EVE General Discussion

3) Look for higher order consequences. It's very easy to make simple-sounding proposals that will have massive unintended secondary and tertiary consequences when we're talking about a highly complex and inter-connected game like EVE. Make sure that you know what you're talking about when you suggest or criticise ideas; make sure that you've traced out the likely consequences beyond what's immediately desired. To use a common example: if you want to remove insurance because of inflation or you think "risk free" PvP is bad for whatever reason, then be aware that you've radically altered the cost:benefit balance between T1 and T2 hulls, and thus you've made having the skill to fly T2 much more valuable, thus effectively nerfing low-skilled new players. Furthermore you've significantly increased the demand for T2 components and thus given a large relative advantage to the holders of those moons. As a result, you've increased the incumbent advantages of current sov holders as well as reduced the relative income from mining... and so on.


CCP should be the first people to take this message on board

How does a miner fight back? Avoidance is the only real defense that I know of for gankers/bumpers but that in no way counters the fact that the aggressors still retain full control of the situation where they choose to operate. Do you disagree or just feel it's working as intended?

Avoidance, paying attention, fitting ships appropriately, that sort of thing. The same sort of **** the rest of us do when we're PVEing in dangerous locations. Miners like Mara Rinn (I think?) are people I actually respect. They know their trade and they play the game. They think about how to compete, they form strategies, they fit appropriately.

So, yes, working as intended.

Good read, Malcanis. Thanks for sharing it.

No, it's an example of “this is how EVE works, and if you want to play it, you need to consider this fundamental design decision”. It says absolutely nothing about how the game is meant to be played because that's the whole point: you choose. No matter what, though, the choice will exist within what the game can and cannot do — you cannot choose away the PvP environment that inherently comes with the multiplayer sandbox.

It says as much about how EVE is meant to be played as the existence of segment-blocking signals tells you how OpenTTD is supposed to be played: squat. Those signals are just an environmental factor that you need to take into account when routing your trains, much like how the full-PvP environment is a factor you need to take into account when you pick your EVE grazing ground.

How does it contradict anything and how is it false? You are free to carebear it up as much as you like — the game isn't going to stop you since it fully allows for that play style, and other players can't disallow anything since that's far beyond their control.

The only way for it not to be PvP is if there's a bot at the other end. Otherwise, it's a player vs. player conflict, and the shooty bit is a pretty small part of that conflict. There are plenty of decisions that lead up to it, all of which can be “won” or “lost”.

And no, you're still not disallowing any kind of playstyle. He's as free as ever to go and mine. He just needs to be aware of his environment. The only thing that would come close to player-made “disallowing” would be to constantly harass him to the point where he can't play the game, and that falls under the EVE definition of griefing — something that gets you banned… so it's not really something that's available in the standard player tool kit.

I disagree with point 4

Inter-alliance propaganda shares the characteristics of the big lie but I don't really care about that as much. It is only to be expected and is a valid tactic.

Dude! You're not supposed to blow the lid off the propaganda machine, gaw! Oh well, they'll forget pretty quick. :)

PvP = Player versus Player

Are you telling us that miners are not people?

The freedom to be wrong is the essence of humanity.