EVE General Discussion

Actually, no, even the occasional ganker can't make the game PvP centric for a person who doesn't want it to be. This is actually where the player can help themselves to a degree ofcourse, by not making themselves an attractive target, being situationally aware when circumstances call for it, etc. However, even those cases aside the best a ganker can do is make someone PvP aware, which is not in any degree the same as PvP centric. That said even if he falls to a gank or gatecamp (or 2 or 3 or... yeah, I really need to learn how to deal with gatecamps) that doesn't mean that PvP is the core of his experience.

If he's doing it right, your gank becomes no more significant than the loot that dropped from a common mission rat.

I take you to mean, then, that a player can focus on non-space combat activities as the core of his experience. Right? Not specifically that the game isn't itself PVP-centric.

This ought to be rich, go ahead and define it then.

I'm not saying 0.0 is all blue, quick glance at the map shows that. As it stands, it's not all that hard to see it could be. Since Valentines Day the map has changed a LOT.

And I know 0.0 is not safer than highsec but it's also nowhere near as "dangerous" as many say provided you are part of one of the larger coalitions. I could as good as fly from the top all the way to the bottom on the western side and I am blue all the way. That's a pretty serious safe zone.

(albeit I left 0.0 just before the JB nerf so it's obviously more dangerous now with the extra gating needed).

Nonetheless, what I was pointing out is that unless you are part of a larger coalition 0.0 is as good as utterly impossible. Longest time I can squeeze into hostile space is POS ehp + stront. There is no place for startups beyond 2 days max.

Allies just get bigger and bigger and we will all ultimately serve at best 2 masters.

Line members. Moons. C'mon man. Who you kidding?

Your boss bequeaths systems/moons to corps/alliances and they are setup for corp/alliance funding. Line members as good as never see "moon isk". You're all left with the scraps.

And as stated, adding more isk opportunities for the individual doesn't change what happens in 0.0, it only changes how much you make. It'll just mean more people doing the same thing in the same place under the same flag.

A way needs to be found to force contraction so holding too much space is bad. No point making it so you don't "need" space - that's not gonna happen voluntarily.

0.0 space is about ego, it's not about neccessity. It needs to change for 0.0 to survive "beyond blue".

Our massive, expensive SRF's are definitely not for the benefit of the line members, nosiree, nor the logistics, nor jump bridges, nor noobie programs.

Every isk from moons goes into a giant money bin for alliance leaders to swim in.

What you haven't refuted is that PvP aware is not PvP centric. The point of the post still stands. It also stands that there is no intentionally competitive act being committed in that awareness. Any competition would have to come from another source than the player in question, as such THIS players experience is still not PvP centric.

The fundamental disconnect is that you are arguing that the player's experience is not PVPcentric, which might be true, while he is saying the game itself is PVPcentric, which is also true.

Speak for your own "boss".

But I would agree that a lot of this sort of income often goes into the pockets of the bosses, so they can keep themselves in AFK ratting carriers and such. And that feeds into the misery most people experience playing in nullsec, because it is often means being financially worse off than a highsec mission runner but with the annoyance of having to go defend some one else's moon income. It also feeds into the need to conquer 10 more systems because there is a tech moon at the far end. Or conquer 10 more systems so the boss can rent them out.


There is no way to arbitrarily limit blue lists, so it is a waste of time trying to tackle these problems on that front. I've played plenty of MMOs that have tried arbitrary limits on alliances, and it _always_ leads to back-channel diplomacy creating de facto alliances, Our-Clan1 Our-Clan2 and Our-Clan3, holding corporations/feeder corporations and the like

I've not disagreed there, yet a game with different forms of PvP should enable people to some degree choose the types of PvP in which they readily engage and minimize, not eliminate, PvP which they do not wish to engage in. This is what I mean by non PvP centric, taking actions that reduce the likelyhood of encountering a specific form of PvP (or just plain ignoring it). He calls that specifically PvP gameplay, which I disagree with.