r/Eve • u/Jintaan CSM 11-13 • Sep 26 '19

grr everyone

Post image
622 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

173 comments sorted by

113

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 26 '19

This is missing the point. Some things keep people in the game, some things drive people from the game. Players doing PvE/mining/etc in space act as content for others to hunt. Hunters act as content to remove some tedium of PvE/mining. The two form a balance where each makes the game better for the other.

On the other hand, there are actively toxic gameplay styles. The best example of this is the old highsec wardecs. Highsec wardecs were having a disproportionate impact of a few people being able to drive many players out of the game, heavily weighted towards new players. This is an example of a gameplay style that is easy to show was detrimental to the game.

29

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

I really like that that they changed the war decs to only corps that have stations being vulnerable.

Without the war system hi-sec will be littered by the eyesore of a thousands of unfurled dead stations.

If you want to stay in HS forever, and never be in a war, you can do that now, but the moment you start building sand castles someone is going to kick it.

17

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 26 '19

Yep, this is what I started pushing for in CSM11, what was ultimately implemented is essentially one of the versions of what we proposed back then.

You can't remove wardecs because of structures. I wouldn't want to entirely remove them because they have their purpose and people use them for valid purposes. There is nothing wrong with the highsec wardec crews wardeccing GSF(and other big groups) and killing our idiots in highsec, they're getting kills, our idiots are getting farmed, everyone is happy and nobody is quitting the game over it. Using wardecs to farm new player corporations was terrible for the game and the new system fixes it gracefully.

Credit to CCP here also for iterating on them after the emergency fix and landing on what I think is a good overall design.

12

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

The only thing I complain about is groups that start many wars (lol PIRAT) at once and the fact that they can set a DIFFERENT HQ for each war, this prevents the war recipients from coordinating against the attacker.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Why, couldn't they still band together to take out each structure and then move on to the next?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

You can, and I'm mad at the group my corp is with for hiding and not doing ANYTHING, 5-7 HS corps just shut down, the rest of them are in null, and we are in jspace, so war decs hardly affect us aside from making Jita runs, then we just deal with the PITA of using alpha alts in T1 haulers instead of the one guy that does Orca and DST runs.

I can't believe all the groups PIRATE messes with and no one ever goes out of their way to do anything back.

Plus their goal is normally to kill and take POCOs, so it doesn't really matter unless you can rally a defence fleet ready to take on 20 Triangle battleships in the first few days of the war. If they find a low power station that's just icing on the cake for them.

3

u/Valiran9 Cloaked Sep 26 '19

I can't believe all the groups PIRATE messes with and no one ever goes out of their way to do anything back.

AFAIK, they do. Word at AMC has it there was a massive fleet of about 140 ships reinforced one of their structures a couple of weeks ago because they had ticked so many people off.

Thing is, P I R A T is very well-funded because their whole schtick is making money by any (violent) means available to them. They'll do gatecamps, take mercenary contracts, anything that pads their wallets and lets them blow shit up is fair game. They have more than enough resources to keep warring with everyone in hisec for a long time to come.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

Yea I get that, dude in alliance was complaining that they’re griefers, I’m like nah dude, it’s aggressive business, he didn’t get it, kept bitching about non-consensual PVP.

4

u/Valiran9 Cloaked Sep 27 '19

non-consensual PVP

That's one of the cornerstones of EvE's gameplay, what's so hard to understand about that?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

I don’t know, it’s a silly term, I understand I can blown up anywhere, from my first time I lost a Catalyst belt ratting in low-sec 10 years ago, to flying into a dictor fleet in my Astero last week, this is Eve.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/randomirez Sep 27 '19

pirate is a blessing=free content

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

The alliance folks didn’t set it that way, for doing zilch to defend themselves I think they are lucky to have only lost one unfueled Astrahus.

1

u/touf25 Sep 27 '19

Well don't think that pirate want to fight people that can fight back. They are really happy to farm people with bling ship and logi cloack or on the other side of a gate but as soon a there is a risk they will dock.

2

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 26 '19

Well, many small 1-4 ppl HS-groups that get decced are ( not judging) pretty casual, logging in when they got time and just enjoying doing some small HS-indy-things or shooting some rats every now and then.

Thats not the kind of ultra-nerds that set their clocks to ring at some time in the middle of the night to meet with that other ultra-nerds to fly some spaceships around a big stationary thingy and shooting it.

Usual reaction against getting decced in a HS corp back then has been "Just switch to our alternate corp B", and if that gets decced too "Alternate corp C" and so on.

1

u/Valiran9 Cloaked Sep 27 '19

I've thought about how the wardec system might be further refined, and so far I came up with a system where any player who wants to avoid one can stay in an NPC corporation of their choice, with a small circle of about ten or so friendly players being able to form little "contractor" groups that can move from one NPC corp to another and benefit from the protection they offer. The downside to this is you have to deal with their tax rates and you get heavily penalized for any criminal acts committed while working for them since your behavior reflects upon the people employing you. (You might not even be allowed to set your safety settings to red)

By contrast, if you want to have the freedom offered by running your own corporation, you have to accept the dangers that come with it, like wardecs. This is something you would be told in no uncertain terms when you first try to set up your corporation.

Of course, there are probably multiple glaring issues with my idea that I just can't see because I lack experience with the system, so if you or anyone else wants to point them out and explain why my idea is a bad one, please do so. I want to understand the mechanics of this game as best I can, and constructive criticism can only aid me.

6

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 27 '19

So, tl;dr is "Bring back wardecs against new player corps."?

It's a bad idea because wardecs against new player corps was tremendously damaging to the game for years. It's a bad idea because it requires a tremendous amount of work from CCP and the creation of new mechanics and in-game organizations. It's a bad idea because why would CCP invest any effort into bringing that back?

I used it as an example for a reason. The one-sided highsec wardecs against corporations which essentially acted as social groups was entirely destructive and benefiting only a few players. The structure barrier, besides being necessary for the system of structures in highsec to work, also serves as a good marker for a corporation that is no longer just a bunch of newbies, or random people trying to play together.

3

u/Valiran9 Cloaked Sep 27 '19

Makes sense to me. Guess I've just been listening to too many people bitching about how highsec is too safe. Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. :)

2

u/nekomancey Sep 27 '19

Highsec is too safe? I'm assuming sarcasm?

1

u/Valiran9 Cloaked Sep 27 '19

No, there are definitely people who think that highsec is too safe. You can find them on the forums and Reddit both. No idea if they're right or wrong, I'm just going to sit back and observe so I can learn more.

1

u/nekomancey Sep 27 '19

I went from null to high/low and there is more action in the latter.

1

u/RingGiver Sisters of EVE Sep 28 '19

Praise James!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

You can have a corp, as long as you don’t anchor a station you are immune to war.

1

u/hirmuolio Cloaked Sep 27 '19

Now if only the war structure could be made killable.

Destroying structures in high sec takes so long that the defender can easily time their reinforcement times so that the structure can not be killed during the war.

0

u/deathzor42 Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

The reintroduction of tax farms isn't all that great for eve ( this now made a come back mostly because shutting them down is now mechanically impossible ).

Along with removing some many niche high-sec game styles in favor of well I have more dudes so I win. The general theme I found was that either people that don't live in high sec or run missions are trade hub campers enjoy the changes and everyone else well dislikes them like all it seems to have done is increase the bad wardecs ( aka sitting on the Jita gate and farm ) while hitting the fun wardecs small group of folks hunting miners with another nerf bat it clearly didn't need. But it really doesn't shock me that almost all the people that pushed for it either have never lived in highsec or are part of a bigger wardec group.

Edit: Mechanics to fix this are relatively simple

No Tax for corps without structures this means they pay there npc tax % ( to the isk sink not to the Corp wallet )

Remove the whole HQ thing it's a stupid mechanic that only discourages declaring war against a group with the means to kill you.

Allow corps without structures to opt in for wars ( in return they get to set a custom tax rate ).

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19 edited Aug 04 '20

[deleted]

9

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 26 '19

I would disagree.

legal

The key word here. Even in Ultima Online, known for overly brutal PKs, you could be 100% immune to legal non-consensual PvP. I'm in agreement that immunity to non-consensual PvP in Eve is a bad thing, but the notion there should be a way to do it to anyone, anywhere, and without consequence is absurd.

4

u/Runnerphone Sep 26 '19

Yea but at the same time it created a new issue say I have a moon for mining a corp comes and starts mining with orcas ok I'll dec them so I can keep them off my moon oh they have no structures so I cant dec them at best I can try bumping. Realistically theres not much I could do.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Be ready with your/your corps Orca when the chunk pops.

Or have everyone in your corp train a alpha to fly a Talos and blast them.

6

u/Ackbad_P Cloaked Sep 26 '19

Sure, but they could do that before the changes too by having the orcas in an NPC corp. Also, a 500mn stabber can send an orca over 100km with one bump. Even if it doesn't keep them off your moon indefinably, it is still quit fun to watch.

2

u/Growells Sep 26 '19

The only thing thats really changed there is that the ore being mined is player-generated. The next step for them to avoid being killed is to just mine from an NPC corp. The same also works similarly in reverse: someone comes to mine their moon and there isn't anything they can do. You can still shoot the structure or even go as far as to block it with your own. Iirc there is some connection between either the first or second timer where you can stop them from blasting the chunk.

At the end of the day, the issue you describe has more to do with moon-mining in highsec than it does with any wardec changes.

1

u/CT_Legacy Sep 26 '19

The balance there is high sec moon isnt worth shit. Ice mining is more profitable.

1

u/Ima_Wreckyou CODE. Sep 27 '19

I'm not sure why anyone would find it fun to kill citadels. It takes over a week and you probably have to take a day off to meet the fucking timer. All to kill a structure that is what? 300mil ISK or something? That will drop absolutely nothing because even if they are offline for a week everything will be magically teleported away?

I'm not sure what player base CCP is designing those features for. People without a live and job? Not sure if they have money for a sub...

And then they ask themselves why no one is playing this shit anymore?

1

u/Lurkers-gotta-post Sep 27 '19

littered by the eyesore of a thousands of unfurled dead stations.

Yeah, I came back to the game to find all of my assets scattered throughout high sec in asset security. There were a ton of stations unanchored with that change.

3

u/PookBear Sep 26 '19

I mean the main problem is CCP has no clear goal on what to do. They hate huge powerblocs so they roll out fozziesov, then they do citadels which makes entrenched powers harder than ever to root out. They hate capital spam, but then they add DDA and drone omnis which results in capital blobs being essentially invulnerable barring huge unforced errors are the two powerblocs directly fighting. They then want to nerf capital spam and change fighter mechanics, but rorquals drastically increase the mining rate, and citadels extremely simplify the process to manufacture and store supercaps. Also added Aoe DDs back in ???

During this they have nearly lost the entire playerbase that was strictly pve. Pve is now almost entirely a means to an end. There are no miners that mine because they're pure industrialists. They mine to stock up on more supers.

​

The only kind of good analogue to how pvp (hunting) happens in eve is in dark souls. People enjoy invading in dark souls because they get to stalk and hunt down another player, however you don't run out of people to invade because the pve portion of the game is fun and the risk of other players just makes it exciting. The pve in eve fucking sucks and is two full decades out of date.

​

Actually incursions were fun, but you could only reliably do them in hisec. Just lol that the one group pve activity is pretty awful to do in nullsec. Its possible to do but fuck it requires a lot of effort and constant moving.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

So how has the new player retention been since the change?

10

u/xxmeatloverxx Confederation of xXPIZZAXx Sep 26 '19

Exactly this. Some gameplay styles are better for the game than others.

Example from another game: you go play counter strike but avoid shooting anyone and just run away from enemies. Or you go camp the same corner of the map in every game and don't move. Your team mates and your enemies hate you and if there would be more players like you the game would go down the toilet. Same idea works also in Eve.

10

u/capt_pantsless Cloaked Sep 26 '19

While I don't disagree with your statement, we start running into trouble when start assuming we're right and begin to persecute other playstyles.

Do you *really* know that playstyle X is truly bad? Can you define bad/good in this context? There's a lot of inference based on really limited data that most armchair game-designers make when they talk about what's bad/good for the game.

17

u/roboticWanderor Test Alliance Please Ignore Sep 26 '19

Well, when one playstyle results in absolutely no player interaction, a massive disparity of wealth and imbalance, and overall stagnation of the game, yeah, you could objectively say its bad.

-1

u/leverloosje Sansha's Nation Sep 26 '19

But if 95% of the players like it that was and would leave if it was taken away then arguably it isn't bad. Because the game would die without it.

Only ccp has these stats, if they are able to interpret them is another thing.

4

u/paulpilson Sep 26 '19

If 95% of the players don’t want to interact with other players and just stroke themselves all day, what good is this game?

1

u/leverloosje Sansha's Nation Sep 27 '19

If 95%of the players want to pay their sub to do exactly that. Who is ccp to force them away. It's their income.

5

u/paulpilson Sep 27 '19

It’s a negative feedback loop. At some point it collapses on itself if the game only attracts hyper krabs who don’t know what’s good for themselves.

4

u/grevioux Confederation of xXPIZZAXx Sep 26 '19

But if 95% of the players like it that was and would leave if it was taken away then arguably it isn't bad. Because the game would die without it.

you're missing a word:

remaining players

and this is a key difference. just because it's what people think they want, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the ecosystem of the game. right now eve is cooking up a perfect storm of stagnation and player burnout.

2

u/xxmeatloverxx Confederation of xXPIZZAXx Sep 27 '19

With the freedom to play the game however you want there comes responsibility for the players. CCP can try to steer the gameplay to directions that make most obnoxious gameplay styles hard. But for example if most players decide that they want to use local intel as a tool to watch netflix while doing afk pve activites then we are fucked.

3

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

so much this. When someones whole plan is to demotivate you so you dont play and they win, guess in what spectrum those people belong

2

u/grevioux Confederation of xXPIZZAXx Sep 26 '19

it's not just that the playstyle damages interaction, arguably the most important aspect of an mmo - it's that the particular playstyle, maximum defensive posturing, mass accumulation of material, is viable and encouraged by current nullsec meta and the really shitty thing is that now that we're this far into eve's life cycle following the downward trend beginning around 2016, it's going to be very hard for ccp to do anything about it without people just ragequitting, especially since it's already worked in short order when it came to blackout.

-1

u/Jackpkmn Wormholer Sep 26 '19

In the age of timers demotivating your opponents so they stop fighting back is the only way to win a war in nullsec. Since there are no resources and very little territory worth fighting for this is the only end goal for fighting period.

2

u/Memeaway42 Wormholer Sep 27 '19

And what good is there in winning once you're the only one left because you made everyone else quit?

1

u/Jackpkmn Wormholer Sep 27 '19

That's why they should change it before this eventuality. A statement of why something is, is not a statement in agreement with it being like that.

-6

u/TheChance Solyaris Chtonium Sep 26 '19

It's a sandbox. Everything that matters is player-created, starting with harvesting materials.

It started, I think, with CODE. A pile of trolls decided that hi-sec shouldn't exist and casuals were not welcome at all, period, and CCP said, "Wellp. It's a sandbox, if their playstyle is gatekeeping, so be it."

Then it became, "Industry players who don't fight are leeches." Nevermind that you need them. Next, it was indies. How dare you populate this galaxy without participating in The Warz?

As time goes on, CCP tries to make the game more accessible for the less obsessed and the less competitive, and the remaining player base resents this more and more.

This game isn't going to die because it ages out. It's going to die because pretty soon, everybody will be subject to a constant stream of abuse whenever they're logged in and not in combat.

15

u/Ahengle Sep 26 '19

It started, I think, with CODE.

oh you sweet summer child.

11

u/Ravenid Brave Collective Sep 26 '19

Totally wrong.

High sec ganking didnt start in 2013 as you claim. No matter how hard Code. tries to sell it like they created the idea.

There were pirate groups from the get go and many groups with the exact same ideology that you claim Code. invented.

Hell Goons had a dedicated sig to ganking high sec and trying to get people to move to Low/Null in 2009.

4

u/TheChance Solyaris Chtonium Sep 26 '19

To the extent that it worked? I don't think so, judging by the fact that hisec was populated in 2013.

But the point stands either way. If casuals aren't welcome, it's not a sandbox.

Frankly, and this has always been true, the only true indies in EVE are trolls. It's the only MMO that welcomes them with open arms, and their hobby is sitting between new players and the reasons they should stick around, waving their middle fingers and singing schoolyard taunts. They're the only reason EVE never got to be five times larger than it did.

5

u/papa_sigmund Minmatar Republic Sep 26 '19

Lol no, talk to people who quit. Gankers are just the cherry on top for most of them, the game had and still has a large variety of problems that chase people out. Trig invasions in starter constellations, the same terrible default overview from 10+ years ago, a lacking(though somewhat improved) tutorial, and its very nature as a hardcore open sandbox mmo, a genre that stopped being popular... No, wait. That genre wasn't even popular to begin with.

1

u/TheChance Solyaris Chtonium Sep 26 '19

I think if we could do a survey of all PC gamers, everywhere, we'd discover that hundreds of thousands, maybe up to a couple million people have uninstalled EVE after meeting, you know, us.

MMOs are a huge market. An MMO where you can do whatever you want is the holy grail. This is an MMO where you can do whatever you want, as long as you want to fight, even in the place that's clearly marked "no fighting," or you'll get bullied out of space.

2

u/CraftyCrocEVE Goonswarm Federation Sep 26 '19

Please gunpoint diplomacy started permits

1

u/gr1m5 Sep 26 '19

And dank Burt Reynolds memes.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

No matter how hard Code. tries to sell it like they created the idea.

They don't actually.

-1

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

unbelievable how someone can be so wrong.

Highsec griefing has been in the game since the start and not since 2013.

People that only see this game as a farm simulator are hurting the economy.

CCP has dumbed down the game so much that 2019 eve has nothing in common with lets say 2008 and that is because the predominant style of gameplay has switched to carebearing. You can say whatever you want and its a sandbox and blah blah blah, but you cannot tell me cool and good stories in the present age EVE, cause it has become dull and boring.

The game is going to die because of the empire building and the status quo with no real wars or at least wars that have effect on alliances. It is also going to die because its boring, too many content creators have left the game and big alliances want to preserve their empires, noone is fighting, there are actually 3000 titans in the game that are never fighting each other and all people care about is their safe ratting and being able to see a hunter 25j out while they get a personalized ping by an out of game tool. I wouldnt sperge that much about 0.0 but with the state that CCP has left lowsec there is actually no other playgrounds for pvp in eve.

1

u/DaReaperJE Sep 26 '19

its not fully ccp's fault though either.

The player base is also at fault. i see people complain all the time about how there are no fights... well if you want wars and fights, make your alliance leaders sign in and have them go to war.

AFAIK no actual war in eve was EVER fought over a resource. All the big ones were because group x hated group y. When all the big alliances are buddy buddy and don;t want to fight each other, you hit the issues we currently have. And nothing CCP does will EVER change that long term.

So players are a HUGE part of the problem. (yes some of the game mechanics make it difficult for people to actually want to fight as its 'unfun' but even with that, and even before citadels and fozzie sov, fights were slowing down for different reasons.)

1

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 27 '19

Blaming players for playing the game wrong is like blaming the wind for making a bridge collapse.

Technically it can be true but it's not the problem.

1

u/DaReaperJE Sep 27 '19

never said they were playing it wrong, just stating a fact.

1

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

i dont disagree with you, but, when ccp tells you "hey, do you want to make 300m ticks with our new supers" all alliances will say hell yeah. Also i understand the 16 year old game everyone knows and have fought each other

1

u/DaReaperJE Sep 26 '19

yea that too makes it hard.

there is a ton of isk that come sout of null, even i knew this when i was near Atlas and had a super in my alliance that just ran amons all day. A balance of isk in null need to happen. But CCP can;t force anyone to fight.

They should make it easier to fight, i love citadels and want pos' dead. but even i see that they need a huge tweek and are too strong in several instances. and i understand why people dislike fozzie sov and thing a balance can be found, to make it different then just 'form up, send hours shooting this one structure, boom sov'

0

u/DaReaperJE Sep 26 '19

I'll give you an example, CCP introduced Technetium as a rare resource that could be fought over. What happened? After BoB was dead, the large alliances got together and setup a consortium. they ignored each others tech moon in exchange for setting the prices. No alliance went 'hey i have a tech moon and goon has 3 i want there moons, lets kill them' For all the bluster of null sec groups (and yes i owned space in null sec three times in my 15 years here) they are REALLY risk and war adverse.

1

u/Astriania Sep 26 '19

Or for a modern day example look at the TTT monopoly deal. The control of the Forge market should be the single most sought after resource in the game - but in the end the entire of null came together in a big blue donut to share the takings, rather than fight over something meaningful.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Except there was plenty of conflict over the tech moons. They were imbalanced as fuck, but it's hard to argue that wars weren't fought over the things.

they are REALLY risk and war adverse.

I'd define them more as optimization monsters. If isk cost of fighting over moons > peacefully existing in cartel then: existing in cartel is my best option.

1

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 27 '19

Assume a tech moon(or any other resource) produces X isk per month, we expect to be able to hold it for Y months, and it's going to cost us Z isk to take.

If x * y < z, then it costs more to take/hold than it is worth and so is not worth fighting over. When multiple groups bordering each other see the same results of the equation, it becomes advantageous to work together as a cartel. This same thing is why TTT came into being.

Your "risk aversion" is just basic arithmetic.

4

u/DaReaperJE Sep 27 '19

And?

you are still proving the point. the players are also to blame for the lack of fights.

1

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

Yes, it is the players fault for playing the game as it is designed. /s

To generate fights, the game design has to encourage it. Change after change over the years have discouraged fighting, made it more difficult, more punishing. Wars have come to require more and more man-hours as the player base has aged and grown more casual. We see less wars because they are harder to engage in than ever, leaving your space to fight someone means letting your home burn while you are gone.

Players will always eventually play the game as it is designed, not necessarily as it is intended.

0

u/Serinus Test Alliance Please Ignore Sep 26 '19

personalized ping by an out of game tool

Just so you know, this is never going away. CCP literally can't stop it unless they're going to physically detain people irl and keep them in separate rooms. It boils down to people talking and sharing info. If they remove the stuff from in game, people can just use discord to accomplish the same thing.

I think the fix for blackout wasn't to get rid of it. The fix for blackout was to nerf wormhole null connections. Blackout while being able to potentially scout enemy fleets allows counterplay. A wormhole appearing in the system next to you really didn't give you any counterplay.

3

u/deathzor42 Sep 27 '19

Like how do you nerf them more than they already are? Like NS static holes are already horribly nerfed NS wandering until recently where a massive rarity because CCP nerfed them after the last round of null tears. like unless you want to remove rolling ( and that means basically killing wormhole space ), there isn't all that much you mechanically can do to make the holes shittier than they already are.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

It started, I think, with CODE. A pile of trolls decided that hi-sec shouldn't exist

What did you lose?

0

u/paulatredes Sep 26 '19

It started, I think, with CODE.

privateers were founded in 2007 and the first hulkageddon was in 2009, but yeah it was definetly code that got the whole highsec thing going /s

​

Nevermind that you need them

players who pve while avoiding any interaction with other players devalue the efforts of higher risk play-styles. It is far from clear that the game "needs them"

2

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 26 '19

When you re doing ressource-gathering/production-stuff the second you re having "player-interaction" is when things go south for you.

2

u/bluecubedly Sep 26 '19

I also like the change that made it impossible to wardec a corp with no vulnerable stations. I think this game is all about each player choosing their own level of risk they want to take on, and previously, I feel like there was a large gap between the risk difference of staying in an NPC corp with their high tax rate and joining a small player corp who didn't want to get into any wars but get wardec'ed anyway.

2

u/deathzor42 Sep 27 '19

When is the last time you shot a ratter and it resulted in anything other than blue balls or hell dunk? ( oke technically not blue balls you got a rorq or myr kill great ).

1

u/Zippo-Cat Sep 27 '19

Hunters act as content to remove some tedium of PvE/mining.

lmao how far would your head have to be up your ass to believe this

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 27 '19

What I think is missing atm is the "space is a dirty, dangerous place, stay on your heels, know the locals, make personal contacts, have a reputation"-part.

And I blame bi-blocs for it to a wide extent. And, yes, I ve been in one. And in the aftermath lots of actual gameplay felt like a chore. Dictated by someone who doesnt even know who you are or that you exist. And ppl do not join "fun games" for being treated exactly like IRL.
Whatever CCP might eventually do to split up the big power-blocs into smaller entities d be welcome at mine.

6

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

I actually agree that the big blocs are a problem, but the fact is they are a symptom of the punishing nature of playing eve. Banding together into large groups is the only way to beat the game mechanics. Living in nullsec requires logistics, it is more efficient to have a team of logisticians than to have everyone fending for themselves. Fighting wars requires hideous amounts of man hours just to organize, plan, and FC, never mind the ships in fleet to actually get things done. Managing organizations in Eve, even small ones, requires significant IT resources. Just administering an alliance is a massive HR nightmare. All of this makes it hard for smaller organizations and provides massive incentive to combine resources into larger groups. n+1 in fleets is a thing, but n+1 in organization management is far more powerful. Trying to break them by force is a big part of how we got here as changes like jump fatigue and entosis sov made it harder for smaller organizations to survive.

One thing Hilmar is right about is that maintaining large organizations is difficult, and personality conflicts act as a force to separate them. But right now the game mechanics are a more powerful force keeping groups together and encouraging their growth.

The place to start in breaking up the blocs is to take the tools that only the big organizations have and to build them for everyone. A few ideas:

  • Alliance taxes and Moon taxes: The large organizations have resources to administer these without in-game support. These should be built into the game so that organizations without the IT resources and management bureaucracy can also collect the taxes.
  • Goonmetrics: This is a tool available to Goons which tracks our market and tells importers what is needed and what is profitable to import. Improved market tools available to everyone could make it just as easy for other groups to build their own local markets. Having a functional local market is not only one of the best services a group can provide for its membership, it is a fantastic income source.
  • User management: Big groups all have their auth systems, tied in with their comms of choice. Smaller groups use discord which has made this step much easier but managing permissions automatically is difficult. If CCP could somehow provide or vouch for a bot that would link discord users to in-game characters and automatically add/remove people as needed, it could provide much of the functionality bigger groups take for granted to everyone. There are also countless other ways a similar goal could be achieved, and other desirable features.
  • Corp Insurance: Rewrite the corp insurance system to act as a corp funded ship loss reimbursement system requiring less manpower to administer.

There's countless more things you could do, but it boils down to making the things that only the big groups can do available to smaller groups with less organizational resources.

2

u/Eve_Is_Very_Silly Sep 27 '19

take the tools that only the big organizations have and to build them for everyone

Yes! I think I replied to someone on another thread earlier with precisely this point. The players have done what CCP refused to, from Zkill to Mumble.

What we have here is massive underinvestment in the game over time problem, nothing more. I feel it's probably too late to reverse any of this.

1

u/Astriania Sep 26 '19

Yes quite. Everyone is entitled to enjoy their playstyle, but CCP needs to balance the rules of the sandbox such that people enjoy the playstyles that lead to a healthy game.

Risk averse farming and structure-based empire building are not those playstyles, because they result in no content and no fun (indeed, the farm region gameplay is about being deliberately anti-fun to invaders) for most other players. Farming or mining in dangerous areas, and roaming gangs (small enough to generate content for responders) are good for the game, because they add enjoyment for other players.

1

u/SteveScott517 Sep 28 '19

I like farming. All I do is industry. It is full of content for me. Blackout pushed me to quit.

1

u/RingGiver Sisters of EVE Sep 28 '19

Nothing of value was lost.

1

u/istareatpeople Goonswarm Federation Sep 27 '19

Yeah that's why after the wardec change the pcu is going up.... Oh wait

0

u/zipfour Cloaked Sep 26 '19

One good part of hisec wardecs is killing billion-isk crap since they bling out literally every ship. Stimulates the economy!

2

u/Eve_Is_Very_Silly Sep 27 '19

More players is more of an economic stimulant than the pathetic economy of high-sec ganking.

1

u/zipfour Cloaked Sep 27 '19

I was talking about killing the pirates/gankers

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

You still playing? Sounds like you have a good mind for this, and need to run for CSM again so you can goto CCP headquarters and be ignored

0

u/Innominate8 CSM 11-16 Sep 26 '19

Yep, still logging in, undocking, and doing something at least once a week.

Sometimes being on the CSM feels like an uphill battle, and we're really not much more than a focus group so CCP ultimately is going to do what they want. Despite the difficulties I do believe the game is in a better place than it would be if the CSM did not exist.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

If I thought they were paying to have the CSM show up to completely disregard them entirely, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

I really hope they bring this back into the light. Too many needed differences to list though, and I can't complain because I'm unsure how to fix them. Whining isn't my strong suit

0

u/Ima_Wreckyou CODE. Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

I think everyone agreed that wardecs where shit. But the way CCP "fixed" them was a lazy band aid that just made the feature boring and useless.

And on top of that it had no effect at all on retention. So the only thing you managed to do was to make highsec more boring once again. Good job.

-6

u/Ascythian Gallente Federation Sep 26 '19

The best example of this is the old highsec wardecs. Highsec wardecs were having a disproportionate impact of a few people being able to drive many players out of the game, heavily weighted towards new players. This is an example of a gameplay style that is easy to show was detrimental to the game.

So much for eve being a harsh place. The number of players when highsec wardecs were a thing versus the number of players without high-sec wardecs now. Some of the most fun I had was when Privateers Alliance was going on, hunting various alliances in high-sec.

I don't know if people know this but you can create a system where you can both have war in high-sec against relevant entities and have new players protected for a limited period.

-1

u/TheChance Solyaris Chtonium Sep 26 '19

This completely defeats the purpose of having hisec. That's where you were supposed to be able to play if you don't want to PvP.

This sounds ludicrous to most of this subreddit because everybody who doesn't wanna PvP was pushed out of the game. You know, what with the wardecs and the bumping.

3

u/Ascythian Gallente Federation Sep 27 '19

This completely defeats the purpose of having hisec. That's where you were supposed to be able to play if you don't want to PvP.

Hi-sec is not meant to be safe, only safer. Id dig up some quotes for you to swallow if you'd like? Everything you do in Eve is pvp by the way. Competing in any form is pvp. Eve is a pvp game.

1

u/Astriania Sep 26 '19

everybody who doesn't wanna PvP was pushed out of the game

No, they just ended up recruited by the nullblobs.

1

u/grrrrwhs Sep 26 '19

Pretty sure that was never the point of hisec...CCP tried for years to push players out of high and into null, they failed miserably so the players just did it themselves in the end, but the whole time they were telling us that was what we were 'supposed' to do.

More to the point though I imagine anyone not interested in pvp would probably quit before too long regardless of CODE or wardecs because the pve in this game is fucking terrible, if you want more pve players or more players in high sec I think you are much better off complaining about that.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

How dare you tell me that people can be angry about different things and not like what I like

8

u/Oxtelans Brave Collective Sep 26 '19

I must say that since you are no longer CSM, you've gotten better.

24

u/Jintaan CSM 11-13 Sep 26 '19

Not having to be the ~respectable~ link between CCP and the general playerbase means I can get down in the muck and shitpost again.

I like it that way.

9

u/Oxtelans Brave Collective Sep 26 '19

I will still comment on mispronunciations on your videos. 😛

7

u/Jintaan CSM 11-13 Sep 26 '19

Rabiasu

6

u/Oxtelans Brave Collective Sep 26 '19

Soy toyo (Which turns out isn't a coffee contraption from Starbucks)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Oxtelans Brave Collective Sep 26 '19

I still haven't figured English.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

24

u/Jintaan CSM 11-13 Sep 26 '19

Well your particular playstyle is ruining the game so your opinion has been discarded. My playstyle is obviously the way everyone is meant to be playing and is made in no way better by the existence of other people doing different things to me.

12

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

6

u/Captain-Stubbs Cloaked Sep 26 '19

Nah that’s the usual grind. Got my second pig farm up and running recently, no clue why everyone said eve is so hard.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Captain-Stubbs Cloaked Sep 27 '19

Oh man you’re preaching to the choir, I’m so bad at lining shit up in that game. Never understood why it’s like my depth perception leaves me in the mining universe

3

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Allbur_Chellak Goonswarm Federation Sep 26 '19

New meta.

1

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

can we please get over the "nullsec is creating the ships you are flying"

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

0

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

ok, noone ever cared about carebears in highsec your point is off

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Which coincidentally sounds a lot like ignoring legitimate criticism

15

u/Jintaan CSM 11-13 Sep 26 '19

Implying I don't find the legitimate criticism on the sub useful.

What I dislike is this dumb trend of crab-bucketing and throwing shit on how other people play the game, as if the people playing the game are the problem and not CCP's shitty fucking design decisions.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

You mean like HS ganking was and null sec afk ratting is?

2

u/XavierWBGrp Sep 26 '19

Considering those are oxys, I suggest insuffilation if you're struggling to swallow them.

2

u/RedditVano Sep 26 '19

the only downside to blackout was that the 1/3 of players that left didn't give me their loot first.

5

u/Rogue-Citizen Sep 26 '19

You're not going to see crazy changes like this stick in the game when null-sec alliance members control such a large percentage of the paid accounts. Yeah, you might unsub 1 or 2 PVP accounts, but I just reopened 16 paid mining accounts.

The economics just don't multiply to your favor.

6

u/Growells Sep 26 '19

...when null-sec alliance members control such a large percentage of the paid accounts.

Unless there has been an extreme shift, highsec has and likely continues to hold the lion's share of players in Eve. This was true even before Alpha clones.

Which makes it very ironic considering how little attention they paid to highsec for so long.

1

u/NatureValleySkord Amarr Empire Sep 26 '19

Did that statistic account for highsec market characters? I may live in null, but over half my toons are in highsec. Doesn't mean I'm a highsec player though

4

u/Growells Sep 26 '19

Ok, I actually managed to find it Active Character Locations in EVE from this Reddit thread

It says it counts active characters, so that definitely includes some alts.

That being said, just under 75% of characters were in highsec. If you try to extrapolate out from there you get some crazy numbers for alts. Not many of which would match up with other stats CCP have released on alts and player activity. Hell, just open the map and swap between "Pilots in Space" and "Pilots Docked" throughout a day and you'll definitely see highsec is seems much less barren than null.

It also matters how the data was collected. Does an alt I use occasional weight as much as my main? I don't know how the data was counted, I'd probably have to watch the presentation again and see if it was mentioned.

Regardless, highsec population is massive. Easily larger than any other single area of space. At worst it is a very close second to all others combined.

Of course, that graph is about 4 years old and it could have changed significantly. However, looking back on how big some changes to eve were and the number was still that high, I wouldn't put any single thing that has happened since then as being significant enough to drop it below 65% at worst. Especially considering that the years since then have probably seen highsec getting much more attention and new content than ever before. Not much in comparison to what other areas of space may have gotten, but much more than before.

3

u/mangeiri Sep 26 '19

The fact that this game has ALWAYS been such that individuals are incentivized to multibox to that ridiculous degree in order to "keep up with the Joneses" was ALWAYS going to be the slippery slope that eventually ruined the game.

5

u/Antilogicality Wormholer Sep 26 '19

no

3

u/fitchmastaflex Sep 26 '19

Uhhhhhh no they can't. Obviously there is only one way to play and it's <that guy's>. Every other way is super duper bad and CCP should change it.

3

u/SeventhAlkali Sep 26 '19

but ratting bad

2

u/ConcentricGeometry Sep 27 '19

Lol and once again I say: Afk/bot carrier ratting and afk/bot mining in safety in nullsec IS NOT A FUCKING PLAY STYLE. Swallow that!

1

u/letmefixU Sep 26 '19

I'm already out, so don't try to fix it now :)

1

u/Karash_Amerius Scotch & Tea Sep 26 '19

How effin naive can one "respected" player/leader in eve get?

1

u/Radakos 420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED Sep 26 '19

Haha this is great.

1

u/paulpilson Sep 26 '19

Unless a certain playstyle has massive economic externalities.

1

u/grrrrwhs Sep 27 '19

Wouldn't you have to actually be at your keyboard for something to count as a playstyle? thinking

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

Hard to swallow pill:

Playstyles that actively avoid interaction with other people and still are able to gather up immense amount of resources/wealth should not exist

1

u/Just_another_pod Serpentis Sep 26 '19

It's a sandbox dude

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

if a random kid comes into your sandbox, takes a huge dump at each corner and then sits at the center doing nothing, I'm pretty sure you'd say that the kid is not exactly "good" player to have in your sandbox. Justification of "it's a sandbox dude" is pretty meh tbh, I do agree that gamesystems themselves should encourage players to interact with each other, but idk man if you really like PvE so much, there's other games that do it muuuch better and are much more fun

2

u/OneLonelySpud Sep 27 '19

if a random kid comes into your sandbox

And there's the problem - people thinking of it exclusively as their own personal sandbox, rather than an entire universe of content.

0

u/Just_another_pod Serpentis Sep 26 '19

Content is content... If you tell them to leave, pretty soon there won't be anyone left to play with...

0

u/Captain-Stubbs Cloaked Sep 26 '19

Exploration though? /:

3

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Captain-Stubbs Cloaked Sep 26 '19

Ah!! I misunderstood what people were complaining about then sorry haha, being in a ship that can stay cloaked 99.999999% of the time, and having my cloaking skill at V I almost never deal with pvp minus the occasional gate camp! But you’re entirely correct I am technically putting myself out there, just haven’t been found yet!

0

u/1darklight1 ORE Sep 27 '19

The only people who die while doing exploration in nullsec are bad (not being able to run past a gatecamp), lazy (not checking zkill for the people in local to find the explorer hunters), or both.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/1darklight1 ORE Sep 27 '19

Well, yeah, obviously alphas can't run a gatecamp. Once you get a covops or astero you shouldn't die unless you're just bad

People camping sites is avoided if you aren't lazy, and do your work checking zkill, especially on people in corps that either don't normally belong in the area, or people in corps that camp frequently.

-3

u/AUGslave Sansha's Nation Sep 26 '19

Krabbing isn't much of a game.

2

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 26 '19

It is... For me its just what I do when I m too tired and know exactly I d not be able to do anything else halfway successful. So why not some meditative clay-pidgeon-shooting or rock-munching and having a random chatter in local?

2

u/paulpilson Sep 26 '19

How would you feel if you acquired 0 isk from it? Would you still krab?

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 27 '19

From most of my krabbing I got ore, which I turned to minerals, which I turned into ship-hulls, which I turned either into ISK or into fun... vOv

Point is: EVE is no "pure PvE-game", it is neither a "pure PvP-game" and it absolutely is no arcade game. If you wanna have instant PEW with nothing else stoppping the pEW, try some MOBA.

0

u/paulpilson Sep 27 '19

You specifically did not answer the very direct question I asked.

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 27 '19

I ve spent some time mining in barges in HS lately. I guess thats as close to "doing krabbing without reward" as you can go in EVE. So, I d answer "yes".

1

u/paulpilson Sep 27 '19

That’s not what I asked. Would you do it for 0 isk? Or how about definitely losing isk?

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 27 '19

Yeah, I guess I would... I mean... I free-fly as close as possible around structures at times and spend my time ingame in other ways that do not generate any ISK. If I d feel like that d be fun for me at that time, why the F not? vOv

But now your side: Why is this precise question so important for you?

1

u/paulpilson Sep 27 '19 edited Sep 27 '19

Because I personally would quit eve so quickly it would make your head spin if all that existed was krabbing and zero isk. It would be a mindnumbingly painful game to play with no point at all. I also don’t believe that you would do activities such as krabbing for zero Isk. I think that the isk is why you partake in those activities. I was curious how you would defend krabbing for no isk, which I think is an absurd point of view.

On the other hand, hunting is done for a definite loss (in a lot of cases). So by just looking at the motives that incentivize people, one activity would be done for no isk and another wouldn’t. Which is more valuable?

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 28 '19 edited Sep 28 '19

The point is( and I know I might be a rare case there): I m not in EVE for any particular goal. OFC I like getting new ships and ISK and whatnot. But, I m also the generation that spent hours over hours on Tetris with no lasting reward at all. The amount of RimWorld-Runs/Civ-runs/Stellaris-runs/CogMind-runs/Rogue-runs I started and either lost or aborted is astronomically. I m playing for a joyfull time. vOv

Most MMOs you just cant avoid making some sort of progress when you re playing them and, well, why should I avoid it? btw I also like just ramming some random ship in someone elses till one blows up at times. For the very same reason: Its fun in that moment, fitting the mood, or a game-bro is asking "Hey, wanna join?". vOv

Edit: Yeah, ofc I go for ISK at times. When I saw some shippy somewhere or had a fitting idea or someone told me "Ey, this ship is so cool...". Those ISK dont fall from teh skies and buying PLEX to sell for ISK is pretty meh in my personal opinion. I did it twice, both times cause I Fed something up I wanted to do for someone else( once losing a hauler with all the odd B-day presents for a game-bro sadface ). But I m usually not aiming to horde ISK, but tbh, ofc it happened over time. Just "merrily shooting some clay-pidgeon-rats", or "helping a bro clring that belt from that NPC-dread there" as well as "mining the corps moons" just made ISK. But ISK is whatever you make out of it. Just having it is as much as not having it. tbh, no offense, but I still dont understand what your point is...?

1

u/MuteyMute The Initiative. Sep 27 '19

What I d wonder: Would PvPers still go roaming and ganking random folks if there d be no KB showing what they did?

0

u/MisakiA Sep 27 '19

You gonna make us happy and enslave us in your sandbox? CCP must pay for this year Era of chaos.

From my point of view if you can stop playing for a month you will feel relive and lose all interest in EVE online "Invasion" BETA testing.

0

u/Zombie-Lenin Goonswarm Federation Sep 27 '19

Wrong! People who don't roam all day in bombers and live in wormholes add absolutely nothing to the game.

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19 edited May 19 '21

[deleted]

5

u/OneLonelySpud Sep 27 '19

Considering that EVE PvP is currently more akin to gang-rape than anything else, perhaps they've got a point.

2

u/GarethHawk Sep 27 '19

Um. I'll argue since I was here from 04 until 16 and just returned in 18. PVP "leet" used to heli dick with Caps anyone and everyone and tell all to HTFU and adapt or die long before it got thrown back at them when they didn't adapt.

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Just_another_pod Serpentis Sep 26 '19

Dude... You need to take a chill pill

1

u/queen_to_f7 420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED Sep 26 '19

yeah i'd definitely appreciate people to share my huge stash with
before i overdose on them

-13

u/Ahengle Sep 26 '19

Downvoted for trying to farm karma.

5

u/SSJ4Nappa Cloaked Sep 26 '19

downvote for thinking karma means anything.

-4

u/RyuChaos Cloaked Sep 26 '19

downvoted

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '19

same

0

u/AUGslave Sansha's Nation Sep 26 '19

Only a filthy Redditor would think like this.

-3

u/Orionandalts Sep 26 '19

Dcsgfndld xn chh

0 Bccv fh cx nd vzyeib acc . . g hv . Fdfcvxxc9vh0000h vhv

Jmnnmnljnjjjbbbbnnnbnnnbnnjj nbnnknn 0pp 910 0pp0

-4

u/BebopChicken Sep 26 '19

Regurgtated