EVE General Discussion

My friends and I are still laughing at the Hulk thing, but since you are taking this seriously, I will try to as well. So, here is my comment:

The original form of an idea or object is seldom perfect. To claim that all of EVE's original concepts should have remained intact is to not budge from a purist principle. Many changes to EVE gameplay over the years have been necessary, such as changes to ECM, nano, nos, et cetera. Granted, some changes were a bit heavy-handed and went too far. However, the reasoning behind them was sound; oversights needed to be fixed for the sake of general balance. This is how continuous balancing works.

Some of the upcoming fixes, like hybrid re-balancing, supercapital nerfs, and even the Dramiel being knocked down a peg or two are necessary (and this is coming from an occasional Dramiel pilot). However, these changes affect balance, and not the core integrity of the game. They lie in contrast to some of the sought-after changes by the community, such as getting rid of ganking, adding absolute safety to high-sec, and so on. These latter changes do affect the core integrity of the game. Will they ruin EVE? No one knows. I would venture a guess that yes, they would, but then the metrics I use might differ from those of other people. One thing is certain: they would remove the things that make this game what it is, and what is has been since its inception; a conflict-centric environment.

Therefore...


Your plea only really applies to the people who wish for EVE's core gameplay to be changed; the people who wish for non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety. How does it apply to people who make posts decrying non-consensual pvp nerfs, such as the recent change to the war system? The change comes in response to people who complained to CCP to make the game easier for them, and harder for empire pvpers. Shouldn't your posts be directed at these people instead?

Don't overlook the fact that he made that comment as a response to an assumption that pvpers are asking CCP to make the game easier for them. In actuality, the exact opposite thing is happening: CCP is caving in to carebear demands to put a damper (if not a full stop) on non-consensual pvp, while the pvpers are desperately trying to get CCP to hold back on these changes.

So you agree with LeeMinKi that people need to stop appealing to CCP to make it easier for them and harder for others, but at the same time you also think that CCP is doing the right thing by giving in to people who are complaining that it's too difficult for them and too easy for others, and want CCP to reverse the order by making things easier for them while making things more difficult for others?

Is this correct?

How about bluebears?Easy to compete against the ''lol empire carebears'' replies

QFT

People think the wardec changes are new, mostly because they are new. They must be, because anyone that has been around even for a few years knows that CCP has never been happy with the wardec system, and they temselves referred to it as a "grief for pay" system.

So any changes to the wardec system are not a response to high sec whiners, they are a response to CCP's own unhappiness with their own game design. And so the recent wardec changes don't belong in what is already a ******** irrelevant argument.

It IS a "sandbox" yes? the people will choose to go where the people choose to go, and no amount of destroying one play style will send them into another. They WILL leave instead. Dont kid yourselves.

One final post on this subject and I'll leave you to it.
Obviously, the players that want to constantly make changes to force behavior onto other players will never agree with me. It's a part of their gameplay.
Those who desire to control others are funny people. They'll join neighborhood watches so they can harass your kids when they find them skateboarding on the sidewalk. They'll join Cub Scouts so they can order the little buggers about with all of the respect and admiration due a socially ******** adult who spends all of his time with children. They'll run for city council so that they can order city wide recycling (not because it makes any sense, but because they'll have you on your hands and knees in the kitchen sorting through coffee grounds and tampons to ensure that you don't receive a fine).
I get all of that, and maybe there is something to be said for that aspect of the metagame.
But if you introduce changes to the game in an attempt to force or enforce a certain behavior it is not a sandbox. It is scripted play. You may, of course, continue to play your own way, but you'll be ice skating uphill while the lemmings coast to the bottom.

There is one sure test of how well all of this has been working for the game. It's been going on for years now so you can't say we haven't given it a chance. So lets pull some sample data. Lets survey the employees of CCP who've been laid off and find out how all of this is working for them.

ahahahaha blue to everyone?

you have no idea.