I’ve never been in any other online community where so many fifty-plus-year-olds were this obsessed with getting their opponents silenced and banned. It’s the kind of manufactured outrage one would expect to see from freshmen in a Social Justice 101 course at Berkeley or NYU, but no, these are grown-ass men acting this way in the forum of a competitive multiplayer war game. Seriously, if you read their posts, probably a good 50% by volume deals with backseat moderation of people whom they don’t like and disagree with. It’s genuinely uncanny.
3 Likes
I don’t think so. When I saw the most recent Meta Show and Mark Resurrectus refer to highsec as the ‘NPC zone’, it occurs to me that the problem goes deeper than just the sentiments of the anti-PvP crowd.
One ought to be a little baffled as to why the place where fighting NPCs is easiest gets to be the ‘NPC zone’. The implication being always that ‘real PvP players’ head for lowsec and null. But wait. Surely that is a statement that NPCs are simply not hard enough in those other areas. When’s the last time a horde of NPCs wiped out a nullsec sov region ? In this respect it is one of the few areas of comment where I agree with some of the former comments by Ashterothi and Firestorm Carnage on their channels. If highsec is purely the ‘NPC zone’ then something is wrong with the game.
And don’t even get me started on the TTT. I mean…what the…
1 Like
The reason why a “blue zone” is a good idea is precisely because of the philosophical considerations.
Right now, one can argue that it’s a horrible thing that new players don’t have a safe space to learn the game, and are (effectively) instantly thrown to the wolves to be picked apart by griefers even in what is “supposed to be secure space.” And while many very good arguments can be made against this line of thought, it’s still able to elicit pity and empathy, no matter how illogical it is. It’s basically a good argument to the layman.
But with the presence of “blue zones,” their argument would now have to become “we want more money and rewards with the same amount of absolute safety,” which is going to be much less palatable to anyone they’re trying to convince purely because of how selfish it sounds. It would now become much more politically-correct to say no to such demands, and even to mock them.
Plus, such a major change could be accompanied by the loosening of some of the recent ganking/war restrictions that were implemented over the past few years, because they wouldn’t be “needed” anymore.
2 Likes
The problem being that that in itself is simply not true. Noobs have 35 systems in which they are protected, especially during agent missions and SOE. The ‘blue zone’ effectively already exists. But noobs are clueless that this protection is there. That is the problem. Noobs wander outside the protected areas…because they have no idea they even exist…and get blapped. Why is there nothing in the NPE to tell noobs about the protected areas ? Maybe it does now…but I don’t recall any such thing in the NPE for my recent noob accounts.
3 Likes
Career agents send players out of the system. And also the career agent systems quickly run out of content. The goal with the blue zones isn’t to “help noobs” specifically, but to create an environment in which any player can find absolute safety, at the appropriate cost. Players should be able to do nearly all types of content in such zones, at much lower reward rates. In return, when certain players say that they should be able to do X or Y without having to worry about being griefed, we can reply that they can! At that point it would become impossible to counter the argument that if they want more rewards, they’ll have to leave the safe zone, which would be a good trade-off for the existence of these zones in the first place.
It would be a much less slippery slope than having incremental gank and war nerfs every year, which is what we’re getting now, and will continue to get in the future.
1 Like
What if there were a warning that the player is leaving a starter sys, much like the warning one gets when leaving hs for low or null? CCP would also have to add a warning to the mission runner that they would have to leave safety to complete the mission.
2 Likes
Well, no, the true irony is that in order for people to come on here and tell us that it is all too hard for noobs to get past…they must have gotten past it themselves. The more of them there are, whining about how hard noob-ness is to get past, the more absurd their cause actually becomes. This is why the anti-gank posts are so full of self-contradictory nonsense. There’s a fundamental absurdity and contradiction at the very heart of their cause…and they don’t seem to grasp that the more of them there are, the more they prove their cause wrong simply by being here whining about it.
This is why all the alts are comically self-defeating, as every new alt is effectively another noob who got past being ganked as a noob.
1 Like
So your stand is if attempts take place, even if you win by getting away, it is a problem? How am I misrepresenting what you say? You make it clear that my advice is “BS” and over kill, and yet you hardly ever are ganked and beat the ganekrs most of the time, and yet you claim ganking is an issue.
If my advice is too hard core for you (“BS” in your own words), and yet you usually beat the gankers at their own game, what is your objective? I can only conclude that you are one of the people who want to remove all pvp from high sec space. That is certainly what it sounds like you are aiming for.
You claim that you don’t want to remove all pvp from high sec space, but you complain if there is even the slightest hint of PVP, eve if you are winning at it.
High sec space is 98% safe. I have never been ganked once, and I spend most of my gameplay now in high sec space running missions, afk mining, and hauling items from one trade hub to another to sell. I should be a prime target for gankers, but I just fly a little conservatively and am never even a target. You even admit that you are hardly ever a target of ganking, and when you are you win most of the time. I don’t see how you claim you don’t want to remove all pvp from high sec space, when it is clear that even when you are winning against the gankers you are not satisfied.
Every time I have quit EvE it was because I was bored with the game. EvE needs more conflict, not less.
Let’s make high sec exciting again! Save high sec PvP!
I could tell your post was tongue-in-cheek, I wanted to make sure readers knew what I believe would happen even if this concession were made.
If I thought you were serious and wrote a reply, I’d instead focus on how I thought it was a bad idea to offer any sort of safe space that people would then be afraid to venture out of. Highsec is mostly safe with just a few exceptions to dip one’s toes into risk and loss whether one wants to get in the pool or not, and I think that’s what Eve needs to have from the start so that people aren’t eternally afraid to step out into the bigger world. Since you’re not serious, though, I don’t have to do that. Just write a silly tongue-in-cheek post of my own so you know I know you’re smart enough not to need me to tell you what would happen.
2 Likes
That brings up another question. What if CCP made safe havens? How long do you think it would take to spam it with alts?
I’m in on safe systems but limit the resources in such sys so the peeps would have to venture out after learning to get any real payouts.
You feel differently about safe spaces than I do. I think any payout is a real payout.
If players are actually new, then they have very little to lose, 50% insurance for free on their hull, and unlimited corvettes such that they’re never without an option to undock in something they can afford to lose. The richer you are, the more valuable safety is, and so I have a very hard time seeing increased safety as for the benefit of new players.
Any safe space is likely to have a small number of hyper blinged out veterans out competing genuine newbies in a fleet of alts that is worth a fortune and now unassailable. This isn’t outright ganking, but in a figurative sense, it might as well be when it instills a sense of impotence at the start of the game. Some players will persevere, but I think most players with a healthy mindset survive losing a venture in highsec as things stand.
I also think of how the market would be affected. If these safe spaces have markets, trading and shipping is likely to shift to take advantage of these spaces to any extent that is possible. Interdicting Jita comes at great cost, but even so it is not completely out of the question and has happened on occasion. Park the trade hub in a network of absolutely protected systems, and something like this is exponentially harder to pull off.
Losing a ship, being unable to move your cargo, or feeling like you are not able to use the ships and features you have in your inventory are all negative things that people don’t elect to have happen to themselves, which is why we need a lack of safety to force it upon us to make decisions, and take risks. The jump from highsec to lowsec is already a major scary barrier for quite a few players and I don’t believe we need to create another gap like that.
Having said that, I would grant there is room to disagree. I have an opinion, you have an opinion that differs. I am fine with that. I explain my position just in case you are genuinely curious, but I don’t really care to change your mind on anything. If you don’t care what I have to say, that’s fine with me too.
2 Likes
Best part and honestly feel I can relate to this many times over, as I strive to put this way of thinking into a positive outlook by thinking on where the market would be at a future date when deciding on the risk vs reward.
No but people manipulate numbers and people lie.
Maybe the devs are looking too hard outside of the game at how the gaming industry finds success ( whatever that means )
Don’t worry, lots of people are just like you, many in this forum.
Indeed, PvP and Ganking are cornerstones to EVE.
Take Ganking out of the game and there is NO game. The entire game and its mechanics were created to facilitate PvP & Ganking, even the Market is PvP… hell even this forum is PvP.
Everything in Life is PvP if you really think about it. Even the animals engage in non-consentual PvP. That lion I saw on tv yesterday jumped on that gazelle like, with such glee… I’m curious to see his killboard.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
HaHaaaa!! He wants free ships! In a paid PvP game, no less.
We’re gonna know it, champ.
The game doesn’t belong to the snowflakes and soy-boys. It belongs to a small group of people who know very well how to make EVE profitable, and it isn’t with free ships that CCP will earn its bread and butter.
1 Like
It is tactics that makes gankers easy to avoid.
A new bro who follows good tactics is just as safe as a veteran that follows good tactics.
I always found it exciting when I was mining or mission running in a system and a particular space princess and a fleet of twenty catalysts showed up in the system, or if I am hauling and my mastodon gets scanned. As you say though, that is a very rare event, and one that does not last long.
Eve is such an old game that its PvE has already been defeated. Once the NPC’s have been beaten, they stay beaten. The threat of pvp is the only thing that makes this game exciting, at least for me. High sec space should be 98% safe in my opinion, but the hint of danger goes a long way to improving it. I am not sure what mechanic could be created to take the place of ganking. I am willing to consider options.
You might be surprised then.
CCP seems to be heading in a slow but sure way to giving the snowflakes what they want.
I’m just willing to accept some form of a safe space as damage control. Dosent matter, they will keep melting down no matter how much CCP gives them.
1 Like
I didn’t mean to imply that you liked the idea of a safe space. I am somewhat familiar with your posting history and which of my posts you’ve put a heart on, so I know you would prefer not to dilute Eve further, at least in this respect.
What I meant was that I would not believe the creation of that space was a good form of damage control since I think it would be almost totally ineffective (with regards to pleasing a significant number of people for a long period of time) and it may have some serious side effects not yet completely considered.
I don’t think it’s a good idea either! But the way CCP seems to be heading, we better come up with a compromise that all can live with.
I think CCP lost vision. For lack of a better way to put it.
2 Likes
Because that was pre-casual mobile gaming revolution that happened right after 2010 or so.
Most gamers today are casual gamers who play cell phone games, and by effect many contemporary PC gamers are people who “leaked over” from that mobile demographic.
It’s kind of like when a big Olive Garden moves into a town’s local entertainment area, within a few years lots of patrons who visit the other restaurants that have existed in the area are going to expect to get free bread sticks with their meals. The “bread stick effect.”
1 Like
And that’s good for the game?
even wow classic shows that. PLayer x joins a pvp server since its fotm mega server.
PvP happens.
and they rant.
they don’t even lose anything besides time on the corpse walk back.
Blizzard gives players 2 options (pve and pvp)…players still rant. Its the 99% one faction servers that have you laugh.
OKay…you thought a 99% one side server would be safe. well you met some of the 1%. They dropped you. oh well.
1 Like