These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Woot, woot. Now even easier to get out of a war dec.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#161 - 2013-05-14 22:12:10 UTC
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Praetor Meles
Black Mount Industrial
Breakpoint.
#162 - 2013-05-14 22:12:37 UTC
Forgot to add: Posting in stealth "Eve Is Dying" thread.

[insert random rubbish that irritates you personally] is further evidence that Eve is dying/thriving*

  • delete as required to make your point
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#163 - 2013-05-14 22:13:11 UTC
Someone who doesn't want to fight is not going to fight. So what does it matter?

I'm thinking stabbed and cloaked FW farmers. Would I like to be able to kill them more easily? Hell yes. Would I like their tactics excluded from FW? Definitely. But would it make them start PvPing? Seriously doubt it.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Iudicium Vastus
Doomheim
#164 - 2013-05-14 22:14:30 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


Things that grow and live Fast & Dangerous also often die out too young. Maturing and settling things into balance is a long-life method.

[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
rswfire
#165 - 2013-05-14 22:14:31 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


This is an honest question: Did it grow faster and sustain those numbers? I can understand that people will find the conflict of Eve interesting enough to trial/sub, but do those people stick around for very long?

About Firesworn Nation .|. FB .|. G+ .|. Steam
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2013-05-14 22:15:45 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Julius Priscus wrote:

is there still a 24 hour timer for war decs?

if so CCP should remove them so war decs are instant, for the next expansion to offset the insta leaving corps in EVE..


Yes, there is still a 24 hour timer.

Result of removing the timer would be that all carebears would quit, CCP would suffer a massive revenue drop, and they'd be bankrupt. I kind o' doubt that is their plan.


We could lose every carebear and carry on just fine. They are entirely replaceable.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2013-05-14 22:16:33 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

We'll agree to removing pvp from high-sec when you agree to removing all ISK-making ability from same.


1) Who said anything about removing all PvP from high sec? If two groups want to fight in high sec, have at it boys.

2) As for removing all ISK making potential from high sec... well... first you'd have to get CCP to agree to a massive revenue cut that would likely put them out of business. Good luck with that proposal.

1. You can't cherry pick gameplay like that. If you're allowed to grind money, put up towers, et cetera et cetera, you should be exposed to the risk of competing parties being able to take it away from you by force. This game's economy will collapse in on itself if everyone is able to barf money in high-sec without any risk whatsoever.

2. I never said that's what I actually want. What I want is to be able to go after people who make money, in order to make that money my own. This want fits in very well with the whole player-driven theme EVE possesses.


1)
It seems I can cherry pick. I think you mean "should not". I disagree.

They can suicide gank me. They can war dec me and make me take down my tower, or they can shoot my tower.

Everyone CAN barf money from high sec, with minimal risk, and EVE's economy has not collapsed.


2)
You may want to make my ISK your ISK. Valid want.

I want to make sure my ISK does not become your ISK. Also a valid want.

If there was not a way for me to make sure my ISK stays my ISK, until I choose to spend it, then I would not bother to earn the ISK in the first place.



NO ONE is going to farm ISK, just to have other players come along and take it. Since you can't force me to play, you can't force me to be an easy victim for you. ANY attempt to force me to be a victim will simply result in me, and all those players like me, quitting the game.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#168 - 2013-05-14 22:17:27 UTC
rswfire wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


This is an honest question: Did it grow faster and sustain those numbers? I can understand that people will find the conflict of Eve interesting enough to trial/sub, but do those people stick around for very long?


There was a time when Concord could be tanked and EVE continued to grow.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2013-05-14 22:17:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

We could lose every carebear and carry on just fine. They are entirely replaceable.


Lol


If that were true, CCP would not have had to go to the effort of creating high sec, NPC corps, CONCORD, crime watch, etc. etc. etc.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#170 - 2013-05-14 22:18:03 UTC
rswfire wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


This is an honest question: Did it grow faster and sustain those numbers? I can understand that people will find the conflict of Eve interesting enough to trial/sub, but do those people stick around for very long?

Obviously EVE is growing much slower now, if it's growing at all (seems to be stuck on a plat plane atm). This coincides very well with CCP's decisions in the past few years to make the game softer and easier. Privateer nerfs, CONCORD buffs, war nerfs, etc etc, all correlate with growth tapering off. While I'm not establishing a cause-effect relationship here, it does make me wonder what the driving factors behind this game's success truly are.

And yes, those people stayed for quite a long time. You're talking to one such person right now.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2013-05-14 22:18:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

There was a time when Concord could be tanked and EVE continued to grow.


And, why do you think CCP changed CONCORD to be ubber, unavoidable, always win?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#172 - 2013-05-14 22:18:50 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


This. There is an observable correlation between PvP focused expansions and subscriber growth.

The notion that CCP should or could give in to "carebears" for commercial reasons is a fallacy.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#173 - 2013-05-14 22:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Andski wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
FW BUTTON ship orbiting losses where greater then Incursion ship losses last summer? Bullshite


Right, incursions are super risky and dangerous, which is why everyone flies 4b faction-fit machariels to farm them endlessly

They're safer than any other present PvE that even comes close to its rewards


The FW button orbiting was EXTREMELY safe when it came to risk versus rewards. They were making more then double per hour than the legion Incursion fleets of old & I bet the ISK value of legions lost in NCO site's was far higher then button orbiting farmers.

Wish CCP Diagoras was around to enlighten the statistics
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#174 - 2013-05-14 22:19:44 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

There was a time when Concord could be tanked and EVE continued to grow.


And, why do you think CCP changed CONCORD to be ubber, unavoidable, always win?


CCP recruited from out of the game at that time.


Thankfully the trend has now been reversed and EVE is once again experiencing excellent growth.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#175 - 2013-05-14 22:20:07 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

We could lose every carebear and carry on just fine. They are entirely replaceable.


Lol


If that were true, CCP would not have had to go to the effort of creating high sec, NPC corps, CONCORD, crime watch, etc. etc. etc.


It is true and they did go to the effort.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#176 - 2013-05-14 22:21:16 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

There was a time when Concord could be tanked and EVE continued to grow.


And, why do you think CCP changed CONCORD to be ubber, unavoidable, always win?


Twas a silly thing. Point still stands though, EVE grew regardless.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2013-05-14 22:22:00 UTC
The idea that combat in hisec should only be between consenting parties is absolute horseshit simply because the other party will stop consenting when they're losing

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#178 - 2013-05-14 22:22:04 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
1)
It seems I can cherry pick. I think you mean "should not". I disagree.

They can suicide gank me. They can war dec me and make me take down my tower, or they can shoot my tower.

Everyone CAN barf money from high sec, with minimal risk, and EVE's economy has not collapsed.


2)
You may want to make my ISK your ISK. Valid want.

I want to make sure my ISK does not become your ISK. Also a valid want.

If there was not a way for me to make sure my ISK stays my ISK, until I choose to spend it, then I would not bother to earn the ISK in the first place.



NO ONE is going to farm ISK, just to have other players come along and take it. Since you can't force me to play, you can't force me to be an easy victim for you. ANY attempt to force me to be a victim will simply result in me, and all those players like me, quitting the game.

1. Suicide-ganking isn't a fix for a broken war mechanic. And no, people can't barf out money with impunity. Not yet, at least.

2. The difference is that I have to invest time, money, and effort into taking your possessions, but you're simply given a button that allows you to protect yours without any sort of consequence. That's not emergent gameplay with moves and counters; it's a cheat code out of a 1999 issue of Tips and Tricks magazine.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#179 - 2013-05-14 22:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
rswfire wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE grew faster when it was more dangerous.


This is an honest question: Did it grow faster and sustain those numbers? I can understand that people will find the conflict of Eve interesting enough to trial/sub, but do those people stick around for very long?

Player retention is an invalid argument here. We do not have those numbers, CCP does, and they do what they need to in order to optimize them.

You can argue that "this is better for me and the people I play with because we get to spend more time doing what we like." Or "This sucks because I can't do the same things as my friends."

But no one on the end user side has the data or the position to call for changes based on player retention rates. It is a dead end, go no where argument that answers nothing.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#180 - 2013-05-14 22:24:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Andski wrote:
The idea that combat in hisec should only be between consenting parties is absolute horseshit simply because the other party will stop consenting when they're losing

I absolutely agree, and furthermore even think that it would never get to that stage. How many entities aside from RvB even do consenting combat?

Limiting high-sec combat to the consensual variety only would be effectively removing it.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted