These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Call to support the High Sec PVE/ Industrial subscribers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miniemoo
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2014-12-29 20:23:45 UTC
I must say isnt it the Miners and builders that make the Pvp ships.

Start a cartel and raise the prices of them ships they use to kill you in drastically more expensive in certain areas make them pay for there modules.
Tess Emmagan
Rob Aus Holland Industries
#42 - 2014-12-31 03:45:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You say that, but what you really want is to put "conditions" on my actions, taking away my player freedom to benefit yourself. I see what your true objective is, and it's certainly not game balance.


Please stop pretending you somehow have the 'right' to player freedom. Because, like freedom of speech, if you have that right, so does everyone else. Turning that around; war deccers are taking away the player freedom of those who do no enjoy PVP to benefit those who do enjoy it.

This is an endless loop of biased opinions going round and round. The PVPers like the current mechanics because it gives them easy targets. The non-PVPers hate the current mechanics because they're essentially being griefed to sh*t over and over without any means of properly defending themselves (with the added note that, no, fighting back does not equal defending).

But if you want to pull the 'player freedom' card, fine. If the attackers can have the 'player freedom' to declare a random indy corp their b*tch for a week. Then the defenders should have the 'player freedom' to say 'f*ck you, go bother someone else' and slam the door shut in their face. If the defenders manage to achieve some sort of quota, objective, however you want to go about it, the war ends. Period. If the attackers want to prevent that from happening they'll have to do more than play station games the moment a serious threat undocks.

That is balanced gameplay and gives both sides the player freedom you want so badly.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#43 - 2014-12-31 10:00:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Tess Emmagan wrote:

Please stop pretending you somehow have the 'right' to player freedom. Because, like freedom of speech, if you have that right, so does everyone else. Turning that around; war deccers are taking away the player freedom of those who do no enjoy PVP to benefit those who do enjoy it.

This is an endless loop of biased opinions going round and round. The PVPers like the current mechanics because it gives them easy targets. The non-PVPers hate the current mechanics because they're essentially being griefed to sh*t over and over without any means of properly defending themselves (with the added note that, no, fighting back does not equal defending).

But if you want to pull the 'player freedom' card, fine. If the attackers can have the 'player freedom' to declare a random indy corp their b*tch for a week. Then the defenders should have the 'player freedom' to say 'f*ck you, go bother someone else' and slam the door shut in their face. If the defenders manage to achieve some sort of quota, objective, however you want to go about it, the war ends. Period. If the attackers want to prevent that from happening they'll have to do more than play station games the moment a serious threat undocks.

That is balanced gameplay and gives both sides the player freedom you want so badly.

You seem to have the all-too-comon misperception that there this game has PvP and non-PvP in it. This is wrong. Everything is PvP - Eve is purported to come from Everyone vs. Everyone. Practically everything you do is in competetion with other players, not just direct ship-to-ship combat. You are playing in a competetive sandbox where your actions affect me and everyone else, and therefore everyone else needs to be able to affect your gameplay.

What you are asking is akin to showing up to a baseball game and telling the umpire that your team only wants to bat so you can score runs, but not to take the field because you don't enjoy that "play style". Eve has a set of rules that include you being attacked by wardec, messed with, stolen from, suicide ganked, your profits market PvPed away, your asteroids mined out from under you and numerous other ways that players can compete for power and resources. You do not get to isolate yourself from the sandbox because you deem yourself a "non-PvPer".

Practically all the forms of competetion in this game are "non-consensual" in the sense you don't get to pre-arrange your "fights" be them industrial production, the race for PvE sites, market PvP, or a lowsec roam. Wardecs are valid way to engage with other players and can happen because of competetion for markets or asteroid/ice belts, because someone ran their mouth off, completely predatory in the hunt for a ransom, or just for fun - the reason doesn't matter - if you are going to make a corporation to pursue an profit-making venture you have to defend it. That is what a competetive sandbox is all about. Wardecs cannot be made completly opt-in and consensual as you are asking, or the sandbox breaks. Besides, we already have duels and intracorp agressions (for now) for completly consensual highsec combat.

Now I am not saying wardecs are perfect - the current mechanic is far from perfect - but as a game design principle they need to be in the game. But take a look at the devblog about the most recent changes to the Wardec mechanic to see how they were at least envisioned to work. You are suppose to defend your corp and its assets, either by yourself, or by hireing mercenaries to do that for you. There cannot be a way to "end the war" without the consent of the aggressor, or what is the point of the mechanic in the first place?

Eve gives a large amount of player freedom, but you are not free to play in isolation of the other players - that is what a sandbox is all about. You are free to play Eve how you like, but that doesn't mean the way you like should be the optimal way to play. The game is structured to make it better to play in groups and with friends - you can play solo but don't expect it to be the easiest way. So recruit some ship PvP players to your corp, make an arrangement with another combat corp to defend you in exchange for some of your industry, hire mercenaries to defend your corp, do anything other than coming to the forums and begging for increased safety so you can make ISK for yourself risk-free.

Play the game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tess Emmagan
Rob Aus Holland Industries
#44 - 2014-12-31 16:37:01 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Now I am not saying wardecs are perfect - the current mechanic is far from perfect - but as a game design principle they need to be in the game. But take a look at the devblog about the most recent changes to the Wardec mechanic to see how they were at least envisioned to work. You are suppose to defend your corp and its assets, either by yourself, or by hireing mercenaries to do that for you. There cannot be a way to "end the war" without the consent of the aggressor, or what is the point of the mechanic in the first place?

Eve gives a large amount of player freedom, but you are not free to play in isolation of the other players - that is what a sandbox is all about. You are free to play Eve how you like, but that doesn't mean the way you like should be the optimal way to play. The game is structured to make it better to play in groups and with friends - you can play solo but don't expect it to be the easiest way. So recruit some ship PvP players to your corp, make an arrangement with another combat corp to defend you in exchange for some of your industry, hire mercenaries to defend your corp, do anything other than coming to the forums and begging for increased safety so you can make ISK for yourself risk-free.

Play the game.


Please read my posts again. Never have I said that wardecs should be removed or that PVP should be a choice. All I said is that the way they currently work is stupid. That includes the notion that the agressor should have all the power to end or prolong the wardec.

There can be a way for the defender to end the wardec perfectly fine. Obviously it shouldn't be something that can be done from the safety of a station. The defender will have to go out and they will have to fight the enemy to accomplish some sort of objective. But if the defender wants to make an effort at ending the wardec then that option should be available as long as they're willing to work for it.

This works two fold, because it gives the defender an actual reason to fight a fight they do not want to be involved in, which actually gives the attacker more to shoot. At the same time it gives the defender a shot at ending the war early if that's what they desire. It gives both sides a reason to fight instead of just the attacker, which is ultimately more fun for everyone. Certainly more fun than the current situation where the defender has absolutely no incentive to even go out and fight.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#45 - 2014-12-31 19:00:43 UTC
Tess Emmagan wrote:

Please read my posts again. Never have I said that wardecs should be removed or that PVP should be a choice. All I said is that the way they currently work is stupid. That includes the notion that the agressor should have all the power to end or prolong the wardec.

There can be a way for the defender to end the wardec perfectly fine. Obviously it shouldn't be something that can be done from the safety of a station. The defender will have to go out and they will have to fight the enemy to accomplish some sort of objective. But if the defender wants to make an effort at ending the wardec then that option should be available as long as they're willing to work for it.

This works two fold, because it gives the defender an actual reason to fight a fight they do not want to be involved in, which actually gives the attacker more to shoot. At the same time it gives the defender a shot at ending the war early if that's what they desire. It gives both sides a reason to fight instead of just the attacker, which is ultimately more fun for everyone. Certainly more fun than the current situation where the defender has absolutely no incentive to even go out and fight.


I read your posts and you a proposing very "un-Eve"-like artifical victory conditions for wardecs. As I indicated this is quite silly, as there can be quite varied "victory condtions" for the aggressor - perhaps he wants kills, but perhaps he just wants to disrupt supply lines or to remove POCOs, or just wants to be paid to end the dec, or maybe just because he doesn't like you and wants to make a point. Eve is a complex sandbox and reasons for all actions including wardecs cannot be pigeonholed easily so making wardecs into some sort of PvP battleground with defined victory conditions is a poor idea.

What is needed is some way to actually make the defenders want to defend their corp and assets. Make more things like POCOs that improve all aspect of industry and PvE so are valuble but vulnerable. Then intrinsically the defender has to fight or lose their assets and the bonuses they provide. Besides even if you had an artificial mechanism to end the war early, a determined attacker that wanted to disrupt your corp would just use multiple wardeccing corps to do it so I am not sure what you think you will solve with this.

Being in a wardec is not the end of the world. Your time in Eve should not just be spent trying to get out of them - if you pick one up fight a bit, you might find out you like it. Or if not, then just adopt "war-time" proceedures and adapt to it. Compete with them as was designed.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#46 - 2015-01-01 01:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Tess Emmagan wrote:

Please stop pretending you somehow have the 'right' to player freedom.


No.


Quote:

Because, like freedom of speech, if you have that right, so does everyone else. Turning that around; war deccers are taking away the player freedom of those who do no enjoy PVP to benefit those who do enjoy it.


That's like saying that the people playing Call of Duty correctly are taking away the freedom of people who want to pretend that Call of Duty is a refugee saving simulator.

I hate to break this to you, but you do not have any right to force the game to revolve around your delusions of how it should work.


Quote:

If the defenders manage to achieve some sort of quota, objective, however you want to go about it, the war ends. Period. If the attackers want to prevent that from happening they'll have to do more than play station games the moment a serious threat undocks.

That is balanced gameplay and gives both sides the player freedom you want so badly.


No, what it does is try and put handcuffs on the people who are playing the game correctly, for the sake of the people who are not.

You do not have a right to be left alone in New Eden. Anywhere.

So I ask you this, why are you trying to weaken an already weak mechanic? Right now the defenders can snap their fingers and use the dec dodge exploit to make wars go away, now you want to slap some wackassed conditions on the attacker?

You can do that the moment people aren't allowed to drop corp in a war, how about that?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Iain Cariaba
#47 - 2015-01-01 20:25:01 UTC
Tess Emmagan wrote:
But if you want to pull the 'player freedom' card, fine. If the attackers can have the 'player freedom' to declare a random indy corp their b*tch for a week. Then the defenders should have the 'player freedom' to say 'f*ck you, go bother someone else' and slam the door shut in their face.

The thing is, you do currently have that option.

I got sick of getting wardeced in highsec many years ago, and shortly after I ended up moving out to nullsec. Wardecs don't mean **** in nullsec. PvE, industry, mining, exploration, even missions are all available in nullsec. Lots of renter corps are recruiting, or you can rent your own space. The thing about living in nullsec is that you can't delude yourself into thinking you're safe all the time.

If you want to avoid wardecs, move to a place where they don't matter. After a couple months living there, you'll learn how to deal with people out to get you, and then even highsec wardecs won't matter to you, because you now know how to see and avoid hostiles.
Tess Emmagan
Rob Aus Holland Industries
#48 - 2015-01-01 21:42:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I hate to break this to you, but you do not have any right to force the game to revolve around your delusions of how it should work.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

No, what it does is try and put handcuffs on the people who are playing the game correctly, for the sake of the people who are not.


Damn, you couldn't contradict yourself any harder if you tried. Besides the people who are 'not playing correctly' feel the exact same way, which brings us back to going around in circles.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You do not have a right to be left alone in New Eden. Anywhere.


For the tenth time, this entire thread is not about wanting to be left alone. It's about high sec wardecs currently being used as a major griefing tool. Purposely disrupting a specific play style purely for the sake of disrupting it, knowing that your enemy can't do anything in return. That sh*t is broken and needs to be fixed. No-one in this thread advocates wanting the ability to be left completely alone, because that would be silly in a game like EVE. What this thread does advocate, though, is that game mechanics should be fair for both sides. In no circumstance should player group A be allowed to disrupt the game for player group B without player group B being able to do anything about it.

Currently, whenever a high sec industrial corp gets wardecced chances are they are outmatched in every way from the get go. Fighting back would only serve to entertain the wardeccers and thus prolong the war (because hey! They shoot back! FUN!). For a high sec industrial corp the ONLY winning move during a wardec is NOT to fight and to deny the attacker their kills (effectively making them waste the cost of the dec). Which means docking up or going to ridiculous lengths to move your operation for a week. That can not and should not be the way the game works. It's as simple as that.

Now you as a PVPer on the attacking side of things may say 'well then go train pvp! Go out in T1 frigs! If you can't defend your stuff you're not allowed to have it in the first place' and all kinds of solutions that require defending players to adapt to YOUR play style. Which brings me back to:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I hate to break this to you, but you do not have any right to force the game to revolve around your delusions of how it should work.


High sec wardecs are broken. Period. This thread asks for a solution that makes both sides happy. Not something that makes one side happy (like right now). So instead of constantly pretending that everything is fine, try placing yourself in the defender's shoes for a moment and try to find a middle ground so something productive comes out of this thread.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#49 - 2015-01-01 22:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Tess Emmagan wrote:
For the tenth time, this entire thread is not about wanting to be left alone. It's about high sec wardecs currently being used as a major griefing tool.

Poh-tay-toe... poh-tah-toe.

One man's griefing is another man's gameplay. There is no real "line in the sand" because griefing outside of how CCP defines it is purely subjective.

I can claim that all industrialists, miners, and traders are "griefing me" and my playstyle because I have no ability to stop them from jacking up prices on the market (outside of either doing market stuff myself or blowing up everything coming and going from a trade hub).

Tess Emmagan wrote:
Purposely disrupting a specific play style purely for the sake of disrupting it, knowing that your enemy can't do anything in return. That sh*t is broken and needs to be fixed. No-one in this thread advocates wanting the ability to be left completely alone, because that would be silly in a game like EVE. What this thread does advocate, though, is that game mechanics should be fair for both sides. In no circumstance should player group A be allowed to disrupt the game for player group B without player group B being able to do anything about it.

Welcome to EVE where...

- all play styles are interconnected to each other in some way.

- the more interconnected certain opposing playstyles are, the more they inherrently disrupt each other (ex. building versus destroying)

- one cornerstone of EVE is that the game itself allows you to do everything you want... including upset other players. This is intended because you affect other players with each action you take. If you can build, others can destroy it. If you destroy, others can build to stop it.

Tess Emmagan wrote:
Currently, whenever a high sec industrial corp gets wardecced chances are they are outmatched in every way from the get go.

Welcome to the reality that every small low-sec group has to deal with on a daily basis. Except they have it worse (because of capitals and hotdropping).

If your enemy is bigger, fly smarter and/or faster.
If your enemy is smarter, fly bigger and/or faster.
If your enemy is faster, fly bigger and/or smarter.
If you enemy is all of the above... make yourself as annoying as possible to not be worthwhile.


Tess Emmagan wrote:
Fighting back would only serve to entertain the wardeccers and thus prolong the war (because hey! They shoot back! FUN!). For a high sec industrial corp the ONLY winning move during a wardec is NOT to fight and to deny the attacker their kills (effectively making them waste the cost of the dec). Which means docking up or going to ridiculous lengths to move your operation for a week. That can not and should not be the way the game works. It's as simple as that.

That is classic defeatism. Bravo!

What ever happened to the days when people would ask for ways to fight off unwanted wardecs? Has the Griffin, Blackbird and other Ewar ships become "useless?"
I remember in the not too distant past that when EVE University was War Decced they would fly groups of ECM, Sensor Dampening, Tracking Disruption ships. Sure, quite a few of them died... but they made the entire war so frustrating for the aggressors they rarely declared war against them again. And the losses never really mattered due to Insurance and cheapo fittings.


Tess Emmagan wrote:
Now you as a PVPer on the attacking side of things may say 'well then go train pvp! Go out in T1 frigs! If you can't defend your stuff you're not allowed to have it in the first place' and all kinds of solutions that require defending players to adapt to YOUR play style.

As I pointed out on the first page;

PvPers have the learn the basics of PvE, Industry, trading, and mining (otherwise they have trouble managing their money and equipment).
What makes PvEers, Industrialists, traders, and miners so special that they should not have learn the basics of PvP and how to fight back?


Moreover... another cornerstone of EVE is; if you can't defend it (however you can), you should not build it. No one is exempt or given "special consideration" with regards to that rule.


instead of constantly pretending that everything is fine, try placing yourself in the defender's shoes for a moment and try to find a middle ground so something productive comes out of this thread.

We are already at the "middle ground" compared to where we were 5 years ago.

The biggest problem is not the system. It is the mentality of the players. THAT needs to change.

How did you Veterans start?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#50 - 2015-01-01 23:39:20 UTC
Tess Emmagan wrote:
High sec wardecs are broken. Period. This thread asks for a solution that makes both sides happy. Not something that makes one side happy (like right now). So instead of constantly pretending that everything is fine, try placing yourself in the defender's shoes for a moment and try to find a middle ground so something productive comes out of this thread.

While I agree highsec wardecs have some issues, they lie in the lack of incentives to form and defend highsec corporations, not in their ability to enable non-consensual PvP between players. Eve is a PvP game. Highsec was always intended to be a place of conflict and struggle, not a place players can do industry in the absence of risk.

But Ok, I'll bite. What is your solution to allow players who do not like to participate in direct ship PvP to avoid it, without giving them they ability to opt-out of a war (either before or after it has started)?

CCP has already tried to solve these apparently contradictory positions with the current mechanics. You are suppose to invite friends (which you can do for free) or hire mercenaries to defend you. Eve is a MMORPG. If you don't like some aspect of the game (ship PVP in this case) you are suppose to find some people that do and offer your skills (in this case Industry) or ISK to complement your skills. What you are not suppose to do is come to the forums and complain that the game is "broken" because you refuse to use the tools available to defend yourself.

I would be happy to discuss the merits of a specific proposal that would correct any imbalance with the current mechanics but from your posts, you seem to have nothing specific to point to other than they are "broken" and used to "grief". Eve is all about "griefing" your rivals - it is a competetive sandbox where we are all vying for power and riches - it is not a space utopia simulator where everyone gets along. The last pass over the wardec mechanics gave all the cards to the defender (free allies, increased costs for the attacker, etc.) plus the trump card of dec shedding by folding and reforming a corp being no longer considered an exploit. I cannot see what else can be done to stack the deck in favour of the defender.

There is a place for industrialists in this game - building things is an integral part of Eve. If you find building things fun, then there are ways you can do only that in the game. But if so, you will have to find allies somewhere to protect your assets because destruction is the opposite side of the coin and equally integral. If you cannot accept both as part of Eve, then perhaps this is not the game for you.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2015-01-02 00:50:21 UTC
Tess Emmagan wrote:

High sec wardecs are broken. Period. This thread asks for a solution that makes both sides happy. Not something that makes one side happy (like right now). So instead of constantly pretending that everything is fine, try placing yourself in the defender's shoes for a moment and try to find a middle ground so something productive comes out of this thread.


The only way highsec wardecs are broken right now is that they can be trivially dodged with 100% success rate.

Fix that, and we can talk about weakening them in any way. Until then, since they are 100% voluntary thanks to the dec dodge exploit, you do not get to even hint about nerfing wardecs.

A "middle ground" doesn't mean taking things away from one side. If you want a middle ground then it starts with giving up dec dodging. Period.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Malcorath Sacerdos
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2015-01-02 09:39:58 UTC
the issue would be easally solvable if the defending corp could bribe concord to end the war with say equal amount of isk to stop the war cold as the aggresor would pay to start it?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#53 - 2015-01-02 10:00:27 UTC
Malcorath Sacerdos wrote:
the issue would be easally solvable if the defending corp could bribe concord to end the war with say equal amount of isk to stop the war cold as the aggresor would pay to start it?

That is a way to opt out of the war and kinda breaks the purpose of them. Plus, it is a blatant example of "ISK-tanking" and would totally favour older, established players and render new players completely impotent. This suggestion is bad game design and won't be implemented.

Plus, if you think this will give you increased safety, you might be surprised to find out just how deep the pockets of your enemies actually are...

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Sir Richard Arkwright
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#54 - 2015-01-04 13:43:57 UTC
Tess Emmagan wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You say that, but what you really want is to put "conditions" on my actions, taking away my player freedom to benefit yourself. I see what your true objective is, and it's certainly not game balance.


Please stop pretending you somehow have the 'right' to player freedom. Because, like freedom of speech, if you have that right, so does everyone else. Turning that around; war deccers are taking away the player freedom of those who do no enjoy PVP to benefit those who do enjoy it.

.


If CCP want to retain players who just want to PVE and Manufacture then there needs to be a way for the subscribers to opt out of wars..
I know it comes as a total shock that there are many many subscribers that never pvp , they have not the time, interest to commit to the hours pvp operations consume..
They enjoy playing the elements of the game that ccp have developed ..mission arcs..exploration..mining...NOT PVP if the only option is to be in an NPC corporation then theres a problem with the social gaming mechanisms.

Yes there needs to be a war mechanism and avoiding it should have heavy penalties...ie if you may pay higher taxes to concord, higher refine % , not permitted to deploy pos towers, pocos...maybe even docking rights are restricted / gates blocked?

This gives the fledgling corporations a chance to establish themselves and choose to deploy a pos, make the step up to compete with the pvpers.

likewise make the war statistics count for something as an incentive for the experienced industrialist/pve pilot to work out the correct end to load ammo into a turret...

standings increases in the territory of the corp base of operations? tax bonuses ?

Larger alliances such as mine can then choose where we position ourselves and the risk / exposure we are prepared to defend...no doubt we would still be war dec'd every week ...implementing all the usual standard operating procedures...but we would have a reason to engage the enemy instead of just avoiding giving them the pvp and kills they want.

As Tess said this is just going to go round the houses..

PVP pilots don't get it that Indi guys want to just indi and pve
and PVE pilots don't understand why tears are so valuable...
Black Pedro
Mine.
#55 - 2015-01-04 16:18:16 UTC
Sir Richard Arkwright wrote:

If CCP want to retain players who just want to PVE and Manufacture then there needs to be a way for the subscribers to opt out of wars..
I know it comes as a total shock that there are many many subscribers that never pvp , they have not the time, interest to commit to the hours pvp operations consume..
They enjoy playing the elements of the game that ccp have developed ..mission arcs..exploration..mining...NOT PVP if the only option is to be in an NPC corporation then theres a problem with the social gaming mechanisms.

Yes there needs to be a war mechanism and avoiding it should have heavy penalties...ie if you may pay higher taxes to concord, higher refine % , not permitted to deploy pos towers, pocos...maybe even docking rights are restricted / gates blocked?

This gives the fledgling corporations a chance to establish themselves and choose to deploy a pos, make the step up to compete with the pvpers.

likewise make the war statistics count for something as an incentive for the experienced industrialist/pve pilot to work out the correct end to load ammo into a turret...

standings increases in the territory of the corp base of operations? tax bonuses ?

Larger alliances such as mine can then choose where we position ourselves and the risk / exposure we are prepared to defend...no doubt we would still be war dec'd every week ...implementing all the usual standard operating procedures...but we would have a reason to engage the enemy instead of just avoiding giving them the pvp and kills they want.

As Tess said this is just going to go round the houses..

PVP pilots don't get it that Indi guys want to just indi and pve
and PVE pilots don't understand why tears are so valuable...

This isn't going round-and-round - pretty much everyone here agrees you should be able to play the game as you like, but the point some are forgeting is that if you want the rewards of a significant industrial operation, you need to defend it.

The core of what you ask is in the game already - the NPC corp. It is the place you are suppose to fall back to if you lose everything or where you can start out. If you want a "social corp" that has the same restrictions but with a player created name and a corp channel, then you will find a lot of supporters for that including me.

But PvE and industrial players have to understand that the benefits they are extracting from the sandbox come at the cost that other players might object and try to stop them. There cannot be a way to opt out of wars for "competitive" corps or many things will break in the sandbox so do not expect to CCP to move much on that. Sure, new/casual players should be able to dabble in PvE and Industry in relative safety less efficiently, but as soon as they are competing with the big boys, they need to be disruptable. And they also need to understand that players that do this aren't "griefing" in the EULA breaking sense, but rather just applying competitive pressure on rival players in the sandbox we all live in.

Playing solo and/or with NPC protection in highsec should never be the optimal or most efficient way to pursing ISK-making activities, or what would be the point in players expending the effort and cost to secure their own space or organization? This is just basic game design of a sandbox game. If you just like playng casual then sure, be my guest and play as you like, but don't expect to make the same income as someone who is expending the effort to defend themselves or has made an arrangement with a PvP group to do that for them. Besides, if you are just building things and never actually spending all the ISK you are accumulating on combat, then what do you need the most efficient ISK-making operation for anyway?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#56 - 2015-01-05 00:16:03 UTC
Sir Richard Arkwright wrote:
PVP pilots don't get it that Indi guys want to just indi and pve
and PVE pilots don't understand why tears are so valuable...

And PvP pilots don't understand why Industrial and PvE players feel they are entitled to affect the rest of the game without being affected back.

In this game... no one gets exactly what they want. I JUST want to PvP every time I log in. But I can't. Because PvP requires money. Which I have to pay Industrialists and PvEers. Or do industry or PvE myself.


In other words... the moment I can "opt out" of the economic system of EVE... THAT is the moment Industrialists and PvEers can "opt out" of ships-on-ship violence.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

How did you Veterans start?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#57 - 2015-01-05 10:21:59 UTC
Sir Richard Arkwright wrote:
PVP pilots don't get it that Indi guys want to just indi and pve
and PVE pilots don't understand why tears are so valuable...


It's funny how you mention tears, as it's emotive and you use it in an attempt to bolster your claims. The trouble is you're on weak ground in that regard. The tears only come after extremely poor reactions from your side. This can include foul language, talk of things about ones mother, sexuality, race, wishing all ones family cancer, death threats and a generally bad attitude towards others gaming style.

Now there are many who actually are playing a game and talk to us. They ask for advice and understand the game they are playing. There has even been occasions I have given ISK to pilots I have just blown up. Mostly due to their attitude and giving them a leg up.

So I find your attempt at playing the tear card, rather a hollow one. It's not about the tears. Players only use that to wind up poor players of the game. The ones with no qualms about offering up death threats, or turning a blind eye to them when others do.

And once again. There are NO PvE only pilots. I know you don't like to hear it, but it's fact. All your so called 8 year PvE veterans, are 8 year PvP ones. PvP includes, but is not limited to ship combat. It also involves industry, mining, missions etc etc.

Eve is PvP centric, It revolves around conflict/competition. If you really do not want that, then play on the test server. You'll find the perfect place for your needs. No player conflict/competition. Find a little system somewhere and mine, build, mission to your hearts content.

Of course you won't. Why? Well it'll be boring as hell because there will be no player conflict/competition. Funny that.
ShahFluffers wrote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#58 - 2015-01-19 01:30:47 UTC
Sir Richard Arkwright wrote:
I am not someone who needlessly complains about game issues , I have played since 2003 , ran a successful player alliances for most of that time , the changes CCP has introduced over the years have kept the game fresh but I do worry that the new player experience, the interests of your subscribers who just want to play the game how they want to following the PVE and industrial careers that the game offers.

High Sec should never be safe ....but there should be significant consequences to any acts of aggression there and the game mechanics should enforce that. not circumvent it.


I've only recently returned to Eve after CCP changed force projection and limited the use of things like Isboxer, but I have nearly quit before because of high sec wars (this character is more indy than anything else) so I do sympathise with your points of view. However, I've come to believe that the one thing that holds Eve back is that high sec exists at all and the new player experience should be pushing pilots to 0.0 as soon as possible regardless of intended gameplay style. High sec has so many rules - many appearing complicated even to bitter vets (how many wormhole pilots get popped while just nipping to high sec for a skillbook because they don't understand the rules of engagement for high sec?...ok, not many but I have seen it happen.) Griefers or whatever you'd like to call them understand, exploit and undermine the rules to good effect and they will be the first to adapt to any changes that get made.

If I had made a character right now as an indy character my main concern wouldn't be war decs, it would be suicide ganking (which to me appears to be very much in fashion these days.) So while I sympathise with high sec indy corps that get war decced I also think the solution is simply to move to null, produce local, sell local and rely on players, not concord to defend you.
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#59 - 2015-01-19 02:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Godfrey Silvarna
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:

I've only recently returned to Eve after CCP changed force projection and limited the use of things like Isboxer, but I have nearly quit before because of high sec wars (this character is more indy than anything else) so I do sympathise with your points of view. However, I've come to believe that the one thing that holds Eve back is that high sec exists at all and the new player experience should be pushing pilots to 0.0 as soon as possible regardless of intended gameplay style. High sec has so many rules - many appearing complicated even to bitter vets (how many wormhole pilots get popped while just nipping to high sec for a skillbook because they don't understand the rules of engagement for high sec?...ok, not many but I have seen it happen.) Griefers or whatever you'd like to call them understand, exploit and undermine the rules to good effect and they will be the first to adapt to any changes that get made.

If I had made a character right now as an indy character my main concern wouldn't be war decs, it would be suicide ganking (which to me appears to be very much in fashion these days.) So while I sympathise with high sec indy corps that get war decced I also think the solution is simply to move to null, produce local, sell local and rely on players, not concord to defend you.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. I strongly approve of every word you wrote.

This is exactly the problem with Highsec. Not surprisingly, player retention is best among those players who get drawn away from highsec one way or another during their first few months.

By the way, PvE and Industry in Nullsec and Wormholes can be even safer than these activities are in Highsec... when players build safety networks of their own, instead of relying on those filthy filthy NPC:s. There is a huge difference between built-in securiy and emergent security as far the quality of the game is concerned.

Death to the NPC menace! Glory to player-controlled content!
Ned Haugen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-01-22 19:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ned Haugen
- PvPers earn their ISK typically by having to do PvE, yes. But PvE uses the skills they've already trained for PvP (ratting/DEDing/incursions). An industrialist/miner will not have combat skills. So they must do what?

1. Train as a combat pilot first before doing what they actually want to do, so that they can defend themselves? That sucks.
2. Maintain combat/PvP pilots in their corp? Not going to happen. PvPers do not need miners/industrialists at all since they can just make money through combat-PvE or PLEX and buy what they need. They don't want to have a bunch of filthy PvE casuals in their corp crapping up their killboards.
3. Hire mercs? Most merc corps are a scam. They'll take your money and do nothing, or just sit at Jita all day.

I don't know why people bother with mining and hauling and whatnot. The rewards are low, it's boring, and you just get shat on by all the other players. But apparently there are some people who are not bots who are genuinely interested in this part of the game. Poor souls.

- Hisec is not noob-sec and should be a viable living space for pilots of all ages. I do not agree with the sentiment that hisec is a training ground and that industrial players, PvE players, or whomever, should have to move to null. Hi/Low/Null/WH are all for all types of players of all ages. Each area simply has its own rule set and flavor.

- As for wardecs, I don't know how to fix them. They are indeed used primarily to farm killmails from players who have no chance. It's PvP in EVE after all, people generally don't engage unless they are pretty sure they will win. Maybe make the fee 50mil per system. So you wardec an icemining corp and pay 50mil per ice-belt system you want to keep them out of, plus maybe you want to pay another 50mil for Jita, and a chockpoint system between Jita and Amarr, and another chokepoint system between Gallente and Amarr. And another 50mil for the system that has their POS. Etc. Players can see the systems where they are allowed to be killed on the map, and try to avoid those systems if they want. Then wars can be used for stuff like taking down POSs, blocking trade, or halting mining in select systems... but aren't as strong as they are now, unless both entities make the war mutual, then maybe all of hisec is open game in that case.

Just an idea.

I personally have several accounts that each contain several players, half of which are in NPC corps. So I can PvE in hisec to my heart's content and if I get wardecced I just switch to another character. I've been in the game for a long time though, most people won't have this option or want to put up with training/buying all the characters.