EVE General Discussion

Exactly this.

Why would you come here and then expect the developers to change the game to suit you. For all the bleating bullshit I see so many people write about "how horrible ganking is", it comes down to one simple thing. You're demanding the game to be changed, under the premise that others are "forcing" you to do stuff you don't want to.

Perhaps someone should have told some of you, there is no such thing as concensual pvp in EVE; you're in the wrong game if that's what you want, get the **** out, you aren't welcome here.

You're comparing industrial ships to warships. I'm sorry for going into real-life parallels, but there's a reason why fuel tankers have less armor and defenses than battleships. It has to do with efficiency, and is also the reason why the former are more likely to be escorted by the latter for protection, than welding steel plates to their hulls.

It's the same reason why SUVs have less survivability than tanks, and why your local news station's eye-in-the-sky chopper has less defenses than an AH-64 Apache.

Just got up to this part:


I think he said it better than I did.

I must admit I know little of real life military craft or dealings, but I find it hard to believe that the design of a vehicle wouldn't take into account the possibility of encountering hostilities. This game, if all that is said about it's hostile nature is to be believed, seems like it would logically have no real place for completely defenseless ships save when purpose dictated it was necessary. I can't think of a reason a mining ship would need to be especially weak, so why should it be?

Not after they've killed a few people (it doesn't take a whole lot of kills, trust me), and go below -5 security rating. Then you can shoot their ships, and their pods, whenever you feel like it. They will even flash (or at least be marked, if you use default settings) on your overview and local list (only during GCC for the latter), letting you know that they are bad kitties that should be punished.

This has indeed happened, a few years ago, when an influx of next-generation players demanded EVE to become the control group, or they would pull the funding.


To be fair, the majority of the people in favor of anti-safety high-sec nerfs are also vehemently in favor of nerfing those other things you mentioned.

Didn't get past the 1st paragraph. The concept of Hi-sec has been in place since 2003. Hi sec ganking was not even a concept in the few years of the game and Eve did just fine.

More 'those guys should be forced to play the game a certain way' threads.

-1

Why is Mittani such a good ******* writer?

No one is suggesting that pvp should become consensual.

All that has happened is that ganking has become more expensive.

Pvpers need to adapt or find a new game to play.

I have to agree here to some extent, though this kind of works both ways (aka why did miners not adapt) prior to the change. I do think however the argument that "suicide ganking was off" in terms of risk vs. reward is quite strong. Ultimately to the fundamental question "should a destroyer class ship be able to blow up a mining barge", CCP has answered with a resounding NO. This is now the new version of Eve and as such players must adapt to this version and consequently people have, many, by abandoning suicide ganking but sufficient numbers remained to keep this activity in the game. Another words, suicide ganking still exists and is still a risk to high sec, but will likely be less frequent.

I disagree that this change came about because of "whining" on the forum, this is community perception, it was clear from dev blogs and conversations at fan fest that they had legitimate data assuming we aren't buying into some sort of conspiracy theory that CCP lies to cover some hidden plan, which given their reputation is not outside the realm of possibility. I give them the benefit of the doubt however. I think at the center of that data was the revelation that the risk vs. reward was heavily leaning to one side (reward) and was altering what used to be a tactic "suicide ganking" from a criminal activity with consequences, to a full blown profitable profession that while required some preparation and smart tactics, like other broken risk vs. reward elements had very little actual consequences to the ganker and far too much consequences to the miner (or victim as it where).

To me again using Dev blogs as a reference, it seems the goal of high sec is to maintain that there is "some risk" but its clear CCP doesn't want it to be such that people have a sense that High Sec is as dangerous as anywhere else in Eve, which for a specific group (miners) in recent months it very much was.

I think in terms of the debate about whether or not CCP is making High Sec safer, their is conclusive evidence that they are, its one of the things the author of this article got right. I'm not sure that their is some hidden conspiracy theory to turn Eve High Sec into a PvP free zone, but I do agree that their is push to make it safe enough to auto pilot a freighter without worry. I understand that to veteran players who see Eve as a purely PvP (combat) centric game, this is a travesty, but this is the direction CCP has chosen.

As to whether or not this will ruin Eve, I personally don't think so. You could very easily simply eliminate the ability to attack people in High Sec and eliminate suicide ganking completely and the game would be mostly unchanged as long as they maintain "war decs" and continue to improve that system. I do personally think that the War Dec system in its current state is not accomplishing its goal however, which I presume should be to allow corps to fight each other when they have a dispute to settle. As it stands, its for the most part not worth it with far too many "escape and avoid" mechanics that allow unwilling participants (defenders) to avoid actual fighting, which I think is really bad for Eve.

Oh I'm sorry only NULL SECers are allowed to have opinions here? What is this the CSM were HI SEC has no representation?