These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far.

First post
Author
Black Pedro
Mine.
#221 - 2017-02-02 07:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
Corewin wrote:

Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that
Nope, pretty sure they wouldn't! ...But a lot would, precisely because it is actually fun for them. Even though people keep telling them it isn't.

Perchance, from some exotic side effect the meaningless tunnel vision a gameplay directed entirely on the upsetting off a new player fresh into our beloved game induces, possibly Thickasshiteitus or Dumbasfuckementia, you may have missed the broad spectrum of gameplay options that are also available, including but not limited too, low sec, null sec, and let us not forget ol'scarry McWeary... wormholes.

However, It would make:

*1 - a lot of players happy (sh*t no! happy eve players? surely not)

*2 - More people play and subscribe to EVE online!

(dare I relate to the OP in this now hijacked let's defend the poor ickle gankers post)

Just because you can make a simplistic assertion like the above doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that a large number of people want to play a no-one-can-lose version of Eve with all the conflict drained from it. In fact, when CCP started to move in that direction and buff highsec safety and rewards is when growth in the game stalled and the PCU started to decline. Even though this argument that giving people safety will make CCP rich is raised all the time, no one has been able to explain why CCP should double down on this strategy when all the numbers say it doesn't work.

The much more likely explanation is all this safety just bores people out of the game. If you made highsec completely safe, you would completely remove much of the demand for players to gather and build things. In a game where your output is almost completely consumed by other players, those players need motivation to give you their ISK. If everything is so easily available and immune to disruption, they just aren't going to need it and the game stagnates.

I have no doubt there is a tiny fraction of players that just play to accumulate stuff, never interacting with other players who take satisfaction in just watching their wallet and loot hoard get bigger. However, most industrial-minded players play to service the demands of other players and play and compete in the giant single economy of the game. If you nerf the demand out of the economy by making PVP consensual and removing the competition out of the game by giving players a safe space they can all use to generate resources with no risk, you remove the meaning for much of what players do in this game. Even hardcore PvPers only spend a fraction of their game time directly participating in space combat, but the demand created by that fuels so much of reason for players log in and to do stuff.

Eve Online has lasted almost 15 years by ignoring the constant short-sighted calls to let players opt-out of the conflict and competition that is the life-blood of the game. What astonishes me the most about threads like this is that there are players that continually try to get CCP to do so. CCP knows what type of game they designed, and the perils of too much safety, and while they have tried the strategy of making highsec safer, it has clearly failed to spike the PCU, putting the final nail in the coffin of any movement to turn Eve from a PvP sandbox into a standard theme park MMO.

Perhaps it is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way and for CCP to inject a little more risk into the game?
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#222 - 2017-02-03 00:55:15 UTC
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
Corewin wrote:

Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that
Nope, pretty sure they wouldn't! ...But a lot would, precisely because it is actually fun for them. Even though people keep telling them it isn't.

Perchance, from some exotic side effect the meaningless tunnel vision a gameplay directed entirely on the upsetting off a new player fresh into our beloved game induces, possibly Thickasshiteitus or Dumbasfuckementia, you may have missed the broad spectrum of gameplay options that are also available, including but not limited too, low sec, null sec, and let us not forget ol'scarry McWeary... wormholes.

However, It would make:

*1 - a lot of players happy (sh*t no! happy eve players? surely not)

*2 - More people play and subscribe to EVE online!

(dare I relate to the OP in this now hijacked let's defend the poor ickle gankers post)


How exactly are you quantifying "a lot".

Exactly how do you know more people will subscribe and play?

Eve is not terribly fun when played like one would play WoW. You don't even need to team up to run missions. Most people can run missions by themselves. So the teamwork one finds in WoW or other such games is not needed in EVE.

What makes EVE interesting is the competition between players. What you suggests is removing that....based on nothing.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2017-02-03 10:08:02 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Eve is not terribly fun when played like one would play WoW. You don't even need to team up to run missions. Most people can run missions by themselves. So the teamwork one finds in WoW or other such games is not needed in EVE.

It's not 100% true though.

When i was new and young (2-4 months into the game back in 2010) i used to run lvl4 missions with loose group of players. It was just bunch of randoms from Jel local who could make a fleet and run missions joining/leaving at any moment.
At that point i had no 'proper' skills and ship (i was flying Myrmidon with bunch of meta/t2 stuff, later i switched to Dominix with T1 medium railguns). And teaming up was my natural choice.

I believe nothing had really changed since then. New players still have to collect skills and missions are still difficult enough to make teaming work.

I guess your 'Most people' stands for older, skilled and rich players. But even players younger than 1 year would benefit from teaming up for missions.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Triumvir Roland
SaltMine industries inc.
Spectre Fleet Alliance
#224 - 2017-02-03 11:08:53 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
Corewin wrote:

Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that
Nope, pretty sure they wouldn't! ...But a lot would, precisely because it is actually fun for them. Even though people keep telling them it isn't.

Perchance, from some exotic side effect the meaningless tunnel vision a gameplay directed entirely on the upsetting off a new player fresh into our beloved game induces, possibly Thickasshiteitus or Dumbasfuckementia, you may have missed the broad spectrum of gameplay options that are also available, including but not limited too, low sec, null sec, and let us not forget ol'scarry McWeary... wormholes.

However, It would make:

*1 - a lot of players happy (sh*t no! happy eve players? surely not)

*2 - More people play and subscribe to EVE online!

(dare I relate to the OP in this now hijacked let's defend the poor ickle gankers post)

Just because you can make a simplistic assertion like the above doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that a large number of people want to play a no-one-can-lose version of Eve with all the conflict drained from it. In fact, when CCP started to move in that direction and buff highsec safety and rewards is when growth in the game stalled and the PCU started to decline. Even though this argument that giving people safety will make CCP rich is raised all the time, no one has been able to explain why CCP should double down on this strategy when all the numbers say it doesn't work.


I would love for CCP to make one constelation 100% safe. Limited resources a couple of level 4 agents and nothing much else to do. It would not impact the game all that much. The people who want that kind of space get it. And we can all put this argument to bed forever.

The boring people can just hang out in those couple of systems and circlejerk all day long while the rest of use can go and shoot ships in peace.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2017-02-03 18:08:48 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Eve is not terribly fun when played like one would play WoW. You don't even need to team up to run missions. Most people can run missions by themselves. So the teamwork one finds in WoW or other such games is not needed in EVE.

It's not 100% true though.

When i was new and young (2-4 months into the game back in 2010) i used to run lvl4 missions with loose group of players. It was just bunch of randoms from Jel local who could make a fleet and run missions joining/leaving at any moment.
At that point i had no 'proper' skills and ship (i was flying Myrmidon with bunch of meta/t2 stuff, later i switched to Dominix with T1 medium railguns). And teaming up was my natural choice.

I believe nothing had really changed since then. New players still have to collect skills and missions are still difficult enough to make teaming work.

I guess your 'Most people' stands for older, skilled and rich players. But even players younger than 1 year would benefit from teaming up for missions.


Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I did not say it is not going to ever happen, simply that it is not needed. If a player wants to simply play EVE by running missions he does not need to do it with a team. He can go start grinding standings and take the time to get the ISK and SP to run higher level missions. Whereas in things like WoW it seems that teamwork is a necessity.

Further, given the nature of EVE teamwork is a strategy with low utilization. That is, people in EVE are quite distrustful because if you have a valuable fit, there is indeed your "loose group of players" might turn around and gank you and take your stuff. Can't really do that in WoW. Imagine what would happen in WoW if you could turn on other players and after killing them take their stuff.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#226 - 2017-02-03 18:13:22 UTC
Triumvir Roland wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
Corewin wrote:

Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that
Nope, pretty sure they wouldn't! ...But a lot would, precisely because it is actually fun for them. Even though people keep telling them it isn't.

Perchance, from some exotic side effect the meaningless tunnel vision a gameplay directed entirely on the upsetting off a new player fresh into our beloved game induces, possibly Thickasshiteitus or Dumbasfuckementia, you may have missed the broad spectrum of gameplay options that are also available, including but not limited too, low sec, null sec, and let us not forget ol'scarry McWeary... wormholes.

However, It would make:

*1 - a lot of players happy (sh*t no! happy eve players? surely not)

*2 - More people play and subscribe to EVE online!

(dare I relate to the OP in this now hijacked let's defend the poor ickle gankers post)

Just because you can make a simplistic assertion like the above doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that a large number of people want to play a no-one-can-lose version of Eve with all the conflict drained from it. In fact, when CCP started to move in that direction and buff highsec safety and rewards is when growth in the game stalled and the PCU started to decline. Even though this argument that giving people safety will make CCP rich is raised all the time, no one has been able to explain why CCP should double down on this strategy when all the numbers say it doesn't work.


I would love for CCP to make one constelation 100% safe. Limited resources a couple of level 4 agents and nothing much else to do. It would not impact the game all that much. The people who want that kind of space get it. And we can all put this argument to bed forever.

The boring people can just hang out in those couple of systems and circlejerk all day long while the rest of use can go and shoot ships in peace.


Go play in rookie systems or the test server then.

And the irony that you "want to shoot ships" but are pissed that other players want to shoot your ships. Perhaps you don't quite get the underlying nature of the game. Here let me put it simply:

So long as I am willing to accept the consequences I can shoot you anywhere I want in game.

Those consequence maybe from NPCs (e.g. if I use ewar on you in a mission the rats will start attacking me, or it could be CONCORD). The consequences may be from other players. If I AWOX you the other corp members will likely do their best to blow up my ship and pod. I'll also likely be kicked from the corporation and made KoS. That is the nature of EVE you are never really truly safe.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

lord xavier
Rubbed Out
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#227 - 2017-02-10 20:55:39 UTC
You realize that CCP has made mutli-boxing harder right? People who use to ISBox 100 mining barges, dont do that anymore. You say the player base has gone down 20k, but do you take into consideration these ISBox miners/incursion runners? in 2011 Over by Antem in Genesis, the high sec system next door to Antem had a ISBoxer who would run 100 barges. 2 charons and an orca. I am pretty sure that constituted for 100, if not more of the 20,000 "players" you talk about.

Now also the fighter change. I know I stopped multiboxing supers and carriers. As well as many other players. If you consider maybe, 100 players who stopped multiboxing 2. You are talking 200 accounts/character slots that are useless. Did they unsub? Is 200 a fair assessment? Probably not.

So, In the years you have been playing. I am pretty positive that 4000-6000 accounts got shut off because of ISBoxer. Another 1000-3000 were banned.

Yes, I am going to throw numbers out there. Cause they are a lot more practical than "20,000 player decline and suicide ganking is to blame!"
Aegon Cadelanne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2017-02-16 05:38:16 UTC
I thought EVE was having trouble getting in new players because of competition with other games? I mean, there are emerging MMOs now that support sandboxy elements like player driven economies and player factions. There's ESO which is buy to play though it's a themepark but it is fun though. Guild Wars 2 is fair F2P. Crowfall is buy to play (yet to be released though). Albion Online is another buy to play. In fact, if EVE didn't go F2P I wouldn't even bother to play.



My point is, I don't think that not having a risk free high sec space hinders the game from having new players. I'm freaking new myself. Risk is fun in this game and drives people to form groups. Playing and coordinating with others is what's fun in this game. For me at least but I think other people will agree as well. Coordination with others mitigates risk. I don't think sandbox and consensual PvP mixes well together.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2017-02-24 09:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Black Pedro wrote:
Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left. Highsec has been unsafe for almost 13 years and the game has not ground to a halt. If anything, the game grew faster at times when highsec was less safe earlier in Eve's history. Suicide ganking (and other conflict) facilitates the competition that gives things value in this game. It makes the game much more interesting by meaning the players that min/max production most efficiently don't always win - defending your stuff is a concern which you as a producer/industrialist have to balance against pure yield. This conflict literally prevents the economy from being driven into the ground by overproduction and gives our


Fact is you were probably not around in EvEs early years.
Fact is EvE grew fastest in the Ovuer years and tapered off and then declined after that
Fact is for years CCP Falcon and others have not understood why, how and what EvE was designed as, and so have never understood why it was initially successful and why it then stagnated when it veered off course.
Likelihood is given its early success, something relatively rare for MMOs launched by small independents, it should have continued to grow, even if that growth was modest but it didnt. In business thats called success, declining is called failure.

The fact that is most appropriate and important in terms of your quote above is EvE grew fastest at the time when the devs actively discouraged and denounced ganking, and that was in the first critical years of EvE while Ovuer, the original lead dev and the person most responsible for it becoming a reality was at the helm.

Ovuer Link on Ganking

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Black Pedro
Mine.
#230 - 2017-02-24 13:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left. Highsec has been unsafe for almost 13 years and the game has not ground to a halt. If anything, the game grew faster at times when highsec was less safe earlier in Eve's history. Suicide ganking (and other conflict) facilitates the competition that gives things value in this game. It makes the game much more interesting by meaning the players that min/max production most efficiently don't always win - defending your stuff is a concern which you as a producer/industrialist have to balance against pure yield. This conflict literally prevents the economy from being driven into the ground by overproduction and gives our

Reading this was embarrassing, not as embarassing as playing ibis pirate in the newbie pond but close.

Fact is you were probably not around in EvEs early years.
Fact is EvE grew fastest in the Ovuer years and tapered off and then declined after that
Fact is for years CCP Falcon and others have not understood why, how and what EvE was designed as, and so have never understood why it was initially successful and why it then stagnated when it veered off course.
Likelihood is given its early success, something relatively rare for MMOs launched by small independents, it should have continued to grow, even if that growth was modest but it didnt. In business thats called success, declining is called failure.

The fact that is most appropriate and important in terms of your quote above is EvE grew fastest at the time when the devs actively discouraged and denounced ganking, and that was in the first critical years of EvE while Ovuer, the original lead dev and the person most responsible for it becoming a reality was at the helm.

Ovuer Link on Ganking
You clutch to that quote like an orphan might to the last remaining photograph of their long deceased parents, who gazes longingly at it remembering better times that really only exist in their mind.

If you put that quote into a search engine, it is apparent that you have trotted it out multiple times over the years to make a point that simply isn't true. First, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Oveur said "not easily" for design intention of "pirating". He didn't say that all highsec violence should be "impossible" or something like that. Well, pirating is not easy in highsec. Almost all transport goes unmolested in highsec, and only a small number of players even attempt it. CCP spent years after that quote nerfing highsec piracy by removing insurance, buffing hulls and CONCORD and the like to make highsec a hard place to be a pirate.

Second, over the years multiple CCP Devs have confirmed that suicide ganking and a not 100% safe highsec is working as intended. I've linked some in this thread already, but you also can find examples in the minutes (p. 59) or this devblog detailing changes to suicide ganking which specifically says they want players to be able to shoot each other in highsec. Heck, if you go through those search results you'll even see your beloved CCP Oveur use phrases like "you can PvP anywhere, as long as you take the consequences".

You are denying the undeniable: CCP wants non-consensual PvP to be possible in highsec and CCP intends for it not to be 100% safe. This has always been the case, since Eve was just in the conceptual stage, all through to today. I don't know why or how you have constructed this alternate reality in your head which claims that for some reason, CCP has been unable to make highsec safe after all these years even though they really want it to be, or that CCP Oveur had some divine claim to the development of Eve Online and was doing his best to make highsec 100% safe but was usurped by CCP Falcon and his HTFU crew, but you are completely mistaken. Actually, probably more like completely deluded. Your alternate history is utterly false, and requires leaps of faith and in logic so large, it would do the most rabid conspiracy theorist credit.

Seriously, your bemoaning the fact the Eve Online isn't what you want it to be serves no one. Eve is what it is, and that unambiguously includes an unsafe highsec where you are indeed at risk to other players. And it always has, even back in Oveur's days. In fact, since Oveur left, highsec has only been made safer, year after year, buff after buff, and that has correlated with less logins, less activity and less content in highsec and in the rest of New Eden. I shudder to think what would happen if in your alternative universe a CCP Oveur was still a lead developer and was given free reign to implement the carebear paradise you accuse him of wanting. The servers probably would have been shut off years ago.

Good thing this is all just in your head.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2017-02-24 18:58:18 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left. Highsec has been unsafe for almost 13 years and the game has not ground to a halt. If anything, the game grew faster at times when highsec was less safe earlier in Eve's history. Suicide ganking (and other conflict) facilitates the competition that gives things value in this game. It makes the game much more interesting by meaning the players that min/max production most efficiently don't always win - defending your stuff is a concern which you as a producer/industrialist have to balance against pure yield. This conflict literally prevents the economy from being driven into the ground by overproduction and gives our

Reading this was embarrassing, not as embarassing as playing ibis pirate in the newbie pond but close.

Fact is you were probably not around in EvEs early years.
Fact is EvE grew fastest in the Ovuer years and tapered off and then declined after that
Fact is for years CCP Falcon and others have not understood why, how and what EvE was designed as, and so have never understood why it was initially successful and why it then stagnated when it veered off course.
Likelihood is given its early success, something relatively rare for MMOs launched by small independents, it should have continued to grow, even if that growth was modest but it didnt. In business thats called success, declining is called failure.

The fact that is most appropriate and important in terms of your quote above is EvE grew fastest at the time when the devs actively discouraged and denounced ganking, and that was in the first critical years of EvE while Ovuer, the original lead dev and the person most responsible for it becoming a reality was at the helm.

Ovuer Link on Ganking
You clutch to that quote like an orphan might to the last remaining photograph of their long deceased parents, who gazes longingly at it remembering better times that really only exist in their mind.

If you put that quote into a search engine, it is apparent that you have trotted it out multiple times over the years to make a point that simply isn't true. First, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Oveur said "not easily" for design intention of "pirating". He didn't say that all highsec violence should be "impossible" or something like that. Well, pirating is not easy in highsec. Almost all transport goes unmolested in highsec, and only a small number of players even attempt it. CCP spent years after that quote nerfing highsec piracy by removing insurance, buffing hulls and CONCORD and the like to make highsec a hard place to be a pirate.

Second, over the years multiple CCP Devs have confirmed that suicide ganking and a not 100% safe highsec is working as intended. I've linked some in this thread already, but you also can find examples in the minutes (p. 59) or this devblog detailing changes to suicide ganking which specifically says they want players to be able to shoot each other in highsec. Heck, if you go through those search results you'll even see your beloved CCP Oveur use phrases like "you can PvP anywhere, as long as you take the consequences".

You are denying the undeniable: CCP wants non-consensual PvP to be possible in highsec and CCP intends for it not to be 100% safe. This has always been the case, since Eve was just in the conceptual stage, all through to today. I don't know why or how you have constructed this alternate reality in your head which claims that for some reason, CCP has been unable to make highsec safe after all these years even though they really want it to be, or that CCP Oveur had some divine claim to the development of Eve Online and was doing his best to make highsec 100% safe but was usurped by CCP Falcon and his HTFU crew, but you are completely mistaken. Actually, probably more like completely deluded. Your alternate history is utterly false, and requires leaps of faith and in logic so large, it would do the most rabid conspiracy theorist credit.

Seriously, your bemoaning the fact the Eve Online isn't what you want it to be serves no one. Eve is what it is, and that unambiguously includes an unsafe highsec where you are indeed at risk to other players. And it always has, even back in Oveur's days. In fact, since Oveur left, highsec has only been made safer, year after year, buff after buff, and that has correlated with less logins, less activity and less content in highsec and in the rest of New Eden. I shudder to think what would happen if in your alternative universe a CCP Oveur was still a lead developer and was given free reign to implement the carebear paradise you accuse him of wanting. The servers probably would have been shut off years ago.

Good thing this is all just in your head.


But it isn't just in Ziona's head. The attempts to make HS safer and safer. Answering the call of the carebears to nerf wars, nerf ganking is indeed a thing. Of course CCP does it and it never works out. That is why we keep hearing the whine for more nerfs.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2017-02-25 06:13:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left. Highsec has been unsafe for almost 13 years and the game has not ground to a halt. If anything, the game grew faster at times when highsec was less safe earlier in Eve's history. Suicide ganking (and other conflict) facilitates the competition that gives things value in this game. It makes the game much more interesting by meaning the players that min/max production most efficiently don't always win - defending your stuff is a concern which you as a producer/industrialist have to balance against pure yield. This conflict literally prevents the economy from being driven into the ground by overproduction and gives our

Reading this was embarrassing, not as embarassing as playing ibis pirate in the newbie pond but close.

Fact is you were probably not around in EvEs early years.
Fact is EvE grew fastest in the Ovuer years and tapered off and then declined after that
Fact is for years CCP Falcon and others have not understood why, how and what EvE was designed as, and so have never understood why it was initially successful and why it then stagnated when it veered off course.
Likelihood is given its early success, something relatively rare for MMOs launched by small independents, it should have continued to grow, even if that growth was modest but it didnt. In business thats called success, declining is called failure.

The fact that is most appropriate and important in terms of your quote above is EvE grew fastest at the time when the devs actively discouraged and denounced ganking, and that was in the first critical years of EvE while Ovuer, the original lead dev and the person most responsible for it becoming a reality was at the helm.

Ovuer Link on Ganking
You clutch to that quote like an orphan might to the last remaining photograph of their long deceased parents, who gazes longingly at it remembering better times that really only exist in their mind.

If you put that quote into a search engine, it is apparent that you have trotted it out multiple times over the years to make a point that simply isn't true. First, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Oveur said "not easily" for design intention of "pirating". He didn't say that all highsec violence should be "impossible" or something like that. Well, pirating is not easy in highsec. Almost all transport goes unmolested in highsec, and only a small number of players even attempt it. CCP spent years after that quote nerfing highsec piracy by removing insurance, buffing hulls and CONCORD and the like to make highsec a hard place to be a pirate.

Second, over the years multiple CCP Devs have confirmed that suicide ganking and a not 100% safe highsec is working as intended. I've linked some in this thread already, but you also can find examples in the minutes (p. 59) or this devblog detailing changes to suicide ganking which specifically says they want players to be able to shoot each other in highsec. Heck, if you go through those search results you'll even see your beloved CCP Oveur use phrases like "you can PvP anywhere, as long as you take the consequences".

You are denying the undeniable: CCP wants non-consensual PvP to be possible in highsec and CCP intends for it not to be 100% safe. This has always been the case, since Eve was just in the conceptual stage, all through to today. I don't know why or how you have constructed this alternate reality in your head which claims that for some reason, CCP has been unable to make highsec safe after all these years even though they really want it to be, or that CCP Oveur had some divine claim to the development of Eve Online and was doing his best to make highsec 100% safe but was usurped by CCP Falcon and his HTFU crew, but you are completely mistaken. Actually, probably more like completely deluded. Your alternate history is utterly false, and requires leaps of faith and in logic so large, it would do the most rabid conspiracy theorist credit.

Seriously, your bemoaning the fact the Eve Online isn't what you want it to be serves no one. Eve is what it is, and that unambiguously includes an unsafe highsec where you are indeed at risk to other players. And it always has, even back in Oveur's days. In fact, since Oveur left, highsec has only been made safer, year after year, buff after buff, and that has correlated with less logins, less activity and less content in highsec and in the rest of New Eden. I shudder to think what would happen if in your alternative universe a CCP Oveur was still a lead developer and was given free reign to implement the carebear paradise you accuse him of wanting. The servers probably would have been shut off years ago.

Good thing this is all just in your head.

Of course its in my head - where else would it be. I have first hand knowledge and experience of EvE from its inception to launch over every change and expansion. Do you?

Oveurs post is trotted out whenever I read nonesense like your post. You are either deliberately misleading or ignorantly misleading people on the forums with crap like that.

The post states a number of things and its from the ultimate source, the lead and original EvE developer.

See next post for details

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2017-02-25 06:25:35 UTC
Oveurs Post:

1: Piracy / ganking in high sec should be difficult - its absurdly easy
2: Highsec is supposed to be relatively safe (compared to low null) its currently the most dangerous space for various reasons. Oveur bolded this to emphasize it.
3: He states you should need to go to low null for non-consensual pvp.

Fact is PvP in EvE was always supposed to be non-consensual. War decs were put into game to allow for pvp in high sec. Risk was supposed to be high especially in high sec, low risk concord protected easy ganking with low cost ships is an abberation from the intended high risk designed PvP.

Now things have changed no doubt, we have new devs who have lost or never understood the hardcore philosophy of original EvE however if you try to claim it was always easy and the design was always the way it is now Ill post Oveurs statement again to show you're full of it

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Black Pedro
Mine.
#234 - 2017-02-25 07:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Oveurs Post:

1: Piracy / ganking in high sec should be difficult - its absurdly easy
2: Highsec is supposed to be relatively safe (compared to low null) its currently the most dangerous space for various reasons. Oveur bolded this to emphasize it.
3: He states you should need to go to low null for non-consensual pvp.

Fact is PvP in EvE was always supposed to be non-consensual. War decs were put into game to allow for pvp in high sec. Risk was supposed to be high especially in high sec, low risk concord protected easy ganking with low cost ships is an abberation from the intended high risk designed PvP.

Now things have changed no doubt, we have new devs who have lost or never understood the hardcore philosophy of original EvE however if you try to claim it was always easy and the design was always the way it is now Ill post Oveurs statement again to show you're full of it
Piracy, as a profession is almost impossible in highsec. Either we are looking at a different set of facts, or you have an unconventional use of the term. The only thing you can make a profit shooting in highsec is haulers that another player has chosen to put too much value into. Mining ships, even the most undertanked ones, do not drop enough to allow the suicide ganker to make a living. Maybe they can cover the costs in the best case scooping their own wreck, but there is no ISK for a pirate there. And the tanked ones? It can take a dozen players and 100M+ ISK loss in ships to shoot it, what all for 10M ISK in loot drops? Mission ships are even more safe, and usually have the protection of a mission gate that makes them 100% safe in there from outlaws.

Haulers are the only thing that can be shot for piracy, simply because the player gets to determine how much to put in there. No matter how high CCP sets the costs to attack, the hauler can put more goods in the ship thus making themselves a profitable target for the pirate. However, CCP has raised the cost to attack over and over again, leaving quite a generous window for haulers to operate. It takes dozens of players and hundreds of millions in ships to even attempt an attack on a Freighter which can yield nothing if the attack is thwarted by the hauler or her friends, or if the loot fairy is unkind.

I can get that someone might claim that suicide ganking isn't hard enough, because, hey, why not complain that the other guy has it too easy? Whining is easy and cheap, certainly less difficult than actually playing the game. Therefore, I can easily just write you off as 'uninformed' or, perhaps more likely in your case, a person with an agenda to make highsec 100% safe because you have brought too much of your real-world persona and morals into a spaceship shooting video game. What I can't get is how you constructed a narrative in your head that highsec piracy is somehow easier than it used to be in Oveur's time and that is hurting the game somehow. Back in that era, ships were flimsier, CONCORD took much longer to arrive, and even if you failed a suicide gank, the silly people at Pend Insurance would reimburse a large fraction of the cost of your ship. At times, you could make a living as a 'pirate' just suiciding your battleship into the side of a station because the insurance payout was higher than the cost of the ship.

The reality is mechanically, highsec has never been safer. This is undeniable. There have been dozens of changes, both direct and indirect to highsec piracy, and with only a few exceptions, they have all gone in the same direction: they nerfed it and made it harder, just like Oveur said CCP intends. And it has worked. Most people in highsec have nothing to fear from a pirate - the costs to attack are so high there is zero profit to be had in the majority of cases. The only reason highsec piracy happens at all is that haulers, especially the most imprudent of them, have adjusted to each increase in safety by hauling more stuff, and there are just so many of players in general attracted by the safety highsec generally offers.

All the reasonable metrics (like the ones CCP Quant provides) say that highsec is indeed, the safest space as CCP intends. You have the least chance of losing your ships there by an order or two of magnitude when compared to the other spaces where there is no, or very little cost to attack another player.

But as to your point 3, nowhere does he say "you should need to go to low null for non-consensual pvp". All he says is you should go to low/null if you want to be a pirate, AKA make a living from shooting other people's spaceships. If CCP wanted highsec to be free of non-consensual PvP, they could do it tomorrow with a single line of code preventing us from using the red safety setting. Further, wars are are a significant source of non-consensual PvP (at least at the group level) which have been there since Oveur's time. This idea of yours that CCP, or a favoured developer of yours at CCP, wants or wanted a 100% safe, non-consensual PvP-free, highsec is bullocks. This was never the case and never will be the case. It is just something you want so much for your own personal reasons it is clouding your interpretation of reality.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2017-02-25 08:25:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Oveurs Post:

1: Piracy / ganking in high sec should be difficult - its absurdly easy
in highsec: Highsec is supposed to be relatively safe (compared to low null) its currently the most dangerous space for various reasons. Oveur bolded this to emphasize it.
3: He states you should need to go to low null for non-consensual pvp.

Fact is PvP in EvE was always supposed to be non-consensual. War decs were put into game to allow for pvp in high sec. Risk was supposed to be high especially in high sec, low risk concord protected easy ganking with low cost ships is an abberation from the intended high risk designed PvP.

Now things have changed no doubt, we have new devs who have lost or never understood the hardcore philosophy of original EvE however if you try to claim it was always easy and the design was always the way it is now Ill post Oveurs statement again to show you're full of it
Piracy, as a profession is almost impossible in highsec. Either we are looking at a different set of facts, or you have an unconventional use of the term. The only thing you can make a profit shooting in highsec is haulers that another player has chosen to put too much value into. Mining ships, even the most undertanked ones, do not drop enough to allow the suicide ganker to make a living. Maybe the can cover the costs in the best case scooping their own wreck, but there is no ISK for a pirate there. And the tanked ones? It can take a dozen players and 100M+ ISK loss in ships to shoot it, what all for 10M ISK in loot drops? Mission ships are even more safe, and usually have the protection of a mission gate that makes them 100% safe in there from outlaws.

Haulers are the only thing that can be shot for piracy, simply because the player gets to determine how much to put in there. No matter how high CCP sets the costs to attack, the hauler can put more goods in the ship thus making themselves a profitable target for the pirate. However, CCP has raised the cost to attack over and over again, leaving quite a generous window for haulers to operate. It takes dozens of players and hundreds of millions in ships to even attempt an attack on a Freighter which can yield nothing if the attack is thwarted by the hauler or her friends, or if the loot fairy is unkind.

I can get that someone might claim that suicide ganking isn't hard enough, because, hey, why not complain that the other guy has it too easy? Whining is easy and cheap, certainly less difficult than actually playing the game. Therefore, I can easily just write you off as 'uninformed' or, perhaps more likely in your case, a person with an agenda to make highsec 100% safe because you have brought too much of your real-world persona and morals into a spaceship shooting video game. What I can't get is how you constructed a narrative in your head that highsec piracy is somehow easier than it used to be in Oveur's time and that is hurting the game somehow. Back in that era, ships were flimsier, CONCORD took much longer to arrive, and even if you failed a suicide gank, the silly people at Pend Insurance would reimburse a large fraction of the cost of your ship. At times, you could make a living as a 'pirate' just suiciding your battleship into the side of a station because the insurance payout was higher than the cost of the ship.

The reality is mechanically, highsec has never been safer. This is undeniable. There have been dozens of changes, both direct and indirect to highsec piracy, and with only a few exceptions, they have all gone in the same direction: they nerfed it and made it harder, just like Oveur said CCP intends. And it has worked. Most people in highsec have nothing to fear from a pirate - the costs to attack are so high there is zero profit to be had in the majority of cases. The only reason highsec piracy happens at all is that haulers, especially the most imprudent of them, have adjusted to each increase in safety by hauling more stuff, and there are just so many of players in general attracted by the safety highsec generally offers.

All the reasonable metrics (like the ones CCP Quant provides) say that highsec is indeed, the safest space as CCP intends. You have the least chance of losing your ships there by an order or two of magnitude when compared to the other spaces where there is no, or very little cost to attack another player.

But as to your point 3, nowhere does he say "you should need to go to low null for non-consensual pvp". All he says is you should go to low/null if you want to be a pirate, AKA make a living from shooting other people's spaceships. If CCP wanted highsec to be free of non-consensual PvP, they could do it tomorrow with a single line of code preventing us from using the red safety setting. Further, wars are are a significant source of non-consensual PvP (at least at the group level) which have been there since Oveur's time. This idea of yours that CCP, or a favoured developer of yours at CCP, wants or wanted a 100% safe, non-consensual PvP-free, highsec is bullocks. This was never the case and never will be the case. It is just something you want so much for your own personal reasons it is clouding your interpretation of reality.

Its clear from the screenshot hes replying to someone whinging about concord being beefed up - hes clearly referring to ganking I

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2017-02-25 08:42:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Its clear from the screenshot hes replying to someone whinging about concord being beefed up - hes clearly referring to ganking I


Back when CONCORD was vastly weaker than it is now. And yet, here we are with yet another whine..."Just one more nerf and all will be well."

Never mind that players logged in are declining.
Subs, which are most likely correlated with players logged in are probably also declining.
Yes, CCP has been clever about monetizing the remaining player base...which Ironically leads to more whining about pay to win, usually from the likes of you.

Might there have been justification for buffing CONCORD back then? Maybe. But this is now, not then. So trying to use an argument from over a decade ago would be like arguing that because we were in a deep recession 7 years ago, we should pursue counter cyclical economic policies now. It is just stupid an nothing more than an argument from an out-dated authority who probably knows nothing about where the game is now.

And seriously, I am so sick of people whining about suicide ganking. It only works now because some moron puts too much stuff in his freighter turning it into a loot pinata. How stupid does one be to put 7 billion into an anti-tanked ship that can be taken down by 15 players in 150 million ISK worth of ships? Pretty goddamned stupid. You know what happens with stupid people? The rest of us have to clean up after them.

I have zero sympathy for a dumbass that turns his ship into a loot pinata. None. They were stupid and they were taught a lesson. If they don't like the consequences of their stupidity, well too bad for them.

And spare me the consequences for the gankers. They paid the consequences for their actions. Their ships were destroyed. Yes, an alt or buddy scooped the loot and in the end they profited...but only because some other moron was too stupid to realize he was creating a suicide ganking opportunity.

Seriously. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions. Stop wanting others to do what you need to do for yourself. Goddamn child.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2017-02-25 08:53:43 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Its clear from the screenshot hes replying to someone whinging about concord being beefed up - hes clearly referring to ganking I


Back when CONCORD was vastly weaker than it is now. And yet, here we are with yet another whine..."Just one more nerf and all will be well."

Never mind that players logged in are declining.
Subs, which are most likely correlated with players logged in are probably also declining.
Yes, CCP has been clever about monetizing the remaining player base...which Ironically leads to more whining about pay to win, usually from the likes of you.

Might there have been justification for buffing CONCORD back then? Maybe. But this is now, not then. So trying to use an argument from over a decade ago would be like arguing that because we were in a deep recession 7 years ago, we should pursue counter cyclical economic policies now. It is just stupid an nothing more than an argument from an out-dated authority who probably knows nothing about where the game is now.

And seriously, I am so sick of people whining about suicide ganking. It only works not because some moron puts too much stuff in his freighter turning it into a loot pinata. How stupid does one be to put 7 billion into an anti-tanked ship that can be taken down by 15 players in 150 million ISK worth of ships? Pretty goddamned stupid. You know what happens with stupid people? The rest of us have to clean up after them.

I have zero sympathy for a dumbass that turns his ship into a loot pinata. None. They were stupid and they were taught a lesson. If they don't like the consequences of their stupidity, well too bad for them.

And spare me the consequences for the gankers. They paid the consequences for their actions. Their ships were destroyed. Yes, an alt or buddy scooped the loot and in the end they profited...but only because some other moron was too stupid to realize he was creating a suicide ganking opportunity.

Seriously. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions. Stop wanting others to do what you need to do for yourself. Goddamn child.

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#238 - 2017-02-25 09:01:04 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.


Who gives a **** if it was intended or not. EVE is a game of emergence or spontaneous order--i.e. we will get things nobody intended. That is the goddamned point of the game. To get things nobody intends.

Did CCP intend pipe bombs? Probably not. Did they intend the "false POS" probably not. Did they intend rental empires? Did they intend something like Red Frog? Did they intend coalitions? There are lots of things in game that CCP did not intend...that is the nature of the game.

So your observation is pretty useless...kind of like you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#239 - 2017-02-25 09:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Let me ask this...did CCP intend for the rise of professional freighter ganking organizations? Well with all their nerfing that is what those dingbats got. Whether they intended it or not.

Here is a hint for dimbulbs like you: when you have a system of spontaneous order and emergence...trying to control it, to direct it...it often blows up in your face.

Edit: Unless you control it so much you throttle the life out of it...which, look CCP seems to be doing a fine job.

CCP employees should come into work every day and look at Eve Offline. Then spend 2 hours on their resumes, then do their days work. They are busy working on putting themselves out of work.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2017-02-25 09:05:40 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.


Who gives a **** if it was intended or not. EVE is a game of emergence or spontaneous order--i.e. we will get things nobody intended. That is the goddamned point of the game. To get things nobody intends.

Did CCP intend pipe bombs? Probably not. Did they intend the "false POS" probably not. Did they intend rental empires? Did they intend something like Red Frog? Did they intend coalitions? There are lots of things in game that CCP did not intend...that is the nature of the game.

So your observation is pretty useless...kind of like you.

It was misinformation. Why make **** up?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)