EVE General Discussion

I've lost you on why the personal feelings of the community manager aren't the be all and end all of the development of EVE?

I didn't say CCP haven't nerfed anything, I've simply stated that your list showing ONLY nerfs isn't accurate. Besides, there's nothing wrong with nerfs when systems are obviously out of balance or hindering the progression of the game. The awox mechanics was dumb, it put people off of recruiting newbies, regardless of whether or not they were a fail-ceo, and for what? So a handful of people could gank orcas and chuckle to themselves. No big loss there.

Alternatively they could look at each mechanic in turn and find a good way to balance the game between entertaining and harsh, you know, like they are doing.

Falcons words mean nothing. He even qualified them himself as his personal point of view, and his position doesn't lend itself to dictating the direction of EVE development. By the way, I think that our definition of content creator differs quite greatly, since I don't consider groups who continuously wardec farm newbie PvE groups so they can fap over their killboards as the groups creating good content. I think we'd be better served with a new set of mechanics which rewarded people for fighting other players who can realistically fight back rather than farming players with no skill with or interest in PvP.

So what you are saying is that if a PvP player chooses risk free PvP, that's the carebears fault for being a carebear, but if the carebear chooses risk free PvE, that's also the carebears fault and he should be punished for it.

Corp lit: We already have this, it's called being in an NPC corp and creating a chat channel to socialize in. There is no need to create "un-deccable" corps. It would defeat the purpose of what Eve is all about.

I am aware some people don't like the way Eve is. Why would you change the entire aspect of a game because some people who can do something else don't like it. It's like this...Some people don't like Hockey..they say it's too violent, boring, whatever...so why would someone who doesn't like hockey buy a season pass and go to all of the games? Same with Eve, if what a game is all about isn't what you like..why play it. Would you cry to the NHL to change the way hockey is played because you don't like that it's so violent? Of course not...so why would CCP cater to those who probably have no business playing Eve to begin with.

The bottom line is..if something is not your cup of tea...do something else, not demand that everything be changed to cater to the selfish. Eve is about being social, it's about war, it's about conflict, criminals, edginess and uncertainty, and protecting what you have and what you want. THIS is what Eve is all about. If this concept is too much for some, go elsewhere and leave Eve to the players who like it the way it is.

With all due respect, stop catering to those who can't hack it. There are other games out there. I'm sure CCP won't hurt too much from losing those who probably won't stay playing anyways.

Carebears shouldn't be refused gameplay improvements more than anyone else and I don't think CCP has a history of that. If anything the recent history of changes have been more beneficial to the carebear play style than the pvp playstyle.

Access to gameplay improvements =/= reduced risk

Until any details of this proposal are posted, we don't know if that will be the outcome.


I would agree that systems as they stand aren't perfect. Fozzie mentioned the wardec system at Fanfest (not on any timetable for change though), a lot of wardeccers acknowledge that the system could be changed.

Either way, we'll still have the eternal battle over where the balance sits for risk and changes to the wardec system won't necessarily move where that currently sits. Carebears are no more likely to fight under a new system than they are now, because they're carebears.

Ultimately what the EvE community needs to decide, is if it's ok that non-consensual conflict and content drivers in hisec should keep being nerfed.

We also need to acknowledge that there is a war for the soul of EvE hisec going on right now, but many aren't even showing up to it, because the nerfs are being implemented by stealth, or in slow increments over time as to go unnoticed by most.

I however noticed. Others have also.

This isn't just about wardec mechanics though. It's about if we as a community continue to allow hisec to be transformed into a carebear (and nullbear) Disneyland theme park.

I don't remember that question being asked openly by CCP. All I hear is rationalizations from carebears and nullbears about mechanics 'improvements' that mystically (like the magical force that disappears one sock from the dryer when you do laundry) only ever land on the nerf side of the equation, never 'improvements' to mechanics that buff non-consensual conflict drivers.

Why is that?

If true balance were being pursued here we would expect statistically to see an equal amount of buffs to non-consensual conflict drivers, yet magically it's only nerfs lately.

Did I miss a memo somewhere, buried in the subtext of CCP statements about 'improving the new player experience', that once run through a babel-fish actually means 'we are going to make hisec a disneyland theme park by nerfing the hell out of its mechanics'? Not teach new players to better adapt and survive by putting brain and knowledge in gear mind you, nerf actual mechanics.

So you decide EvE community, but don't do it in a vacuum put to sleep by the carebear and nullbear advocates, who will never stop wanting their cake and eat it too, WoW style.

Today its 'social corps' to drive yet another stake through the heart of the wardec mechanic. Tomorrow they will be coming after gankers...again.

F

If by that you mean should they continue their current development process and direction which has received vast amounts of praise, then yes, it's OK. If you want to make up reason why it's so nerfy and cry through your tinfoil at how unfair it is, that's your problem.

This is a load of rubbish. You've just cherry picked and misrepresented changes and refused to acknowledge buffs. Take for example how you go on about wardec costs increasing. OK, they did. But they also change the way they scale and how they move between entities meaning that players can now declare vast numbers of wars and defenders can't artificially inflate that price. Prior to those changes, you simply couldn't have 200 active wars like you can now.

Changes like the aggressive drones and MTUs, that wasn't even a nerf to gameplay, that was simply removing a loophole they'd not considered following. Prior to that you couldn't trigger people's drone to allow you to attack them anyway. That's the equivalent of saying "stopping the ESS in wormhole space is a nerf to wormhole safety, as when the ESS was first put in we could throw them up at the entrance to announce people arriving". It's not a nerf, it's simply correcting a bug.

You also miss changes like the Orca change allowing loot to drop from them making them worth gank targets, and the bowhead making solo freighter ganking a possibility.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you refuse to view things rationally?

hm

Conflict is composed of all kinds of thing. Shooting is just one of them. But to think you can be excluded from the shooting too is just selfish...isn't it? Stations are where you go afk or do other things...but when in space, be prepared for conflict..this includes getting shot at..yes..even in "safe-sec". Your comparison is ludicrous. Attempt to troll someone else, it doesn't work on me sweetheart.

You see, the difference between myself and the others who whine about Eve is I accept it for what it is. I will not "SOD" off. I have been here and will stay as long as CCP doesn't turn it into another theme park. I accept risk and embrace it. It's good when something evolves..but what Eve does NOT need is rampant de-evolution due to the whiney minority... Just like in rl. It is what it is..adapt or fail.

Also, just so you understand that I DO know what Eve is about...PvP encompasses a variety of actions..from shooting ships to market trading. AGAIN...so you don't misunderstand, since it seems you do, you cannot and should not be excluded from ANY for of PvP or conflict just because you don't like it. Those who choose to stay in station do not have to deal with the other forms of risk..but once they undock, they are a potential target like anyone else. This goes for haulers, miners, and PvPers alike.

Just because other MMO's such as WoW are having drop offs and players are seeking a new game doesn't mean since they choose to come to Eve that we, or anyone, should cater to them. Eve is a completely different kind of animal. Love her or leave her..but don't claim to be "championing for a greater good" when the truth is it's all for selfish reasons that you want change. I want progression...not regression. There's a big difference. It would do you good to learn the difference sweetie. If people feel the need to be forum warriors because it gives them a feeling of self importance, so be it..just be honest about your motivations.

Most of us pay to sub, we all have a right to speak what we think...but not to cry about it because it's not what you want it to be. ...and no, you can't haz my stuff

Why you ask? Because having a named corp and the benefits of such should be reserved for those who actually want to function as a corp. Don't get me wrong, I never said I was against the idea..just that it is redundant in the fact it is something that can/is already doable. Npc corps can't be decced..channels can be made for anything at any time. Why the need to push for what seems like yet another entitlement. If you want a name, make a corp..it's that simple. If you want to avoid decs and talk in groups, stay in a npc corp and make a channel. It's that simple. Next thing you know, people will be asking for un-deccable alliances and a place where all risk is gone...where does it end.

There's nothing wrong with the way it is now. To have a corp and a name, there is risk. That's how it should be..just like any other corp..in rl or in game. If you don't want the risk, you don't form a corp.

To take it a step further, there are entities in Eve that are groups that don't have a "formal" name that's a label on thier char sheets. For example..CFC, Anti-Ganking, The New Order, etc. There are large groups that share a social or other interest that are not formally part of a single corp or alliance. Should they be given a new "sub alliance" or "group" title or name. No. The difference is, the groups mentioned all manage to do what it is they do regarless..and don't try to ask for a title and make them "undeccable". It just seems like another entitlement grab at trying to get something at no risk...when the very core of Eve is the balance between risk and worth. If you want something, you need to be willing to lose something..or at least accept the fact it is possible, if not inevitable.

But wait...if it doesn't matter...then why does it matter? Isn't that the argument you're trying to present?

All of the entities I mentioned consist of corps or alliances which are deccable, except a lot of AG...so that argument become a bit counter intuitive in that regard. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. But by your own argument..it doesn't matter...so why the need for the name?