EVE General Discussion

With a lot of the rebalancing that has happened in the past few months I found it curious the arguments being presented.

Lets categorize player groups into 4 categories (and assume everyone is equal in PVP ability)

EXP: Older players with a lot of EXP. Many level 5 skills, T2 guns, wide range of ships available to fly.

Numbers: Usually relying on cost effective ships combined in large numbers to get the job done. If you have the pilots you just overwhelm the enemies ability to fight back.

ISK Based: Players who are probably in the smaller numbered fleets, outspending their opponents in buying faction modded ships, T3 cruisers and even super capitals. While I lump Super Caps and Dead space fitted 100mn PVP tengus into the same category the end result is the same, outspend your opponent to gain an advantage.

Tactics: PL / Black Legion / Hydra Reloaded ETC. Perhaps at times combined with ISK style gameplay. Masters of kiting, skillful planning and using very tightly controlled ship compositions to engage and defeat larger numbers of players.

Dont misunderstand, these 4 categories are just a shotgun approach to how players are PVPing today from my view point.

What I take issue with is how CCP keeps trying to balance these percieved categories out.

Lets take Supers, perhaps the most apparent change CCP has made in game mechanics of late.
Supers = Expense.

Extremely expensive compared to your normal ship in EVE, certain blocks of players dedicated all of their resources into building and buying as many of these ships as possible. Becoming the FOTM, such fleets were very hard to counter.

The counter argument was that they were unreasonably powerful. Large groups of players (numbers), who voted in their CSM's to represent their view points argued that Numbers should beat Expense.

In some ways I found myself questioning if CCP was bending to the will of the masses. Is that the right direction? I cant say. As a business owner IRL, I know that pleasing your customer is paramount to your company. However in a product as diverse and complex as EVE and without a strong guiding capitain at the helm of the starship CCP, its starting to sound like a company being run by mass rule.

I dont see "vision" here. I see a company, terrified of a public backlash to universally poor decision making trying to right the ship by taking public opinion polls.

So, heres my over ridding question.

- Should EXP in game trump tactics? If I have double the EXP of someone else but they fly "smarter" then me, who should win?

- Should Numbers trump ISK (Shiny) ships? Where is the cut off? 10 cheap ships beating 5 shiny ones? Rifters killing Zealots?

I guess I lead down the road of asking CCP what the vision is. Maybe this rant is less towards the player base (who is just advocating for a game they are paying for) and more towards CCP, asking for a vision.

Less mob rule and more goals.



PS - IMO CCP had 2 very un-popular occurring developments leading them to this direction. Forgive me for the brief history lesson...

Walking In Stations(WIS) - Not very popular to the crowd of people who like Flying in Space (FIS). At least how it was described. Many people in EVE brainstormed a few ways that WIS could have been a great addition to FIS, however CCP never impressed me with their vision of WIS for the foreseeable future. Then, to take a large number of resources to dedicate to WIS while refusing to fix broken issues in EVE (forgot about improvements) well... this is all old news

Gold Plated Ammo - Remember this gem? Pilot up-roar over being able to buy items in the game (using RL cash to isk/aur conversions) to gain an upper hand on your opponent. Not very popular indeed. However I take issue with some of the perceived threat to the game with this option, at least in some detail. Many people currently buy accounts, turn RL cash into PLEX's etc and basically gain advantages over other players using RL cash. Granted, all these items can be purchased by playing the game, earning ISK and buying them. But there is still a very direct path for RL money to buy an advantage already.

Interesting point of view and good OP, but the world "balancing" implies an effort made towards achieving balance between elements. Obviously this does not mean that one method "trumps" another every time.

I think most people would agree that ISK, numbers and experience should be balanced so that good tactics can overcome weakness in any of the first three. This keeps the game fair and enjoyable for all players, not just those who have more of the first three.

what beats enemies and large coalitions is not pure tactics or ISK advantage of enemy but meta-gaming .. gathering intel, having spies in high ranks etc.

Meta-gaming rules the REAL game.

Just curious..
Is there actually non-written law about not shooting FCs ?
I mean such as the roayal army in the old times .. using Maurice-style combat, when it was generally agreed on not shooting officers.

thought as much .. yet i dont see an reasoning for it.. If people are actually looking for fight why try to destroy an ability of an opponent to provide some competition.

Killing podding all FCs and anchors leads to inevitable fleet dissband and "losing morale" but in the end its an game. And it will return in full circle in the end..

But thanks for an answer.

Pilots fights for fun, generals fights for proving their ability to lead and win. Soldiers are the back-bone and they are in for good time.
Plenty of assumptions in one line, isnt it great.

well i ve been in few large fleets .. some time ago ... And somehow FCs was there till the end.. always, not sure if they have some alts on the fleet too, i guess not as it can get quite hectic at the time.. with jumping out in organizing other fleets, reinforcement and counting on everyone doing his job

Hence my question, altho i always assumed that we are taking 80 guardians just to rep FC because it didnt seemed that i get any in-combat rep ..