EVE General Discussion

And even with all these changes, the EVE community is not all PvE so unless this one is some kind of real complete flipper for everybody's mind, your argument is still invalid.

Your reference to BF was wrong even if taken with sarcasm in mind. Try again.

As much as you are trying to confuse the situation, yes.

Less destruction yes, significantly less, no. It's like how using a credit card technically gives you a risk of going blind, since you could stab yourself in the eyes repeatedly with it, but you don't. People could be awoxed by letting in more players, but they don't so the risk is already mitigated at the cost of new players being rejected from player interaction. The change is to remove that cost by mechanically mitigating that risk. Yes, overall the risk will be reduced, but that reduction will be minimal and far outweighed by the benefits to new players.

Arguably though if new player retention can be increased, the addition of players into the game will provide an increase in conflict in the long run, since players who are engaged with others early have been shown to continue to engage with other players later on (last fanfest).


And I agree that high sec reward is far too high for the overall risk in highsec and that needs to be addressed, but the corp issue is at most a minimal part of the highsec risk. All it does is push players away from each other so they aren't likely to engage with other players at all, further pushing them into the solo missioner/miner group. I'd rather see newbies engaged more with an easier start while longer term highsec players bear the brunt of reward nerfs and risk increases.

Corp aggression is really a newbie focused area, since most veteran highsec carebears will already know it's safer to be in NPC corps or alone, and more risky to corp up with others. It should be safer to corp up and less rewarding to play alone.

Ain;'t that sweet, Lucas Kell thinks people who would have quit EVE if it allowed the awoxing that's been possible for 11 years will engage in 'conflict' later on lol.

You're right. Now fixed.

Mr Epeen

BUT BUT, they (the people who don't belong and who won't even stay if you 100% carebear thempark this game) have money, and money is obviously more important than the integrity and spirit of the game! Don't you know nothin?

Tears... flowing the other way... how strange and beautiful mother nature can be.

Still don't like em tho... too salty.. not sweet at all.

Shooting fish in a barrel is about as themepark as it gets.

Undocking in a barge is about 100x more risky than sitting on a gate in a ship that is replaced for free after you shoot a target with no guns. Or ratting deep in the blue of null. Or killing corpies with zero consequence.

The most risk averse whiners in this forum are the very people that claim to want the harsh and dangerous universe.

Except when it concerns them, I guess.

Mr Epeen

i agree and i can see why the discussion makes a lot of the vets nervous
but if this results in less people sitting in npc corps till the end of time i.e. more more player corps (read targets) then im for it.
obviously wardecs and/or corp mechanics need a change (way to easy to avoid) and ill see what they do with those before i start flipping out and shedding tears.

point taken though, the "one more nerf" seems strong with this

Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something.

Now go tackle the topic of highsec reward being too high.