Quite literally an alt, played for what 30 days under a sub and lost one battlecruisers.
Not exactly what I would call an experienced vet.
And since there is no longer a subscription requirement to post of the forums dragging out a character like that means nothing.
Any bounty hunter system rework suggestion so far only ever resulted in any of the three outcomes:
All of the things are worse than what we have now: An ungameable system that gives some money for destroying someone while making invested money not go to total waste as in the old system.
lol, make it safer make it saferâŚ
-1
This is because in this case its a small sample size, however a more important point was proven here with a smaller number of males (only) having involvement in this type of content. its difficult because it takes time to dig through data / charts to find PvP vs PvE metrics, even tough they seem to be stable, and pretty well known.
The reason why eveâs population is growing is because the egotistical mindset is an old-breed of dying people (respectfully put) that type of mentality is fading out of the industry for more casual, socially interactive forms of team play. In ways that is diametrically opposed to the idea most of the forum - based individuals propagate in eve.
a really strong argument for change
we could argue that ccp has never managed to exceed 65,303 players on traq in the history of this game. this is largely due to the type of players that eve attracts, specifically when it come to the discussion of complexity. do to the fact that so few are able to âget itâ we already have limited numbers of population.
for this reason ccp should be doing all they can to keep and grow the population rates, not âdouble downâ on a n even smaller number of players that abuse the remaining population of the game.
this is why eve is struggling with people, and ccp is struggling financially.
I just want to point out that the last week or so iv seen 15000/18k-20k online as âaltsâ. if this is infact alts of active players it puts our unique population around 5000 ( * 4 regional timezones) players.
This is Urgent.
with this in mind, i ask is it really so bad that we remove criminal actions from high sec in lay of legal forms of pvp? really?
I think this battle is more about the vocal, abusive players keeping their systems to make isk in this game, paired with the âeveâs becoming wowâ mentality.
So, you conceed i am not â2 months oldâ?
Thanks. Your are seriously damaged goods, you should go get that looked at. Now shut up and sit down and let the intelligent people talk, you pleb.
Naari Naarian is 2 months old and it shows in his mentality and understanding of the game.
And you are delusional now shut up and quit trying to change the game into something itâs not.
Thatâs a worthless suggestion. If people wanted more of that they would be in low and null sec. Considering that null sec in particular is full of alt swarms and low sec is dead, this argument is moot.
the problem is that ccp is listening to how things should work, as opposed to what the problem is, as designers its our job to design, not to copy ideaâs from ignorant players.
people are not thinking about the start and end result just throwing out ideaâs on how to change it, and this is an issue. I think people should be self-required to provide potential ways to break their idea, and then look at modifications to how they can change it to fix those problems, before they are able to post that idea.
Itâs a study of 250,000 individuals and you referenced this yourself. I just dug up the actual study, so I could assess it better. I mean, you initially linked a player poll of 102 votes as a reference to your point. You canât just dismiss the study like that.
Anyway, I usually end discussions when people talk about âabuseâ in eve. Itâs not really a rational discussion to have regarding PvP mechanics. If I shoot another player in Counter-Strike, did I abuse that individual or just play the game as it was meant to be played?
Hard Pass. By the way, i am up to around 700 votes for csm. How soon do you think it will be before i am at ccpâs office helping fix the crap you guys do to high sec players?
I disagree.
Since you ask for opinions, I just going to offer mine. Itâs a pretty well set opinion, so Iâm not really looking to debate. So, no need to respond.
I really disagree with everything youâve written.
Personally, Iâd remove Concord entirely.
I think the changes you are suggesting would gut the anti-ganker movement.
I really feel this game should allow players to enact retribution as they see fit.
CCP talks about giving players âagencyâ, but the changes they put into place take away this âagencyâ. Pilots can no longer remote rep a freighter to even try and save it. Concord arrives too fast for a counter-ganker to even attempt to solo stop a criminal, so they end up, at best, giving an âassistâ to Concord.
Due to Concordâs heavy hand currently, there is no compelling reason for a competitive anti-crime organization to rise in highsec. Concord always gets there first. This in my opinion is a problem. It stiffles player creativity, and stops, in their tracks, players who might like to explore this avenue in game.
Players who might like to play as the heroâŚto actually save ships, under hostile attack, never get the chance to experience that because Concord gets there first.
There used to be an old EVE trailer with a story along the lines of a character saving a ship under attack. There was a whole narrative. It was advertising an EVE where it was possible, if you wanted to be the hero, to change another playerâs game experience in a positive wayâŚyou could stop the pirates, chase them off, blow them up.
You could be the hero.
But, now Concord always gets there first.
Our hero is relegated, at best, to the sidekick, johnny come lately role.
I know some reading this are thinking âwho would control newbie griefingâ? Well, Iâd leave CCPâs regs in place regarding griefing new players, and let âheroâ players take care of the rest.
Yes, people on these forums debate ârookie griefingâ in starter systems, and yes, it does happen, and yes, there are players, experienced players in at least some of the starter systems doing their best to stop that. They report griefers, challenge griefers, and inform new players of whatâs going onâŚbut, no one ever talks about them.
And those guys are heros. I see them alot. Hand holding. So, the hero player is out there, right now, and in my opinion Concord is standing in their way.
Cause Concord always gets there first. I think removing Concord would change this game in astonishing ways, and allow player creativity to blossom.
My two cents, take it or leave it. You wonât change my mind.
This is an excellent point, but very narrow sighted. First, counter strike does not have hard-loss systems in it. Its not like you have to manufacture a gun then die and lose it having to re-farm and craft it. Your reset after you die, and start all over again (give or take).
So if we use this logic, eve should provide free ships and modules, bought only one time.
When it come to the topic of âabuseâ, i am referring to a psychological state that is instilled upon the player which causes them to leave. Yes, CS can provide this state, but the effect is much lower and impactful then that which eve does.
I have to ask, what rate does that psychological state (aka abuse) result in people leaving eve, to other games like cs. If it causes population to be bled from eve at higher then standard rates in the industry for mmoâs there is a big problem.
EVE is not the Carebear haven you what it to be, itâs a dystopia.
Fine then. Letâs prevent criminals and people below -5 sec status from hiding in unassailable NPC stations. That will follow through with your logic and cause more interaction between users in high sec because they now have an actual valid and meaningful objective when they want to engage gankers: destroy their structure hideouts.
its a forum. dont post if you dont want replies. the purpose is discussion.
meh, i never liked concord, or its system to start with. I believe the actual ability to unlock the weapon from green should be outright stopped. To be clear, you should out right not be able to fire with criminal actions in high sec; imo.
Oh, was that not clear? let me repeat what i said the last few days
I Would nerf all criminal activity out of high sec so hard, that it would echo through the lifespan of the industry as an example of how not to piss off a dev with abuse of others. Iâd nerf it so hard war declarations would have to be declared mutual by both parties for high sec corporations to be engaged in pvp AT ALL. lets not even get started about how suspect would be a thing of the past in high sec (remaining only in low).
I will end this reply on
if 50% of eveâs population does not want pvp, they should be left alone. Go get good at pvp and kill real pvpers.
Getting more interaction between players would be great, but increasing protection doesnât cause that it prevents that.
A long time ago when I was mining with my Corp a lone Catalyst flew up to one of the barges, we knew he was a ganker but could not aggress first because of concord, luckily for our Corp reps landed on the barge before it was destroyed but the one catalyst got it into hull. We all had drones and were wanting to agreed but couldnât.
I wasnât trying to compare CS and EVE since they are obviously different games.
The point I tried to make was, if CCP designed criminal actions to be part of the game, can one really call it abuse, when in reality it is just players playing the game according to its rules?
The great thing about preventing pirates from docking in NPC stations is that it does not provide more protection. Structures are available in nearly every system and criminals can dock there. If you as target of their aggression see that you can hire mercs to take that structure down or talk to the owners so that they prevent the criminals from using the structure. Lots of interaction and destruction potential right there without any screwing around with Concord or FacPo or other complicated mechanics.
Really? Do you have a link to where this is clarified, please? I thought this remote repair change would only impact war related things. If that is true it would be beyond stupid from CCP.
Thatâs one of the strawman fallacies CCP throws around all the time: In a gank this does not work at all if you are solo. Not even 5 Logi can reliably save a gank target because gankers bring superior numbers. Almost always. Solo people who want to be the hero end up being the laughing stock of the gankers, like the many Nagas, Griffins, Rooks, Falcons and so on are already experiencing in Uedama on a regular basis.
ccp designed many parts of the game, and removed them later. Posâs are an example. Things change, and system advance. Just as posâs advanced to outposts and upwell structures, so to should war/pvp mechanics, including the criminal system.
your point respectfully is not valid.
It can be changed for sure, but that doesnât mean itâs abuse. As long as itâs still part of the games rules.
With that argument, any mechanic can be called abusive, since they all can change in the future.
Letâs just agree to disagree, since I donât think weâll progress this much further. Our fundamental understanding of the game is just different.
I know you know that anything that makes criminals life harder results in increased passive safety.