Changing for more risk

Yes, and like I just said, time’s have changed, and will continue to change.

I’m just going to quote someone from Reddit:

EVE should be dangerous and sinister. EVE should not be you losing everything you worked for because your wife was in a car accident and you’re spending every evening by her hospital bed.

EVE should be scary and unpredictable. EVE should not be you losing everything you worked for because your mental health just took a giant ■■■■ and you can’t bring yourself to spend hours at the computer doing logistics runs.

EVE should be challenging and complex. EVE should not be you losing everything you worked for because your employer just dropped a huge project on your head that needed finishing a week ago and you’re going to be out of a job if you can’t get it done.

EVE should punish you for the decisions you make in game. Not the decisions you have to make outside of it.

If you lose everything you worked for because you had it all in one station that doesn’t provide asset safety, and you had no contingency plan to extricate it quickly on short notice, or no plan in place for other people to move your stuff for you… then you are in fact being punished for a choice you made in the game.

You’ll get no sympathy from me. I stepped away from the game for a year and lost 15 bil of stuff I had in a Fortizar in a WH. Can’t blame the game for that, can’t blame CCP, can’t blame “real life”. Can only blame myself for having not gotten off my lazy ass to take steps to prevent that from happening.

If nullbears can’t cope with that, well, HiSec is that way ---->. It seems more suited to the current paradigm and playstyle…

It may blow your mind, but there is a large proportion of players who like the idea of reduced safety. It’s reduced safety for your enemies too. People in NullSec remember what those are right…?

1 Like

Making the risk too great will only make players more risk adverse.

Maybe these aren’t the types of players the game needs.

In a wormhole. A wormhole. We knew since the Apocrypha release that wormholes would not have stations and you’d be living out of a POS which could be destroyed along with everything you leave in there. That was established from day 1.

Nullsec, on the other hand, has had “asset safety” as long as it has existed. If you lost access to a station or outpost, you could sell your assets in it at a discount in firesale contracts or join the group that took it over.

1 Like

Oh well! Pretty soon you might not be able to store your things in absolute security in zero security space. Deal with it. Or quit. :man_shrugging:

Your argument basically boils down to “This thing shouldn’t change, because this thing has always been the same.”

Well now it’s not! :smiley: And it’s probably gonna change a lot more. Welcome to EVE!

1 Like

It isn’t a problem for me because I’ve never really stockpiled crap anywhere in this game, but how many people do you think will unsub (or more likely, just not return to EVE) if they make this change and we start burning down every Keepstar in sight?

1 Like

Yes yes, we’ve heard quite enough of that particular appeal to negative consequences over the past 10 years. You think you’re holding a gun to CCP’s head when you say “people will unsub… $$$$ …” but you’re really not. Hilmar has said he doesn’t care about the loss of short term angry players. So good luck with that.

1 Like

“short term” ahahahahaha

Did EVE stop being an aging game that’s been bleeding subscribers for years? Did the player base stop aging out of their college years and into full-time jobs, graduate school, medical school, residencies, fellowships, law school, and so on? An aging game alienating its aging core playerbase with changes that require them to make the game more of a job is a recipe for a dead game.

1 Like

Okay so doubling down on the appeal to negative consequences, ok.

Do tell, what is this “core playerbase”?

There are alternative locations for putting stuff in, such as NPC Null, Thera, or any NPC station in High+Low-sec.
It was a mistake for people to put too much faith in the “safety” of a big fat KeepStar

1 Like

Looking at how many new people try EVE, we don’t don’t have problems with getting new people in. We have problem with broken game mechanics, crappy NPE and game that is not what intended and advertised for years.

And if core playerbase are current whining null krabs… No one will miss them. EVE don’t need this type of players.

1 Like

Maybe, but in a lot of cases it wasn’t a Keepstar when you first put your stuff in there. It was a conquerable station or outpost.

1 Like

Pretty much CCP just needs to figure out how to keep new players.

  • Hilmar has discussed making the game harder for older players/at “higher levels” but making it easier/simpler at newer/“lower levels”
  • “On demand” content like Abyssal and such is probably good, maybe there should be an “on demand” PvP thing related to FW or something, IDK.
  • The UI and overall complexity of EVE needs reduction. Complexity should be meaningful and not just for the sake of complexity.

There’s making the game harder and there’s forcing players to do tedious risk management work to manage their assets. The more likely consequence of removing asset safety will be a greater concentration into the large blocs which can defend their Keepstars with 300 titans.

After listening FinFest stream and what they said there I’m really confident about good future of EVE. Hilamr proved that he has balls to do things about null blocks and have pretty good ideas for future. We just need to get rid of current playerbase learned to grind 24/h not playing and enjoying game.

1 Like

Oh yes, this argument again: if anyone proposes a change you don’t like, just wave around the “that’ll just make the large blocs bigger” stick.

Oh cool, you got the link for that?

I watched the Invasion Tour stream where he was in that dude’s house by a fireplace.

Enjoy 3 hours of Hilmar and Burger chatting about EVE

1 Like