When there is less than 20K online and 6K of them are in one nulsec system fighting over a keepstar, CCP ain’t touching it for fear of ostracising nulsec groups.
Personally I think the “right” changes (a few small changes) to nulsec game play could be very positive. I also believe CCP know this but are simply resisting making relevant changes or simply don’t know how to do it and make it “look positive” to those who would be affected.
In that you are absolutely correct.
In game market data since the changes went live.
Has been a hot topic since the first day I saw these forums some 17 years ago.
How many “ganking is bad” threads are active right now?
Historically (the data is all there), this is going to be fairly accurate although I believe the “indifferent” will be somewhat higher.
I have no need to apologise.
I’ve spent a lot of time over the years looking at changes to the game and how they are percieved and received by players. I base much of my posting on things that happened in the past combined with personal experiences in the game.
Yes? And which data would that be? Massively popular would lead to some pretty massive changes in the market data, yes? Should be pretty easy to point directly to it.
You see, the thing about facts is, you can actually point to them, link them, provide a concrete example. With facts, you don’t have to say “Um, yeah, there’s uh, stuff. Out there somewhere. That, like, proves my point. I just don’t, you know, have any of it around right now. But it’s definitely out there.”
See, now you’re editing and chopping things down to a few words to get something you can pretend you’re proving. The actual statement Destiny made is that three-quarters of the player base would love it if more such changes were made to the game, up to the total removal of any nonconsensual PvP mechanics in the game.
In order to prove this statement, because after all, “the ACTUAL proof IS ALL THERE”, you would need to provide some data that shows that three-quarters of the player base wants this.
Heck, tell you what, let’s just take half the player base. So as soon as you can come up with some indication that at least 150,000 players support the above statement, we’re good.
Yes, so, we’re talking about facts here. Not your beliefs. Not hand-waving and looking away while saying “uh yes, historically, you know, the facts are all there. Yes, yes they are. ALL THERE.”
Facts that you can link and demonstrate. A chart will do, or something CCP has published about player numbers, showing that in the past, three quarters of the player base wanted to be doing nonconsensual PvP, and 15-20% of them were indifferent to it, and only the final 5-10% didn’t want nonconsensual PvP. (Because that’s what “those ratios were reversed” mean, in case you’re still struggling with the math.)
So, feel free to make with the actual facts, not vague references to the data that’s ALL OUT THERE.
Or, you know, stop talking out your ass. One or the other.
Pity you’re not able to see past your own biases. Why do you even bother engaging when it’s so obvious, it doesn’t matter what others have to say, they are wrong.
I’m out.
But the value of sov space is based on how good an income you can get from it, and yes it was a driver. At one point the true sec was an important aspect in terms of the value of space, but then CCP allowed upgrades to space that made most space good enough.
The thing is that this decision was like any buff or nerf, it was done based on the situation at the time. Most systems were not used and while they were claimed they were empty and people were better off overall staying in hisec doing level 4’s.
The changes resulted in more people in nullsec space and more systems used. However it increased ISK generation.
After a while CCP scaled it back, which destroyed many alliances that now found their space worthless, so they were forced to scale it back up again, but not to the same degree.
This all happened before Rorquals, but is just another example of how difficult it is.
So if the space is not valuable in that it ends up producing ISK for you and your members then there is no point in trying to take and hold it. But to make it valuable enough means you turn on the ISK fountain, and you get certain groups taking over the best areas and maximising the hell out of it, so CCP has to look at ways to impact those that are too efficicent at resource extraction and income generation. Which is what they tried to do.
In terms of moons, it is not directly tied to sov as in the fact that people can put down a structure regardless of sov status and to be blunt that should always be the case. The benefits were in reduced fuel costs if I remember correctly, it has been a while though and that might have changed.
Moon structures need to be defended and there is warfare around them, but the key driver now is not so much holding the moon and defending it, but to be able to mine it with ships in space, this is a good thing, it should never have been passive.
But do you remember the Technicium cartel, of the Goons, PL, NCDOT, who controlled all of these moons and had an agreement, there is the issue again.
But even then I do not think it is just a question of sov and its value or not, but more to do with human nature and the need to develop allies and communities that create safety and control.
One has to say that the real hero’s in terms of this were Vily and progodlegend, but in doing so they ended up destroying their own alliance when CCP went after their income that enabled them to carry out this war and it was not sov income, but trade tax in hisec, and would you believe it there was an agreement and a community there.
At the end of the day the game would be a lot better with smaller entities fighting over space, but how to get too that is really hard.
Funny how you always ask for this, but never provide any of your own 
I believe the true sec affects frequency and quality of officer/faction spawns, In my experience the higher the truesec of the system I was ratting in the more often true sanshas spawned. I think we both lived in a -1.0 system if memory serves and within the first couple of weeks we got a top officer spawn with around 6 billion.
Has this changed recently? Does upgrading SOV increase the chance of a faction/officer spawn now?
Also the loot was much better in a high true sec system, I used to really enjoy the named items.
Many people may not even be aware of such a mechanic and what they can gain from it which really is a massive shame, If you look at system J-AYLV it seems that there are a few pve’ers in that area grinding faction/officers. Because I understand the mechanics I could go and rat up there myself and clash with the other folks ratting there which could result in pvp.
To summarise this thread I can’t really say I’m disappointed with the mechanics (except the changes to cloak, they should have left it as it was) I am more disappointed with the player base for not being adventurous, I’m unhappy with the pvp’ers who only pvp when the odds are 15 to 1 in their favor and then dock up when the odds are even. I’m also unhappy with the pilots who never leave hi sec and never listen to anyone.
If people just took more time to understand the game I am sure they would do things like come to Stain, If you remember the sheer amount of pvp attention we got it was literally pvp 24/7 for a good couple of years and from my perspective it would still be that way if I did another Hub Zero.
So, lets say a started another Hub Zero thread right now! Immediately there would be about 50 negative posts saying “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” and then you’d get the same people from 10 years ago reposting threads of my previous attempts at hub zero, then there would be a handful of people sayinmg “Aaron can’t pvp, don’t join his fleets” Then you get the folks who come down and want to argue, they then split into another group and try and live here and fail, then they come back to my thread and drop negativity…Then I get trolled to oblivion and get Emo, and then close the thread and fall out with people.
And then the same trolls come to threads like this and say “Where’s all the pvp gone?”
Can you see what’s going on? At no point during the whole process did game mechanics let us down, we let ourselves down and the result is me here alone with only a fraction of the pvp there could be if more people came to live here.
Sorry if I was not clear, it is indeed what affects the frequency and quality of officer spawns. But it also affected the number of anomalies and quality that spawned. But CCP added in sov modules that enabled even poor systems to have Sanctums and Havens spawn based on upgrades that were installed. It brought more people into nullsec space however people were content with their space and just settled down and renting exploded. So they reduced the value of these upgrades and people just went back to hisec.
It did not change NPC nullsec in any way except that it had an impact on the value of NPC nullsec. So in effect what it did to Hub Zero was reduce the value of Stain as compared to Sov space and made attracting new players to Hub Zero very difficult. I think this was the biggest issue to what you were doing and I am sorry but this is linking in with what Kezrai is saying. The value of PvE and ISK.
I happened to like belt ratting but when CCP decided that gun mining was bad and nerfed refining rates it destroyed that for me.
When you look at the people who came to hub zero, many were people who were independent minded, and quite few were fed up with sov nullsec and wanted to chill, of course there were new players.
Hmmm, point noted. I understand but I still don’t fully agree. I still feel that a choice was there, let’s be honest SOV requires work. Corps must pay rent, mandatory CTA’s, this is great for some who have lots of time to play but for those with limited time NPC 0.0 may have been a better choice.
So my response to your point is lots of players may have followed hype and went to SOV without weighing up their options properly.
Also, I could have been at fault for failing to provide a strong corp/alliance which would have given valuable support to the Hub Zero community.
Sov does require work to defend and develop, you had to defend it against people with massive superiority that would come in and just obliterate everything. Many posters on these forums look at that and think it was a great thing, and if you were part of that it was, but it was also why those entities got so big and bloated and space turned into a blue donut. Human nature at its best/worst, depending how you look at it.
Limited time is also an issue and results in min/max behaviour and NPC nullsec did not fit in well with that, because you would have AFK cloaky campers and roams and other such stuff that made income generation difficult and I remember quite often people telling me that they were better off running level 4’s in hisec. I would then suggest level 4’s in Stain but that was an issue because of Empire standings…
At times sov space was really good, at others times less so, but CCP screwed up NPC nullsec most of all based on destroying gun mining and refining rates. So the hype was there at times because it was real.
In terms of leadership and all that, you are being too hard on yourself, remember what you were doing was hard and my word you made a really good go at it.
Exactly. Simply change the reward of something, no mechanics changed at all, and you’ll alter player behaviour. Change the risk of something, mechanics changed very little, and you will again, directly alter player behavior. Blackout is one example, “100% drop rate” event is another. And as stated previously, if we had a “0% drop rate” event, ganking would virtually cease.
On the other hand, if we had a “0% drop rate, but no Concord” event, ganking would increase in the short run just for “shits and giggles” and to let a few pretend-PvPers work out some fantasies of being badass pirates.
So, one mechanism that directly alters game play is risk/reward levels. Anyone who thinks “nothing you can do will alter how many players PvP” is simply demonstrating complete ignorance of gaming behavior and human motivation.
Hours and hours of gaming per week aren’t done ‘for fun’ - although the player will have a “well I’m sure this’ll lead to fun eventually” mindset. Gamers game for a feeling of accomplishment, for the most part. They game to feel like they are advancing a goal, making progress, “movin’ on up”.
Some posters are also confused about the thread, and are also arguing vigorously against me without being able to identify a single point I’ve made. So here it is in a nutshell:
While there are many other issues of EVE that need addressing, let’s just look at these 3, very simple factors.
If you alter the risk/reward structure you alter player behavior. As a simple example, if everyone who engaged in PvP got paid 5 million ISK, win or lose, players would start PvPing all day every day, if only in rookie ships. Not a good idea of course but the result would be clear.
It would be unwise to pay people ISK for losing PvP, but it could potentially pay some standings. Like, fighting for your ‘faction’, win or lose, could pay a certain amount of standing and maybe LP based on how much fighting/damage/destruction you do overall. This is something that FW could be tweaked for, for instance.
It would be better to adjust other factors so there’s some degree of ‘progress’ involved. Such as, if you needed to cause say 200 million in destruction against Caldari or Gallente faction pilots in order to get a special injector from the Guristas that allows you to fly a Gila. No destruction, no Gila for you. In this case you aren’t getting paid for the losses, but you are working towards a progress goal.
There could also be rewards based on a combat ranking system, or on an “activity tracker” action that tracks how much PvP destruction you’ve caused. (Destruction is less exploitable than kills to measure.) Skins, special modules, unlocking access to game features, whatever.
If people aren’t out in NPC Null that much, it’s not because they’re afraid of risk. It’s because there are other areas of the game that simply pay better with a lower level of risk and for time invested. People will maximize their gain within their risk tolerance, that’s wired right in.
Seems null still is about who you know rather than what you know.
There’s a misunderstanding here about the nature of PvP in EVE.
Indeed, getting killed is not fun, which is why a lot of people fly while avoiding PvP.
What you’re missing is that:
‘avoiding PvP’ is part of the PvP experience in EVE!
I play EVE because even when I’m not trying to kill other players, I still am the role of ‘mouse’ in the cat and mouse gameplay of the asymmetrical PvP experience in EVE.
Now I know from your posts you would rather play a game with lots of ‘fair’ pvp, but the nature of PvP in EVE mostly isn’t fair.
And that’s fine.
If you want a game with lots of symmetric PvP fights, the game market is full of them.
I rather like the hostile universe of EVE though, where I’m always participating in PvP when undocked, even when I’m not hunting people myself.
EVE has essentially 1 reward mechanism: rewards (ISK, LP, moduled, standings, ADMs, resources, ship skins, SP etc)
No, there’s a misunderstanding about my post, apparently. And I don’t really care about fair PvP, there are a hundred other games that do it much better than EVE.
I’ve heard all the babble about “avoiding PvP is PvP”. I’ve heard all the hot air about “everything in EVE is PvP, even logging in.” Yes, it’s interesting that there’s an element of risk in all things in EVE, no matter where you go. That’s one of its’ key features.
However, the entire point of this thread is that players spend much too much time “avoiding” PvP. That means, little interaction, little conflict, and clearly, little destruction.
I’m not sure how much simpler it can get than “more people participating in PvP would be better”, but apparently there are posters who simply can’t process that.
Try to wrap your head around it. More people choosing to seek PvP rather than avoid it.
It’s really not that hard.
I understood the point you were making, and agree with it.
This is immensely important too, though I often look at the impact of ganking in terms of that accomplishment to the sheer amount of time wasted in avoiding being ganked and not doing something more interesting. Which is why I often look at ganking as either being neutral or as harmful, even though I like doing this as you do.
And this is back to the issue.
And nails it.
Very important point!
Any strategy to coerce or counter a destructive deployment -is part of PVP- This is fundamental to consider the lack of DBP ( destruction between players )
issue.
The fact that most of us think of PVP as the violent encounter itself, is a recurrent mistake I unsuccessfully tried to avoid by trolling a demand for “correct” terminology.
This is the main reason why we should try to focus on the encounter itself, separated --but part of-- PVP if we agree that by tweaking it’s interactions, there will be more violent encounters resulting in more DBP.
But think of the closed environment for a bit… whatever intervention will eventually affect the whole at some degree, which is my critique to the creative process involved in decision making: Lack of scope, irreversible implementation and apparent personal influence.
In the end, there are few instances to intervene for the case of DBP:
Forgive me if I left others out but feel free to add as instances to intervene in favor of DBP ( Destruction Between Players ).
This point will always be ignored, the reason being is that most players don’t take any risk whatsoever so they would never understand you.
At the time I believe the null sec community had already been complaining about the low EHP on wrecks, perhaps you could include this info when telling others about the EHP of wrecks so you don’t create a situation where people are missing facts. It seems like it was coincidence that it was changed when the ganker community complained. Many people trust what you say so be aware of that.
This is very much part of my problem, yes there is factual data out there but it seems so many will always interpret it in the wrong way which leads to certain false beliefs about CCP and Eve.
I will say again, we have to understand all aspects of a subject, not just the parts that suit our narrative.
No, we don’t.
You mean, in the way you jumped into arguing against my points without being able to identify a single one of them?
Or perhaps this way:
Seeing as virtually every player takes a risk every time they undock, you may wish to increase your understanding of EVE here or clarify your statement.