EVE General Discussion

If someone needs to spend 500 mil an isk a month, times the number of alts needed to go after a 10 man noob corp ... that's a hell of a lot of ISK to go after 300,000 ISK ships. What's the point? Seems like they are greifing them selves.

Is there any reason it has to be a 10 person corp, can it be 5 or 3 even?


Anyway regardless, you're proposing to have corp warfare on a level playing field, meaning a lot of corps won't be able to war-dec other corps. I don't like the idea anyway.

You've probably heard this before many times, EVE is a sandbox. As with any sandbox you should impose the least amount of artificial barriers as possible.

Not all players from the corp are on at the same time anyway and that could make a difference of more than 5% between two corps at war. Who would the goons fight? Are you also including alliances?

I really don't see it working and certainly I think it would kill EVE as it is now.

You may as well just forget war in EVE altogether and just have arena matches.

And if you find new friends and/or join a corp, they may backstab you and get over with it for free. It's not as if the game rules enabled to punish griefers in any meaningful way, i.e. a way that could cause griefers to leave the game as often as their victims leave.

I give you credit Darth Gustav, at least you're not in denial about this like the majority of the forum posters on here.

IMHO griefing is a topic that has been discussed a lot, but it's been mostly rhetoric from both sides. Here's a bit more of the same.

Problem: Eve is dying since it doesn't attract new players, would it be better off without griefing?
Hypothesis: Eve without griefing would grow bigger, "without griefing" means some highsec security (not punishment) mechanics in place?

Pro:
+ qualitively Eve is a game which allows griefing, and a refreshing rarity in that
+ historically Eve has always allowed griefing and still has a rich playerbase; it's working
+ griefing works as a player type filter, those who can deal with it are more fun to play with
+ Eve is an old MMO which will die eventually in any case, better to keep it the rarity it is
+ Eve can keep it's dedicated players playing longer than many MMO's because of it's sandbox quality which includes griefing playstyles, (insert studies here)
(+ some forms of griefing work as a balancing gameplay and economical factor, e.g. Hulkageddon, corp infiltration and suicide ganking -> they should be left out of this discussion)

Con
- Eve needs new players or it will stagnate and die
- quantitatively games that don't allow griefing grow larger (insert examples and numbers here)
- historically there are many analogies of games older than eve which still live, that don't allow griefing so it can be argued that disallowing griefing would not kill eve but make it large
- disallowing griefing would bring and keep new players in the game (though some old players might quit, insert poll)
- "the sandbox" is ultimately not meant for the playstyle of lulling in security, and that's a major playstyle not included

Personally I would, at this stage of the game, look really close at including some highsec safety measures. It would totally change the game but it might help against the inevitable stagnation. The game needs to evolve in order to keep it running. Realistically highsec is already fairly safe, and the playstyle of "building up" is much more represented than "griefing". Eve needs to attract new players. The sandbox would not be contracted because of artificial limitations, but expanded because of introducing a large new playstyle of no-risk that is represented by many players who can't have it in the current sandbox.

I suspect that when DUST comes out, this will affect Eve quite a lot.

Therefore, I think CCP should implement DUST ( + Eve integration) as best they can, and then see what the situation is like after that.

Here's the thing. EVE isn't dying and is still attracting new players, so your initial problem doesn't even exist, but let's be generous here. Let's assume that EVE is losing players it could keep, because it allows "griefing". That seems like a reasonable thing to suggest and that way we can avoid being bogged down by arguing about every detail and semantics.

Would EVE grow bigger, if it allowed safety in highsec instead of increased security? Maybe, but maybe not. Your hypothesis wrongly assumes, that the gains would be higher than the losses without justifying it in any way. We also don't know how it would impact the game long term.

The thing to remember is, that EVE has done as well as it has because it provides an experience you don't get from other MMOs and it has done very well indeed. While games providing those secure "griefing" free areas have been much more popular, most of them have actually been less popular games or have dropped below EVE after a period of popularity. Even WoW lost a few million subs recently and new highly celebrated games like SWTOR has been leaking about 10% of their subs each month while relative newcomer RIFT has dropped far below EVE within a year after its release. The playerbase EVE has gathered is well aware what kind of game EVE is and likes it that way. Any change in that nature and some of them will rebel and leave, because CCP has betrayed that vision and is changing the game to something it was never meant to be, while there is no guarantee the new policy will bring new players or keep them in any significant numbers.

So we are at a situation where such change would guarantee the loss of subs, but might make up for it with new ones. Would it? The PvE content in those secure areas is simply not good compared to almost every other MMO on the market. The PvP and player interactions are the whole game that is worth paying for. Since this is a sandbox game, you would also have to severely limit what those player can do. If they get immunity from the rest of us, why should we have to compete against them or allow alts to hide behind that protection? You would practically create two classes of players who likely hate each other with a passion and might as well play separate games entirely.

You argue using stagnation as a reason to implement such changes, but I'd argue your changes would lead to increased stagnation and to the loss of what has kept EVE alive and kicking all these years. I do agree that the game needs to evolve and improve to keep running, but you're not talking about that. You're talking about saving a sandbox game focused almost entirely on player interaction by removing and/or reducing that interaction in order to cater to players who don't like that type of a game to begin with. You're seeing a greener grass over the fence and thinking you can keep what you have and get the other stuff too, if you just cater to both sides. It doesn't work that way. You're just taking a dump in the sandbox, while providing a very lacking game for the players who choose to opt out of the sandbox. It leaves everyone unhappy and disapointed. If you came to the game for the harsh sandbox, safe areas partly negate the whole design. If you came to play in the safe areas, your gameplay options are very limited and if you want to access additional content, you're told to play an entirely different type of a game.

It might seem harsh, but I think it's simply a better option to tell people wanting such safety to GTFO and play a game that caters to them. It's better for us and for them in the long run and if it bothers CCP that much, they can make a new game to cater specifically to the needs of those players.

No. EVE is about winning or losing. A friendly corp wont make you win. There used to be a time when the wardec system had a meaning and was forcing bad CEOs out of business. There are so many small fail corps in EVE that provide new players with nothing but boredom. Sadly, I don't believe CCP will understand the function of empire wars and will water down highsec even further.

Faction ständing would not work because any new player with a sliver of faction ständing would lower the corp faction ständing. As a result you force new players who want to play in a corp to farm faction ständing.

How much creation fee would you like to see? Lets say it would be 1B ISK. With the liquid ISK I have today I could create 30 corps. As I'm in full ISK making mode the autopilot is playing a lot. I'm not. How would that help a new player?

If at all you have to have a recruitment fee for the corp to be payed for every new player that joins. But then corps would simply demand new players to pay that fee after they joined.

I'm terribly sorry but there will be bad corps led by bad CEOs all the time because you can't fight the Dunning-Kruger effect. At best you can do is to force bad corps out of business. CCP seams not to like the idea of forcing corps out of business in highsec, so that wont happen anymore.

Grief play is not allowed in EVE Online and punished by GMs on a regular basis. Since you seam to have a problem to understand what grief play is, here a fairly incomplete list.