EVE General Discussion

Look, this threads are here every week in the year for over a decade. And CCP changed a lot already in that direction, to a point where suicide ganking got almost extinct. I believe you what you say that you "just" want a highsec+. But will it end there? No it will not it is just one of many small (or not so small) nerfs to piracy and emergent content creation in Highsec and even if that got implemented they will cry for more safety and riches they can harvest in complete safety.

Call us close minded all you want. What you see is a reaction based on the history of carebear demands and how they diluted this game already. We are here to expose their hypocritical posts where they claim they just look after the new player where in reality they want to protect and grow their AFK farm, be that an AFK freighter or mining barge, not realising that complete safety will completely devalue their activity, which will lead to even more posts and demands.

Your side completely ignores the facts that CCP already looked into the topic and came to the same conclusion we did years ago. New players don't need to be protected any more, they need to be introduces to the action which makes EVE unique and worthwhile faster. Carebears who think they need to trap them into a year of mining first are the poison of this game and the best thing CCP could do is to get rid of them.

I never said he was being an ******* in the interview, I said he was a self confessed one and he says so. It's also true he isn't with CCP, after being forcibly ejected. The entire point of that post is 'why treat the vision of one man as if it is perfect, when the people he was working with didn't even want him around'.

I'll apologise if you felt I was singling you out, as you hadn't said much about the article, but Aaron is hoping it will somehow convince people that gankers are right about what eve is and should be, because of the original vision of a founder who was kicked out right at the get go, hence the god comment.

This guy is only that, one guy. I'm a guy too. So is anyone reading this, you've all got just as much right to say how eve should be. However limiting yourself to what eve is, then saying you are happy with that, is not going to improve the game any.

risk/reward is a metric to balance NPC loot drop tables and ore in the belts and not player interaction. The reward is based on what the players loads into his freighter, how would any game mechanic change ever "fix" that?

Hmmm somebody seems to be having consistency problems.

Risk in game is largely a result of players actions.

Put too much cargo value into your freighter you increase your risk. The more cargo value, the more risk. This is done by players and can't really be addressed very well by mechanics. We could make the freighter's hold really tiny so nobody can put much value in it. We could just but a value cap on what goes in the cargo hold: more than a billion--GAME SAYS NO. Of course the whining and gnashing of teeth and hair pulling would be eipc (hmmm too bad April Fools just passed...oh well next year maybe).

We have gone over this again, and again, and again. The reward is due entirely to some players foolishly, imprudently and/or impulsively taking on too much risk.

Don't blame the ganker, blame the dumbass who put 5.9 billion in cargo value into his hold and clicked undock without a scout, without a webber, not using the watchlist, not doing anything and dying alone.

Then it's a poor point, because it wasn't just the vision of one man.

I simply pointed out an error in your argument, which is by the way very obvious and the very reason why CCP can't balance risk/reward in freighter ganking. Your childish answer makes me think you are once again out of arguments.

It's also very hilarious how you point out that the risk is supposed to be the player when all carebears do in this very thread is to call for more "NPC risks" for the gankers.

Odd that these people looking out for their interests is frowned upon, and yet the CSM is filled with people looking out for only their own interests as well. I don't necessarily think that having an AFK endless mining farm would be fun, but if others want to do that for some reason then okay. Too often people in this community argue that the way to play EVE is to create your own content. Yet, when that content that is created is deemed too carebear and threatens the sanctity of whatever you not only frown upon it, but also actively discourage it.

Yes of course choices come with consequences however. They chose to do X and others chose to do Y in response. I'd argue that the very people many of you hate are indeed creating content. Yet oddly enough you bite the hand that feeds. How strange...

I think they are scared, scared that more people with different views on what eve is would join. Scared that CCP would try to cater to those new customers. Scared that the eve they know, that game that's different, becomes another boring standardised game, by their thinking.

I think this is a slippery slope, that isn't as slippery as you think, after all look at this discussion. You all do a good job of insulting those you disagree with to shut them up.

I also think culture evolves naturally from what makes sense in an environment, given the warlike gameplay of eve the content of these forums should be a given. If gameplay changed though, culture would change.

Cultivation theory is about as scientific as reiki. There are no views on what EVE is, there is what it is, and what it isn't, and there is a big difference between what people want to get out of EVE based on what it is vs thinking EVE is or expecting it to be something it is not. The former group will find success, while the latter will fail and whine on the forums. This is not an insult, it is just an observed and demonstrable fact.

It would also be a mistake to conflate fear with concern. As I've said in the past, many times, if the devs were as interested in audience and money as you seem to think you can goad them into being for the sake of mass appeal, then they would have done that a long time ago, but almost fifteen years and the game is still in the same core place it was at its inception: a cold, harsh, player-driven sandbox universe in which your decisions can actually have a real and lasting effect. This game offers a degree of freedom of choice, action and consequence, that no other game does, and you want to curtail that uniqueness. So when I criticise that, it's not because I think the devs will listen to you, but to point out how moronic you are being and hopefully point you in the right direction towards understanding why you are just plain wrong. Because the devs are not listening to you even one little iota, and your only hope here is to adapt to what it is. Your fantasies of EVE are only going to land you more confusion, failure, and whining. Right now, you're sitting in a kayak expecting it to be a motorboat and complaining that it needs an engine instead of just picking up the damn paddles and learning how to work with what you have, or just getting out of the boat.

I think you are wrong. I don't think Ima or anyone else thinks it is too carebear (well maybe they do), but that these players are not exempt from player-on-player interaction.

I want to be clear here. Unlike the CODE. people I don't see semi-AFK mining as a Bad Thing™. In fact, I have argued it is a feature not a bug. But the CODE. guys see it differently. I'm fine with letting both views exist at the same time and see how they interact. Some will adapt move into tanked procurers/skiffs, some will start paying attention in other ships, some will move to other activities and some might even quit. Okay, those are all valid responses. I don't want people to quit, move to procurers, move on to other activities CODE. doesn't concern themselves with, or if you really want to quit...fine. Good luck.

But EVE is a game of emergence. CCP says, "Here are the mechanics and a short list of rules, and **** off." We all play the game and see what emerges. Some of it is cooperative, some is non-cooperative. In fact, I would argue it is a simplified microcosm or what societies are like. Various things in society emerge from processes. The process might be a market process or a political process. The process is like a "stew" it takes in all sorts of "ingredients" and produces something nobody really anticipates. Same thing in game. Was OTEC on anyone's radar? B0tLord? All the other stuff we have observed over the years?

Turning EVE into a theme park--i.e. making things safer and safer will mean we get less and less of that. I'm not hear for HS+ or HS++ or HS++++. I'm here for the nitty gritty dirty EVE. I want people trying to kill me while I try to kill them. I want to have to fight for what me an my corp/alliance/coalition members have built and if we can't do that...well we move on to the next thing. I want a hard brutal game where yeah I might suffer a big loss if I am foolish, imprudent or impulsive. I'll learn from it an not come here and whine, ***** and complain on the forums. Instead, I'll try to learn from it make it harder for you to do that to me again, and I'll be looking for a way to get my revenge and screw you over. And if not you, then your corp, your alliance or your coalition.

You are not exempt from player-on-player interaction. That interaction could be cooperative, or it could be non-cooperative. If you want to play the game you have to be able to deal with both types...and you may not know when you are facing either type.

If you don't like this? Well then, GTFO.