EVE General Discussion

Pretty simple really. I have 4 accounts. A can fill an orca with 30 million ISK worth of minerals in less than half an hour. I can clear an Angels Extravaganza for 20 million ISK and 10 million loot and salvage in a 20 minute tick. When I'm on a missioning binge, I'm usually farming 5-6 AEs a day.

A billion ISK a week is about 20 hours of playing. That is an average week for me. Sometimes more, rarely much less than that.



Now, when I was in null, I could clear a haven of 30+ million ISK in bounties and 10 million+ in loot/salvage, in a 20 minute tick, and didn't have travel time like high sec missioning. Mining, when not cloaky camped in, was better in null too. Better boosts and fewer half cycles.

You know what this honestly comes down to? fly with better people. You want to mine in low sec? have the corp run protection. Want to rat in hostile null go for it.

Carebares are staring at asteroids in high sec because they can do it alone or in tiny non hostile groups.

You don't hear functional corp members complaining about these problems.

You know, it surprises me how many problems some industrialists have with griefers. We get paid nearly constantly to go chase away griefers from industrial corps so they can go about their business. It's funny because I can tell who are real pvpers and who just want to kill miners based on how they fight.

Some people stay docked up in fear, others take things into their own hands and do something about it, to their benefit.

no one cares about the faux fight between pvpers and pvers,

I am a huge carebear, but just as much as i pve, I pvp.

welcoming all fights 2013

Take as read please that I am still a noob and still about as ignorant as you can get.

Consider the following:

Is CCP risk averse? The OP seems to be applying their own mental model about the world to CCP. I have seen this a lot on these forums in the very short time I have been here. The argument is often made that such and such a population is a hooooge source of revenue for CCP. I have never really seen this substantiated, and looking at the statistics about SP investments and what that might imply about game play, I don't think that particular argument about 'miners', 'carebears' is likely to be true. More importantly, so called 'carebears' seem to imagine that CCP themselves are the equivalent of a 'carebear' about their business model and will respond in some way to risks, implied threats, etc. in the same way that a so-called 'carebear' might. This also does not seem likely to me. For me it simply shows a kind of lack of capacity for strategic and critical thinking, but that is neither surprising really, nor uncommon in such things. I am not saying this is uniformly true about some arbitrary category of people. I am saying it seems to be one of the identifiable arguments made repeatedly.

Imagine the following:
That such assertions about CCP were true. That people want to play the game without incurring any loss, ever, in any way. Furthermore, include the assertion that this is a big money maker for CCP. OK.

CCP then just splits off an entirely PvE server, where no loss and no PvP are possible. It is a place where people can mine to their hearts content, undisturbed in any way. Lets name the server Stagnation, or maybe Big Rock Candy Mountain. You can basically have unlimited mined resources with very minimal competition for those resources. Of course there is basically no one to buy anything from you since no one ever loses anything. You could sell meaningless resources to each other I suppose, but really why would you? How long would this game last? Would enough people play it to keep it alive?

These arguments such as the OP strike me as extremely facetious. It is like the business owner who says: man we would have such a great business here if it weren't for all these bothersome customers.

Just for chuckles, imagine the opposite scenario in which CCP, having split off Stagnation, makes Serentiy completely lawless. What would happen? What is the main risk and voiced concern? As far as I can tell the main imagined concern is that the EVErse would become so aggressive and hostile that no new players had any chance of entering. People would still have to mine and generate resources to fund their game play. The real question, since that would be a sandbox, would be whether or not the players got smart enough to self regulate this in an emergent way, creating viable entry paths. Personally I think they would. What would put that game out of existence is the remote possibility that some entity could simply dominate the EVErse and maintain that dominance. Unlikely, but possible. People would certainly try to end the game, and that might be fun. If by some miraculous course of events this were to happen, CCP could respond in an equally radical and unlikely way by resetting the entire game and letting it play out again over the course many years. Would people do that? Hard to know.

In a living system, which EVE is attempting to emulate, we could imagine that there are always two primary forces. One is conservation. Let's call them 'carebears' or the aspects of SOV war that people complain about when it seems that has become to stagnate. The other is the force of mutation. Let's call that PvP or the aspects of the game that create impermanence, when all the players are immortal. CCP is both at different times, both conserving and generating change. When self identified with either of these two forces the other force seems to be an enemy. In fact, 'growth' requires a collaborative effort between those two forces that is experienced as competition. Conservative forces require mutation or they eventually stagnate and go out of existence. To stay in existence even for a short time Stagnation would require CCP to become the sole mutative force in the game (and then they would complain about such changes). For Lawless Serentity to exist, players would have to self generate a conservative axis. Mutation requires conservation or 'useful' mutations simply go out of existence.

Again, I am a noob and probably have no real idea what I am talking about.

Being in an alliance just makes you a bigger target.
Bounties are a joke. The payouts are so small, that no one is going to suicide gank a high sec PvP corp just for the bounties.
I would never hire a mercenary corp to fight a war for me. Again, just makes you are target of more wars.
I don't lose freighters to gankers. I'm more concerned about inability to go out an mine or mission for ISK.

That you cannot see anything correctly is not a surprise, but here goes anyway,.





And yet I'm in Null, and you aren't. I've learned to deal with it and you refuse to even try. you blame a game mechanic for your failures where as i see it as a challenge to be defeated (and i have, my wallet is a testament to that).

It is your main mental failing, you prefer to see outward causes (ie you'd rather be a victim) rather than inward challenges. This is why you (as YOU say) would rather be in null but are hiding behind game mechanics in high and I'm flying Macharials and navy Domis smack into the heart of Sansha 10/10s.

If you'd ever realize the problem is you and not some video game's mechanics, you'd be a lot freer to do what you say you want to. You are your enemy, not clockys and cynos.




There is that Victim mentality I just mentioned. "Other people" didn't do right or cloaked in your system or didn't give you access to this or that. No meantion of the fact that you made a bad deal or the fact that you could not learn how to live in a NON upgraded system with a POS (you do know that Rorquals have JUMP drives, right?) like everyone in EVE did before 2008/9 when CCP introduced the Upgrade System.

You're incapable of understanding that you are the stumbling block. more accurately, your fear of loss, lack of creativity, and willingness to play the victim role...these things are your problem, not clocaky cynos.

It's also why you cling to the high sec status quo rather than honestly admitting that some things are not great for the game. You know you wouldn't be able to play if CCP didn't "handicap" the game in your favor with all of high sec's avoidance mechanics. To a more rational gamer, that would demonstrate the fact that they were incompatible with the game they are playing, with you it means nerf cloakys.....




Sigh

Here is my main "pvp" char (you will se I haven't PVP'd in a while if you look on battleclink or EVe kill, although happily my last real kill was PERSEUS KALISTRATOS!, take that PK! ).

Please notice my employment history. it's not apparent since It doesn't show alliances, but here we go: I've been in Doctrine, Atlas, IT, Raiden, NCDot, Initiative Mercs and TEST.

Why have I been in all those Alliances (some of which are dead now lol)? Because unlike you i didn't tuck tail and run just because the game makers didn't hold my hand. I've been kicked out of null and had to briefly go to empire over and over and over and over again, but i always made it back out.

Why?

Because I took my video game losses like a video game MAN (lol) and went back at it. I didn't "do a tarawa" and find an excuse as to why I couldn't do what I wanted to. I TOOK control of my situation, awoxxers and cloaky campers be thrice damned.

So your statement of "Only have to have that happen a couple times before you throw your hands up in the air, give up on null and go back to high sec" is more than untrue, it's self serving BS you tell yourself to make yourself feel better at being defeated by a video game....



You answered your own question. You fear reform of High sec because you couldn't survive in EVE without hand holding, and you LOVE to think that most high sec people are like you and would likewise tuck tail and run if good changes happened to high sec.

They wouldn't, most would adapt, those who didn't would, by definition be what that CCP DEV once called "the people it's ok to lose". No one would miss LHA Tarawa and his ilk.

The whole "PVP vs. PVE'er" thing is honestly an imagined construct. Many folks who PVP will run PVE on a alt to fund the extravagant PVP lifestyle. Many PVE folks will run PVP toons for fun and shipslplosions.

It's the wierdos who fully refuse to PVP, who see this great conflict that doesn't exist.


If you're a PVE person who refuses to defend themselves, you are a target. We like targets.

See their response to the players' response to Incarna. Players were unhappy about the direction of the game, and CCP showed that they did not care what players thought. The result was a loss of about 10% of subscriber base.

And the result of that drop in the number of subscribed accounts resulted in a GIANT, we're sorry, we're going to start listening to customers again, we're going to change direction, etc.

Later, they said they had lots of additional clothing items and such to put into the store for space Barbies, but were not going to release them because they were concerned about player misconseption of them returning to devote resources to the micro-transaction business model.

So, yeah... CCP is risk averse when it comes to subscription numbers.





There is no reason to do that. There is already high sec, where CCP has constructed sufficient game mechanics to keep griefing and suicide ganking to a minimum. There are already more than enough game mechanics that allow players to avoid unwanted combat.

It is much, much easier for CCP to just continue to ignore all these calls to nerf high sec, change high sec, etc.

AND, continuing to ignore calls to nerf high sec doesn't change the key differentiating factors that make EVE different from the other MMOs: single shard, player driven market, meaningful loss, ability to shape the world, etc.

And most importantly, who would be building the ships that the PvPers lose in combat, if the miners were off on another, un-connected shard? From whom would I buy PLEX, and to whom would the PvPers sell PLEX?





BINGO, except it is usually the PvPers making the argument. If you are not here to be my victim, then the game would be better without you anyway. The carebears acknowledge the need for PvPers to make ships go boom to create demand. It is the PvPers that fail to acknowledge that all that carebear mining is producing the minerals needed to build those ships that they enjoy making go boom.







Simple enough. You'd have a couple hundred people sitting in frigates waiting for another gang of frigates to wander into their gate camp.

The difference is easy to see.

You wanting an easy target would require the obligation on someone else to then be that easy target. If I refuse to be the easy target, then there is no game mechanic CCP can create that will give you the easy targets. All that game mechanic, that was intended to make me an easy target, is likely to do, is make people stop doing whatever it is that would make them an easy target.

Me being safe does not put any obligation on you. You want to PvP? There will be other players that want to PvP, so you can PvP against them.





I'm not making a moral argument at all. I'm making a practical argument. Her desire to make $1500 for a few hours of work does NOT put an obligation on me to pay $1500 for a few hours of work.

And, neither she, not the other wanna-be photographers are really "making it". They all have second jobs while hoping to one day "make it". My co-worker's wife was lucky to be book one wedding a month. This is how I was eventually able to get one of these wanna-be, full time photographers to take the job for $400 instead of their initial quote that would have put it closer to $1500.