These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High Sec Hauling/Mining Kills - TY CCP for No Protection

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#961 - 2014-09-01 05:54:04 UTC
I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#962 - 2014-09-01 05:57:16 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.


When, I think it was Tippia, tried the same thing, he had a similar issue. More than a few freighter deaths do not line up with CONCORD kills.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#963 - 2014-09-01 06:11:26 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role. And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


False imprisonment? Let's grant your idea for the sake of argument. Bumping constitutes false imprisonment. But in Eve that is not a crime. Therefore Concord does not respond. The world of Eve does not operate according to your ideals of morality. Slavery is legal in a large part of Eve space. Scamming and swindling are legal everywhere. Concord's clear purpose is to provide enough safety in high sec that a certain level of trade goes on at a steady pace. Concord is not concerned with individual survival and has absolutely no involvement with any idea of justice.

The mechanic of bumping is used for far more reasons than helping gankers to destroy freighters. It's useful in all kinds of pvp. It's useful in counteracting isoboxers who run big mining fleets. It's useful in breaking up station games during war decs and in wars of all kinds. It's far too useful to the game to destroy by giving some huge window in which the ship is allowed to warp away in spite of being bumped out of alignment.

Real life definitions of crime don't apply in Eve and all the lawyerly logic in the world won't make it so. I hate ganking as much as anybody but I would never call for it to be taken out of the game because I know perfectly well how much it adds to the game. (Scamming, now that's another subject entirely.)

The new player experience does suck but ganking is far from the only reason for that. Maybe Eve will die because of it, maybe it won't. There's some form of this fight going on in every MMO I know about. Eve may lose a lot of new players but it retains many players for very long periods of time, and convinces them to spend a lot of money on multiple accounts. As long as it does that it will survive.

Concord's proper role is to provide an isk sink. You can impose police-type assumptions as to what Concord does, but there's no validity to your doing so. Concord is about making the ganker pay a price. CCP Falcon's unfortunate comparison of Concord to the police notwithstanding, they bear no relation to a police force in a modern western country.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#964 - 2014-09-01 06:13:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.


When, I think it was Tippia, tried the same thing, he had a similar issue. More than a few freighter deaths do not line up with CONCORD kills.



The most common war dec type my corp faced in the last couple of years was by corps who declared war on massive numbers of corps and then hung out in the trade hubs and along trade routes to catch careless players who weren't paying attention to their corps and the wars. I'm sure this would blur the numbers.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#965 - 2014-09-01 06:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rowells wrote:
I'm also having difficulty sorting out "ganks" against legitmate kills (wardecs, lowsec, etc.) and finding data from anything beyond a few weeks. Also curious if that dev was referring to ganks or kills in general.

What you're looking for is a whole slew of CONCORD losses at a timestamp that's ±1 minute from a larger loss. It requires you to scan day by day, system by system, rather than, say, just do a group filter. And it is further complicated by the numerous CONCORD losses that show up without a kill preceding them — you end up looking for something that never appears.

So the only ones that can provide any kind of longer-term statistics are the CCP stats wonks. The last time we heard from them, actual gankign was at an all-time low. This is further (less scientifically) reinforced by looking at gank havens such as Perimeter and Sobaseki or Motsu or Aunia.

Conceivably, if you could get direct SQL access to the entire data set, you could conjure up some voodoo queries that grouped same-place/same-time losses and count them, but good luck…
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#966 - 2014-09-01 06:21:20 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role. And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


False imprisonment? Let's grant your idea for the sake of argument. Bumping constitutes false imprisonment. But in Eve that is not a crime. Therefore Concord does not respond. The world of Eve does not operate according to your ideals of morality. Slavery is legal in a large part of Eve space. Scamming and swindling are legal everywhere. Concord's clear purpose is to provide enough safety in high sec that a certain level of trade goes on at a steady pace. Concord is not concerned with individual survival and has absolutely no involvement with any idea of justice.

The mechanic of bumping is used for far more reasons than helping gankers to destroy freighters. It's useful in all kinds of pvp. It's useful in counteracting isoboxers who run big mining fleets. It's useful in breaking up station games during war decs and in wars of all kinds. It's far too useful to the game to destroy by giving some huge window in which the ship is allowed to warp away in spite of being bumped out of alignment.

Real life definitions of crime don't apply in Eve and all the lawyerly logic in the world won't make it so. I hate ganking as much as anybody but I would never call for it to be taken out of the game because I know perfectly well how much it adds to the game. (Scamming, now that's another subject entirely.)

The new player experience does suck but ganking is far from the only reason for that. Maybe Eve will die because of it, maybe it won't. There's some form of this fight going on in every MMO I know about. Eve may lose a lot of new players but it retains many players for very long periods of time, and convinces them to spend a lot of money on multiple accounts. As long as it does that it will survive.

Concord's proper role is to provide an isk sink. You can impose police-type assumptions as to what Concord does, but there's no validity to your doing so. Concord is about making the ganker pay a price. CCP Falcon's unfortunate comparison of Concord to the police notwithstanding, they bear no relation to a police force in a modern western country.



I actually agree with most of the content in your post, and think you make some good points. I think you are confused by what I suggested. I proposed that the 60 second free escape would apply only after a gank attempt, with CONCORD at the scene. CONCORD, in it role as law enforcement (as stated by CCP Falcon. And they most certainly do meet out punishment for violating the laws of highsec), would not sit idly by and watch a gank victim pinned down and unable to escape. In no conceivable universe would CONCORD fail to intervene and free the victim. I'm actually perfectly fine with suicide ganking, what I don't like is when CONCORD does not do its job, and deal with crime in highsec (and pinning someone down to get ganked is most certainly criminal in nature, whether it relies on pressing F5 or not).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#967 - 2014-09-01 06:27:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
CONCORD, in it role as law enforcement (as stated by CCP Falcon
…except that CCP falcon never stated anything of the kind.

Quote:
would not sit idly by and watch a gank victim pinned down and unable to escape.
Good news: they already don't. You're just not familiar enough with the game mechanics involved to know this, nor do you have any actual experience with them, so you go by hear-say instead.

Quote:
what I don't like is when CONCORD does not do its job, and deal with crime in highsec
Just one problem: CONCORD does do its job, which is to enforce a cost on aggression.
Nitchiu
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#968 - 2014-09-01 06:32:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ban Bindy wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role. And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


False imprisonment? Let's grant your idea for the sake of argument. Bumping constitutes false imprisonment. But in Eve that is not a crime. Therefore Concord does not respond. The world of Eve does not operate according to your ideals of morality. Slavery is legal in a large part of Eve space. Scamming and swindling are legal everywhere. Concord's clear purpose is to provide enough safety in high sec that a certain level of trade goes on at a steady pace. Concord is not concerned with individual survival and has absolutely no involvement with any idea of justice.

The mechanic of bumping is used for far more reasons than helping gankers to destroy freighters. It's useful in all kinds of pvp. It's useful in counteracting isoboxers who run big mining fleets. It's useful in breaking up station games during war decs and in wars of all kinds. It's far too useful to the game to destroy by giving some huge window in which the ship is allowed to warp away in spite of being bumped out of alignment.

Real life definitions of crime don't apply in Eve and all the lawyerly logic in the world won't make it so. I hate ganking as much as anybody but I would never call for it to be taken out of the game because I know perfectly well how much it adds to the game. (Scamming, now that's another subject entirely.)

The new player experience does suck but ganking is far from the only reason for that. Maybe Eve will die because of it, maybe it won't. There's some form of this fight going on in every MMO I know about. Eve may lose a lot of new players but it retains many players for very long periods of time, and convinces them to spend a lot of money on multiple accounts. As long as it does that it will survive.

Concord's proper role is to provide an isk sink. You can impose police-type assumptions as to what Concord does, but there's no validity to your doing so. Concord is about making the ganker pay a price. CCP Falcon's unfortunate comparison of Concord to the police notwithstanding, they bear no relation to a police force in a modern western country.



I actually agree with most of the content in your post, and think you make some good points. I think you are confused by what I suggested. I proposed that the 60 second free escape would apply only after a gank attempt, with CONCORD at the scene. CONCORD, in it role as law enforcement (as stated by CCP Falcon. And they most certainly do meet out punishment for violating the laws of highsec), would not sit idly by and watch a gank victim pinned down and unable to escape. In no conceivable universe would CONCORD fail to intervene and free the victim. I'm actually perfectly fine with suicide ganking, what I don't like is when CONCORD does not do its job, and deal with crime in highsec (and pinning someone down to get ganked is most certainly criminal in nature, whether it relies on pressing F5 or not).


So in otherwards if I had a wardec alt I could be totally invulnerable from my WT for 60 seconds? I would just have to gank myself with an alt in a rookie ship
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#969 - 2014-09-01 06:35:45 UTC
Nitchiu wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ban Bindy wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role. And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


False imprisonment? Let's grant your idea for the sake of argument. Bumping constitutes false imprisonment. But in Eve that is not a crime. Therefore Concord does not respond. The world of Eve does not operate according to your ideals of morality. Slavery is legal in a large part of Eve space. Scamming and swindling are legal everywhere. Concord's clear purpose is to provide enough safety in high sec that a certain level of trade goes on at a steady pace. Concord is not concerned with individual survival and has absolutely no involvement with any idea of justice.

The mechanic of bumping is used for far more reasons than helping gankers to destroy freighters. It's useful in all kinds of pvp. It's useful in counteracting isoboxers who run big mining fleets. It's useful in breaking up station games during war decs and in wars of all kinds. It's far too useful to the game to destroy by giving some huge window in which the ship is allowed to warp away in spite of being bumped out of alignment.

Real life definitions of crime don't apply in Eve and all the lawyerly logic in the world won't make it so. I hate ganking as much as anybody but I would never call for it to be taken out of the game because I know perfectly well how much it adds to the game. (Scamming, now that's another subject entirely.)

The new player experience does suck but ganking is far from the only reason for that. Maybe Eve will die because of it, maybe it won't. There's some form of this fight going on in every MMO I know about. Eve may lose a lot of new players but it retains many players for very long periods of time, and convinces them to spend a lot of money on multiple accounts. As long as it does that it will survive.

Concord's proper role is to provide an isk sink. You can impose police-type assumptions as to what Concord does, but there's no validity to your doing so. Concord is about making the ganker pay a price. CCP Falcon's unfortunate comparison of Concord to the police notwithstanding, they bear no relation to a police force in a modern western country.



I actually agree with most of the content in your post, and think you make some good points. I think you are confused by what I suggested. I proposed that the 60 second free escape would apply only after a gank attempt, with CONCORD at the scene. CONCORD, in it role as law enforcement (as stated by CCP Falcon. And they most certainly do meet out punishment for violating the laws of highsec), would not sit idly by and watch a gank victim pinned down and unable to escape. In no conceivable universe would CONCORD fail to intervene and free the victim. I'm actually perfectly fine with suicide ganking, what I don't like is when CONCORD does not do its job, and deal with crime in highsec (and pinning someone down to get ganked is most certainly criminal in nature, whether it relies on pressing F5 or not).


So in otherwards if I had a wardec alt I could be totally invulnerable from my WT for 60 seconds? I would just have to gank myself with an alt in a rookie ship


No, you would be immune from bumping.....you could still be shot/scrammed/whatever else....just not bumped......Not sure how this is any different than shooting yourself with an alt to draw CONCORD and make it hard for gankers to kill you (and for the record I oppose alts and think everyone should be restricted to a single account, which is what I have).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#970 - 2014-09-01 06:40:08 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, you would be immune from bumping.....you could still be shot/scrammed/whatever else....just not bumped......Not sure how this is any different than shooting yourself with an alt to draw CONCORD and make it hard for gankers to kill you (and for the record I oppose alts and think everyone should be restricted to a single account, which is what I have).

And the fundamental question remains: what on earth makes you think that it's worth breaking the physics engine just to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?
Slicr
#971 - 2014-09-01 06:46:48 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Try again.


Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree. Smile




This is the ROLE I wish to see CCP in. Stand your Ground, You handle the game aspect and let the players run as they should in a Sandbox game. Whether we kick the castle down or build it, it's up to us. I am so happy finally seeing CCP and a very respect Dev ontop of that taking a Solid stance for once. Actually the last few "releases" I have seen them stand their ground and I love it. Start dealing with everyone and not Catering to the Tearfilled Entitled.


Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.

It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.

Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.

Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.

True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.

The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.

EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.

Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.

That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.

Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.


Nice to see you put it as your opinion.

I read what you wrote and hope to heck no new players read it - you purposely trying to tank the game? lol

I believe in being Pro-Active as Opposed to Reactive. Reactive tends to be more costly in time and money.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#972 - 2014-09-01 06:48:17 UTC
In Eve we have bombs, lasers, missiles and stuffs that explode...but when two ships collide they bounce off of each other like they are made of Non-Expanding Recreational Foam. Talk about over looking the small details.
Slicr
#973 - 2014-09-01 06:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Slicr
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, you would be immune from bumping.....you could still be shot/scrammed/whatever else....just not bumped......Not sure how this is any different than shooting yourself with an alt to draw CONCORD and make it hard for gankers to kill you (and for the record I oppose alts and think everyone should be restricted to a single account, which is what I have).

And the fundamental question remains: what on earth makes you think that it's worth breaking the physics engine just to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?



Yes those GO TO statements are not to be messed with Big smile

I believe in being Pro-Active as Opposed to Reactive. Reactive tends to be more costly in time and money.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#974 - 2014-09-01 06:52:01 UTC
Slicr wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, you would be immune from bumping.....you could still be shot/scrammed/whatever else....just not bumped......Not sure how this is any different than shooting yourself with an alt to draw CONCORD and make it hard for gankers to kill you (and for the record I oppose alts and think everyone should be restricted to a single account, which is what I have).

And the fundamental question remains: what on earth makes you think that it's worth breaking the physics engine just to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?



Yes those GO TO STATEMENTS are not to be messed with Big smile


Hey, idk about anyone here, but I sure don't know how to recode a decade old underwater physics engine press ganged into service as a space mmo and hotfixed with five years of largely undocumented code.

If anyone does, by all means apply to CCP and solve all their problems.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#975 - 2014-09-01 07:58:19 UTC
I have said it before. If you don't like the rules of hisec, leave hisec. Simples!

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Lady Areola Fappington
#976 - 2014-09-01 08:22:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hey, idk about anyone here, but I sure don't know how to recode a decade old underwater physics engine press ganged into service as a space mmo and hotfixed with five years of largely undocumented code.

If anyone does, by all means apply to CCP and solve all their problems.



Aspects of Dunning-Kruger, it's always easy to do when you don't have a clue how to do it yourself.


Also, here's the cheat-sheet answer for understanding CCP's decisions. Their entire design philosophy is based on "choose the option that gives the players the most opportunities to interact (by interact we mean conflict)."

Hence why they see no desperate need to "fix" bumping. Bumping causes player interaction (conflict). Player interaction (conflict) is good. Removing bumping would remove a source of player interaction (conflict). Removing bumping is bad.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#977 - 2014-09-01 08:22:24 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Try again.


Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree. Smile




This is the ROLE I wish to see CCP in. Stand your Ground, You handle the game aspect and let the players run as they should in a Sandbox game. Whether we kick the castle down or build it, it's up to us. I am so happy finally seeing CCP and a very respect Dev ontop of that taking a Solid stance for once. Actually the last few "releases" I have seen them stand their ground and I love it. Start dealing with everyone and not Catering to the Tearfilled Entitled.


Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.

It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.

Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.

Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.

True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.

The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.

EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.

Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.

That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.

Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.


My god that post... Very nice piece indeed, I need to keep that around for future uses :D

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Damon Messer
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#978 - 2014-09-01 08:23:07 UTC
Slicr wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Try again.


Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree. Smile




This is the ROLE I wish to see CCP in. Stand your Ground, You handle the game aspect and let the players run as they should in a Sandbox game. Whether we kick the castle down or build it, it's up to us. I am so happy finally seeing CCP and a very respect Dev ontop of that taking a Solid stance for once. Actually the last few "releases" I have seen them stand their ground and I love it. Start dealing with everyone and not Catering to the Tearfilled Entitled.


Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.

It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.

Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.

Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.

True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.

The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.

EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.

Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.

That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.

Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.


Nice to see you put it as your opinion.

I read what you wrote and hope to heck no new players read it - you purposely trying to tank the game? lol


That's what actually got me to sub, the shear grittiness of EVE.
If other new players don't like it, WoWland is that way --->>>
Slick Entry
Doomheim
#979 - 2014-09-01 08:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Slick Entry
Christopher AET wrote:
Simples!


The perfect collective noun for people who say that.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#980 - 2014-09-01 09:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha