OP.

As ever, cognitive dissonance produces weird and sometimes paradoxical results /lol.

When I've used "consumable" with regard to new players it's the usual "pre-EVE-morph" dictionary meaning. It doesn't mean destroy a ship or a pod. It means do something that suggests to the player that the effort vs reward of EVE doesn't justify the time and effort required to get started in the game.

"You should leave the game" is a great suggestion for minimizing a new player's errors, but it's a stupid lesson to teach.

Is that really what CCP Falcon meant? Does CCP want players to casually drive other players from the game, thereby losing their subscription money?

Haven't you read the thread title and the original post?

Denial doesn't change the facts. It does induce a credibility issue though.

Haven't you read the thread title and the original post?

Denial doesn't change the facts. It does induce a credibility issue though.

You are right in that ammo is cunsumable.

You are wrong on ships - infact all ships are considered consumables since it's only a matter of time before one looses them no matter how one plays the game. A ganker knows his ship will get blown up, all other players know there is always a risk their ships will and that's where the "don´t fly what you can´t afford to loose" maxim originate from.

On the term consumable I think you are overthinking the meaning of the word in EVE. Since we capsuleers are infact immortal life and death no longer hold any meaning for us. Sure it can be a pain to replace lost implants if one gets podded but it's really nothing different from replacing a lost ship or a broken module.

I can´t obviously know what CCP Falcon meant but if I where to make a guess I'd say he simply stated that it's up to everyone to find their place in New Eden. Some like me find it in company of other like-minded peaceful explorers and other find the life of a pirate, industrialist, trader or any other career path more enticing. The only advice I would always give a new player regardless of what they plan to do is: Join a Player Corporation, even solo play such as exploration becomes more fun if you belong to a group then if you play by yourself.

On the issue of players getting driven out it's really not the concern of the 'agressors' but all in the hand of the 'victims'. I live under the strict rule of the Signal Credo which both forbids me from attacking you or any other player and clearly states that I should take any losses I suffer with a cheerful nature and not whine about it. The last part is not always easy but you'd be amazed on how far it can get you when it comes to how other players interact with you after they have blown up your stuff.

I'm getting tired of people taking simple examples and building inaccurate claims on them. It's just distraction.

"Consumable" is a real word with a well-defined meaning. . Pretending that "consumable", used in the context I used it (as a couple of earlier posters did) means something other than the standard definition is just another sad rhetorical trick, intended only to interfere with the discussion.


As for the capsuleer immortality: the thread is about player perceptions and behavior, not the game's back-story. Capsuleers may not care about time, but players do - and rookie's RL time is worth the same as that of experienced players. Game design or player actions which waste too much rookie time send a clear message: basic setup in EVE takes too much time for too little fun.

And since I have to expect someone will try to introduce a new, "creative" meaning of 'waste time': "wasted" time in-game means it's perceived as boring and pointless compared to non-EVE activities. Those tears the fun-vampires thrive on aren't due to losing a fight or losing a ship - it's the thought of grinding boring activities for hours or days to get to the point where the game will be fun again that drives newbies away.

And to deal with the next "synthetic" counter argument: if cases where a player enjoys gathering resources to cover their losses, perhaps due to being part of the mythical "helpful and friendly Corp", it wouldn't be grinding - but of course the player would not be caught in a 0.5 - 0.4 gate camp either, so that case is well off-topic for the thread.

But back in real EVE, the vast majority of new players go through a longish period where their income doesn't match reasonable expenses (e.g. for skill books,m and for replacing quite cheap ships like T1/T1 cruisers), so unlike a well established player they can be caught between "don't fly what you can't afford", and "can't afford to pay for what they need to fly".

Someone who might have been serious asked me about tangible suggestions a couple opf pages ago. One would be to reduce the "income gap" players face fairly on, so they can afford to lose T1 Cruisers and T1 Battlecruisers. Remove the time-wasting effect of e.g. 0.5-0.4 gate camps and it significantly mitigates the undesirable effects.

But don' take that as a real suggestion. I created a thread to that effect earlier, and got the same self-serving nonsense from the fun-vamipires that dominates this thread. Net message: we're in it to be as annoying as possible - reducing the negative effects on our victims can't be good for the game because it reduces fun-vampires' rightful enjoyment of EVE.

Of if you like, they'd prefer to consume (as in drive from the game) new players than enjoy the game together with them.

"If it's not perfect it not worth considering" ?

This is a general purpose call to inaction, not a useful comment.

We've been through the "warning sign" discussion twice already. If your implied advice was followed, no new player would ever enter lowsec. "Be careful what you wish for".

As for the capsuleer immortality: the thread is about player perceptions and behavior, not the game's back-story. Capsuleers may not care about time, but players do - and rookie's RL time is worth the same as that of experienced players. Game design or player actions which waste too much rookie time send a clear message: basic setup in EVE takes too much time for too little fun.

It's the thought of grinding boring activities for hours or days to get to the point where the game will be fun again that drives newbies away.

And to deal with the next "synthetic" counter argument: if cases where a player enjoys gathering resources to cover their losses, perhaps due to being part of the mythical "helpful and friendly Corp", it wouldn't be grinding - but of course the player would not be caught in a 0.5 - 0.4 gate camp either, so that case is well off-topic for the thread.

But back in real EVE, the vast majority of new players go through a longish period where their income doesn't match reasonable expenses (e.g. for skill books,m and for replacing quite cheap ships like T1/T1 cruisers), so unlike a well established player they can be caught between "don't fly what you can't afford", and "can't afford to pay for what they need to fly"..