EVE General Discussion

.

The reality is, most of the points made in this thread are good points, from both sides.

Unfortunately, and I think CCP have realized this, maintaining EVE if a form such as it's original concept dictated would eventually spell the death of the game.

The type of players who enjoy that model are few and far between, this is demonstarted in EVE's absurdly bad Noob retention numbers. Subs now are not much different to when I started 6 years ago, but the cost to CCP has increased every year.

If CCP wants to survive as a company, they will need to make their cash cow into something that attracts the majority of new players and keeps them interested for more than the initial 14 day free period and, unfortunately, a safe highsec is the most likely to do this. This has been demonstarted in the recent layoff's, and the fact that the subcription level is so low that a few thousand vet's canceling their subs could force this to happen.

Making Highsec more dangerous would bring the game back closer into it's orignal concept, but it won't do anything to increase new subscriptions.

I don't want to argue about semantics, but those players aren't exactly carebears. Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.


While you're more than entitled to your playstyle, those statements, aside maybe from point #2 (it hasn't really been proven, though), are simply opinions. Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.


Adjustments can be good and bad. Fixing hybrids is an adjustment. The addition of a pvp flag would also be an adjustment. Just because adjustments happen all the time, doesn't mean all of them should.

I'm bored and taking the opportunity to post in a bunch of threads I've been eyeing for a while....

So here's my take, coming from someone who's only suicided a pod before, and hasn't lived in highsec in like 2 years. So you can either call me a neutral 3rd party, or say I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I think both sides have a strong argument for ganking. Insurance payout for a CONCORD kill never really made sense. Yes, I know, the insurance program in Eve doesn't really make sense to begin with, so we could start with that, but this part REALLY doesn't make sense. So yea, just from an immersion breaking standpoint it probably needed to be fixed. They would also make the argument that highsec is suppose to be less-risky (notice I didn't say safe, there should be no such thing in Eve), but there is less risk involved the higher into sec stat you move. So yea, gankers should probably only be ganking truly worthwhile targets, and not everyone that happens by because after insurance it only costs them pennies (comparatively, really I don't know because I'm not really into that profession).

Now, on the flip side, ganking is a legitimacy profession that has long been recognized by CCP. They don't give the persons stuff back when they get ganked, they respond with "such is Eve, it's dark and cold and ruthless". While this doesn't completely remove that profession, we should recognize that it puts a significant ding in their operation. While they've made precious few friends, we should all be able to recognize that Eve is a sandbox and even though others may not like them or what they do, they have the option of doing that as their Eve. That is their sandcastle, they should be allowed to build it.

So here's my attempt to satisfy both parties. Remove the insurance, but as compensation make a ship designed around suicide ganking (one might argue that this is the Tornado, but I really don't think it is). Every other profession has their specialized ships, from the Noctis to the frighter to the cov ops to the interceptor there is a ship that you can train for that makes what you do somehow better and easier. Design a ship (and I really couldn't begin to give you balanced specs) around their profession. What do you gankers think? would this be a worthwhile trade off, instead of having to borrow high alpha battleships that are more suited for 0.0 warfare and very cost ineffective, have something balanced to your specific needs?

Its not really any single one of these changes. If it was just the suicide ganking/insurance thing, ok fine, it does kinda make sense.

But its not just insurance, its every rule in eve slowly changing one little bit, like this, at a time. You cant even wardec highsec corps anymore. It was made legal by CCP to abuse the mechanics and evade wardecs. This also made all those expensive research towers in highsec effectively invincible. Pirates now get concorded when they're ganking corpmates... because now they can be kicked from corp while they're in the middle of their gank.

Next up is warp-to-0 autopilot, taking away entry level highsec ganking

And Cloaks have been whined about forever, and CCP has recently hinted at cloak changes, so god only knows what kind of nerfs thats going to get as well.


Its not just the insurance, its all of these things. Every single one of them all combined total up to WOW-In-Space future for eve.

A 1+ year old miner is a "low level newb" if it comes to fights.

A Hulk is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survibility (hell, some T1 frigs and cruisers can tank better AND are much easier to fitt!!).

You don't need to haul 500m ISK of faction gear to be ganged ... more often it is enough to have 1 (ONE) BP-COPY of some rocket + a bit of POS fuel in your cargo to be ganged! (which is in fact less then 5m of ISK).

Allways this STUPID advices like "don't use autopiolt" or "don't carrie expensive stuff" ... we ALL know, that this false advices are nothink but bad attamps to excuse agressive gameplay!
- gangers are BEHIND the cates where hauler need to alligne for 10+ seconds (no manual fly will ever help you!!)
- gangers attack for much less then 5m worth of cargo
- gangers ALLWAYS chose targets where they know, they will get a 100% sure kill
- NO mining or transport ship can be fitted for decent tanks ... you know it and it's FAIL balance (check out Perpetuum hauler/miner ... they can be tanked like creazy!)

Until now gangers have SERO risk in your FAIL "risk v. reward" calculation .. and every damn ganger know this!

You're probably right (I hope not, but probably). However, you have a voice same as all the people that got insurance removed. Start a threadnaught and get TEARS and crew to really get in on the idea. Make it balanced so the 'bears really don't have anything to come back at you with (nothing reasonable anyway, I know it won't stop them from trying). If you believe, as most level headed people do I think, that ganking is indeed a mini-profession in it's own right, then it shouldn't be treated any differently from any other mini profession.

1% systems get traveled by 99% of the players! Occupy Niarja! (am I doing it right?)

I disagree, but then I guess it doesn't matter much either way, as only a tiny unrepresentative fraction of the Eve population post on the forums.



As this issue is very subjective, most of my statements were opinons, as were most of yours, I thought it went without saying....



Putting aside I disagree (for instance a hulk doesn't take long to acquire / train for and in combat terms and being ganked is low-level), I should of been clearer, it wasn't the low level as such in the comparison I gave, but the ease.

I find ezmode, one-sided, faux PvP like ganking miners to be dull, unsatisfying and pointless. The ISK is irrelevant, I play a game with PvP, to PvP not to earn isk, I prefer proper PvP - i.e. reasonably competitive, a challenge and exciting. (roll on GW2)

IF you build and spec a char purly for PvP ... you can do somethink with 51 days ... and if it is just to be canon-fooder for your friends.

But noone gangs PvP chars ... you gang Miner, Hauler, PvE chars which use PvE fittings!

So stop publishing this FAIL!

It's as you would claim Wardecs are done against PvP corps and not against eazy targetz Production/Miner/Trader corps.

You know it's a 100% LIE!
Stop try to publish this FAIL arguments lier!


Again ... you talk about ship fitted for PvP with chars trained for PvP.

Ever tryed to fitt some Mining gear + defens gear (meqans SPEED for Vigilant) + PvP gear (means EW+guns for Vigilant) on a Hulk?
Hell it's not even posible to fitt it with T2 stuff as you NEED officer/deadspace stuff to do it -> MEGA FAIL DESIGNE!!


Slot layout, CPU/Grid is done by CCP and no player can change it!


Check the different killboards. No, I don't do it for you. It's absolut common to see gang targets worth less then 3m "for the lulz".


PS:


OH YES ... let's force us to use 1/5 of the training time from EVERY damn ganger to train stuff he don't want ... what about .... mining ??

You (the ganger) would spam this forum to death with bazzilion of new whine topics each seconds for days if CCP would introduce it!!!!!!!!

I don't troll you as much as you try to troll the Hauler/Miner/PvE players.


You want to FORCE everyone to play and like your sandbox ... but in fact there are many more player who HATE your playstyle then player who like it. It's just a well known fact, that common PvE player don't use forums as often as common Ganger (wannabe PvP player). This might give you the false impress, that there are more PvP then PvE player.

You are the troll, not me. Fail attamp to let me look bad ;).

And get it, while guys like you spend 100% training time into PvP ... miner/hauler/trader use 100% of their training time into their professions. It's just arogant if you want to force them, to train other stuff!