Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This wouldn't reduce the perceived risk for any new players, though - if you're new, you wouldn't have standings for a nice ship to throw away, and if you're a veteran, a T1 BS should be pretty cheap, so making it even cheaper to get one wouldn't change your sense of risk. Again, this is before considering how blitzers could use the system to grind low/null missions for more or less free.

1. The only way this would be remotely feasible is if your free ships were as useful as current noobships for any purpose whatsoever. Why? There are several reasons. The first is economic. The cost of grinding up level 4 standings, then getting unlimited free ships is far less than that of gathering resources, researching blueprints, waiting for products to finish, and all the other tasks necessary to build even the simplest player-built ships. Thus if your free ships are comparable to any player-built ships, any rational player would rather use their free ships instead of buying a player-built ship off the market.

2. The second reason is that your proposal won't get players to try PVP. Every time a PVP engagement occurs, all parties involved are risking the value of their ship. Value in this case means the time spent producing, or paying someone else to produce said ship and mods. It is this sense of value that makes pvp in EVE so thrilling, yet so difficult to get into. The amount of risk people put into a fight tends to be defined by numerous factors, but it isn't zero, as people aren't flying around in just noobships.

3. Your proposal, while it may have some effect in the short term, would simply shift the value of ships used in pvp towards a new equilibrium. For example, if your free battleship were comparable to player-built battleships, then many ships would be obsolete. EVE's meta-game would quickly shift towards ships that can defeat your free ship, and everything from mineral prices to the character bazaar would also shift to accommodate. You would basically need to fly a capital, tech3, or maybe marauders or else you wouldn't be able to compete at all. The prices of those ships would move towards peoples' sense of risk and you'd be back to square one.

4. The only way to completely nullify the sense of risk in pvp is to make it so your free ship is more useful than any player-built ship. You can easily see how this affects the game by going on the test server where all ships require no time to acquire, and thus have no value.

5. While I think players' sense of risk is a major obstacle in getting into the PVP side of EVE, I really don't think giving everyone free ships will help in the long run. Instead, I would suggest encouraging those players to share the risk of pvp with others, thus lowering the sense of individual risk (in essense lowering the barriers to socializing) as a more viable solution to this problem.

So, this idea shot so far above your head, that you assumed it had to be a joke.

Ironically, that makes your response the actual troll, as the intent of this idea is other than your assumptions.

I actually do wonder how far you managed to read of it, before you took that mistaken leap of faith.

Eve lives by the building and destruction of ships, noobships are useful to protect your pod, but are slow and aren´t very useful. The game don´t need a noobship in every size. Buy some ships or build you some by your own. It is not that hard to get the money to buy a cruiser or a battleship.

And your proposed to give faction/pirat ships out, please explain it to me how this would be balanced. Why should i buy ships and not take intead of build ships a lot of friends and with free ships. So i would win the fight without the trouble of loosing ISK ?

The destruction is a needed part of the game without it the inflation would rise strongly.

I doubt that your idea would be good for the game.


still agains your idea

-1

1. As has already been pointed out, these would not be comparable to player built ships.
That has been a point defined under balance, unless someone actually believes the devs would do otherwise.

What would these ships do then? Are they simply noobships with bigger models? If so, they'd be just cute vanity items, which I guess would be harmless. But if they're not, and are useful (preferable to player-built ships in any way whether it be PVP,PVE, industry, etc.) then the economy will be affected. It might help if you put some actual statistics down, so that we can see how exactly they compare to various player-built ships.

1. But it would never be an endless supply. At some point, the player behind each ship would need to exit the game for sleep, family obligation, work, or something similar.
I find it loses credibility to suggest that ships with proven vulnerabilities could accomplish more than superior fighting vessels.
Unless, of course, you are predicting an influx of previously non-pvp players, who don't ever need to log out.

Not even the goons actually pull that one off, they simply have so many numbers it just seems that way.

2. Here, you apparently suggest that the so-called free ships would be piloted by players of such skill, that the difference in quality alongside known vulnerabilities, would be clearly overcome.
There are many gate-camps which have a proven track record of persistently destroying shipping, and of better quality targets defensively.
If you mean to suggest that great numbers of players will suddenly work together, that do not already do so, then we will see EVE activity levels go up accordingly.

3. Player attitudes? Correct, at least up to a point.
Keep in mind, however, that attitudes are based off of perception most of all.

Not wishing to go into an area is often based off of a simple mental equation:
Part A: A ship valued below X is unlikely to accomplish anything significant, unless enough numbers are present.
Part B: A ship valued above X is more than I can afford to lose, all other factors becoming meaningless.

And the less often considered, Part C.
Part C: The players for whom parts A & B above were not limiting factors, are the ones already willing to play in null or lowsec.

Parts A & B have effectively become a filter, causing some types of player to move to riskier areas, and others to remain outside of them.
This idea won't make all other players suddenly jump up and take risks.
Only a fool would claim or believe that, and I am not catering to that view.

But, it will give a new group the defining key which could cause a significant number to at least TRY this type of play.

And to me, that is worthy of consideration.

Four pages of people telling you why this is an awful idea not enough?.