EVE General Discussion

Profit? Danger? Sleepers?

I'm not saying that absolutely everybody should move out. Just that the rules are so much different in high security space that it makes the transition harder than it should be.

It has taken me 0.2 seconds to figure why that would not work.

Come on, give a try. Think why that idea could not work. What could go wrong?

Still here?

See, that idea only works when the target is in it for the PvP. He must destroy a player structure, and thus face the obvious trap that will be set up by the wardeccer. That's PvP, which is exactly what the wardeccer wants... but not the average victim of a wardec.

Why bother with that? Dropping the corp is easier and doesn't involves any risk of PvP.

So no. It would not work.

Every official forum of any other MMORPG telling themselves the same phrase you just said it.....Ironic eh ?

Jokes on you the world is grey not black and white.

No the world isn't, but Eve is.

Hi Sugar,

The player who does not log in because hisec is not safe is a player we would have lost eventually anyway.

Hisec being safe removes content. People log into the game, long term, because of content. I don't think I need to convince you of CCP Quant's and CCP Rise's studies which find this statement to be true.

The people you think you are saving contribute only to wrecking the EVE market as a whole (creation without destruction). Destruction, mayhem, PVP, these are all hallmarks of EVE. These elements are what make EVE unique, and what make people continue to log in. The second that we coddle folks who let a thing like "undocking not being safe" be a valid reason for quitting, that is when we start selling EVE short.

I voted for you in CSM and I love what you're doing, but please don't cater to these people. They are not long term EVE players. They're not CCP's bread and butter.



The only question that I think you should ask is this: How do I get more content into hisec? Content is destruction, adversity, danger.

Some day, Sybbil, CCP will tell us how many assets are disabled from game economy as their owners leave, and how many are destroyed by player activity.

My gut feeling is that they're at least 3:1 ratio (3 ISK disabled vs 1 ISK destroyed).

CCP is doing their best to retain and engage everybody but highseccers and PvErs, and PCU is slowy and steadily going down. Not even the announced roadmap has spiked the PCU, despite how we are in a traditional growth season.

Someone is leaving the game every day. Someone is dragging the PCU down. That someone is not being convinced by what CCP does. Read my signature. There's no "Plan B" to retain that 62% of players who are not in the game because they can pew pew other players...

CCP's bread and butter is highsec and PvE. That's the dirtiest secret of EVE, and the elephant in the room.

And no. Highsec doesn't needs more security. It needs reasons to stay when you are a solo PvE highseccer and intend to keep being for as long as you bear with EVE. That would improve the retention of 50% of current players and 80% of all new players.

Translation: "CCP should just do more of what they've been doing that hasn't been working thus far, because just one more push of the same failed thing will do it!!!"

It's like saying "there is water leaking onto the boat? Quick, lets pump more water onto the deck, that will fix it"!

Creation-consumption economy. Item is created, then consumed, and then no longer affects the economy although it still exists. That's the case for maybe 60% of all supercapitals in game... they've been created, will never be destroyed and yet they aren't crashing the market nor lowering down mineral price because of lack of consumption. Neither are causing an orgy of destruction, since they're stored in disabled accounts.

A ship stored and a ship destroyed are the same for the market. Yet without people storing ships, some ships would not be built and traded at the same pace.

Even assuming that there is a zero-sum contribution to interaction, destruction-creation economy, and long term fun (as you listed above), I still would prefer no interaction + $14.95 towards the game than no interaction + $0.00 towards the game. A subscription is a contribution.