EVE General Discussion

Your analogy fails. There are more people in hisghsec that like the dish that you feel is inferior. And yes, if the people that liked the inferior dish complained about the people that liked the superior dish, then I would stop serving the inferior dish and tell those customers to GTFO.



Well, what was it that changed a week ago? I'm curious. If you mean the insurance nerf that hasn't been implemented yet, then I can only say it was brought in as a rebalance. CCP didn't feel it was fair to get double payout on suicide ganks. Again, don't like it, you can either go someplace else, or go play another game.

Judging by the comment made by CCP it had nothing to do with forum discussions. The stament clearly said it had been planned for quite some time.

Things change, deal with it.

AT LAST! ahem. YES, you do. You have founded this gargantuan input of yours, presenting yourself as being in possession of expertise of some sort, completely on your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." That, obviously, is YOUR opinion and is certainly not a FACT. Ergo...it's an assumption. As this assumption has no foundation it naturally cannot be FOUNDED on a foundation...thingy. But, you've never let that bother you before. Why let it bother you now?

My apologies if this comes off as insulting, but you've completely misinterpreted both sections of my post. To quickly summarize:

The first section (the analogy) deals with a potential future of EVE online, in which pvp becomes much more restricted, causing a lot of pvp players to bail. My prediction is that the players that remain (the carebears) would then exhibit very quick turnover rates, as they quickly reach their peaks and get one of each barge, hauler, etc., and lose all interest in the game. They already exhibit this trend, by the way. But at least right now, losing ships always gives them something to work for besides an ever-fatter wallet. I shoot a lot of them, but in the process talk to a lot of them as well. In fact I've had hundreds of conversations with these players regarding what they think about the game, and their opinions are fairly uniform.

The second section's intent was to show you that it's not the pvpers who don't like (and want to change) the high-sec that all of the non-pvpers are happy with, but the exact opposite of that. Every single change throughout the past few years that dealt with high-sec wars, ganking, and aggression mechanics has been a pvp nerf. CONCORD buffs #1 and #2, removal of lofty, increased security penalties for criminal aggression, restructuring of war fees, recent legalization of "decshield," relatively recent insurance nerf #1, upcoming insurance nerf #2, potential upcoming CONCORD buff #3, the list goes on and on. I'm not looking to change something that many players are perfectly happy with, but for many years now I've had to put up with those changes.

Whether you agree with them or not, those were the two points I was trying to make.

And where did he say he wanted complete safety?

On the other hand, I can point to you exactly where Tippia has stated numerous times he wants hi sec less safe, which in fact is an opinion of his.

Ugh....pretty much what matrix just said. You need to go back and read what was written.

CCP please fix your forums.

Pardon my intrusion into your fierce debate battle with Tippia, but I'd like to bring to your attention that an opinion and an assumption are two entirely different things. Simply put, an opinion is a personal view on a matter that one isn't sure of enough to claim as fact, while an assumption is something a person believes to be fact, when there's either insufficient proof in favor of the belief, or plentiful proof to the belief's contrary.

Tippia has definitely expressed an opinion, which was likely founded on personal observation of the game economy, and the statements of intent made by the developers of EVE Online. While I don't agree with everything Tippia says, or all of his/her methods, I've so far yet to see this person assume anything.

Pardon my intrusion, but Tippia has made baseless assumptions on more than one occasion. In fact, his arguments are mostlyl nothing but baseless assumptions. He's claimed that suicide gankers are worse off than miners (let me know if you need proof and I'll be happy to look it up where he states this explicitely, not that it will make a difference to you either way) and failed to even explain himself. He's also claimed on numerous occasions that CONCORD needs to be nerfed.

Tippian isn't even making an effort to present his opinions as opinions, but rather as infallible assumptions based on fact, which really aren't facts.

If CONCORD was nerfed in Tippia's image (where players themselves are given more tools and incentives to pursue criminals), I, as a ganker, can vouch for the fact that the universe would become a much colder and harsher place for me. Having to contend with vengeful players would be a much more difficult ordeal than to coldly write off 40 million ISK as the sunk cost of a suicide battleship. Also, the more you mitigate a safety net, the more people are forced to adapt. I doubt my ganking would be nearly as successful if CONCORD nerfs woke players up to the necessity of precautions. My ganking efficiency might, however, increase with the removal of CONCORD insurance, for the exact same reason. Hence why I, much like other gankers, am not against the removal of insurance. We simply want to be assured that ganking itself will not be made impossible.

Tippia doesn't gank, but I do. It's not exactly an assumption if I confirm his claims.

Way to go missing the point. Sure, older player know how to mitigate risks. This isn't, and never was, and probably never will be about older players. This is about newer players. Besides, I just proved your point wrong, wich means your arguementation has lost it's footing.

I know for a fact that many newer players left the game because they got ganked by some random ganker, or because they felt it was too much hassle to mitigate risk. I've heard many individuals state that "highsec should just be safe".



You said it yourself. Highsec has been getting safer and safer over time, and the popultaion count has been steadily increasing. So it's obviously the right course of action. Unless you have some magical data that proves it wrong, that will remain a fact.

Again, you make some baseless claim which you have no proof for. Low/null population does not decrease because highsec has been made safer. The last time it was because of sactum nerfs. Before that I suspect it's mainly due to powerblocks. In fact, that is the most common answer I've read when people are asked why they left null.

Lowsec has a low population count because lowsec is completely pointless.

Besides, if there was no option to pew pew in highsec, are you saying that all those people would quit the game rather than go pew pew in low/null? They didn't leave the other times highsec pew pew got nerfed, so I don't see why they should all of a sudden at the next nerf.



First off, your integrity went just went from bad to "out the window". I don't know if that's the case, because I've never interacted with the wow community in any way, and I have no intention of doing so. But there are a few things that make your counter agruement completely useless:

1. wow is not a single shard persistent universe. There are non-pvp servers.
2. Safe zones that are actually safe occur in wow.
3. A higher level player is inherantly better than a lower level player in wow. I eve this is not always the case.
4. wow has 12 million subs. eve has 400k.

If the player retention rates were fine, I'm sure CCP wouldn't be jumping over corpses in order to get more subs. That they are fine is and will remain your opinion and nothing more.

And again, subs have been steadily increasing, and highsec has been steadily made safer. Once again, it seems like a good path for CCP to take in order to increase subs.

Dondoran did, although the post I quoted seems to have been lost in the flame purge that took place at that point in the thread. It is repeated a bit above the post you quoted, though. Also, you did, just now, and you did it again, quite explicitly, at the end of your post.

All of this topic is a question of balance. Be it risk vs. reward; gankers vs. victims; highsec safety vs. other parts; the impact of uniterruptible highsec production vs. the impact of interruptible production highsec.
That's somewhat contradictory, don't you think? With or without insurance, the ship is still just an expected loss and adjusting it doesn't alter the risk. The actual risk factors for a ganker — a competent mark, a vengeful mark, the risk of interdiction, the loot drop — are all completely unaffected (well… maybe not the competence part, that risk tends to go down as security increases).
…and again, I'm not intending to troll. If I were, you would notice it and it would not be nearly as civil as this.

Of course I'm invested in it — it affects my gameplay in what I perceive as a negatively beneficial way. But I think you're confusing “butthurt” with “worried about the direction of the game”. I'm not shedding any tears over this (because, over all, the change does indeed benefit me), any more than I was shed tears over the NeX, and in that case I even wrote a 5,000-word piece that generated some 30,000 views (and heaps upon heaps of cheers, reposts and various material rewards) because of how worried it made me about the direction of the game (and about CCP's handling of their IP).

The thing is, just because it benefits me — my risk now goes from ε to nil — doesn't mean that I automatically believe it will benefit the game as a whole. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of things that benefit me because I'm already sitting pretty in a highly beneficial situations, and I sincerely doubt that I need more benefits. I'd rather see the game revert to an older state of affairs where it was actually slightly risky to fly in space, because that risk encouraged safety behaviour. That is a ridiculously common paradox: an increase in risk often actually makes the people more safe because they take it upon themselves to mitigate that risk. There's a difference between the safety of the system and safety of the person.

I only see this change as something that further reinforces people's false sense of security, makes them less safe, and at the same time does not affect the risks of those who create that unsafety.
That is not so much “to the point” as it is “a complete fabrication based on ignorance and… let's charitably call it guesswork”, and if you had actually taken the time to read what I write, you would know this. Doing so would also have made you aware of what my vested interests are, since I've only explained them… what?… four or five times in this thread alone.

If the apparent conflict between my assumed status as a carebear and my objections to this change give you pause, then that's good. Take a moment to consider what causes this perceived conflict and what might resolve it.