Oh lol
Spam removed.
2 Likes
Arrived from black desert around the time of pearl abyssâ acquisition of ccp.
Dumped a load of money on the game by buying Relvara character but also made many accounts with hundreds of characters that are in the LSG corp. Paid for gametime for all the accounts (Iâm guessing a year) without doing the most basic research of the game. Found out that eve was a pvp game and that you canât just throw isk into a character to make it invincible. Lost ships. Got butthurt at the game. Keeps trolling the forums and getting characters banned.
3 Likes
Thanks for the background, I always wondered.
+1
Wasnât sure if it was a joke or not, as I had taken a long break during that time, but cool history. 
Thanks for sharing!
1 Like
Well there, youâve moved on from âI pwned you in forums hur hur!â to making actual points. Still only opinions unbacked by any facts or data, but itâs progress, of a sort.
- âPvP requires players.â There are players in every sector. There are lots of players (and bots) in FW, in low sec, in WH space, in Null. There are more players in high sec, though probably not 70% any more. After all, the standard advice in any channel for almost two years now has been âmove to Null, join a renter corp, farm ISK til your fingers fall offâ.
What you actually mean, since your killboard shows you are a high sec âPvP wannabeâ, is that the easy targets who are not fitted for PvP and able to fight back are mostly in high sec. Obviously, as a PvP wannabe, you want to be able to select an easy target that probably wonât fight back much, kill it, and avoid being a target yourself. Thus, you are limited to high sec, where you can play the way you want, safely, without fear of being targeted by people with more guns than you.
- "â˘Rewards need risk as balance, which hisec is lacking. Rewards gained in hisec affect the rewards gained from all other areas. Making it a âsafe zoneâ fundamentally undermines the player driven market.
Actually, rewards gained in high sec have no link to that in other sectors. High sec has the lowest rewards anywhere. High sec has the highest count of PvP kills, the highest destroyed values, and the greatest population of pilots unprepared for/unskilled in PvP. Clearly, High sec has the highest risk for the lowest rewards of any sector, despite the restrictions on it. You really should start referring to published facts instead of just parroting the things you hear the other hi-sec PvP wannabes say. Theyâre wannabes too, after all.
- ââ˘Engagement needs interactions, especially amongst new players. Hisec discourages interactions and more and more encourages isolation.â
Despite the discouragement, High sec still has the most population, the most trading, the most contracts, the most PvP kills, the most destroyed value. Itâs hard to see how this âencourages isolationâ. âGo to null sec, join a renter corp, farm your face off until your 3rd party warning software pings at you, then run awayâ sounds a lot more like encouraging isolation to me.
However, I will concede your point here that high sec is badly designed currently (well, almost the whole game is really) and that CCP needs to do a lot more work here to promote player engagement and interaction as well as variety of play style that is available. In High sec for sure, but everywhere really.
- ââ˘Null was changed after player activity drop. Hi-sec pvp was fundamentally changed shortly before player drops.â
Yet more unsupported opinion. No facts anywhere in your rambling. Please refer to dates, times, changes. That graph I posted before (the one you so hilariously misinterpreted) shows that after Crimewatch was released, EVE had itâs best year, number-wise, ever. The primary issue there was that CCP then did nothing interesting to follow it up, and player numbers rapidly began to decline.
Please note: I am not saying âsafer high sec is better, or neededâ. I have never said that. It is just a knee-jerk reaction you triggered on from something I wrote that you obviously didnât even comprehend. I am just pointing out facts relating to EVE changes, population, and trends.
But if you are going to contend that Hi Sec PvP changes led to player decline, and Null sec changes happened after player decline, then get some facts. Iâm not gonna do your research for you.
- ââ˘Hi-sec pvp has been repeatedly nerfed with the push of âit will increase player retentionâ, but has never increased player retention by any measurable amount. In fact it seems to have the opposite effect.â
Again, facts, dates, reference specific nerfs please. I know you and all the other hi-sec PvP wannabes say this, but I have never seen a statement from CCP that remotely translates to âwe are nerfing high sec PvP to increase player retentionâ. The closest Iâve seen to that is âwardecs cause players to log out, we are changing wardecsâ.
- ââ˘We know that there is a correlation between players that get shot at and players that are sticking around longer.â
Well, you may think you know that, but apparently you donât understand the difference between âcorrelationâ and âcausationâ. First off, Iâve seen this point referred to many times, so I assume that somewhere a CCP dev said something like âstats show that (new?) players who engage in PvP tend to stick around longerâ.
Without context, the statement is relatively useless, though of course it is a darling of the PvP wannabes. Iâve no idea if they referred to new players or simply players, since Iâve never seen the original, but letâs assume new or new-ish. (Iâve never seen the original comment, if you have a link it would be appreciated!)
Are they new players, or are they alts created by existing players to knock off some quick PvP without affecting their main? Are they new players who entered the game actively looking to do PvP, and so they engaged in it early? Which means they are basically self-selecting as a group more likely to stick with EVE the way it is currently designed. Are they new players who are being non-consensually targeted by gankers?
After all, CCPs own statement that wardecs tend to make players log off and stay off certainly seems in conflict with âplayers who PvP stick aroundâ, doesnât it? The major players of Ultima Online back in the day are on clear record as saying ânon consensual PvP was a bad idea and bad for the gameâ.
So once again, you think you âknowâ something, but without facts and supporting context, all you are doing is repeating the same tired mantra of high sec PvP wannabes everywhere⌠âwe need people to log in to High Sec and be targets for us, and we need CCP to make the rules easier so we can do this more.â
I mean, seriously, entitled much? You need other people to volunteer to be your easy targets for you to enjoy the game?
4 Likes
1 Like
Yet another LSG alt.
No s h i t Sherlock 
Do you actually take any meds for your condition?
The context has been discussed over and over and over, ad infinitum since 2014.
There are several presentations and CCP analysis from data that have been posted dozens and dozens of times now and none of it is difficult to find.
1 Like
Iâm referring to actual events and studies by ccp. As oppose to your âfactsâ which is what? This?
For someone wanting claims backed by evidence, i donât think youâve ever actually presented data or proof for anything.
I literally said correlation.
Context?
1 Like
Well, as said, I have seen players, such as yourself, mention it in reference many times. But none of them ever link a source.
When you bring up a point in discussion and use it as part of your argument, it is up to you to provide the reference. Iâm not going to do the homework for every weekend hi-sec PvP wannabe who makes claims, tells other people they are ignorant and tunnel-visioned, and then provides absolutely no backup for his statements.
Itâs the internet, nobody can stop you from saying anything you want in your opinions. But without any facts, references, or links to valid sources, nobodyâs going to take you seriously either.
1 Like
The irony
1 Like
Yes, you did. And that is why I pointed out that you donât understand the difference between âcorrelationâ (the thing you said), and âcausationâ (the thing you implied, but which does not necessarily follow from the correlation). And clearly, you still donât get it, or even that mentioning one word does not imply you understand the other.
Also, thank you very much for the link! I appreciate it!
I do note, however, that this oft-quoted gem is 4 years out of date, stems from a single time period, refers to 1% of the players sampled during that time, and is qualified using phrases like âmore likelyâ and less likelyâ. So is 51% âmore likelyâ and 49% âless likelyâ? There are no numbers given. (I confess I did not watch the whole thing though, so perhaps they are given later. Itâs just not an important issue to me nor my points.)
It also completely misses the whole âself-selecting populationâ thing, but whatever. I appreciate that you made the point and backed it up with a source.
The fact is, you PvP in high sec, where it is safe, because you want to do your thing, yet be safe from the other people with guns and skills and the desire to use them on you. There is population in other sectors, there are many kills, there are solo hunters and gang hunters⌠but you only refer to the âhigh sec safetyâ problem. It is a narrow, self-serving view that does not address the overarching design issues of the game.
The facts are there, you just canât see them. 2/3 of EVE systems are totally PvP. 30% or more of EVEâs population is available to PvP against, freely, in all those systems. Dotlan, EVEâs own maps, and other 3rd party tools will show you where those people are. But you donât want to fight them, because they have a much higher chance of fighting back and nuking your PvP-wannabe butt. You want the safe targets in high sec, you want to cruise around safely and free of disruption by people hunting you while you look for targets. (By âyouâ in this case, I mean you and all the PvP wannabes like Solstice Projekt and others.)
EVE has design flaws. EVE/CCP doesnât really know how to adjust the game to meet both itâs vision and the requirements of the modern gaming population. It doesnât have to suit everyone, but atm itâs drifting closer and closer to not suiting anyone.
Problems need to be addressed. Boring game play, a high sec that is both too safe and not safe enough, PvP accessibility and PvE options for the non-PvP crowd, player engagement, emergent gameplay⌠all that needs to be addressed and provided for.
Itâs only the PvP wannabes who think the âmain issueâ is âhigh sec is too safeâ.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with this?
Is it wrong to want some easy kills in a video game, especially against targets that make themselves more vulnerable by not paying attention, not fitting their ships well, by autopiloting, and a whole host of other mistakes?
2 Likes
When you make it âSaferâ, you have changed the dynamic of the gameplay. And this shallow adjustment of rules you speak of is the center of the EVE universe, like a pond, throw a rock at itâs center and the ripples will be felt on the shores
No, actually, I donât think there is. I think the âdark sideâ of EVE is what fundamentally makes it interesting. I think that PvP is pretty much required in EVE in order to drive the rest of the game.
I mean, what the heck is the point of doing anything in EVE if, for instance, PvP was virtually eliminated? All the farming, the botting, the ISK creation, the mega-alliances, it is all meaningless without the concept of âserving the PvP marketâ. Even though PvP makes up, like, 14-15% of actual game play, it is the driver, the engine, for pretty much all the âmeaningâ (as much as a game has) in EVE. So the PvP-fans have got that much right, at least.
The problem is, a game is an ecology, an ecosystem. PvP victims/valid target donât just pop out of the ether. People need to be in those ships. Those people have to have a reason to be a target. They have to have a reason to think they are something more than a farmable resource for someone whoâs been in the game longer than them, has more resources than them, or is just a flat out much better player than them.
Without sheep, the wolves starve. If you eat all the sheep, you starve. If you howl and scare all the sheep away, you starve. If you make the meadow so dangerous that no farmer brings his sheep there, you starve.
An ecology needs growth resources. It needs to encourage that growth. (Note for those triggering already⌠âencourageâ does not mean âmake high sec safeâ.) It needs to provide new resources a reason to be there and an economically valid proposition for engaging in activity that exposes them to risk, where they can rationally think âthere might be wolves, but hey, I can get in there and farm my sheep and get out again before they even notice!â.
If your gameplay experience depends on an endless supply of AFK, silly, inexperienced, vulnerable poorly fitted people there to help you get your game jollies, then guess what. Your game starts to end as soon as that divide becomes apparent. That happened to EVE in roughly 2013-2014.
Sheesh, people, LEARN TO READ. Feel free to point out âthe shallow adjustment of the rulesâ that I advocated, or anywhere that I said to make high sec âsaferâ.
âDebate by assuming the other person is talking about things they arenât actually talking aboutâ really isnât overly productive.
3 Likes
Undocking means consenting to PvP combat. I hope you realize this is a fundamental concept in EVE Online. The âreasonâ is simply that you are undocked. That is why you are a target. If you wish to avoid being a target, youâre free to remain docked.
And despite all of your talk about âecologyâ given that EVE has survived this long relatively fine, I think the âecologyâ as it is right now is pretty solid.
1 Like
âDoes not necessarilyâ is not the same as âdoesnât.â You know, the whole global warming thingâŚ
I said there is a correlation. Are you arguing there isnât one? No? Then stfu.
Yeah itâs old. But there has been nothing, zip, nadda, zilch from ccp or otherwise to suggest anything different.
If you have better data, have at it.
And suspiciously you canât link emâŚ
100% of eveâs systems are totally pvp. And 100% of the population is available to pvp against.
Do you have a link that says otherwise?
Donât pretend to know us.
I canât disagree here. But turning away from your core customers to chase the mainstream cash isnât a long term plan, or not a good one. Itâs a last chance cash grab to get the most out of something before pulling the plug or handing over the wreck to someone else.
1 Like