Also notice that his absolutism isn’t even one and thus can’t be wrong. 
I wonder if he hates juice!
Funny how often vets mention this. And how often they miss that the ‘guys from UO’ don’t seem to be guiding the game any more, or that the first and primary one of them was ungloriously ejected from the company and pretty much written out of CCP/EVE history. (Except when someone wants to trot out the ‘EVE came from UO pvpers!’ line.)
Or that the designers, creators and managers of UO, looking back on the history of the game, say that ‘non-consensual PvP was a mistake’.
To quote (emphasis mine):
“Naturally, PvP came up during the panels and the Q&A afterward. As painful as it may sound, one thing all the developers agreed on was that non-consensual PvP was a mistake. It’s a bit painful for me to write that, as most of my best MMO experiences took place in FFA PvP worlds, but Garriott noted that they had the metrics to back it up. People were buying up UO, but they were returning the game very often as well.”
Ultima Online Post-Mortem with the Developers
Also, note how well UO is doing these days… really high profile, that UO is.
What people seem to get wrong 50 times a day around here is that you can have a PvP game, without having widespread PK predation. It’s a question of proper design, not a binary choice.
1 Like
Now that you reference this post, explain why the developers believed it was a mistake. Bad design systems are bad for any game, however, consensual pvp is never a mistake, Never.
Actually it’s a mistake because it removes the threat level rendering HS just one big safe space to PLEX your account in. It would be a huge mistake.
1 Like
Whats even worse is that they sit on these forums propagating these lies while month after month ccp posts the server metrics (statistical data) showing it is not the case.
I believe most of these people here arguing against consensual based pvp in high sec, are in fact people that abuse the “Safe, easy pvp targets”.
We do have to mention, that pvp is hard to get content in smaller amounts in null largely due to the massive space that coalitions have, and the intelligence channel they share. the two of the make it hard to get actual pvp kills.
this is why i have suggested a change to local (for all known and unknown space) to be something like “you dont show up for the first 3 (enter value here) minutes you enter”. this would also fix having to spam buttons in wormholes also and stream line the game. It may also help keep freighters safer, by being able to hide better.
We have to take these things into consideration, as some of the people in high sec entities pvping might just be there for the sake of content, and if they dislike the large gang content, and want a smaller setting, we should give them validation to do so, by making it a more viable option in null/low/wh space.
Ouch.
That is incorrect, there are far more threats in eve then other players.
Btw, Deaths dont effect eve’s economy.
That’s incorrect. The NPC threats need to be engaged (ie you can choose not to engage them). Therefore, they are not threats. This is exactly what you want to do with players too…turn off the threat.
Deaths, if you mean ship losses, directly drive the economy.
3 Likes
I agree with this. Nothing about the new player experience teaches about anything other than mining, mission running, industry…it pretty much only covers PvE to be honest. There’s nothing built into the game to teach new players about living out in null sec, exploring wormholes, what a citadel is and why are they everywhere. Ask a long-time EVE player what their favourite activity in EVE is and I bet it’s probably not even mentioned to new players during the tutorial phase.
I mean watch this and then play through the new player experience! Absolutely none of this is experienced by new players when they first log in.
1 Like
I’m curious, why do you think new players would (or should) experience any of this when they first log in? Seriously?
I mean, there is a shot of some mining at one point, new players can do this… it is sounding a lot like “if there isn’t anyone to hold my hand while I do it it simply cannot be done”.
If people are entering the game for the first time and expecting this sort of thing (cept for maybe dying in a fire) I’m not sure any sort of “New Player Experience” can help them. Have been playing for a while now, and have experienced this sort of thing, but not when I was new. It took effort to ‘make it’ (for want of a better term), to find a ‘good corp’, to find ‘good fits’, etc etc. Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither is your Eve Online experience.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
1 Like
That doesn’t change the fact that multiple times over the last 7 or so years CCP has expended significant development resources adding or redoing a feature with the explicit purpose of making highsec safer by limiting player interaction and it hasn’t worked. They have repeated the experiment over and over and the carebear hordes have just not come.
It doesn’t work. No, that doesn’t mean making highsec more dangerous or poorer will bring more people either, but it does mean that just limiting or removing interactions isn’t a recipe for increased activity as many carebears will tell you with a straight face. CCP needs to add features and game play to do that, not keep deleting things from their game.
I will also agree that the worst offenders of excess wealth and safety have been rained down on nullsec, not highsec. In principle, I agree with that most of the wealth should appear in the places with most danger, freedom, and potential for content, but the absolute amounts CCP have been pouring into nullsec is atrocious, and worse, the minute levels of destruction there are appalling. Things are so terrible, and the recent excesses are so bad and dragged on for so long, the game will take years to recover, if ever. The game is flooded with materials, almost all of which are perfectly safe most of the time.
Highsec is more safe though, almost perfectly safe. The MER shows that only a tiny fraction of what undocks there is lost for any reason, and attacks by other players are only a fraction of that minuscule amount. It also pays quite well (at least on the high-end) for that free, NPC-provided safety. If the destruction numbers seem large, it is just primarily as there is more activity going on there and wealth concentrated there.
But risk vs. reward balance and the relative levels of this between highsec and nullsec are beside the point. Maybe not completely as this is quite important longer-term to keep players with the game by making the game fun, but it isn’t so much a new player issue, other than I guess making the gap to getting established harder for a newer player.
My main point is that making highsec safer by deleting content has been tried over and over and failed. This latest wardec revamp will also likely fail to drive activity numbers as it brings very little new to the table for players to interact, and removes some others. CCP needs to also add avenues for interaction when revamping or adding a feature, not just restrict or delete things, if they want a social game like Eve Online to grow. A highsec where nothing happens is not a compelling start to an Eve career and there is no reason to expect making it duller is going to make the retention metrics any better. I think the creation of a social corp has a better chance than the previous buffs to highsec safety to help drive activity, but I am still pessimistic that adding just that, without other reasons to play the game and interact, is enough.
I get it, adding new things is hard and takes resources, but you can’t just keep pruning a plant forever and expect it to flourish. At some point you have to invest time and resources to water, fertilize and replant it to give it new energy and paths to growth.
7 Likes
Why do you think new players shouldn’t experience this when they first log in? This thread’s title is “How to get more people to play eve”. I think making things easier for new players to experience the really fun parts of EVE as quickly as possible would help with that.
Here is a recommended skill training guide for new players:
https://wiki.goonfleet.com/Recommended_Skill_Training_Guide
The total training time is 60 days, literally 2 months. And for what? Basic frigate ships and modules. The ship hull sizes go frigate → destroyer → cruiser → battlecruiser → battleship → capital. After literally two months of play time a new player will be able to effectively fly…well the same ships they started with of course!
I know there’s a feeling among experienced players that new players need to suffer just as much as they did, and some even complain new players have it easy and aren’t suffering enough, but that kind of thought is turning a lot of potential players away. No other games today require months of time investment in order to unlock fairly basic parts of the game.
Ok, I was purely thinking about player retention, so concede your point that yes this may get new people to play eve, but then there’s nothing to keep them here, because what’s there to look forward to?
Did you even start to read the article you linked? I’ll quote it here for easy access (emphasis mine):
" The Gooniversity-recommended 60 day plan prepares new Omega pilots to fly a variety of useful ships at the beginning of their career. The plan has a PvP focus that will get you into FuckYouFleet ships while setting you up with good baseline skills for whatever you want to do later in your EVE career."
So I’ll kindly ask you to clarify your point? As it seems that after two months at the very least you’ll be able to join large fleet ops, in one of 18 (by my quick count) different hulls, which seems reasonable, no? Further, you’re well set for whatever you want to do later in your EVE career (I think that needs repeating).
If, on the other hand you think new people should be flying around in Battleships and leading fleets well, I just don’t know what to tell you.
I will note that I haven’t had much (ok, nothing at all) to do with Goon fleet ops, so I don’t know exactly what type of fleet you’d be flying in, but I would assume it’ll have a lot of players cause it’s Goons.
Also Grrr Goons! (pretty sure that’s obligatory)
Edit:
It’s not that we want them to suffer, it’s that when you get something for nothing it has zero value, and Eve has value to us that we don’t want to see washed away by people who think they know what’s best for the game we’ve been playing for all these years.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
2 Likes
The point is that I asked Mo straight out, or should I say the ghost of Mo is why was he complaining about nerfs in hisec when he and others were calling for and trying to do completely open PvP in hisec when it is a protected area with higher security.
Hisec is what it is, you make the choice to operate in hisec because it allows a lot more control of your battlespace, but it has a cost. I am glad other people are asking this question, because to be honest about it, it is really important in terms of your own frustration.
Mo had a great one with can flipping, but it still exists, it is however not the lock a single person into a fight while others watch on helpless, but the original can flipper goes suspect so everyone can shoot him if they want to. At a stroke people stopped doing it. And that was because most can flippers could not control their battlespace. It is the most evident example of why I get irritated with many hisec PvP’rs, because most are not honest with themselves and others.
I am sorry if this post gets up your nose, but when I hear you and others say content was nerfed, that is not correct, your consequences and risk have increased.
PS I missed my main point in terms of his reaction, he sort of admitted it but waffled around it.
1 Like
Content was nerfed. Crimewatch 2.0 made some forms of interactions more costly/difficult, and deleted others. That’s fine. What it didn’t do was offer up new ways to intereact and as a result, people left the game. This is completely predictable and happens seemingly every time CCP restricts or removes a form of interaction.
It’s fine to remove or restrict forms of interaction that are clearly unintended or oppressive, but you gotta add some new ways to interact back to the game at some point. Or there will continue to be less activity and less players as there will are less things to do and less things happening around you.
This seems so obvious I might even consider it self-evident. We have had 8 years of deleting and restricting things in highsec and predictably, activity there has only gone down. I maintain this won’t turn around until CCP finally adds some game play back to highsec.
2 Likes
But that works both ways, you know I keep pointing out the massive buff to ganking which was the Catalyst DPS buff and for two and a half years no adjustment was made to the tank of mining barges and exhumers. That was a massive nerf to hisec miners and as a result they were under siege and many left the game as their net wealth went down due to the huge amount of losses.
CCP made a really bad balancing call there and it lost them a lot of players who were your main content. You do know that this happened before the eight year period you are talking about. You guys had a lot of cheap easy fun, but it backfired with the loss of so many players. The changes you are complaining about don’t happen in a vacuum…, they are consequences.
Not only a delay in local but a 24 hour delay in the map as well.
1 Like
I don’t see how that makes any sense for what I am talking about. Sure, balance is important, and extremely bad balance can drive players away, but CCP added/recreated two essentially suicide gank-proof mining ships like 8 years ago, and then buffed the Orca a few years ago to that status, and the servers didn’t flood with players. Increasing safety doesn’t seem drive player activity or retention. How long to we have to wait for the servers to flood with players who want to mine AFK in highsec?
What is needed is new game play. New ways to mine together, or compete over mining resources. The biggest local increase in highsec activity I have seen over the last 8 years is just from that - the addition of moon mining to highsec. I shudder to think what the state of highsec would be in today without that change last year. But just making people more able to ignore their game client, or give less reasons or methods for interacting? That has never worked, yet people still earnestly propose regularly on these forums.
1 Like
Absolutely why should hunters get all the intel for free of player activity, this is yet another example of players calling for something in their interest and ignoring game balance.
It has everything to do with what you are talking about.
Why did they make the Skiff so tanky? Well it was to entice back players who were really upset with CCP. But they had given up and blamed CCP for bad design. I came across a number of these players and their bitterness towards CCP was intense. It failed as they did not trust CCP to balance correctly.
You had a lot of fun in that period, but you did not stop to think about he consequences did you? If you could go back in the past would you change anything? No you would not. I was mainly in nullsec during the period I was talking about but every single one of my hisec mining contacts I made in the first six months that I played as Dracvlad left the game during that period. I realised and was on the forums saying that tank needed to be increased, and I was ignored.
You had your feast, now you have your famine. Still you must have had a great enjoyable time while it lasted, and of course you want to go back to it. But it is not going to happen, period.
PS The buff to Catalyst DPS happened in 2011 and the change to mining barges and exhumers to what we have now happened late 2013. During that period there was a massive outflow of hisec mining players who were replaced by people enticed in by major headline battles.
CCP did not even notice until it was too late. The same lack of attention was applied to blanket war decs with the result you see now.
I still think not one of you ganker types would wish it happened differently, you had a huge amount of fun and you won, but we are were we are now because of that.
1 Like