What a load of utter nonsense. There are zero game mechanics in favour of AGs as it is. Every mechanic in the game works in favour of gankers. They have the element of surprise…I mean they know when they are actually going to gank, the AG doesn’t. They have the element of scouting, lurking in stations, etc, etc.
Gankers can even make a profit out of it…which by definition is almost impossible for AG given that ganker ships are low cost and not much fittings.
Also, AG people require more skills setup, because gankers can just count on numbers and still do a lot with alpha accounts, whereas there are fewer AG and they need to have better ships and skills to take out the gankers. Really, the best AG can do is ‘disrupt’ the gank.
Nothing whatever in the game favours AG…which is precisely why there isn’t more of it.
Worse still, there are so many who take their experience of Eve as being the definitive ’ this is how you play Eve '. And there are so many mutually contradictory stances even among individual people’s statements. For example Destiny riling against people just hoarding stuff and ‘not playing Eve’…whilst at the same time objecting to degradation of items precisely because she has a whole load of stuff hoarded.
If one needed to learn doublethink…Eve is the place to do it.
Incorrect. AGs have the same intelligence tools that gankers have. They can sit throughout a pipe and scan ships, marking potential targets for intervention. They are able to use locator agents, combat probes, d-scan, and can quickly see gankers in local chat using standings.
If AGs apply ganker logic to their activities, they can reliably predict how gankers will act.
Profit-making isn’t a game mechanic. There isn’t a game mechanic by which gankers make a profit either, as they don’t get paid bounties or LP for their actions. Everything they do comes by virtue of player choice. Since we’re discussing game mechanics, this isn’t an applicable argument.
All that they have to do is disrupt a gank, and that usually involves taking out or jamming just a few ships. In this regard, game mechanics massively favor AGs, because they can use alpha-strike tactics to take out ships instantly, or send in a disposable ECM burst alt at virtually no cost in terms of ISK and skills required.
It’s already extremely difficult to pull of ganks with AG on the field. Any additional game mechanics in favor of AG (let’s say, hypothetically, something like AoE weapons used by AGs not hurting neutrals and as such not resulting in a CONCORD response, which is something they keep asking for) would make ganking impossible entirely.
There isn’t more of it because the only players who have any remote vested interest in the activity are whiny carebears, and only a small fraction of them are willing to man up to do anything about the pirates. The rest will always choose to go and grind more instead. “Let someone else take care of it, I need to make some iskies!”
Oh, I assure you that here are quite a few misunderstandings here, old sport. The biggest one being that players who have no interest in any form of PvP feel qualified to make changes to it on behalf of the players who are interested in it, even though the former would still refuse to engage in PvP if the changes were implemented because it’s fundamentally not in their nature.
“Don’t you want better PvP?” is just a red herring they use to try to hijack authority and then force it on others. Their true intent is to make the game’s environment more favorable to themselves.
They’re trying to do the equivalent of putting a poor person into a clown costume, under the guise of providing them with clothing. Then they would stand there and count the money coming in from the sideshow, while telling the person “see? I did a thing for you! you should be happy and thanking me!”
We’re not buying it, though. We know exactly what’s going on here.
I like the avoiding loss game, I dont like the causing loss game.
Why?
Because the time/effort/success calculation in evading PvP pays off well, in that for a small outlay of effort and time, I can stay evading for a much greater time.
The inverse is true if I seek to fight. A long ass amount of time spent preparing for a very short quite expensive experience.
Lol…that’s a laugh. You were the one posting sarcastic ‘Eve is full of gankers !’ posts when I did just that.
See, here we are again with the doublethink. One minute you are telling me there are only 150-200 gankers active in the whole of Eve. And the next you are telling me there’s enough of them that even across 8000 systems I’ll notice in Local ! Yet when I did notice in Local, you got all sarcastic over it.
Everything you say contradicts something else you’ve said. You just spin the narrative around and around in circles.
Nothing I said deals with the quantity of gankers, just the ability to differentiate them at a glance from other players. You’re trying way too hard to move those goal posts.
And yet we have people saying that every time you merely undock you are taking a risk. You know…‘don’t undock in a ship you can’t afford to lose’, and all that. So where are all these people ’ not taking any risk ?’ One cannot mine without undocking. One cannot PvE without undocking.
Oh come off it. It’s the same difference. If you add ganker groups to bad standing then you can literally see in Local who the gankers are. So…you tell me to add gankers to bad standing, yet when I do just that you refuse to accept the actual end results in Local.
This is pretty much the crux of the issue on why PvP is a minority activity in EVE.
I can easily and predictably obtain more value in the game by avoiding PvP. Engaging in PvP takes a long time, a lot of preparation, is easily interrupted, and rewards me with virtually nothing.
The “causing loss” game does nothing for my ego, I’m entirely uninterested in salt mining, and it doesn’t advance any goal I have in the game. The battle itself is like 5 minutes of semi-interesting “clicking 7 icons in varying sequences while watching red bars go up and down”. Not a payoff in and of itself.
I completely understand that other people do find EVE PvP to be satisfying to their ego, or fill their sodium intake needs, or actually enjoy it as an amusing activity. That’s fine, all the PvP that’s in the game can stay there just as it is. The point of the thread is to explore ways to add more, for a wider percentage of the player base.
Once you understand who created this game and why you will get a better understanding of why the game is the way it is.
The original creator loved “harsh PVP content” and designed the game with this in mind. Who are we really to argue and debate this? Isn’t it just a question of either accepting it and playing, or not accepting it and finding another game to play?
Feel free to turn your “if-then” statement into a demonstrable fact. Please show the percentage of players who are so risk averse they will not participate in PvP for any reason. Furthermore, feel free to elaborate on why it would not even be worth attempting to make PvP more accessible to more players in order to test whether they would participate or not.
Because at the moment, it seems like you’re letting prejudice and guesswork make up your mind for you, and you’re entirely closed to any new idea that comes along. Well, except your own one, of course.
Because what I see is upwards of 200,000 logins per day. All of those players, even the station traders, are accepting a certain risk of loss in order to engage in their preferred activity. Every one of them has a risk/reward level they’re comfortable with.
And if you change the risk/reward ratio, the behavior of some of them will change. I’ve given clear examples of this. You prefer to keep sticking your head in the sand and singing “la-la-la I can’t hear you” instead of dealing with simple facts. Well, that’s sad for you, but personally I still believe EVE can be a better game than it is today.
Little side note: read that article years ago, have it stickied in my “EVE - design issues” thread with over a hundred others. But 20-year old design decisions don’t need to continue to hobble EVE 2 decades later. The world changes. Adapt and move on.
So suddenly you’re the authority on game design? You don’t want to PVP in Eve or put yourself at any risk, how exactly are people supposed to take you seriously on this matter?
I can tell you a 100% fact, you would make an extremely poor game reviewer, probably the worst in the entire world.
You must have missed the parts where he says he was acting like a lunatic, impossible to work with, and was booted out and shown the door before EVE even got off the ground.
Regardless, EVE is 2 decades older, the gaming world has changed, and we are the ones playing it and paying for it all. Not Thorolfur. Not Hilmar.
Maybe you don’t ever ask for a product you’re paying for to be improved. Maybe you’re that much of a wuss.
“Vincent van Gogh cut off his left ear when tempers flared with Paul Gauguin , the artist with whom he had been working for a while in Arles. Van Gogh’s illness revealed itself: he began to hallucinate and suffered attacks in which he lost consciousness. During one of these attacks, he used the knife.”
Yet Van Gogh is percieved as one of the best artists the world has ever seen.
It doesn’t need improving. maybe small tweaks here and there but the harsh PVP content stays. I’m dissatisfied with other games on the market which are easy to sail through, if you check the market properly Eve really is in a category of it’s own and will always be the top of that category, This is very harsh adult gaming where you are the star of your own story. It’s not for everybody but it is 100% for me.
Lol, you’ve got no right! It is in fact you who doesn’t want to risk your pixel dust and get yourself some fun. If willingness to PVP in a fantasy game is any measure then you are an outright wuss of the highest possible order.
Aaron, stop arguing and get it through your dumb thick skull already that these people know better than you what’s best for you with regard to PvP in video games, and that you should leave all design decisions to them because they’ll make it nice and enjoyable for you like it should be, okay?
