EVE General Discussion

Highsec isn't sandbox, there are rules. The issue isn't there are no rules, but the rules favor griefers too much.
Also, being forced to stop doing something with no way of opposing it has nothing to do with inteligence. Inteligence is about adapting, but you can't adapt to hulakgeddon if you are an industrial player, there is simply no way.

I love idiots using labels they don't understand.

"Simply no way" in what context? I love idiots who use absolutes when they are clueless.

You really think the recent changes to make high-sec mining profitable were going to benefit the half-wits? Indy players wanted buffs to indy...well...there ya go now there is "simply no way" to be dumb even in high-sec space with "rules". Best change to EvE ever if ya ask me.

The decision this player made to quit is unfortunate and the result of the archaic foundation EVE was built on, that is a PVP intensive game. This foundation is old because EVE itself is now more than just PVP, however the premise of EVE hasn't changed. This causes many imbalances to the game itself,.... this is not a reference to ship imbalances only but gaming imbalance. If CCP is actually after a "virtual universe" as advertised then they need to change their approach (way they think about) EVE. A PVP intensive game will naturally favor PVP, and all aspects of it.

It is no secret that all things in EVE, outside of PVP were created to create PVP targets. However, EVE matured over the years to become more than just a PVP game. It has the makings to be a virtual universe,... what hasn't changed is CCP's approach to the game in prioritizing PVP over all other aspects.

Here are only a few examples that keep this from being a virtual universe (true sandbox), and instead just another game that favors PVP:

-- War decing is cheap. It is intentionally this way to accommodate PVP, which produces stupid wars. In reality war is always costly and the high cost of initiating it is the first consideration. It forces the aggressor to evaluate motive, gain, and potential loss.
-- Hulk's are paper thin. Unrealistic since they operate close to asteroids. They are intentionally this way for PVP and ganking. Think about it, icebreakers have some of the thickest hulls there are. Do you honestly think some race intelligent enough to navigate and live in space would navigate close to rocks in a paper thin hull?
-- PVE vs PVP. Two different tanks are usually used depending on what the pilot is doing. Unrealistic because all opponents are just ships to the pilot. The two different ways of tanking are to accommodate PVPers seeking to gank mission runners.
-- Risk vs Rewards. This is actually closer to a virtual universe than other aspects of the game. What is unrealistic is a universe would not care and therefore would distribute resources evenly, in both high to null sec. (I think the gaming does need to allow for some fixed distribution)
-- Miners, exploration, mission runners and to some extent even PI players are told "Don't do it alone!" Yet, gankers can solo take down ships. It is intentionally this way to accommodate PVP and in this case ganking/griefing. This forces a requirement (team vs solo) on one form of game play but not the other.


If CCP wants EVE to continue to be PVP intensive then all non-pvp players will have to like it or ultimately leave as the player who started this thread did. If CCP wants EVE to become a "virtual universe" as advertised then PVP can no longer take priority over other aspects of the game. Personally, I think no one element having importance over another, would make a more interesting game (for everyone) while doing a better job of approximating a virtual universe.

Let me show you how upset I am that we lost that freighter.

I appreciate your input to the discussion. I am also glad you showed how sophisticated responce are you capable of. Your parents must be proud, go tell your mummy how you just succeeded.

Now to the topic: There is rather big ammount of upset folks on the forums. Do the devs care, do they percept this or do they simply ignore? No reaction from them so far ...

Forming a protection fleets is a good idea, but to be honest mining would have to be much more profitable for this to happen. You know, it isn't fun, it is just something you do for isk. And if it makes so few isk that you barely get by, you simply won't pay for protection (or get friends to protect you and split the gain, basically it is the same thing) because you could just go doing L2 security missions and make the same money.
Noone wants CCP to by force do something, but EvE isn't a sandbox, there are rules. What players want is that CCP changes the rules so that the gameplay will be more balanced.

And would you tell me how that would work against ganking? As idea is to get one shot kills before concord shows up?

Miners tanks up, gankers bring couple extra ships => dead miner again.

I guess you are right it is starting to get harder to justify spending $$$ on paying to play EVE but not for the reason you are mentioning. The game has become flat with the same old things on offer as were on offer years ago.

The fact that CCP are basically giving us shinny things & no real new content it tells me that maybe EVE has had it's best days.

Watching the number of people just logging into the game over the last 6 or so months shows a decline in numbers which continues to grow. Just how much are CCP banking on Dust514? If Dust fails what happens with EVE?

Subs are up and we have always made our own content. EVE will be fine.

I can't wait for a brave new world without players who think sitting AFK highsec should be 100% safe. Adios!