Crime & Punishment

I don't see it fit to have a sincere discussion with someone who accused me of trolling after I asked for proof/validation of a concrete claim, so let's switch it up a bit.

I like how you keep telling me to leave the game in almost all of your posts, lol. You must really want me gone.

It's okay, when the final nail is driven into high-sec aggression mechanics, you'll probably get your wish. Then you'll get the "sandbox" you've always wanted. At least until you get bored to death, and move on to another novel gaming project to ruin. It's something that seems to be happening on a mass scale now. Even recent survival games, in a genre that has traditionally been a bastion of risk/reward gameplay, the carebear attitude is getting hold. Despite the presence of such things as pve servers, they are still demanding that the pvp play styles be nerfed either on moral or entitlement (to not be affected by others) grounds.

I hope you enjoy EVE when CCP needs to implement NPC buy orders for ships and modules just so players like yourself have someone to sell your overproduced crap to, just like in some other, recent space MMOs. Remember, it will be a reality that you helped create.

Anyone worth their salt actually tries to make it a learning experience by telling the victim what they did wrong, and how to avoid making the same mistake in the future. It's only when the smack/rage/threat-talk starts when the pvpers bring out the "HTFU" line.


The average concurrent player count is actually at a six-year low right now. Players are simply getting more alts.

And to put it in perspective: around 2007/2008 is when the Privateer nerf happened, which pushed players out of null-sec and into high-sec in droves. Before that time, over 30% of the player base was in null, and null was seen as end-game content to aspire to. After, the risk/reward offset favored high-sec so much, that over the next few years (and the QENs show this), the percentage living in null dropped to under 20%. Meanwhile, right after the Privateer nerf (and a few other major high-sec pvp nerfs), EVE hit a growth plateau.

No I don't. I want risk to be a function of reward, or vice versa, for everyone across the board. I want risk to be increased for myself in high-sec, like for everyone else. But the system has to be fair, and not favor one play style over another. I've already stated, for example, that if CONCORD was a paid, opt-in service, I'd opt out if it was properly priced for the level of protection it provides. But as it stands now, CONCORD gives me protection I don't really need, while giving protection the carebears desperately want, at no cost to either party. How is that balance?


You're finally being honest. You don't really care about this game's integrity and long-term viability, as long as it provides you with funsies right this second. As I said before, were this to turn into some kind of WoW/Star Citizen hybrid knockoff, you'd be gone without a second thought (because it wouldn't be fun to play), and I wouldn't even be able to say "I told you so."

just out of curiosity what risks do you actually have when you wardec an industrial corp?

At this time (things were obviously different at different periods throughout EVE's life), I can rank them in terms of severity, highest to lowest:

1. The target acquires a war ally (or even multiple war allies), and then all of its members bail from the corporation, leaving just one member inside (usually an alt) so that the corporation doesn't dissolve and nullify the war. This leaves the aggressor having paid a minimum of 50m ISK in order to be locked in a war for a week with pilots who aren't the intended targets, while the intended targets are perfectly safe from the war.

2. The target dissolves the corporation entirely, making the aggressor waste the entirety of the war fee.

3. The target fights back, causing the aggressor to take losses. I put this one this far down because at least the aggressor can do something about this via their own initiative, though it is still a significant risk. I've been wrecked by carebear groups before, who brought so much firepower that it was simply impossible to deal with. Rare, but it happened.

4. The target evades the aggressors, forcing them to waste time. This one is the weakest risk, because it creates risk for both parties, but it's still a risk.

being counter blobbed, bubbled, pipe bombed, bomber bombed, podded, losing the fight having capitals dropped on us, but everyone is really there for the same thing, a fight, we dont blob people to make isk

It wasnt an attack just genuinely curious

Explain please how a group of non-combat focused players or simply newer players is supposed to defend themselves against people who pinpoint them with locator agents and neutral scouts, gank them with t3/t2 and faction cruisers, and then redock and go back to carebearing on an alt while they wait for another target?

I've been on the receiving end of that. It's nearly impossible to fight and it's certainly not fun having to look over your shoulder constantly for a group of losers who hide in station in the face of any real opposition and only undock to drop 5b ISK worth of shiny on solo targets. The only defense and obvious defense is to use NPC alts to grind ISK, leading me back to what I said in another thread - wardecs are a method by which bittervets too risk averse to do real PvP get to explode newbies and casual players whilst flying blinged out gank boats which would survive all of an hour outside highsec.

And you'd like to force everyone out of NPC corps so you and your friends with near perfect subcap skills and a specialization in hisec warfare can just crap all over them. GO TO NULL OR LOW. If you want good fights. Which you don't.

Nothing is stopping you from getting players like this on your side for protection, save for your own greed and/or ignorance. You could easily recruit pvpers or hire mercenaries for protection, but you don't, because it's plainly obvious that there aren't enough incentives for sticking around in player-owned corporations to warrant the investment. If player corporation members made much more money than NPC corporation members, there would be.

Would you like someone to actually explain this, or are you just crying? Because I would be happy to explain- last time I went on safari my target corp got wardecced by Marmite and instead of murdering them, for a change I decided to spend a week teaching them to fight back. It is possible to defend yourself, I don't care who you are. It is also a lot more fun for everyone then docking up and crying that you got wardecced or AWOXed.

Most of us don't have carebear alts though. We don't generally approve of that sort of thing. I sometimes run a few missions to get locators and I feel dirty for weeks after every time. I'm getting a little nauseous thinking about it.

Concord also benefits just as equally! It kills someone if they commit a crime against you. What you're saying is that your choice of being the criminal makes it unfair, but you choose that option. Take for example rolling wormholes. If I were hoping to get into someone's wormhole and they rolled it, I now can't thus that's helping them, not me. The broad benefit of the mecahnic is the same, it's just my choice of which side of that mechanic to be on that affects it. You'd not be affected by concord at all if you chose to legally attack players. But you don't.

How do I know this? All I see from players like yourself is whining and tears because the dirt cheap ships you use to gank isn't enough. You want changes which would force people into becoming targets and punish them if they tried to avoid it. You claim to want balance, but you don't, because you don't have balanced discussion about it. The carebears supposedly have no say in how their playstyle should be balanced because they are irrelevant because they won't willingly hand themselves to you as content.

I disagree. You just only consider changes which negatively affect you, simply because they negatively affect you. It's very similar to shotgunning. You focus on this hits and ignore the misses. I don't think CCP have written of any playstyles, they've worked very hard to specifically not do that.

For balanced, see nerfed. You want them "balanced" by being negateively affected until you are happy. That's nerfing.

And there we go. It's more profitable and less boring for you to attack players with no intention of fighting back that to engage in actual combat with other PvP players in areas of the game specifically designed for free PvP. Yet you think that highsec player have it too easy? It's more attractive for a PvP player to ignore concord than fight a legal target in other areas of space. Surely this tells you something about ganking be just a tad too easy and profitable.

I wouldn't forget it ever existed buddy, and I'm not here short term. Coming on 10 years and attending multiple fanfests is hardly a short term thing. Entertainment, yes, it's a game, short-term not so much. I just don't mind if CCP moves forward and attracts newer players rather than stagnating while trying to desperately cling to outdated ideals.

That's not to say I don't like the principles behind EVE, I very much hope they stay as true to their original ideas as they can, I'm just not going to freak out if they make decisions which change the game substantially. They've just nuked jump drives and they are on their way to completely recreating how sov works. Chances are I'm not going to come out of that too well. But it's something they feel needs to be done and I support them in that and trust that they know what they are doing enough to keep the game entertaining for all when they do.