That is a powerful block you have, I can’t see him either
1 Like
Doesn’t look dead to me. We’re on track for our third best month of 2022.
The game is literally dominated by income grinding players with no interest in PvP, we don’t need more people who are functionally no different than uninteractable NPCs.
2 Likes
Yes, we do. PVE is where EVE’s economy comes from.
PvP is where the demand comes from.
So both are needed then, which I’m pretty sure everyone knows. I think the problem comes in when people say that ganking should be balanced, as gankers then claim that anyone saying that wants to remove ganking and removing ganking removes all PvP.
When people say that, it almost always means nerf it.
Balance is always there and is part of the game design. People complain because they aren’t happy with where the balance sits and want it moved; and every single time, it’s about making it harder to gank and easier for themselves.
They are selfish and lazy.
Instead of just focusing on their own gameplay and using the mechanics already in the game, almost always, they ask for CCP to provide more ways for the game to protect them so they don’t actually have to learn to play, or to play the game as actively as they expect the gankers to.
3 Likes
You will never get them all.
1 Like
Yeah It probably does. That makes sense though since it’s hard to argue that ganking is on the negative side of the balance scale.
I’m not really interested in you trying to bash anyone who doesn’t agree with you by calling them all selfish and lazy.
Most of the PvE on Eve could be done without anyone else being online…which makes nonsense of it being a multiplayer game.
I think that any view on that comes from the inherent bias we all have.
It would be quite easy to for example look at the number of ships lost in a gank compared to the number of gank target ships lost and it’s very much on the negative side of the balance scale for the gankers as soon as you go above a Venture gank.
Or similarly, to look at the number of accounts/characters needed to gank compared to the number of characters needed to haul around cargo in a freighter; and again it’s very much on the negative side for gankers.
A third would be to compare the amount of coordination, organisation and planning to gank on the high end versus hauling cargo; and again, the balance is far in favour of haulers.
etc.
All depends on which metric you want to compare and there are metrics where the balance sits one way (eg. ISK cost to gank versus ISK cost for a Freighter) and metrics where the balance sits the other way.
In most cases, people only focus on the aspects that help them argue that the balance is too favourable for gankers.
1 Like
It’s like reverse pokemon.
Yeah there will always be metrics you can pick that will support any conclusion you want. That’s why these conversations are mostly pointless.
it does matter to me, i undock to create content, and by the sound of it content was created \o/ everyone had fun and there were explosions.
yep sounds like a success, sadly though ccp does seem to be pushing eve towards the players who are in the isk per hour ,making the (isk) numbers bigger crowd these days rather than the ones who will undock for fun… I know undocking for fun in an MMORPG lol
one of your corp mates just did, made me proud to see the explosion 
tell him gf.
Or people are also having fun doing these other activities.
I think CCP is just trying to increase enjoyment from activities viable in a smaller playerbase and move away from activities that are one-sided enjoyment.
i actually was waiting for this reply lol, the difference between me undocking and flying around while many diverse folk form fleets and intell to bring me down involving many people with many more indirectly involved cheering either side on, and the other activities where someone makes isk, usually solo and not involving anyone else is great.
They ,the isk grinders may well have fun making that isk and thats not a bad thing in itself in a sandbox but it does nothing for everyone else it does not expand the EVE experience for anyone else, its just a one sided activity in an isolated silo and may as well be done in a single player game rather than a MMORPG.
And as to the playerbase getting smaller , we all have our theories and mine is every time eve is watered down, simplified, nerfed , made more accessible subs drop and usually ccps response to the latest drop is to nerf ,simplify more. maybe if they went back to their ethos when eve was expanding every year (more than 10 years ago) things would be better 
as ccp back in the day said Permaband - HTFU - YouTube
6 Likes
It is harder now to dunk abyss runners than before. My best dunkations of abyss runners were pre-patch. Now they are way more widespread and takes way more effort to track them. Before patch the lazy blingy abyss runners were in or around Jita… and yes, it is easy to gank them in 1.0 .
Now the lazy Abyss Runners are pumping billions in Highsec like always but forced to hide better by game design.
This is a fantasy. Most of the time ganking is just a player shooting another player when they are not prepared. It’s one-sided entertainment. People that get ganked rarely find the activity enjoyable in the same way that both sides of a PvP fight often do.
It’s not negatively impacting anyone else. Also, in a game with a player run economy the people creating ISK and resources are absolutely vital for the game.
I hate this “It’s PvE therefore it should just be done in a single player game” nonsense. If you think solo play doesn’t belong in MMOs then you don’t understand MMOs.
We could argue to the end of time about this and never come to an agreement. It’s just not possible to link drops in player numbers to individual changes or even groups of changes among so many other unknown factors.
1 Like
So what is your idea of PvP, a duel? Feather dusters at dawn?
I don’t consider PvP to even need a fight, but I consider a “PvP fight” to be combat between two parties where both actively participate in the fight. The experience is often enjoyable whether you win or lose.