EVE General Discussion

I trust Merrian Webster over you, in matters of definition of a word.

And anyway you are not adressing the main issue: with awox an option, the optimal strategy is to not recruit nor be recruited by people you don't know.

This leads to not recruiting noobs, and noobs not risking to be recruited. Please iluminate me on how is that of any good for the game.

I don;t know who's principle that is, but it's certainly not CCPs. Otherwise we need to go back and see the removal of the new industry system, scan probe launch configurations, the safety locking system the exploration scanner (the list goes on for a long time). I also assume you'll be wanting then to stop putting in the multi-sell feature too.

I'm not going to stop posting because some neckbeard on the internet is getting all angry because CCP are sharing their sandbox lol. I'll just ignore the vast majority of your tearful little posts. The change is coming though, so get over it.

The highlighted part makes no sense, as their are no "against all odds" when you tie down players who would be creating various kinds of content...till CCP decides that that kind fo content is not wanted.

"hard and cold" is the BASE of EVE, the core, the corner stone. Without that it's just a submarine simulator. Without people trying to kill me, saving the damn Damsel for the millionth time of sending Dread Pirate Scarlett to her death another millionth time is....bullcrap.



So it's ok to limit avenues in this game as long as it's happening to other people? The need and ability to adapt are noble, but that says nothing about whether a change is good or bad overall. in real life I could adapt to becoming homeless, doesn't mean i want to try it.

This thing that CCP wants to change (like other things they ahve changes) has value even if the so-caleld 'victims' and their enablers don't understand that. You don't take valuable things out of a game unless you are SURE of a net gain from it, and no on can be sure.



I just don't know what to say about this part , but it smacks of the (for lack of a better label) "pvp purists" mentality where people look down on an activity if one side isn't shooting back. It's crazy to me, because one thing EVE has in common with real life is that no on ever promised anyone a fair or even fight. i don't care than 5 guys try to jump my Rattlesnake in low sec, all i personally care about is surviving.

The part about fire in their belly vs fire in their face and concern about CCPs subs is just plain funny. It reeks of Kumbaya lol, which brings up the question "why play a game where 98% of the ships have weapons hardpoints and bonuses to weapons if you think more people should be bro-ing out with each other?".

"Shooting people in the face" (making this people mad thus giving them a reason to keep playing EVE, because saving Damsels get's tired after the millionth time for all but the weirdest of us) is the best way to retain the kinds of people EVE needs. Hungry, ruthless, creative, inventive, cunning, INTERESTING people.

Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted.

Perhaps you should ask CODE.

Ok, it seams this is a bit hard to understand, so I try again.

Botting is a violation of the EULA. If we encounter a player that acts like a bot we report him to CCP as it is their business to remove him. If we can kill him with low amount of effort we will, otherwise there is no point in wasting ISK on illegal players.

Bot-aspirants get blown up, nothing new here. And it does not matter if he is 10 years old or a month. They usually fly untanked stuff because they think highsec is safe. And maybe in a not so far future they will actually be right if people like you get their way. The AFK mining paradise is coming.

Now there are also a lot of big Procurer and Skiff fleets around and they may use Isboxer or just multibox by hand. They are not bots, and just because you like to call them bots this does not change their nature. I actually consider them more active than a AFK retriever, as they push the mining gameplay to a level where constant interaction is actually needed. If you don't like them, go ahead and do something about it. I usually use a 100MN Stabber, they are quite effective if they don't pay for a permit.

You can also do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__b8fCbviVU&feature
http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/10/kills-of-week_19.html

But let's go back to the topic and talk a bit more about how you still have no solid argument about why the safari gameplay should be removed other that some sort of "think about the children!!"-fallacy.

You can still have inter corp competition and setup test...

You can still do this in low, null, or WH space.

But that would involve leaving the safety of hi-sec.


Hang on, why is it ok for awoxxers to practice pvp in the safe folds of hi-sec????


But there marks should face the cold hard truth of Eve.

I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb.


How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb?






CCP Fozzie
-
To address Funky’s comment about dumb people. I really don’t think that you can assume
that someone who joins a group in an online game and doesn't assume immediately that means that
person gets immunity from
all of the games normal consequences for shooting them is dumb. That’s the
game being dumb and the player being normal and smart.

OK, but your question should be broken down, the AND kinda makes it impossible to answer correctly.

Remove the corp on corp free fire zone. Will, in the short run, decrease player conflict? Yes, unless awoxers are willing to lose a ship to kill a corpmate.

Increase content? I hope so. If a few more people join corps, if a few more corps recruit without worrying about bad things happening then we have more people, more content. If not, then I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease.

As I asked before and Mags magnified on, we throw terms around without a solid base of definitions. PvP, carebear, PvE. You log on, you could argue that you are doing PvP by some folks definition. Others think it involves ships exploding. If we are ALL doing PvP then what are Carebears? PvPers just like the rest.

I did not mean the religion reference earlier as an insult but anybody who reads these forums on a regular basis KNOW that there are some fanatical supporters of specific playstyles. In that regard I am an agnostic. I support the game as a whole and closingh an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.

m

Oh OK, so it's fine that scan probes can be launched in 1 click, without having to train up skills to use 8 probes anymore because of :reasons: but a change to remove corp aggression, a mechanic which the majority of uses for have now been removed is not. What about high sec safety lock mechanics? Those must have made you rage out more than this with the amount of risk they removed.

People do want to be exposed to EVE game environment, you just seem to have a warped view of what that environment is. It's supposed to be tough and challenging and have players wanting you dead at every turn, but that doesn't mean that every single inch of it is supposed to be ridiculously risky. If it was, concord wouldn't exist, and neither would NPC corps, wardecs would be automatic and it would be possible to force people to undock.

At the end of the day new player need more support than vets. That's a simple fact. CCP are realising this more and more watching their player retention go out of the window, and they are now taking steps to engage more players. If you don't like it, it's not them that can sod off to STO (which by the way is dire).

By the way, if you are saying that a game with safety mechanics is low population, thus safety mechanics = bad game design, then look at WoW, with far more subscribers and the most carebear friendly gameplay on the MMO market or FFXIV, still with more subscribers than EVE and a similar carebear friendly gameplay style. I think it's safe to say that as long as the content is engaging, some safety mechanics are not a problem.

Thanks for being a fan.