“Your arguments are too much for me and so I have to pretend they aren’t there, rather than deal with the reality of necessary change to EVE.”
(FTFY)
1 Like
Your arguments are easy enough to deal with, but having to wade through paragraphs of diarrhea (like your above post) to get to them is not worth the time usually. 
4 Likes
I’m not the one who creates countless new threads demanding changes to the core of the game. My complaint is exactly that carebears demand nonsensical changes because they don’t understand what kind of game they are playing.
2 Likes
A travel and trade simulator.
1 Like
I need agree as a simulator, lately more NPC in high sec than players =P
1 Like
More like they dont know or deliberately ignore the main point/reason against asking for safer gameplay (less asset destruction) in any way or form - that is bad for the game economy and game as a whole.
2 Likes
For some reason it seems that many gankers deleted api for zkill and started posting manually - when you do that you don’t send losses.
I started ganking about 2 years ago and did that very extensively. Then I quit for a year. When I came back I checked the gankin “status” and not much changed. I would not say there are less gankers. I would not say there are more. Some of the gankers I used to fly with are gone, some shifted their acitivities and do it only rarely now. But I saw new ppls ganking miners or sitting in tornadoes at trade hubs. Especially nado ganking in Jita seems to be even more frequent than it used to be before. Not so much solo-nado ganking outside of Jita. Also new trend is ganking battleships with blue/green/purple mods. That wasn’t really a thing 1 and half year ago.
Freighter ganking seems to be dead indeed. But what it really shows is that despite they used to claim they are not reliant on a unlimited bumping to gank freighters, they actually were. At any way removing unlimited bumping (or making it really hard and annoying to do - point suicide each 3mins) it was a needed and healthy change and it should not be reverted. A compensation nerf to Freighters should be done in my opinion, but thats a discussion for another topic…
That would perhaps be a good point, if only the OP’s link from a professional in the industry who was directly involved and has the stats from a similar “PvP sandbox” environment didn’t directly contradict it.
If only all the UO lead devs didn’t say “non-consensual PvP was a mistake”:
Ultima Online Post-Mortem with Devs
If only there was any game, anywhere, that heavily featured non-consensual PvP in an MMO that was anything but a niche product on it’s way out.
Less overall destruction may indeed be bad for the game. Some types of safety in high sec may be bad for the game. However to derive from that that “asking for safer gameplay in any way or form is bad for the game” is an entirely unfounded leap of supposition.
You can have more combat, more conflict, and more destruction simply by properly designing the game to encourage those things. You don’t need pretend-PvPers hunting noobs in safespace to have destruction. And experienced, historical industry evidence shows that that type of non-consensual environment actually is bad for the game as a whole.
I have no idea why people keep arguing for badly designed PvP when it is possible to have more and better PvP with proper design. I guess some pretend-PvPers are just terrified they might end up having to leave their safe high security space and seek PvP in actually risky territory.
(Note: Because people insist on misinterpreting this - when I say “you don’t need pretend-PvPers hunting noobs in safespace”, I am not requesting it be eliminated. I am simply saying there are better, more sustainable PvP models that lead to an overall improvement in the game experience.)
PvE tools also need to be destroyed by somebody to keep demand and economy running, thus non-consensual PvP… and/or PvE in form of triglavian roaming wings that many PvE player seem to dislike because they “prevent” them from producing resources in AFK manner.
1 Like
Most vet PvPers in these style games (pvp game with rpg elements) don’t really want fair fights. They want to use their dominance in game mechanics acquired over time to gain an advantage over other players instead of having to out skill or think their opponent to win. If they wanted a level playing field, they’d play DotA, CoD or other game that is 100% pure PvP with good balance. We see it all the time in EVE that no one wants a fair fight; as soon as one side thinks they’re at a slight disadvantage, they dock up and log off or wait it out. Sure, they’re are people who like solo roaming and will fight, but most people don’t want a fight unless its on their terms and they’re likely to win.
Destruction I support:
- Lost in PvE in active participation (incursions, missions, etc.)
- Lost in PvE due to AFK
- Lost in PvP due to ganking IF AFK or doing something dumb (1 billion in T1 transport); think of it as a transponder response, no response = AFK and if you overload a transport you’ll get a “you will be flagged as a valuable target” message. Ganker still dies if in high sec.
- Lost in consensual PvP like faction warfare, self flagging, specific PvP zones (less than now)
2 Likes
I don’t know all such games but my brother plays Rust which has double the EVE player count - source Rust - Steam Charts
The other game I know and tried is Albion Online which has far lower values - Albion Online - Steam Charts (I heard about it in April so the spike was because of advertisement and then players realized its not what they like and left I guess)
and the values above might be higher if the games are playable without steam as well.
At any rate. I know no other game that allows and encourage players to multibox. Other games are also much more action packed and intensive so the multiboxing is not really thing.
Who knows what is the real number of players when we remove multiboxed alts? CCP claims that only absolute minority of the players is multiboxing but thats a sheite I don’t buy. From all the players I know and play with only single player plays single account and that is because he is losing ships all the time and must pay cash and does not want to pay two (seriously EVE is quite expensive for the value it offers). The other 6 players I play with have at least 2 up to 6 accounts usually always logged in simultanously. Whenever I fly I see obvious multiboxers - players are not even trying to hide it. Adding numbers or different letters or keeping same surname or first name. EDIT: plus some players uses an alpha alt from different computer to avoid subbing it. Itis grey area and might get players banned but it is happening and some players do this too.
I don’t want to make assumptions but it is definitely not 21k players playing eve online.
1 Like
I agree with your points and I say that as a player who does non-consentual pvp a lot and avoiding the consentual as much as I can (because I am risk averse bastard who don’t want to lose).
But I have a question. How would you design better pvp then?
In my opinion the main problem with pvp in EVE is that losing hurts. It hurts a lot. It is not a MOBA where you start each match (pvp) with same resources. In EVE you need to build or buy the resources to fight and if you need to buy them you need to earn the money somewhere/somehow.
Thus it inevitably creating an “unfair” pvp tendencies and situations. You fight only if you (think you) have the upper hand and you bail out if you don’t (exceptions to this rule only prooves it!).
And this is main reason why non-consentual pvp is so popular.
There is FW for “real” pvp but it is still plagued by the above. You just don’t go into plex where is sitting your counter. And you just don’t stay in plex when you see stronger ship/player comming on dscan. And therefore there is no “real” or “fair” pvp.
I get your point really but I see no way how to fix this because losing everything or say “full loot” is a core feature of the game and it will never be removed. Neither is giving free pvp ships going to happen, so how do you do this then?
Yes well this is the core problem. And despite the number of times I call out CCP for not addressing the issue, it is a nasty difficult design problem that is only complicated by having a pre-existing system that needs to be adapted/updated for it rather than designed from the ground up.
The first issue is, you don’t kill off your existing clients. You don’t attack their playstyles because you think “they aren’t playing right”. You introduce new and more interesting ways to engage in PvP and let people gradually shift focus to those things rather than eliminating the things they already do.
I’m not about to spend weeks analyzing and creating new systems for EVE for free, that will just die on the forums and be ignored anyway (I mean, unless they want to start sending paycheques). So all I will toss out here is some ‘notions’ rather than full fledged concepts.
You’ve already highlighted a key issue: losing is expensive, and you can’t risk too much loss without paying out time in-game and/or RL $ in order to replace the stuff you need to continue PvPing.
CCP never ‘fixed’ that because they like the idea that people are paying multiple subs on multiple alts in order to derive the game resources needed to support their game play. They have focused on getting a smaller player base to pay out a lot (relatively speaking) rather than trying to get a larger player base paying out less each.
So first notion: You can make loss cheaper, or the occasional win more rewarding, or otherwise reduce the economic impact for losing a fight.
Second notion: Take Resource Wars. Make it an Agency beacon with a visible timer when it will start. “Medium Resource Located: Caldari and Gallente forces converging, 15 minutes to gate opening, 30 minute extraction window”.
Players head over, warp to the Caldari or Gallente beacon. Gate opens, forces warp in. Once in, each side is auto-fleeted. Each side needs to mine and haul to faction freighter. Overall payout is split according to total haul ratio, with a higher proportional payout to the winning side, and a higher proportional payout to the ‘high scorers’ of the winning side. Everyone who was in the site gets some degree of reward, even if blown up. NPCs may spawn to even up sides or just cause mayhem.
(This is pretty close to what they actually programmed, except they entirely missed the opportunity to create conflict and fleeting, and they made the reward structure so laughably bad that nobody chose to participate.)
You now have an on-the-fly opportunity for people to meet up and fleet up, mine, haul or fight, commit various offenses and heroics, and people get paid according to quality of participation. Active, engaging gameplay, short duration, voluntary participation.
Third notion: Faction Warfare. Heck knows why they would leave a core PvP system to languish for years. As you say, the notion of individual combat in FW is poor - experienced players will judge whether they can win or not and fight or flee accordingly. Inexperienced players will generally flee early, or get slaughtered.
So again, you make FW mini-events where a system contest opens up, people warp in when gate opens, they fight over an objective. Similar to what I said for Resource Wars but now you are fighting for system control structures rather than mining/hauling. More room for support/logistics/ECM objectives. Timer based, defenders have to support/repair/defend objectives, attackers have to eliminate the objective, rewards based on performance.
If the ‘other side’ doesn’t show up in sufficient numbers, beef them up with NPCs.
You still leave missions and soloing and various things for ‘solo’ players to do, perhaps activities that build up to triggering the FW mini-event.
No single change will fix EVE. You need to fix the NPE, the way new players are introduced to core EVE concepts, the way game time/access/privilieges are monetized, the way things like ISK and SP are rewarded for active play rather than the current system which makes passive PvE more rewarding than most PvP.
I could do a top to bottom re-design of EVE but it wouldn’t really matter. The decision makers at CCP aren’t looking for new ideas or re-writes that would take a lot of hard work. Quick fixes and one-off changes are the order of the day.
3 Likes
65% of players have one account, 80% have 1-2 accounts (15% have 2 accounts).
The remainder have more than 2 accounts but the %age drops off a cliff when you get to 4 accounts.
4 Likes
Rust is a survival game. It is a lot harsher and overall extremely different than EVE. There are some similarities, but I would not classify them the same. There isn’t really a complex economy with trade, speculation, manipulation and piracy in that game. Things like that made UO and EVE very special and are completely missing from those type of games.
Oh yes, I was a backer of that one. It tries to copy a lot of EVE. Sadly it doesn’t really work in my opinion. It somehow went full power creep with basically the same stuff multiple times in different tiers and you have to endlessly grind for it. There is nothing, really absolutely nothing interesting in this game. It’s just grind from start to end in my opinion.
Yes, EVE is special that way. And it changes a lot how the game is approached. I don’t think suicide ganking would exist the way it does if it wasn’t for multiboxing. Alts completely cancel the effect the security status has. I would not say that it would vanish, but it would go back to fleets of individual players.
It probably takes some time until you are invested enough to go multiple alts. I played for years with just this character before I created a second one and most other players I played with had only one. This isn’t appealing to everyone. It also kinda kills immersion.
But there isn’t really a point in discussing alts and multiboxing further. At this point it has become an integral part of the game for better or worse. It is still possible and viable to play with only one character.
How is “unfair” PvP not real? Since the PvP in EVE only emerges if there is something to gain for one side and usually we shy away from it because of the loss, that reflects so much more a real situation where the fights that take place actually has purpose. The “fair” MOBA type PvP that some here advocate and identify as the only kind of “real” PvP in their mind is some artificially staged meaningless and in the end once again repetitive and boring minigame.
I get why they propose that. Many MMORPS that exist today have PvP basically outsourced to some attacked MOBA minigame mechanic that have absolutely nothing to do with the game itself.
I find the conflicts EVE produces with the unique mechanics it has far far more interesting than such staged “PvP”. Also if someone is more interested in staged PvP there is really so much options to get that elsewhere.
I don’t really understand why people like @Kezrai_Charzai think all games gave to be the same, but I assume it has to do with them not being flexible enough in their minds that EVE can work differently and that they have to learn and approach some things in a different way to be successful.
Also some just have some deep rooted white knight feelings and think it is just “wrong” to have non-consensual PvP at all.
1 Like
Or, it could be, that some people understand how business works. And that a downward trend can only continue so far before EVE becomes “not EVE”, not because lame-ass pretend-PvPers aren’t allowed to get their jollies attacking the weak in safe space, but because it doesn’t have enough players to pay the bills.
You don’t strengthen your business by catering to an absolute minority of your customers. PvP makes up 15% or less of what happens in EVE. Non-consensual PvP in high sec makes up, at a guess, less than half of that.
Regardless, because you’re a sensitive little PvP-wannabe, you keep focusing on that one point. “OMG Kezrai is trying to make everyone safe!”. You should’ve just left your quote off at “I don’t really understand” because you obviously don’t.
Non-consensual PvP in high sec is a tiny issue. It pleases a very small percentage of the player base, and it annoys a slightly larger percentage of the player base. I only talked about it here because it is the topic of the OP.
EVE’s problem is overall bad design. The advertised game doesn’t match what the actual game delivers, the risk/reward structure is all wrong (passive PvE is rewarded much better than active PvP in a PvP sandbox), new players are taught to be sheep and not wolves, the game mechanics encourage alting and botting, etc. etc.
If you had anything useful to say about the overall game I’d happily give you your noob-hunting in safespace… but all you can do is whine about how you need your little non-con hunting ground while the rest of the game slowly collapses around you.
PS: I don’t really care about ‘fair’ PvP although I have a preference for what I consider ‘real’ PvP (a reasonable risk to both sides) because I think it promotes a better overall growth profile for the business. What I care about is interesting and available PvP that is worth engaging in for more than 10% of the player base. Sharks hunting minnows doesn’t provide that.
1 Like
You don’t even understand the simple concept of market segmentation
That must be that deep rooted white knight feeling I talked about, that prevents you from understanding how this game works.
Since you don’t get the core concept of this game it is pretty meaningless to say “PvP makes up 15% or less”. You somehow think only actual combat “counts” as PvP. That is not how this game works. This is a sandbox where you always compete against other players in various forms.
I guess with you it is a mix of completely not understanding the game and some deep rooted white knight feeling. But mainly a complete lack of understanding the game.
EVE has a fabulous design. The issues it has with the NPE are issues with the NPE alone and not with the rest of the game. CCP ■■■■■■ that up, nothing we can do. I guess they listened to much to people like you who want a different game, the NPE reflected that perfectly.
The average age of the miners I killed in highsec is 4 years. Does that still qualify as a noob in your books? I’m not interested in killing newbros. What I do is essentially piracy. I want to play this game without grinding and that is best done by stealing from others. New players don’t have anything of value, old players have. And those are the people who come to the forums crying for more safety for themselves while holding up the newbro in front of them like a shield, because they can’t even admit it is for their own benefit only.
CCP has looked into the common sentiment that ganking is a problem for new players and they found zero correlation for that assumption when looking at the data.
If you have the reality of ~90% of players quitting before they ever lose a ship and then you still point always at the 10% and think we have to look for the issue there, then sorry, you are obviously not interested in solving this problem at all but just want to use it to push some other agenda. This critic isn’t targeted at you specifically, but what we see from older players every day on this forums.
You still have a very limited notion of what PvP is. Again, this is a sandbox. PvP emerges from actual stuff in this sandbox which may be disagreements, resource conflicts, piracy, etc. and sometimes also just random violence yes. This all gives those conflicts real meaning.
I know in most other games the “PvP” is arranged and balanced and has absolutely no meaning apart from the points you see on the table at the end. I find that extremely boring.
Because this emerging PvP is the actual engine of the stories that make EVE so great. I have absolutely fond memories of conflicts over the years in various forms because all of them actually had a story to it only those people involved experienced. It is not something CCP did, but actual stuff happening in the sandbox. And it really doesn’t matter if I was alone against whole corps or if it was the opposite, it was always extremely immersive and “I was there” moments all over the place.
You simply don’t get that in other games. It seems you never experienced something like this in EVE or your wouldn’t advocate for changing it. It is exactly what Hilmar talks about when he says “magic moment”. And I agree with you that the NPE is utter garbage, because not only doesn’t it even try to steer people in that direction, it actively leads them in the completely opposite dead end highsec farming simulator.
I have seen people who play this game for 5+ years still mining in highsec to “prepare” for null. The best thing that can happen to such people is a good gank and some violent non-consensual PvP with other players to finally push them out of their endless grind loop.
4 Likes
Ganks have reduced. So the gank alts have not been jumping gates to get in position/back in position after ganks? How many alts to gank a freighter.
(Ganks x GankAlts) + Hauls = missing jumps?
I dunno. I think we all here market statistics in our favor hoping the ignorance of others?
So you think hi-sec is bad. All grinding in hi-sec. Nullsec = good, no grinding happening there 
A lot of players prefer ‘safe’ mmorpgs. Safe areas. Most players do by a long way. The ones who prefer the dangerous/open ffa full loot pvp are a niche among players.
Your idea that hi-sec players should be in null is short sighted to the extreme. Many players don’t want to live in null, and would rather quit.