These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

In simplest terms, what is wrong with EVE

First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#101 - 2014-10-23 17:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Renegade Heart wrote:
Tempted to start asking people I gank if they wanna join my corp and become gankers, and offer them free ships to gank in Smile


About a third of CODE started out that way.

As for this character's corp, anyone can join with an API, they are very tolerant of a variety of playstyles. Even a barely reformed reprobate like me has a place. Also, lots of limeys if you like/can tolerate that kind of thing.

"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.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#102 - 2014-10-23 17:57:59 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

And yet, no one is "lauding" you lol. As I used to tell Dinsdale, so applies to you: The more you post the more people turn against what you want.

Therefore, post more, it makes for a better game in the long run Twisted


Sure the typical suicide ganking griefers that roam the forums aren't lauding me - I'll survive. Thankfully the real heroes of Eve, the people I meet every day in highsec - the hard working mission runners, the capable incursion runners, the manufacturers, the traders, even the diligent miners, and all the other PvE folks, express support for my positions, and would like to see a more orderly and humane highsec....where suicide ganking is rare, and punishments for it server. Those are the people I care about, not the suicide ganking nullsecers.



I do not support your position...I do not support full out ganking either.
IMO though....ganking is at times very necessaryas the only advent of approach because said target is in an NPC corp.
Wardecs are ncessary for this same reason also.

Doesnt matter if your trying to control a market, create a market....if competition is in your way or seemingly about to threaten you position.....then by any tool necessary if you have the means it is quite acceptable to 100% completely obliterate it.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#103 - 2014-10-23 18:12:01 UTC
Interesting read OP. Definitely some valid points.

"It's just a game right? Anything goes in the end. If you want to kill you kill, If you want to steal you steal. A lot of people think like that, more than I care to know, and in a way I get it. Even I used to think like that...but none of it's true. In a virtual world, there are things you have to protect because it's a virtual world. If you give into your impulses in here, it's gonna change who you are in the real world. The player and the character are one in the same."

-Kirito [SAO]

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Valkin Mordirc
#104 - 2014-10-23 18:14:16 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Interesting read OP. Definitely some valid points.

"It's just a game right? Anything goes in the end. If you want to kill you kill, If you want to steal you steal. A lot of people think like that, more than I care to know, and in a way I get it. Even I used to think like that...but none of it's true. In a virtual world, there are things you have to protect because it's a virtual world. If you give into your impulses in here, it's gonna change who you are in the real world. The player and the character are one in the same."

-Kirito [SAO]



He was stuck in a world where pking would actually kill the player. XD
#DeleteTheWeak
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#105 - 2014-10-23 18:21:59 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Interesting read OP. Definitely some valid points.

"It's just a game right? Anything goes in the end. If you want to kill you kill, If you want to steal you steal. A lot of people think like that, more than I care to know, and in a way I get it. Even I used to think like that...but none of it's true. In a virtual world, there are things you have to protect because it's a virtual world. If you give into your impulses in here, it's gonna change who you are in the real world. The player and the character are one in the same."

-Kirito [SAO]



He was stuck in a world where pking would actually kill the player. XD


Not when he said that he wasn't....

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Valkin Mordirc
#106 - 2014-10-23 18:27:18 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Interesting read OP. Definitely some valid points.

"It's just a game right? Anything goes in the end. If you want to kill you kill, If you want to steal you steal. A lot of people think like that, more than I care to know, and in a way I get it. Even I used to think like that...but none of it's true. In a virtual world, there are things you have to protect because it's a virtual world. If you give into your impulses in here, it's gonna change who you are in the real world. The player and the character are one in the same."

-Kirito [SAO]



He was stuck in a world where pking would actually kill the player. XD


Not when he said that he wasn't....



Ah well...Oops


I JUST FINISHED SEASON 2 I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERYTHING. XD
#DeleteTheWeak
Black Pedro
Mine.
#107 - 2014-10-23 18:34:19 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


All of this is by design. Eve is suppose to be a dark dystopia where there is no real punishment for anti-social conduct beyond what other players can provide.

Players are suppose to go down the wrong path. Players are not expected to choose good over evil. Players have the choice to do what they want - build or destroy. It is a competitive PvP game from its core.

None of this means the people playing this game are evil - it is after all just a game.


This really isn't true. Highsec is designed with an infallible police force that wipes out criminals, no matter how powerful they are. Your description may be accurate for nullsec, but certainly not for highsec.


No, this is quite true. CONCORD is one of the balance mechanisms that keeps gankers in check by imposing a significant cost on a ganker - in this case loss of a ship. This means a ganker cannot use use a ship more costly than their opponents, and in practice it has to be much cheaper if they hope to make a profit by looting drops.

As you have said in this thread the coding is arbitrary - if CCP wanted to they could increase CONCORD response times to 1 second everywhere in highsec or even lock out weapons fire totally. But they haven't because criminal highsec combat is part of the design specification of Eve. My description is completely accurate - CCP's design for highsec explicitly allows the possibility of criminal highsec player vs. player engagement, and the possibility for this scales with decreasing security status through the mechanism of CONCORD response time.

You may not like this, and can argue for CCP to change this so you and your PvE-focused friends can have complete safety in highsec, but that doesn't change the fact that you are playing a game that was explicitly designed to foster PvP engagements in all parts of New Eden, including high security space.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#108 - 2014-10-23 18:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Aeon Plex wrote:
I wanted to share quickly what I see as wrong with EVE, and what is so amazingly right, at the same time.

Over the last month, the price of the Garmur has dropped drastically. This is awesome as I've been waiting to get one!

So last night I got a Garmur. Looked up fits and made one I liked. I took it out for a spin and the second I undocked from jita every single person wanted a duel. I was finally hailed to convo by a 9 year old character asking if I wanted to duel.

"Sure I said, but only to hull, as I just bought this and I haven't had a proper fight in it yet."

They agreed, more than once, and I was very very clear. But were busy, and kept putting off he fight, so I logged for the night.

Tonight I jump on, and a few minutes later I'm hailed again by this 9 yr old character. They ask if I would like to duel to hull, and I say sure!

We fly to planet 1, and they ask if they can test the range on their fit, and I'm happy to oblige. They ask me to stop orbiting them so they can check range, and so I do, and then they fly to 0, and kill my Garmur without hesitation, then blink off the conversation we had been having for about an hour.

Now you may say to yourself, "well, duh! Next time don't trust anyone in EVE!"

but honestly that's what he said, so don't be an idiot.

Let's be clear. Losing an 80 mil ISK ship isn't going to bankrupt me or ruin my experience in EVE.

I can see it ruining someone else's experience though, and that's what I want to express. This person had nothing to gain, not even a killmail from killing my Garmur. Doing this kind of thing, is what makes people leave this game. And maybe that's what someone like him wants.

If it had been a fair fight and he had kept going past hull, I wouldn't have minded all that much, but there was no honor, and no sportsmanship at all. In the end, I really just ended up feeling sorry for this guy as a human being.

I've met some really amazing people in EVE, people that have given me ships, people that have taught me things about the game, and people that have podded me, and then given me the money I would need to get my ship back 10x.

Ask yourself though, when the majority of people that come into this game as newbies get treated like crap, (I have been treated like crap plenty more times than this in EVE) and for no reason, and leave, can you blame them? And can you see any future in a game like that? Any real value?

I know myself, that I rarely see any new characters anymore. Everyone I see is almost 10 years old. And this is why. If a 9 year old character has nothing better to do, that troll new characters, and under the sad guise of 'don't trust anyone in EVE' then I'm really not sure that I can see a long term investment in this game is something I want to consider.

*Snip* Please refrain from posting private in game correspondence. ISD Ezwal.

Whatever, I'll buy another ship, but how much longer can a game like this really last? I've talked with ppl on TS about this, and they are just as worried about the serious lack of new blood in EVE.


Why do you think he got no killmail by killing you? Do you think CCP withholds killmails for "unfair" kills?

Also I see new characters all the time, I've no idea why you're so unlucky in finding them. Well, in the future I suggest hitting escape and switching duels off to spare you more pain.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#109 - 2014-10-23 19:11:01 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


No, this is quite true. CONCORD is one of the balance mechanisms that keeps gankers in check by imposing a significant cost on a ganker - in this case loss of a ship. This means a ganker cannot use use a ship more costly than their opponents, and in practice it has to be much cheaper if they hope to make a profit by looting drops.

As you have said in this thread the coding is arbitrary - if CCP wanted to they could increase CONCORD response times to 1 second everywhere in highsec or even lock out weapons fire totally. But they haven't because criminal highsec combat is part of the design specification of Eve. My description is completely accurate - CCP's design for highsec explicitly allows the possibility of criminal highsec player vs. player engagement, and the possibility for this scales with decreasing security status through the mechanism of CONCORD response time.

You may not like this, and can argue for CCP to change this so you and your PvE-focused friends can have complete safety in highsec, but that doesn't change the fact that you are playing a game that was explicitly designed to foster PvP engagements in all parts of New Eden, including high security space.


Fair enough. This would be a strong argument where I trying to rid highsec of all non-consensual PvP. I am not. I am not looking for complete safety in highsec. What I would like to see is less aimless violence without consequences. For instance, the people who pop pods in thrashers every 15 minutes. Or the professional empty ship exploders. These can be deterred without making highsec "entirely safe." And I, for one, would like to see CONCORD cracking down on career criminal suicide gankers.
Matrea D
Maggie's Magical Miners
#110 - 2014-10-23 19:11:20 UTC
Aeon Plex wrote:

I can see it ruining someone else's experience though, and that's what I want to express.


This is part of what's wrong.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#111 - 2014-10-23 19:13:13 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And I, for one, would like to see CONCORD cracking down on career criminal suicide gankers.


Which amounts to seeing highsec entirely safe. Since those people are pretty much the only risk left in highsec. Since, you know, you can't delete low sec status alts.

If you weren't already aware of this, then you are displaying your usual ignorance.

"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.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#112 - 2014-10-23 19:16:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Veers Belvar wrote:
Fair enough. This would be a strong argument where I trying to rid highsec of all non-consensual PvP. I am not. I am not looking for complete safety in highsec.
The gist of most of your posting says otherwise.

Quote:
What I would like to see is less aimless violence without consequences. For instance, the people who pop pods in thrashers every 15 minutes. Or the professional empty ship exploders. These can be deterred without making highsec "entirely safe."
If you want to see consequences for aimless violence then it is up to you to provide those consequences, welcome to the sandbox.

Quote:
And I, for one, would like to see CONCORD cracking down on career criminal suicide gankers.
I, for one, would like to see you try and provide the consequences you so desperately want CCP to provide for you via CONCORD.

Stop being so damn lazy and actually do something INGAME if you feel so strongly about it, that's the whole principle of an open ended game such as Eve.

TL;DR Put up or shut up.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#113 - 2014-10-23 19:17:27 UTC
Aeon Plex wrote:
I wanted to share quickly what I see as wrong with EVE, and what is so amazingly right, at the same time.
...

We fly to planet 1, and they ask if they can test the range on their fit, and I'm happy to oblige. They ask me to stop orbiting them so they can check range, and so I do, and then they fly to 0, and kill my Garmur without hesitation, then blink off the conversation we had been having for about an hour.

Now you may say to yourself, "well, duh! Next time don't trust anyone in EVE!"
...


You got PVP'd on a psychological level. It's no different from any other con or scam in the game.

Having these tactics be legal within the game rules is precisely what makes trust in EVE such a valuable commodity. Like it or don't, but it is central to the dark and dangerous universe of EVE.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#114 - 2014-10-23 19:17:34 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see is less aimless violence without consequences.


I'm bored, so I'll bite.

Why? Aimless violence is sort of the raison d'ĂȘtre for most games these days, and Eve in particular. Hell MWO's entire playmodel is built around miscellaneous violence in a never ending cycle of drop, explode, drop, explode. Eve's only difference is that violence in Eve "hurts", virtually speaking. You don't get to res, you don't get a do over, you don't get to keep your stuff (unless you have friends close by who can grab it for you).

My question for you, Veers, is why is this necessarily a bad thing? Why is the cycle of destruction that turns the motor of the Eve ecoinomy in need of a change?

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#115 - 2014-10-23 19:27:08 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see is less aimless violence without consequences.


I'm bored, so I'll bite.

Why? Aimless violence is sort of the raison d'ĂȘtre for most games these days, and Eve in particular. Hell MWO's entire playmodel is built around miscellaneous violence in a never ending cycle of drop, explode, drop, explode. Eve's only difference is that violence in Eve "hurts", virtually speaking. You don't get to res, you don't get a do over, you don't get to keep your stuff (unless you have friends close by who can grab it for you).

My question for you, Veers, is why is this necessarily a bad thing? Why is the cycle of destruction that turns the motor of the Eve ecoinomy in need of a change?


+1

This is a game (and one notorious for aimless violence). EVERYTHING ABOUT IT is 'aimless' unless you are CCP (who make money off the game). Hell, from a certain perspective, this game (and all games ) are counter-productive because you could be using this time to find a cure for cancer ( or ebola, or worse, CANBOLA) or doing something useful.

That's why these types that take this stuff to seriously are the 'crazy' ones, not the guys ganking folks for local chat tears. The gankers are keeping things in perspective (ie "EVE is something to gain enjoyment from and they are gaining enjoyment from it"), the whiners are trapped in a virtual world where they are being just as 'bullied' by others as much as they probably were in real life (this, despite the fact that in this virtual world you can legally shoot the bastards 'just because)..
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#116 - 2014-10-23 19:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
War Kitten wrote:
Aeon Plex wrote:
I wanted to share quickly what I see as wrong with EVE, and what is so amazingly right, at the same time.
...

We fly to planet 1, and they ask if they can test the range on their fit, and I'm happy to oblige. They ask me to stop orbiting them so they can check range, and so I do, and then they fly to 0, and kill my Garmur without hesitation, then blink off the conversation we had been having for about an hour.

Now you may say to yourself, "well, duh! Next time don't trust anyone in EVE!"
...


You got PVP'd on a psychological level. It's no different from any other con or scam in the game.

Having these tactics be legal within the game rules is precisely what makes trust in EVE such a valuable commodity. Like it or don't, but it is central to the dark and dangerous universe of EVE.


Not just Central. VITAL.

The problem is that people like the OP don't understand how vital.

A few years back another company announced a new game. I won't name the game but it does involve pointy ear folks both living long and prospering (lol). The makers of the game stated clearly that it would be nothing like EVE. It's PVE focused (with PVE that isn't crap), has walking in stations (and in ships and on planets), NO non-consensual pvp and no real loss even if your ship gets blown up.

It's everything the EVE carebear ever asked for in a game. Some proclaimed loudly that not only would they leave and never return to EVE, but that this game would kill EVE. The maker of that game boasted about it's million+ subs at launch.

Several years later t has a fraction of it's launch day subscriptions (despite being a game based on a major , established and well know IP) and the same people who SWORE it would kill EVE and that they would never come back ...are back and claiming that Elite and Star Citizen are about to kill EVE.

The truth is the folks complaining are the ones who NEED EVE to be how it is. If it changed they way they say they want it to, they'd leave and go find some other game to be mad at. Because they NEED to be mad at something , need to be that 'rebel with a jacked up cause', to feel both alive and useful.
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2014-10-23 19:42:38 UTC
I don't mind people getting screwed over when they put themselves in situations of trust, but I think CCP should remove the trust factor from a lot of things. For one, POCOs and POSes should be up for contract/trade to legitimize buying them without needing a third party. Also, I have no idea why there isn't a simple "duel to 50% hull" option, or just until pod - I think it would encourage PvP among high-sec residents if they knew they could practice with strangers without having to put their ship (or pod) on the line.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#118 - 2014-10-23 19:45:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is a game (and one notorious for aimless violence). EVERYTHING ABOUT IT is 'aimless' unless you are CCP (who make money off the game). Hell, from a certain perspective, this game (and all games ) are counter-productive because you could be using this time to find a cure for cancer ( or ebola, or worse, CANBOLA) or doing something useful.


I got 99 problems but CANBOLA ain't one.

Thank Bob.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#119 - 2014-10-23 19:48:43 UTC
Jur Tissant wrote:
Also, I have no idea why there isn't a simple "duel to 50% hull" option, or just until pod - I think it would encourage PvP among high-sec residents if they knew they could practice with strangers without having to put their ship (or pod) on the line.


Probably because this is a destruction based ecoonomy. It's literally a core function of the game to get blown up.

"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.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#120 - 2014-10-23 19:49:12 UTC
Jur Tissant wrote:
I don't mind people getting screwed over when they put themselves in situations of trust, but I think CCP should remove the trust factor from a lot of things. For one, POCOs and POSes should be up for contract/trade to legitimize buying them without needing a third party. Also, I have no idea why there isn't a simple "duel to 50% hull" option, or just until pod - I think it would encourage PvP among high-sec residents if they knew they could practice with strangers without having to put their ship (or pod) on the line.

Your pod isn't on the line though, it's impossible to lock a pod if you're spamming warp the second you exexplode .
if I can catch your pod. you deserve it.