EVE General Discussion

It is mechanicallly at the safest it has ever been. CONCORD times are at their shortest, insurance nerfs have made ganking the least profitable, and EHP of mining ships and freighters are at their highest.

There is a huge difference in cost to gank in a 1.0 and 0.5. Of course, no where is safe in Eve so you can gank things in a 1.0, but it is way more costly and difficult than in a 0.5 system.

You are asking to remove non-consensual PvP from Eve. If you just leave duels (opt-out: single check box) and wardecs (opt-out: NPC corp), you would break much of the game. Hauling would be meaningless, and NPC corp members could flaunt 5B blinged-out, yield fit Hulks with impunity.

It will never happen.

Paying to play a PvP game and you would like players to be able to PvE without anyone attacking them. So PvE players would become isk making machines as they would have next to no losses.

Both PvP and PvE players share the same markets, so why should PvE players get a huge advantage over PvP players in a PvP game, where the markets and making isk is concerned?

As for wardecs how can they be out of control as it's a PvP game?

They should get rid of CONCORD altogether.


What seems to be out of control is PvE players trying to turn high-sec into a PvE area.

This is already the case, which is why ganks are so freakishly rare. So what on earth kind of reason is there to make them even harder at a time when the only sane and sensible direction to go is to make them easier?

Even if that were the case (it isn't), there's nothing particularly wrong with that. Highsec is a highly populated PvP arena — of course there will be a fair amount of losses.

It is also a PvP area, and if players want to avoid PvP, they should not be playing a full-time PvP game. This is not a BS attitude — it's a fundamental truth about the game, about its core gameplay, and about its intended customer base. It's no different than saying that Harvest Moon players should probably not go to CoD/BF/[Military Shooter 2016] to get what they want.

The idea of letting people not be subject to PvP at all time and to give them a PvE-only zone is so antithetical to the core design of the game that the would pretty much instantly cease to function if anything of the kind happened.

…all of which show how exceedingly rare ganking is these days. An even more obvious example is to look as such old gank havens as Motsu, Niarja, Aunia, or Penirgman — places where ganks were an hourly occurrence but where days or even weeks can now go by without any aggression at all, much less any ganks.

Hell, Jita and Perimeter used to have these huge CONCORD clouds hanging around both the 4-4 station and the connecting gates. I just looked at zkillboard and had to flip through to page 16 to see the first appearance of CONCORD in Jita. In Perimeter, it was only on page 2, but that's apparently because nothing dies in Perimeter any more — that CONCORD kill is 7 days old…

Put another way: anyone who even remotely suggests or hints at ganks being too common these days is, at best, completely ignorant and utterly disqualified from even discussing the topic until they check in with reality; at worst they're a full-blown idiot or a troll. Those are the only three options.

There's almost nothing to suggest this. If anything, the numbers rather correlate the other way around: as the screws have been tightened on ganking, the server activity has gone down.

Yes they should. Again, that's the core design concept of the game. It's a full-time PvP game. If you don't want to PvP, this isn't the game you want. If you want areas of complete safety, this isn't the game you want. Not PvP:ing is not an sensible option in a PvP game.

All combat is one-sided. It's inherent in how people choose to approach combat — anything else would be stupid. The difference in highsec is that one of the sides refuse to take any actions or precautions to occasionally skew the balance in the other direction. Instead, they just choose to lose, to whine about their choice, and/or then just write it off as a cost of doing business. That alone should tell you what the actual problem is.

CCP has not intentionally put suicide ganking in this game to live up to your Space Samurai code of ethics. CCP has gone to the effort of coding the ability of criminals to operate in order to provide player-driven risk in highsec. They think it is good for the game that players are always at risk to each other and that it makes the game more interesting.

Eve has survived these 12+ years with suicide ganking as one of the key features of the game. Highsec has never been safer, yet you claim that only now, Eve players are going to decide they have had enough and unsubscibe? Forgive me, but that refrain has been heard practically since the servers started accepting connections and yet Eve has outlasted almost all of its contemporary MMOs.

Suicide ganking is almost completely avoidable with only a little effort. If anything, ganking has been hit hard in recent years, and one could argue this has made the game more boring which has correlated with the decrease in player counts. I won't make that argument here, but I can confidently say that CCP is not going to be remove or nerf suicide ganking any time soon.

So how would the system collecting the data be able to tell if someone is waiting or afk?

Also how would the system know who is searching for targets and who is out sightseeing?


Edit:

I'm fairly sure it can't, so the logical thing is it wouldn't be part of the results, but those 2 activities are part of PvP. Hence, why I say I wouldn't have much faith in the results.

PvP is not like PvE, where in PvE the content is essentially given to you on a plate.

So I just looked at Uedema, 898 kills in the past 24 hours, seen a charon that just got ganked by goons. Bowhead that get popped by Code, looks like via a war dec. i see TONS of concord kills on various ships. No clue what systems you are looking at but not the same ones i am it seems.

And I am not saying that any space should be 100% safe, but high sec should be safer IMO, you will retain a lot more new players that way, paying accounts will go up and not someone with 20 alts. Paying customers keep this game going, not the OMFG i want to destroy everything, everyone MUST pvp, this is what the game is all about type crap.

Those 2 activities are PvP activities regardless if they manage to kill anything.


Plus I thought the whole point of the data was to assess how many players were doing PvE and PvP activities during a certain period.

Although the PvE figures will be fairly good the PvP ones will be below what they should be, could be by quite a lot, but difficult to say by how much as those 2 activities would likely have been disregarded when they shouldn't have been.

I'm looking at the systems that have a long distinguished history of being gank havens. More than that, I'm looking at actual ganks rather than just some information-free number.

Aside from all the warring going on, the reason you're seeing that many kills is exactly because of how hard ganking has become. In total, it's less than one gank and hour — in fact, it seems closer to one every other hour — but each of them results in a dozen or two kills being recorded. They're that many because that's the ludicrous amount of firepower you need to bring in order to execute a gank.

It already is safer. If anything, as the numbers you dug up show, it needs to be made a whole lot less safe.