EVE General Discussion

Warning! Long post ahead; ignore if illiterate!

As always, the problem with this forum's posters isn't a lack of decent arguments, but a lack of foresight. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses isn't the problem here, and never was. It's not going to stop the majority of gankers from carrying on with their craft. The "carebears," while loathe to admit this, already feel it in their bones. Hence why they're slowly moving towards other arguments, such as:

"But the concept of high-sec is that it's meant to be inherently safe. There's a reason why 75% of EVE players live there: it's because they want to avoid pvp, and focus on industry-oriented activities instead. If "pvpers" want to pvp, they should go to low/null and do that there, and leave us alone."

Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole? I went on a solo null roam recently, and didn't encounter anyone in about 80 jumps, save for a bunch of botters, and two Dramiels on the final exit gate. Meanwhile, in high-sec, I have tens to hundreds of targets from my wars, as well as plentiful opportunities from baiting and ganks. Why should we go away, when it's so good here?

"Because you need us; we make your ships, your ammo, and your modules. Without us, you're nothing."

Do we? We can manufacture stuff just fine. In fact, because we know how to defend ourselves, we can engage in higher forms of industry that's less accessible to you, such a T2/T3/drug manufacturing. Besides, what are you without us? How will you engage in your current play style if the people you sell your crap to suddenly disappear, because the game changes too drastically in your favor, and no longer keeps us interested?

And it's not like the carebears are willing to compromise. They want to play risk-free, while at the same time demanding that the pvpers both create a demand for carebear goods by obliterating each other in low/null, and also make enough money to buy those goods. When was the last time a carebear said "well, I need you guys to buy my stuff, so how about I give you a free ship here and there, or maybe join your activities for a bit, since I have the cash to spare?"

If you're not willing to compromise, then we aren't either, and we'll continue to gank you. We'll keep ganking you right up to the point when ganking is no longer a sanctioned mechanic, at which point we will leave, and EVE's economy will collapse. Of course, you're not obligated to compromise; we're not going to tell you how to play the game, but you're not going to tell us how to play it either. We won't leave you alone, because it's not in our best interest to do so.

"Whatever. The point of this thread is that insurance to CONCORD-caused losses has been removed, and that's a good thing, because it got rid of an ISK faucet. ISK faucets are inherently bad, so this is beneficial for the player base as a whole."

It's nice to see the armchair economists come out of the woodwork. I suppose there's no such thing as a "mineral faucet." Also, supply/demand curves and equilibrium are just words that act as oppression tools used by the rich corporate fatcats who got us into this whole real-life economic crisis thing. Let's get rid of all the ISK faucets, because they're really evil. Then the game's economy will be really healthy, right guys?

"None of that matters because as good as this change is, it still won't get rid of suicide-ganking altogether, unfortunately. Just look at the destroyer buffs and the new tier 3 battlecruisers that are coming soon."

And this is perhaps the grandest foresight-related oversight in this entire debate. To think that CCP won't "re-balance" the new ships after they become the de facto suicide-gank boats is the greatest folly of all. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses, even though entirely rational from a gameplay perspective, is still a nerf to suicide-ganking. If they're willing to nerf suicide-ganking now, why wouldn't they be willing to nerf it even further at some point in the future?

tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.

Tippia, these are your comments from a different thread:





Are you now saying that all this time you haven't really meant what you've been so vehemently claiming wasn't a troll?

So, basically, you're finally admitting you've been trolling this entire time.

Real-world economies are also based on limitless innovation. Economies are driven by constant invention and quality-of-life improvements. Imagine a real-life economy where innovation and improvement were removed; the very first Ford Model T is the car that humanity would have to live with for the rest of its existence. How would the automotive industry exist after the first few years, then? The few cars that need to be replaced from accidents wouldn't necessitate the existence of giant automotive plants, therefore the industry would collapse.

This is essentially how EVE is like. We have a set amount of things we can build, and can't create new ones by ourselves. Therefore, unlike real-life economies, EVE's economy is fueled by destruction of existing items.

Comparing EVE's economy to real-life economies is a ridiculous endeavor.

A precedent? I'm watching a trend lately where some people that resent any change are reverting to lore and "the past" as a defense because no other argument carries weight anymore. Regardless of whether any changes suggested might actually improve the game and increase subs, game potential and ultimately game life.

The largest volume of "don't break what works for me" is fighting an "it's broken, fix it for me" brigade which is becoming more and more vocal. Why? Because more of them are stating a POV that was never "allowed" by vets who think they know better. Is this because the "noobs" are starting to be a majority now? I simply don't know but something is brewing that's for sure.

We are definitely shifting from the very polarised view of what Eve "should be" to what Eve "could be" and we seem to be at a crossroads where the defense of "Eve principles" is being tested.

I personally prefer my games to evolve and not sit in some quaint fantasy land with idealogical stagnation. Is the acceptance/non acceptance of suicide ganking one of those stagnated gamestyles that could change?

I think the topic does need to have an airing and belligerent attitudes against those with contrary views is not the way to do it.

Suck it up and answer the question.

I have read this entire thread and you quote repeatedly using Eve INTENT as a basis for your arguments and yet the very concept of an MULTIPLAYER game is alien to you. What gives?

Suicide ganking is just beginning with new BC cruiser hulls

One thing about EVE that we can't deny is that it was meant to be a pvp-focused MMO, with a heavy emphasis on non-consensual pvp. This isn't just something I'm pulling out of my buttocks; it was original developer intent, stated and confirmed by the developers.

So, here's a litmus test we should apply to the situation:

- Have the past changes (see: CONCORD buffs, lofty, insurance nerf #1, dec shields), and the proposed changes (see: insurance nerf #2, CONCORD buffs) been more or less conductive toward maintaining the original intent and core integrity of the game?

- Have the above changes changed the game for the better, or for the worse?

The second question can be possibly answered in terms of evaluating proportional subscription growth, and the overall approval rating that CCP gets from EVE players.

You expect some one to answer that question and cover off all possible permutations in the space of 6000 characters?

I would like to see it nerfed, yes. So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
“Still” presumes that I have claimed so in the past. What I've said is that it will not force them to adopt a new play style.
Incorrect.

You see? No matter what CCP does, they will -never- please the highsec bears. The bears will not be happy untill all of eve is available to them at zero risk. Im not kidding, or exaggerating. That is just what they're used to. Every game they've ever played has never had nearly the same level of risk as Eve does. These are the people who are unwilling or unable to cope with new concepts.

You could make their ships respawn 100%, with zero losses, and they will still complain about killmail record showing they died... or they'll complain that it took them 5 whole minutes to get back into the asteroid belt and continue mining. They wont ever stop whining. Its just their mentality. They want to be able to achieve 100% of the game with perfection. They want to get every single achievement and never die once. These are the guys who ragequit in L4D because they dont want to damage their Win/Loss ratio with another loss. These are not true eve players. These are not the players eve was intended to appeal to. By changing the game mechanics to suit these players, you are effectively destroying what made eve unique.

Please CCP, give the carebears their own shard. I know EVE's major feature is that everyone is on one shard, but at this rate, you have to ether destroy what makes eve great to keep the people who want godmode or singleplayer, or give them their own shard with the rules they will enjoy.

Its already done with the Chinese server. Please give the carebears their own universe so they dont have to destroy mine