EVE General Discussion

Quite incorrect. The problem is that one party is trying to force its gameplay on the other just as much as they accuse that other party of doing the same, when the latter is not actually forcing anything at all.
Yeah, no. That's not an assumption on my part. Also, if you had actually lurked enough to warrant that “at last!” comment, you would know by now that I reject that claim when presented as an assumption and annoy those who make it with just as many “why”s as I do those who express the opposite viewpoint.
…you mean aside from the part where it wasn't an assumption and where I explained how I came to that conclusion?
Fun fact: that is not presented as an infallible assumption. It's a conclusion derived from the facts of how CONCORD work and how these workings can be made to work in your favour.
…in other words, it make EVE a colder and harsher place for gankers too, since they could be caught by these mass murder sprees just as well as everyone else. The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does.

You tripped my double-standard alarm.


How come that whenever there is some "geddon" against miners and indies the prospect of "you need these people" is constantly shot down, no pun intended, by the so-called "PVP crowd", but now I have to fear the griefbears leaving and EvE dying because they could not gank in high sec?

If we could take a player-wide vote on who the game needs less, which group would it be? Would it be the carebears who produce the ships and ammo or would it be the griefers who blow things up "for the lulz"?

I don't think we have to try real hard to find out who we would throw overboard first.

People vote with their wallets and their metagame actions. Griefers like to think they "griefed some carebear out of the game" but in reality they came up to someone who saw what kind of people they were dealing with and decided not to have to put up with them. The people who hide behind the whole "it's a sandbox" cliche seldom admit that their real goal is to drive people away.

These are the people who put their cars into the left lane, match speed with a slow truck, and enjoy watching people get frustrated.


Again, who's butt would the player base at large be more happy seeing get hit by the door?

CCP might be realizing something: profit. And since it's perfectly OK for some people to kill everything that moves and say "EvE is harsh! I do it for profit!!!!1! GBTQ carebear! Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!", it also perfectly OK for CCP to say "we are a for-profit organization looking to expand and having a game that is a noob-harvester heaven is not helping".

I suspect that most of the people who want to have their cake and eat it too are Americans who do the same thing with the political process: clamor for rules and mechanics that benefit them and screw others, and emorage when there is even the slightest change that might make their "game" a little harder.

So to the gankers and griefbears I say , go back to Guild Wars. Or how about "bullies with inferiority complexes online is that way -->"

Okay, for the sake of not getting into a long-winded argument about my credibility and the baselessness of my arguments, let's simply forget about all of the above. I've played WoW for almost as long as I've played EVE, and while I can address your points, I'd rather not turn this thread into a discussion about that.

So, just tell me this one little thing. You say that subs have been increasing proportionally with the increase of high-sec's safety. Now, I'll absolutely agree that more subs is better. Therefore, will making high-sec absolutely safe result in an absolute increase in subscriptions, or not? If not, what is, or should be, the cutoff point?

Good work keeping Tipsy occupied guys. Next shift will be with you in 30 minutes.

And how is CONCORD stopping suicide gankers from being killed multiple times exactly ?

While I despise griefplay and would enjoy seeing GM resources devoted to banning from the game people who repeatedly and unmistakably use this game not as a end in itself (roleplaying a capsuleer out for riches, fame, etc), but as a means to get cheap kicks out of complete strangers, I wouldn't mind seeing CONCORD completely removed from the game. If such were to happen, what we'd witness would be, apart from a massive drop in subscribers -which CCP deserves, see below- :

- People would organize to repel gankers, everywhere would be a warzone and sandbox would mean something
- The spontaneous organization to safekeep space would soon hit a brick wall : every vigilante or antipie assembly would be prey to infiltration and eventually disbanded.
- Players would realize that the real problem lies in the unaccountability of alts, that there is no ingame way to check whether this gung-ho good samaritan is really out to expel gankers and griefers, or if he is not really a griefer's alt, lying in wait to destroy a vigilante assembly from inside.

CONCORD removal would be a great thing. While EvE is graphically awesome, and the single server a beautiful paradigm for MMOs, CCP does deserve to crumble and fall, because they thrive on people buying and supporting multiple accounts, and those multiple accounts allow condoned griefplay.
Yes, EvE is Pay-to-Win (with real money or PLEX, which amounts to the same thing since PLEX has to be bought from someone)

What happens is:
Online sociopaths buy and fund multiple accounts. One for their e-peen ganker, another for disposable scammers and seemingly innocuous scouts/probers, a third for mission running. Those accounts synergize, the ganker removes mission running competition in juicy lowsec hubs, thus keeping LPs prices high, the scouts tackle the threat of would-be vigilantes busting gate/dock camp, and the access to high sec on + sec status chars voids the consequences of being -10 on their main.
Gatecamp is not a boring activity anymore, since you can do other stuff with secondary accounts at the same time. So you can just stay logged at the gate, waiting for the activation noise.
Which means those camps are here to stay, and passerbys need to scout ahead... therefore, they buy and fund secondary accounts.

Also, people who do enjoy the game, and who do not have a lot of free time but are kinda well-off, buy PLEX and sell it for isk... which helps to fund secondary accounts of the people who will scam and gank them, forcing them to buy and sell more PLEX -since they don't have a lot of free time but don't mind spending RL money to get ISK-.


Therefore, I for one wouldn't mind complete removal of CONCORD. The garbage that is the possibility of having multiple unrelated accounts would clearly appear. Now, there's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts, as long as they're all related, and there are ingame ways of seeing the links. Scouts and scammers related to obvious griefers would raise red flags, as long as you'd take a few minutes to check the characters.


At the moment EvE is only cold and harsh and hardcore if you play it in a civil manner, and don't abuse alts. It however makes sense from a financial point of view that CCP allows such pitiful double and triple or more play, since it allows dodging of negative consequences, helps hardcore scamming and ganking, which will in turn push a certain category of people to buy PLEX.

This policy is disgusting on many a level, if you consider this should be game. But hey I probably ask too much of decency from people born in a country which idea of a hobby is alcoholism, and who inflicted Bjork upon the world !

Tippia has not mentioned anything in the form of fixing kill-rights mechanic, at all. So how exactly is that me being selective? And even if he was advocating a nerf to CONCORD with a buff to hi sec space dwellers he treats his assumptions as facts when they aren't. They're mere assumptions.

With that said, I personally would love to see a revamp to the bounty system. However, having CONCORD as the force they are now and revamping the bounty mechanics are NOT mutually exclusive. Revamping the whole bounty mechanics is something that all space securities can benefit from, not just hi sec.


It's funny you mention this because I view suicide ganking as exactly that: "press button, collect tears".


"Perpetually inflexible" like the suicide gankers that are currently having ***** attacks over a change that is barely scratching their bottom line? Or did you mean just those other "carebears"?

Listen, I'm not necssarily against making the game harsher, as long as there is still room for players looking to minimize their risk at the cost of rewards. What I find extremely hypocritical is these idiotic grief players yelling "RISK VS REWARD!!1 COLD HARSH UNIVERSE ROCKS!1" while flooding the forums with tears every time CCP even attempts to add a tiny bit of risk to their own professions. FFS, look at all the tears being shed because of this little change.

this

I seriously doubt that the cost of hulls plays such a huge roll in the whether to gank or not decision.... probably less bs's used in the future ganking though

Yes, because I mentioned “stopping”.

The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does.
Incorrect, of course.
No. It's just that you treats my conclusions and opinions as assumptions because you skip and/or ignore the reasoning behind them.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the gankers who have chimed in in this thread have responded with a pretty resounding “meh” and explained how they'll adapt. So that perceived inflexibility and the censored attacks rather seem like yet more of your presumptions about what is supposed to happen instead of what is happening.
Well good! Then we are in agreement on one point at least.

I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. But people are pointing out that absurdly profitable hi-sec professions are being made progressively less challenging by changes which reduce their already minimal risk. Nobody thinks this little insurance change is particularly important except as possibly an indicator of a trend. Taken together with the avoidable war-decs and other changes, it makes people worry about the direction in which the hi-sec game is drifting.

Whether or not "COLD HARSH UNIVERSE ROCKS!1", principles like "Never fly what you can't afford to lose" make the game interesting. Every new player who goes through the tutorial is aware of this, and it is mentioned in many introductory guides. So it almost comes as a disappointment to enter space in your first hauler chock-full of L1 mission loot, tanked with the best Tech-1 shield booster you can afford, and realise how trivial it is to transport that load of goods to the local hub. Apparently people very quickly develop a sense of entitlement that it should always be this way, and you can use that same hauler and same over-populated trade route to ship 100M ISK of L4 mission loot.

The fact that there is a tiny bit of tension even in hi-sec, and the fact that you always have to think about what you're doing, are a big selling point of Eve. It might be scary to the average WoW player who is stuck in the artificial mindset of "PVE" and "PVP" which don't even apply here. But they've already got their game (or will switch to SWTOR), so CCP offer a different experience. It may be a bit more niche, but by sticking to principles of providing a deeper more competitive game, there's probably still a significant audience who appreciate and are attracted by that.