Encouraging Highsec Player Conflict and Interaction

IF …
That’s to be proven before being used as an argument.

No it’s correct. If you are destroyed or stolen good, as a new player, it can be devastating in term of ratio of assets lost and a reason good enough to leave the game. Reason why suspect baiting is forbidden in starter system (and yet you can see some people doing it)
And yes, most experienced players will just ignore you and your obvious trap. By experienced, I mean experienced with the mechanisms and how to deal with them.


So not ALL?

The same way most experienced players can avoid a gank or most experienced players can handle a dec. Or most experienced players can identify a scam.

Just because most players choose not to engage does not mean it’s bad for the game as a whole. Clearly it wasn’t in the years leading upto 2012.

Yes indeed, I am not making an absolute statement.

Hu, no. Literally no, for decs. That’s the reason CCP removed them : they were literally making people leave the game. Just like most of the theft and destruction that is forced upon people.


Player activity went down after the last wardec changes and didn’t recover until half the world went into lockdown.

CCP didn’t do much research into player behaviour around decs and they certainly didn’t engage the knowledgeable side of the playerbase before changing decs. If you want to know what a hatchet job looks like…

No, the game.

You don’t get it. If people are not invested in the game, they just leave. If people are at threat of losing their assets for no reason, they just leave.

That’s the reality.

People left the game in BO because this was too much “destruction”.
People left the game when wardecced for the same reason.
Force the destruction and people will just leave.

Given most of their cargo bays can’t accommodate a single laser cycle you have to increase the basic cargo. Which is expandable and all that other good stuff.

So the suggestion, like your comment, is not thought out.

Procs and Covetors only hold a couple cycles. These ships already offload their ore to cans or a hauler. Deleting the ore bay just breaks the ship.

Try thinking next time.


The reason they aren’t invested is that they have no stake in the game. Making peoples stuff vulnerable solves that.

As for people leaving if their assets are at a threat for no reason, what does that mean?

I’ve lost stuff for no reason and I’m still here. And how does the losses occured during wardec or can flipping have any less meaning behind it than my losses? Or anyone elses who’s still playing?

You say it’s the reality but it has no basis in fact. Otherwise how is anyone with any losses still here?

Demonstrably un-true.

Forced destruction has been and still is in eve since its creation.

You’ve stopped making any sense.

Don’t hold your breath …

You need to provide him more numbers.

Your conceit that miner’s stuff is not vulnerable is just that, a conceit.

No it’s not. Having more stakes to lose makes the game more of a hassle and less of a game.
You are not invested in a game to not lose something. You are invested to win something. If the game takes your time and you get nothing in return, then you just leave for something better.

It just means that you are despaired for anything better. People crave for hope, not for fear.

Unrelated. This has no relation to the topic, which is “increasing the destruction leads to people leaving”, which is a fact established by CCP after testing it. (cf BO)

Unrelated. you are just completely off topic. No wonder it makes no sense to you.
I wrote “FORCE the destruction”, not “forced destruction”. Force is a verb, meaning I am talking about an action, in that case from CCP, in order to FORCE the destruction in the game . For example, BO was an action to FORCE the destruction and it succeeded, until the amount of players was so low CCP decided they had learnt their lesson.

Nonsense. By that standard CCP would maximize player counts and investment if they removed all PvP and made level 1 mission NPCs pay out 100 billion ISK per kill. Everyone would be winning massive amounts of wealth, so surely they would be as invested as possible and EVE would thrive?

Of course not. Having high stakes and loss is what makes EVE successful, because when you do win it actually means something. You can look back at the adversity you faced and see that you earned your success by more than just paying your $15/month and passively receiving rewards.

cf BO

You mean the experiment where a bunch of RMT botters ragequit over not being able to bot effectively and CCP panicked over the drop in subscription revenue? Don’t confuse that with the behavior of normal players.

1 Like

No, that just means you are not able to understand the notion of relative value

But from someone claiming that there is no RMT in Eve, I’m not really surprised. So again, there is no real interest in trying to explain such a basic thing to you.

And guess what relative value requires: risk and loss. You can’t have relative value if everyone is winning.

But from someone claiming that there is no RMT in Eve

From a lying asshole like you I expect nothing else. I never said that there is no RMT in EVE, in fact I was very clear that there is RMT in EVE. So STFU with your blatant lying and trolling.

yes, I understand, there is no RMT in Eve in your world. ktxhbye.

Could you elaborate?


Have you never heard another player say this game is better because losses are real?

Not losing something is a victory in itself.

See any escort mission in any game.

People enjoy both.

See horror segments of games.

Then why are we increasing destruction now with the final trig invasion, surgical strike and the agenda to rebalance risk/reward to less rewards/more risk?

Either way it refers to the increase in non-consensual destruction.

Something that increases retention as per fanfest 2015. As per surgical strike, trigs on the whole etc etc

Forcing destruction = good in some situations.

You should check your facts, all ships except Orca and Rorq so have enough for a single cycle.

But if you insist then we should revert the change that granted those ships mining capabilities and return them to their role as command ships.

All of these problems and more disappear.

Low effort troll is low effort.

You just want punitive measures against miners for your own easy lols. You’re not adding anything to the game, and you’re not adding “conflict”.

Incorrect. The covetor has 350m3 of cargo hold and at low skills a cycle is 2000m3. You can’t successfully complete a single cycle without the ore hold.

And for clarity, emphasis mine:

Also the false premise: no barge can sit in a belt for hours without dumping its ore. The Procurer, Covetor, and their T2 counterparts get a couple of cycles. That’s 3 to 5 minutes. Not hours.

Have you seen my lossboard?

What do you think I spend most of my time doing in this game?

‘conflict drivers’ by definition by ccp, would certainly be increased by the OP’s proposals adjusted according to my first post in this thread.

This is a a discussion for grown up miners.

1 Like