These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I'm worried for the future of CODE and EVE online.

First post
Author
Giaus Felix
Doomheim
#301 - 2015-10-15 10:48:00 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
HS illegal aggression is not PvP, its ultimately PvE.

Are you saying that the ganked players are not people, but part of the environment?

In the case of bots, I'd totally agree. That's kind of the point of some of what they do.

CONCORD v ganker can't be the PvE that you are referring to as there's no player v the environment. If anything, it's the opposite. Gankers don't shoot CONCORD or anything.


As I said:

CONCORD is the reactionary conflict element, not other players.

Its not players who shoot gankers, its CONCORD.
Hence, its PvE.
That's some serious mental gymnastics right there.

I came for the spaceships, I stayed for the tears.

Top Guac
Doomheim
#302 - 2015-10-15 10:56:02 UTC
Giaus Felix wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Its not players who shoot gankers, its CONCORD.
Hence, its PvE.
That's some serious mental gymnastics right there.

You probably didn't need the word 'gymnastics' in there.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2015-10-15 11:10:24 UTC
Giaus Felix wrote:
That's some serious mental gymnastics right there.


Nah it makes total sense. It's like water is blue and the sky is blue. Water is wet, therefor the sky must be wet.
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#304 - 2015-10-15 11:12:08 UTC
He has a point, a HS ganker is mainly gaming CONCORD or Empire aggro mechanics.
Sure they wind up killing players, but other than the bumping, scanning, looting / local smack to get aggro etc it's all dealing with PVE elements designed to make HS violence a baffling ordeal and kinda lame.
The future of the game is in no way tied to CHOAD or the like.
My ideal future for EvE would be null as a place with tens, if not hundreds, of PVE / trade hubs defended by and supporting roaming gangs of bloodthirsty mofos. Sov would ebb and flow based on more varied factors and Empire would be the quiet, shallow rookie pond it was always meant to be.





Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#305 - 2015-10-15 11:16:14 UTC
Top Guac wrote:
Giaus Felix wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Its not players who shoot gankers, its CONCORD.
Hence, its PvE.
That's some serious mental gymnastics right there.

You probably didn't need the word 'gymnastics' in there.



While I agree that the level of twister put the body of his premise in a pretzel upon itself...

One can make a darn good argument that ganking an AFK hauler is no more pvP than someone mining out a belt before another miner can log in for the day.

There literally is no "player" there to gank, just his assets.

I would still consider that pvp but I can see how some might not.

Now the response by Concord is 100% PVE, that much is true.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#306 - 2015-10-15 11:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
While I agree that the level of twister put the body of his premise in a pretzel upon itself...
Indeed.

Quote:
One can make a darn good argument that ganking an AFK hauler is no more pvP than someone mining out a belt before another miner can log in for the day.
One could make a pretty good argument to the contrary too.

Quote:
There literally is no "player" there to gank, just his assets.
That the player makes a choice to not be there is irrelevant, if a ship is travelling in space it should have a player at the controls.

Quote:
I would still consider that pvp but I can see how some might not.
As would I. Choices have consequences, one of the consequences of choosing not to be at the keyboard while being in space is the risk of losing your stuff in an explosion.

Quote:
Now the response by Concord is 100% PVE, that much is true.
Technically you're correct, but unlike other NPCs you can't realistically engage Concord.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#307 - 2015-10-15 11:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
HS illegal aggression is not PvP, its ultimately PvE.

Are you saying that the ganked players are not people, but part of the environment?

In the case of bots, I'd totally agree. That's kind of the point of some of what they do.

CONCORD v ganker can't be the PvE that you are referring to as there's no player v the environment. If anything, it's the opposite. Gankers don't shoot CONCORD or anything.


As I said:

CONCORD is the reactionary conflict element, not other players.

Its not players who shoot gankers, its CONCORD.
Hence, its PvE.

The illegal aggression from your first post is not CONCORD.

That's a player attacking another player.

CONCORD doesn't get involved until after that. Hence my question.

In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.

I'm sure they don't consider themselves that way.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#308 - 2015-10-15 12:13:47 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.


That would be correct as they are mainly in ships that are not able to fight, so yes!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#309 - 2015-10-15 12:24:21 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.


That would be correct as they are mainly in ships that are not able to fight, so yes!
I'm sure that many of the players you claim to want to protect from the predations of other players will pleased to learn that you consider them to be inferior.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Yusef Brion
Big Yellow Pidgeon Inc.
#310 - 2015-10-15 12:24:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Yusef Brion
Markus Reese wrote:

In a different thread, myself and others discussed piracy in eve. ...

...

more idea, blah blah for another topic


Where is that thread? I would like to hear more.

The more I read the forums over the years, the more I swear. To god. That the typos are intentional mistakes. Part o f the encryption.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#311 - 2015-10-15 12:42:52 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.


That would be correct as they are mainly in ships that are not able to fight, so yes!
I'm sure that many of the players you claim to want to protect from the predations of other players will pleased to learn that you consider them to be inferior.


If they are sitting in a non-combat ship they can hardly be defined as superior in terms of PvP Roll

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#312 - 2015-10-15 12:58:40 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.


That would be correct as they are mainly in ships that are not able to fight, so yes!
I'm sure that many of the players you claim to want to protect from the predations of other players will pleased to learn that you consider them to be inferior.


If they are sitting in a non-combat ship they can hardly be defined as superior in terms of PvP Roll
Did I suggest that the they should be defined as superior, or inferior for that matter? No, I don't believe that I did.

As long as they're at the keyboard a player is a player, regardless of whether or not they're flying a combat ship.

Choices in Eve have consequences. Choosing to not take advantage of the existing mechanics to safeguard their ships, choosing to put all their eggs in one basket, choosing to afk, choosing to load their ships up to the gunwales, choosing to fly said loot piƱatas through well known systems where ganking is endemic without support etc, are what makes them vulnerable to ganks, not their choice of ship.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#313 - 2015-10-15 13:54:25 UTC
I wonder.

Back in the day, Villains were indeed a motor. People hated Nullsec Empires, Wardeccers, Gankers and Pirates, but at least they thought, that they can hurt them back and in some cases, they actually could. Today, I am not so sure about this. Which one of the "bad guys" can you still hurt? Code fly around in cheap-****, and they go pop anyway on their own. Marmite just go dock, if faced with something that could realistically stand a chance of killing their 1M EHP brick proteus with neutral logi support, and even if they didn't, they probably don't care much about that one loss every odd month. Nullsec stopped mattering, so most people don't care about that anymore either. And unless we **** things up ourselves, we are pretty difficult to hit where it hurts as well.

The game has gotten too transparent and calculable, I think, and the players have become too good at this game. Most people know what they are doing, and what the outcome will be.

When we decide to go to providence and destroy every single IHUB, we know we will. Yeah, we missed a few, and that was like what? 10% variance. Who cares?

When Miniluv sets out to kill a freighter, that freighter will die.

The freighter pilot on the other hand knows he will get ganked at some point, but he's still making more money than he can use.

When the GRRGOONS! People set out to do GRRGOONS stuff, I'm sure they know the outcome as well, but kudos for trying.

When a Missionrunner does his missions, he'll know how much money he will make. In FW, you win some, you lose some, but Money's rolling in no matter what.

Major Nullsec Blocs have left Null, not mainly because they were beaten, but because they got bored. "Didn't want that Sov anyway", and serious about it. Eve has become a game without losers. And winning loses all meaning, when losing is not a thing.

What's more - everything is accessible to everyone. High sec corps dreaming of the big move to nullsec one day? Not a thing anymore. If they want to go to Null, they do. Fleets that go on Wormhole excursions, not knowing what they are doing? Not a thing. There's no sense of wonder and no possibility for surprise. Been there, done that, nothing left to do.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#314 - 2015-10-15 15:34:24 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
I wonder.

Back in the day, Villains were indeed a motor. People hated Nullsec Empires, Wardeccers, Gankers and Pirates, but at least they thought, that they can hurt them back and in some cases, they actually could. Today, I am not so sure about this. Which one of the "bad guys" can you still hurt? Code fly around in cheap-****, and they go pop anyway on their own. Marmite just go dock, if faced with something that could realistically stand a chance of killing their 1M EHP brick proteus with neutral logi support, and even if they didn't, they probably don't care much about that one loss every odd month. Nullsec stopped mattering, so most people don't care about that anymore either. And unless we **** things up ourselves, we are pretty difficult to hit where it hurts as well.

The game has gotten too transparent and calculable, I think, and the players have become too good at this game. Most people know what they are doing, and what the outcome will be.

When we decide to go to providence and destroy every single IHUB, we know we will. Yeah, we missed a few, and that was like what? 10% variance. Who cares?

When Miniluv sets out to kill a freighter, that freighter will die.

The freighter pilot on the other hand knows he will get ganked at some point, but he's still making more money than he can use.

When the GRRGOONS! People set out to do GRRGOONS stuff, I'm sure they know the outcome as well, but kudos for trying.

When a Missionrunner does his missions, he'll know how much money he will make. In FW, you win some, you lose some, but Money's rolling in no matter what.

Major Nullsec Blocs have left Null, not mainly because they were beaten, but because they got bored. "Didn't want that Sov anyway", and serious about it. Eve has become a game without losers. And winning loses all meaning, when losing is not a thing.

What's more - everything is accessible to everyone. High sec corps dreaming of the big move to nullsec one day? Not a thing anymore. If they want to go to Null, they do. Fleets that go on Wormhole excursions, not knowing what they are doing? Not a thing. There's no sense of wonder and no possibility for surprise. Been there, done that, nothing left to do.


GrrrGoon comment aside, the issue you have to think about in terms of people wanting to go to null sec is that many are waiting on the current system being improved which it is and the arrival of the new structures, once people see how that all works then the dream of creating their own space empire may entice people in. What they face is large groups of bored rich players who can squash them easily so they have to have the ability to take that hit, they also have the easy meta gaming shite to deal with that saps the will of many including myself to even bother, we can only deal with that by keeping things close to people that we know very well.

The Goons have won the game, well done, but I can't help but think that there is a segment of Goons that want to go a bit further than win the game and that is a shame for Eve.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#315 - 2015-10-15 17:06:59 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
You know as well as I do that the "professionalisation" of gankers is a direct reaction to repeated swings of the nerf-bat to their play-style at, what appears to be, the behest of some hisec residents. The proactive shitting up of threads that call for further nerfs to their play-style is part of that, they're pissed at what they see as the "gentrification" of hisec.
No it's not, that's just the excuse they use. At the end of the day, ganking is still vastly in favour of the ganker over the anti-ganker, it's low risk high reward. What they don't like is that changes get made that balance them out, and they completely ingore changes that benefit them. Even indirect, minor changes they scream about as if they are the worst nerfs ever to hit an EVE player. Even if no changes were ever made, their claims would remain the same, because what they want is stupidly easy methods of generating tears.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
No change there then.
It's considerably worse than it used to be.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Quelle surprise, it's human nature to strike back when somebody tries to drastically change the status quo, and it's not like wardeccers didn't publicly warn both players and CCP that this would happen.
It's not a drastic change in status quoo, the only drastic change was that wardec limits were effectively removed, allowing people to wardec hundreds of corps at a time. But the fact that they can cause this to happen is evidence enough that they need to be brought down a bit. If CCP want it to be pure PvP, then remove PvE. It seems ******** to chime on abut how people joining corps boosts retention, yet have a mechanic that prevents any decently sized corp that isn't pure PvP from existing in highsec.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
While I agree with your basic premise of players requiring help to get to grips with Eve I disagree with some of your terminology, especially in the latter part.

Ruining other peoples day swings both ways, one group uses ingame mechanisms to do so, the other relies on CCP to do it for them.
Of course you do, because you're happy with the game being primarily griefers. Honestly, I think if you get home from work (or the job center) and the only thing that will entertain you is knowing that you can wind up some random on a game then you have issues. I'm all for competition in games, but it has to be balanced. Continuing to allow bored veterans to mindlessly remove entertainment from paying players for literally no reason other than they can isn't exactly the best move for the long term health of the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#316 - 2015-10-15 18:18:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
You know as well as I do that the "professionalisation" of gankers is a direct reaction to repeated swings of the nerf-bat to their play-style at, what appears to be, the behest of some hisec residents. The proactive shitting up of threads that call for further nerfs to their play-style is part of that, they're pissed at what they see as the "gentrification" of hisec.
No it's not, that's just the excuse they use. At the end of the day, ganking is still vastly in favour of the ganker over the anti-ganker, it's low risk high reward. What they don't like is that changes get made that balance them out, and they completely ingore changes that benefit them. Even indirect, minor changes they scream about as if they are the worst nerfs ever to hit an EVE player. Even if no changes were ever made, their claims would remain the same, because what they want is stupidly easy methods of generating tears.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
No change there then.
It's considerably worse than it used to be.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Quelle surprise, it's human nature to strike back when somebody tries to drastically change the status quo, and it's not like wardeccers didn't publicly warn both players and CCP that this would happen.
It's not a drastic change in status quoo, the only drastic change was that wardec limits were effectively removed, allowing people to wardec hundreds of corps at a time. But the fact that they can cause this to happen is evidence enough that they need to be brought down a bit. If CCP want it to be pure PvP, then remove PvE. It seems ******** to chime on abut how people joining corps boosts retention, yet have a mechanic that prevents any decently sized corp that isn't pure PvP from existing in highsec.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
While I agree with your basic premise of players requiring help to get to grips with Eve I disagree with some of your terminology, especially in the latter part.

Ruining other peoples day swings both ways, one group uses ingame mechanisms to do so, the other relies on CCP to do it for them.
Of course you do, because you're happy with the game being primarily griefers. Honestly, I think if you get home from work (or the job center) and the only thing that will entertain you is knowing that you can wind up some random on a game then you have issues. I'm all for competition in games, but it has to be balanced. Continuing to allow bored veterans to mindlessly remove entertainment from paying players for literally no reason other than they can isn't exactly the best move for the long term health of the game.


Just so very spot on, excellent post.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#317 - 2015-10-15 18:22:40 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
GrrrGoon comment aside, the issue you have to think about in terms of people wanting to go to null sec is that many are waiting on the current system being improved which it is and the arrival of the new structures, once people see how that all works then the dream of creating their own space empire may entice people in. What they face is large groups of bored rich players who can squash them easily so they have to have the ability to take that hit, they also have the easy meta gaming shite to deal with that saps the will of many including myself to even bother, we can only deal with that by keeping things close to people that we know very well.

The Goons have won the game, well done, but I can't help but think that there is a segment of Goons that want to go a bit further than win the game and that is a shame for Eve.


One can't win Eve. There is no one global victory condition, no outro, no end credits and the game does not end. If there was, and Goons would have won the game, as you claim, the game would be over and a new round would start.

One can only "win" based on one's own personal victory conditions. Most people in Eve these days know very well what they can do and what they can't, and they are setting their victory conditions accordingly. People know, they can make a bajillion ISK/h, so they do. They also know they can't kill that one Marmite guy on the undock, so they don't try. There is not a lot of "maybe" in there, especially on actions that would be worth taking that risk.

I'd say this is mostly due to the age of the game. Many people have been playing for years and simply know wtf. Those who don't learn pretty quickly from those who do. However, the game has gotten a lot more clear on it's rules: People know exactly how long CONCORDs response time is in any system, under any given conditions. They know, how long burning down a region will take, because there's a fixed timer on everything related to Sov now. They know who can shoot who in High sec, because we have nice differently colored timers for everything, with a tooltip on mouseover. Accidents with Highsec Aggression can barely happen these days thanks to the safety switch. They even know when exactly their Gate cloak will expire, because the game shows a timer for it.

On the surface, all those little things are simply good game design. However, back in the day, people got into Eve despite, the bad game design. I'd even go so far to say they got into it because of the bad game design. All those terrible interfaces and arcane rules are great content drivers. Unpaid sov bills, Can flipping, Corp theft ... all those things happened at least partly because somebody clicked something wrong or because they misinterpreted or simply didn't know the rules.

Remember the days when you had to wait a minute before you could re-dock after docking? When there were stations that would spit you out, not giving you the chance to redock before you left docking range? You had to know in what kind of station you were sitting, when enemies were waiting outside.

Those arcane rules and bad interfaces were also an equalizer of sorts. Yeah, you may not stand a chance against that guy, but there's a good chance he'd make a mistake.

As it is right now, many of those rules are very clear, and everybody either knows them anyway or can see them printed out on the screen. Everybody can gauge very accurately what will happen if he did something, and how the outcome would be.

On the Nullsec side of things: New structures or no - people know that the Imperium would crush them in a few days, if it wanted to, so they don't even try. First, it was the big bad ~Apex force~. That's gone now. However, one doesn't need it anymore anyway, it has been replaced by Interceptors (or T2/T3 Cruisers, if serious) which don't suffer Jump Fatique and can simply be replaced. No need for a supply line, simply buy your siege gear on the market.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#318 - 2015-10-15 19:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dracvlad wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
In your haste to dismiss gankers/ganking you also dismissed the gank victims as being less than other players.


That would be correct as they are mainly in ships that are not able to fight, so yes!
I'm sure that many of the players you claim to want to protect from the predations of other players will pleased to learn that you consider them to be inferior.


If they are sitting in a non-combat ship they can hardly be defined as superior in terms of PvP Roll

No one said, superior in terms of pvp.

You're just doing what Salvos did and dismissing them as less than a player at all. Nothing to do with them being lesser as a pvper.

The claim that illegal aggression is not PvP is a claim that the gank victim is not a player. Full stop.

It completely dismisses the gank victim as being anything other than just another red cross. No different to a rat.

In which case. If that is true, why all the hate for gankers? They're just killing red crosses after all.

It's a totally ridiculous position to take. Gank victims are just as entitled to be considered as players as the gankers are.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#319 - 2015-10-15 20:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Neuntausend wrote:


One can't win Eve. There is no one global victory condition, no outro, no end credits and the game does not end. If there was, and Goons would have won the game, as you claim, the game would be over and a new round would start.


Yes you can. The player base decided that goons won Eve. The CFC train made use of the mechanics and achieved a force that was not able to be countered by the way other players, played. As such, wars in null security stopped. The only big fights became artificial.

That is why all the major changes over the past while with sov and capship mechanics. The existing ones resulted in the whole of eve under an occupation by the former CFC. For all intents and purposes, an earned victory. One that resulted in drastic mechanics changes.

The game did end for all intents and purposes, well endgame did. Farming of PvE I would not consider a direction of a victory. The community on the whole acknowledged the win by packing up and leaving null security. Everything else in eve only was there because it was not considered important.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#320 - 2015-10-15 20:23:45 UTC
So, the Player base decided that they lost. That's called giving up.

However, I call bullshit on that one, because if they decided, that they all lost - what are they still doing here?