EVE General Discussion

This is putting a bit more harshly than I would, but...QFT, just the same.

E: Come on, dMC, I know you know better than this. Don't you?

Doesn't matter. A one man corporation does not offer enough activity to be worth while. One man will be logged on or off at any given time, be docked, be inactive or scared... and thus, it = the end of the wardec'ers potential for fun. The magic number starts at about 20-30 IMHO.


20-30 offers at least 5-8 online at any given time. For your average griefing-killboard-padding corporation, you can then multiply that number x3 and get 15-24 online throughout the week (that is the limit of open wardecs per week for a corporation). The cost is only a laughable 6m ISK per week. The members of their targeted corporations will often be out and about "doing their own thing", and that is the point. Poor organization and lack of communication is commonplace in small corporations that are just figuring out how to exist in this game. That very nature offers wardecers/griefers the targets that they are looking for. You go on the hunt and you prey upon people who are not all collected in one place. They are mining, running missions, going to Jita or just not paying attention. They are also divided in between 3 distinct corporations that have no affiliation with one another.

Since a corporation only gets 3 wardecs at any given time, and an alliance wardec costs 50M isk increments per wardec, it is in their best interest to choose corporations that fit a certain criteria. A one man corp belonging to a freighter pilot is an obvious alt, and does not fit this criteria.




So again, presenting this as evidence of the fallacy you speak of is not only a hefty piece of faulty logic, is also evidently an sadly uninformed opinion. Toodles.

If it won't make any real, discernible difference, then it won't make the game any more accessible.
Then again, the safety of space is not a factor in accessibility to begin with. Accessibility comes from understanding and intuition — teaching people the wrong lessons, setting up the wrong expectations, or hiding the actual game from them is pretty much the exact wrong way to go.

If anything, the game should be made a bit more dangerous so people have more reason to learn the mechanics involved and to adopt a safer behaviour. That way, they wouldn't be quite so scared witless over the slightest thing, nor would be they be as shocked and surprised when stuff happened and would understand why they happen rather than assume that there are some exploits or general rule-breaking at play.


As for “EVE the concept”, it pretty much requires an easy way to affect other people negatively…

That depends — do you fold the instant someone wardecs you?

No. foxnod's comment demonstrates a specific point that needs to be taught to new players to make them understand their choices, viz. that a player corp is a pay-for luxury, not a right, and that before setting one up, players should carefully consider whether it'll be worth their investment.

…which, as it happens, is an entirely legitimate reason to do so due to how the economy of the game works. If they don't want to deal with the competition, they have the ability to choose not to, but doing so takes them out of the race by imposing higher taxes and slower/more crowded production chains. Changing that would be rather silly: it doesn't make much sense if they were able to compete without subjecting themselves to the competition, now does it?

I'm emphasising that IF people are quitting because they did lose a spaceship then making SOME space safer MAY (emphasis very deliberate) help in retention. It's effect on game will be negligble to do so.

And from that, I'm also arguing that this belief that making highsec safer will destroy the game is utter nonsense.

As for "learning the hard way". What an absolute fallacy. You might be able to teach a baby to swim by throwing it into the deep-end but you give them more confidence and a sense of danger if you ease them in at the shallow end and let them discover the deep-end for themselves.

It's this fallacy around the "Eve must be deadly to succeed" ethos that drives me absoluetly nuts. It's stupid, inane and absolutely unneccessary.

For those that WANT to be zero-to-hero in 30 minutes they have a multitude of alternates. Why is this fact ALWAYS overlooked?

Here's what I think:

1)Apostle is dumb.

2)Casual players don't know enough about how to survive in lowsec/nullsec and as a consequence of this they're scared or assured that they'll lose ships within minutes-- something that's probably not far from the truth. You can't really blame them either-- you really have to buy into EVE's game-exterior of forums, guides, and 3rd party tools to get the most out of your experience. While I don't think we need any additional handholding and I do think that stuff like the MWD+Cloak, dscanning, bouncing off planets, bouncing safes, tactical bookmarks and etc could be covered or at least mentioned in game.

Wrong:

Stop drawing parallels where none exist, or if they do, then it's only in a very broad sense. NPC corp-soloist =/= a group of players in a corp. who have absolutely no knowledge of how corporations in EVE work, and that they are much more than the glorified social-club of guilds in most other MMOs.

Chief among these seems to be that they don't/refuse to understand that, once you form a corp., you are implicitly signing yourself up as being open to the ruthless PvP competition that informs this entire game.


And what do nullsec alliances have to do with this? Not that I need to justify myself to you, but rest assured, mate: I despise them and everything they really represent, just as much as you seem to, though I suspect my reasons are quite different from yours.



Ooooooh, did I step on your poor, embattled, little sense of amoure propre? Don't worry, DMC, I'm sure you'll live.



And yet, EVE's subscriber-base has overall only grown since it went public, with the quite-proper exception of the Incarna debacle. Fancy that, eh?



Which is why this is relatively rare, unless that two-man corp is a known alt-corp for the "main" war-target. In which case, it is then a valid military target: Asset-denial is a fundamental concept of warfare, and those alts' players still have the option of dropping corp to NPC, where the only legal way to get them in hisec is suicide-ganking, or non-direct-combat forms of "economic PvP"

E:

Oh, and you should fly that ISK 1Bn mission-T3 with your d-scanner open, and set to short-range (ca. 600mn km/4AU), and then actually use it.

Then, when you see combat-probes, you turn the range down to 300mn km/2AU, and refresh as fast as it will let you. Once you see that group of Tempests/Tornados, that's your cue to align to something.

Set d-scanner to around 50mn km, and once the baddies show on scan, that's when you warp-out (You did kill those annoying little pointies/webbers in the mission-space first, didn't you?)...

If you want to be extra-cautious--not a bad idea, imho--then align and warp as soon as you see probes.

That "victimisation" you go on about could have easily been avoided if you'd been paying attention, and using the tools the game gives everyone equally to protect yourself.

What are said PVP'ers competing for?



What assets are they denying?


Oh and...



This statement becomes more and more dubious, with the ever growing prevalence of multi-boxing accounts. If you have the information that proves how much of EVE is single account holder vs multi-boxers I would love to see said information.

Time to make ISK in relative peace, resources to gather same, and the ability to travel to/from/with un-hindered.

Oh, and...

Those are still paying accounts. The influx of revenue keeps EVE alive and frees up enough resources for CCP to continue building/evolving the game.

Remember SW: G.

That will happen to us as well, if CCP dumbs EVE down for carebears who refuse to adapt and earn their freedom in this game. The ways one earns it are really not all that tedious or ornery... It's 99.9...9% paying attention to one's surroundings.

You're going to have to elaborate on this because I fail to see the parallel you're drawing. Off the cuff "eve is dying," tripe or do you have an useful analog?