I much prefer ESO, pretty much no zoning and it doesn’t force you along a story line. It has its own issues like the guild system which is dumb af but the classes concept is really great (although as an altoholic I end up with a zillion characters) and to me it’s the best overall “normal” mmo.
Hardly meaningless noise - I would estimate a single industrial player would make hundreds of logins per month to cover all the steps needed to make t2 products including mining, reactions, collecting PI, invention, production, logistics and marketing. Bigger industrials might make thousands. And there are thousands of industrial players.
A PvP player with one account or a mission runner who logs in every day might only generate 30 logins.
Basically by your own definition of a login PvP players might well be underrepresented by these figures. This does not even consider that many players wishing to PvP without buying plex will have to login to undertake some form of PvE to fund their activities, which will further skew these numbers.
Other things you have simply dismissed out of hand include you admitting that most destruction occurs in null, then claiming that SRP does not affect how many people engage in PvP. When as you probably know the null blocks run extremely generous SRP funds. I would say that is a factor. I have been in fleets full over people egging the FC on to welp as they know the costs will be minimal and prefering to fight than run.
Also I think your insistence the PvP is counted twice in these numbers comes from your belief that most PvP in this game in non-consensual. I would guess this is not the case, although I don’t have figures to say either way - if you have them I would be interested to see them.
But it doesn’t have to be that way and it’s proven that there are more effective and “enjoyable” tactics.
If you go with an arsenal level 5 to a confrontation against an opponent level 5, it is quasi-balanced in your mind but there are collaterals. One of them is resources availability.
I’m not giving a war strategy speech, nor I expect silence afterwards. There is always a derailing answer to any post;.
But let me bring the casino example: Once you cannot enjoy betting for pennies when you can’t afford quarters, you have to leave right away.
When you enter adversary territory, you are exposing yourself to resources proximity in favor of the counterpart. It’s a stupid strategy unless you systematically attack weak portions of the battlefield, which is often miscalled “guerilla warfare”. One of the most successful strategies is to bring the opponent to the exact same disadvantages you are facing, for he will not be ready for them.
When one’s objective is to obliterate an armada in a single battle, you cannot bring less than what guarantees success as close as possible to the chances of withdrawal of the opponent --I said obliterate, not defeat–.
I extended too much on the example… but here’s the point: It’s a wrong strategy to begin with and you should assess preliminarily the chances of bringing the opponent to your turf… you “went” there… perhaps you could make him “come” to you. I know it’s another topic but… this is the main reason I dislike some of the recent changes that are projecting to unsustainable distances. I rather see troops on foot.
Null gives the chance of setting up the scenario --even when you stand the lower ground–. You can truly bait your opponent in Null and the concept of escalation must be well assessed and clear to all ranks, on the projection and defense. This is the reason why I am so adamant on chasing and killing those “small targets I rather dock and wait till they leave”, in case we could be facing the concept of bait and escalation in a long term scenario.
But of course with the addition of resources proximity.
Because they made that choice and had the power to make that happen.
You can’t have a competitive game and then go “these guys keep winning, that’s not fair”, they’re winning because they’re better at planning and organising. Again, I’m no fan at all of large groups and certainly not Goons in particular, but that doesn’t mean “orange man bad” makes any sense to me.
People or groups who do better come out on top, that is how it should be.
I’ve said again and again on these forums that people are not motivated by rationality. People in games are motivated by whatever their version of ‘fun’ is…and demotivated by whatever ‘not fun’ is.
Losing stuff is ‘not fun’. Rationally, what one has lost might only be 1% of one’s entire assets and be utterly trivial. But that can be easily outweighed by the psychological impact of it. It is ‘not fun’ to lose stuff…and it is even more ‘not fun’ to keep on losing stuff. Heck, I’ve heard more than enough cases in corp and other chat of people not even liking losing a 4K ISK Hobgoblin. I mean, you can get 250 of the damned things for a mere 1m ISK…rationally they are inconsequential.
It’s not a two-bit dichotomy. There exists a subset of players who don’t find losing stuff “not fun,” even if they don’t find it fun either. They accept loss as part of the game, and aren’t bothered by it. This is in contrast to the players who are perturbed and upset by loss, and do everything in their power to avoid it at the expense of everything else, even if that “everything else” takes the form of increased gain that more than offsets their losses.
Game like EVE weren’t intended for the latter group. At least, not as long-term players. They do make good content for players who are part of the genuine target demographic.
But once again you treat it as if everyone should have your particular stance on things…which is odd for what you openly say is a sandbox game and thus open playstyle.
Clearly you have found a particular fun style. The fact that someone else may not enjoy that particular style does not mean they are not, or cannot be, enjoying the game in their own way. It is a sandbox game…not ‘my way, or the highway’.
The above is the important one. Even sand boxs have rules. This one has open world PvP. Loss is part of the game. Don’t like it? Cool. No one is forcing you to play. Contract that stuff to me and head on out
I wouldn’t say anyone was ‘perturbed’. I’d express it far more in terms of people asking themselves ‘what is the point of this game ?’ What actually constitutes ‘winning’ in some sense ?
Clearly, for some people ‘winning’ means getting as many kills of others as possible. For others it may be PvE, or completing missions, or being a bounty hunter, or whatever. But there is also a large subset for whom ‘winning’ means acquiring stuff.
I mean, you have said yourself that you’d hate degradation of stuff…because all your items built up over the years would be gone. So you’re as much a hoarder as anyone else. Probably also because those items have associated history within the game.
Lol…everyone keeps telling me in one breath that Eve is a sandbox, and in the next demanding ‘this is how you play the game’…which is usually how they themselves are playing it.
If you don’t believe that there are people are perturbed (or worse) by loss, I can link you to an interesting blog you can read.
I don’t want degradation of stuff because it’s an unnecessary inconvenience that would force me to spend a lot of my time on micromanaging my gear so that I can operate at peak efficiency all the time. The loss wouldn’t upset me because degradation would affect everyone equally, so I wouldn’t be any worse off than anyone else. It would just be the natural state of the game.
Also, it would be terrible for EVE because everyone would invest into ISK and PLEX as hedges against degradation, which would be pretty catastrophic for the in-game economy.
Oh…I can well believe a few are emotionally distraught, etc. But CCP are totally correct that there are two types who play, and I’m in the second ( larger, I think ) group where every loss is greater motivation to stay and fight back. Who knows…I may even challlenge Gix to that duel in due course
I don’t like degradation either. Just brought it as an alternative.
What I think is “things should have never be everlasting”, meaning that if degradation was not implemented at the beginning, it should not happen.
Also, degradation is already in through other “clever” methods that could be a plausible test bed for things to come.
And depending on how deep they wanna go with this degradation system disguised as expiration, a big push for PVP can --and should-- be the goal.
The problem is that the system has already saturated: we keep getting goodies every day, some or many of which we have zero clue what they are about, what they do… as they are mostly pertaining to recent events, implementations or just crappy stuff.
It’s not a question of rust on the shells everywhere, I don’t know where people get this from.
Degradation is here to stay, all I say is… may the gods be wise and make good use of it, with a goal in mind, with a plan --too much to ask?–.
Yes, both for the narrow, blurry negative scope of players and as always, the lack of creativity on the gods part.