not everything i say is good though, and i make mistakes, and i get hostile; im far from perfect - but on that note i couldnt stand to be around people that just agree with me all the time anyway it doesnt really help with formulating proper structured ideas.
‘‘Yes men’’ are inherently bad 
Dessies used to have a 25% RoF penalty. It’s removal is what i think drac is referring to.
Eh, I would quote what I agree with in your post, but that would end up quoting 90% of the post and skipping about 6 sentences.
Just a few notes:
People think the ‘demanding, carebear hordes’ have driven these changes to high sec. It seems to me it is driven more by bad design decisions at CCP… of which there have been many, across all sectors.
Less PvP in high sec won’t bring the people. More PvP in high sec won’t bring the people. Better and more interesting game design will bring the people.
A point I made, that you didn’t make any reference to is relevant though - you and the other pseudo-PVPers in high sec want a ‘relatively’ safe place to engage in PvP. Otherwise all the PvP you could ask for is a couple jumps away in low, WH and null space. What you want is the ability to do the things you are interested in, safe from being interrupted by people who want to screw with your game. Exactly what the ‘high sec carebears’ want. This actually is an important game design element.
Read the link I posted from the Ultima Online Developers Post-Mortem (in another post) - non-consensual PvP is bad game design. People get hung up on this ‘high sec is for PvP! No it’s for PvE!’ and miss the fact that a game can be designed to allow both.
This. So much this. It boggles my mind how much money CCP has thrown away on wasted initiatives, things nobody asked for, ‘fixes’ that break the game… and then they wonder why the player base is declining and Alphas aren’t signing up for subs. FIX YOUR DAMN GAME AND MAYBE PEOPLE WILL PLAY IT MORE.
Actually, the year after Crimewatch was introduced was the best year ever, in terms of player participation. The problem was not that ‘going safe failed to produce the players’ - it did.
The problem was that the rest of the game was still boring, lacked interaction, basically didn’t live up to the promise of what EVE constantly advertises, but rarely delivers.
And it really is important to highlight Dracvlad’s point - when can flipping stopped allowing high-sec pseudo-PvPers to control their battlespace, and increased their losses, they stopped doing it. In droves. Which is exactly the reaction that high sec ‘carebears’ talk about - ruin my ability to control my play/risk/rewards, and I will stop playing. Funny how the pseudo-PvPers want that choice for themselves, but not their victims.
The choice isn’t a binary ‘high sec PvP yes or no?’. The choice is about providing proper game design to support and encourage both styles of play.
Well, it may be evident to you and me and others… but apparently making multimillions per year on a game changes your viewpoint. Investing in the health of your cash cow seems to be less relevant to CCP than grabbing all the milk they can today.
I would like that post 50 times if I could.
I would just add that when the playing field was more level for everyone, EVE grew rapidly. 6-8 years later, as the playing field got really tilted… EVE growth slowed and died, and CCP started flailing around in every direction trying to get it back. Yet apparently having no clue what went wrong or how to fix it.
And they still seem to be too, with these spin-offs.
…how to delete?
<3
Yes.
CCP is completely and ultimately responsible for their design decisions. I am the last one to White Knight for them and their choices.
I do think some of their… choices are most easily explained by some desire to placate the carebear mindset, but ultimately the problems with the game are their responsibility, not anyone else no matter how whiny or vocal.
+1
+100
Sigh.
Indeed.
Step it up CCP.
While I think you’re on the right track, I do wonder what kind of fixes you’re thinking about and what you think the issues with the game are right now that need fixing.
Because ‘fix the game’ can mean a lot of things.
Well, this is a question that was recently asked in another thread, and all I can say is, “it would take 5 threads on 5 topics just to give an overview”. The problem is there’s no one-shot change that fixes the game - you need to address the economy, the incentives to do activity X in sec level Y, how to balance personal destruction against ISK/resource gain (if my ships are getting blown up faster than I can afford them), but most of all, you need to give the new player experience a progression path that takes them from newbro to competing player, without losing 99.5% of them along the way.
The other problem is, CCP has made it clear that sweeping changes that require major new mechanics are not on the table - because they simply are not capable of coding such things any more without breaking the game. (See ‘new chat system’, see ‘most recent events’, see ‘Agency Agent Finder rewrite’) So any potential changes, to be realistic at all, need to be tweaks and rebalances of what we already have, or very simple additions.
As a one-off example, that needs a lot of context, I gave a reply in another thread:
That gives a notion of how you turn the current “throw people into the deep end of the pool, oh, and toss some sharks and piranha in too”, into a system of progressive dangers, rewards and challenges.
This tends to be the problem with a lot of games developed around the early 2000s era, and why earlier on somewhere I had mentioned the reality of the situation is CCP will either continue to add on top of the pile of problems that can’t be fixed or they’ll end up making a new project to become successor to EVE. Or attempt the Warhammer approach and license out the IP to developers until we eventually get an EVE-branded Game of War game on mobile.
Removed some off topic posts.
Probably considerably better than the life of an idiot who thinks that the rules don’t apply to them.
It’s extremely difficult to keep something moderately big like EVE technically “clean”. It’s natural that EVE has built up a lot of “Technical Debt” over the years. Not a good thing for completely new technical capabilities.
But I don’t think that would make it impossible to make today’s EVE, with it’s actual technical debt, more welcoming for new players using existing features. IMO the key step is otherwise more-or-less normal zones/areas that limit SP levels and the quality of the equipment (as most other MMOs do).
There would be a small price to pay, but it’s one CCP seems ready to pay: one-sided combat between rich, high-SP players and new players would become optional - possible only if the new players chose to stay in highSec. Note that this isn’t an objective: it looks to me like a core technical requirement.
Not much of a price IMO - it’s never added anything worthwhile to the game (though there’s a special chapter in the “bittervet narrative” that claims otherwise /lol). And if it’s really fun and helpful for new players to compete with and fight with them, the gankers can get to work persuading them or paying them to stay in highSec.
Been there done that at several projects and companies, but you must have compentent and DEDICATED TEAM and then everything is possible.
This is not atristic and confused '90s any more, and now programming and project managment have very strict rules and you MUST follow them on big sw projects.
In regards to plex apparently people hoarding this
so if the attitude of many players is simply that customers leaving or not signing up is good if it turns them a profit the reality is there is incredibly little that can be done to get more people to play.
less people means less competition
Try mine.
They could try mine too, I write similar stuff and my killboard is for all intents and purposes blank; if you don’t count dying to NPCs.