Don’t wast your time replying to them, they use alts to flag the replies.
Best thing to do is ignore them and flag their posts.
2 Likes
The irony as you are instructing alts to flag posts 
I don’t block and I don’t flag.
I enjoy discourse both in game and out of it. Doing the above would rob me of that pleasure
1 Like
I like lifing, so I dont die.
1 Like
And right on cue, DMC throws his support behind a group of throwaway alts who literally spent the past half-week disrupting the forums and insulting most of the posters here, and barfs up another post-flagging accusation because it’s literally the only tactic he knows, so he self-projects by assuming everyone else is doing it as well.
At this point, I’d actually be concerned if he didn’t do this. Like, “where did he go…maybe someone should perform a wellness check” concerned.
2 Likes
Yea well. Doesn’t matter. I don’t need this forum to play EVE. This is my last post on here.
Thank you DeMichael, you are a good person 
I wonder why you’re wasting your time in this forum. It doesn’t deserve you.
Take care.
See you in game.
2 Likes
I can only comment from personal experience.
I remember a time where we had enough ISK to replace a fleet or two a week from about three mediocre moons that were passively minded. We had some ISK to waste on fun PVP. Guess what? Haven’t seen that much ISK since POS were phased out because we did PVP most of the time and hated mining. We were not going to mine in order to PVP, logically. We could not adapt where it was expected that we could due to a lack of interest in activities required for the activity we wanted to do.
So we became poor, could no longer afford fleets for fun conflicts, got bored due to a lack of conflict and eventually most of us cancelled their subscription. I tried joining a corporation in nullsec to see more conflict, but it felt like waging war while having to pay for your own bullets compared to the we got the ships, just bring the bodies and the beer approach of our own corp at the time.
Isn’t “don’t fly what you cannot afford to lose” one of the most heard advices? So when my ship suddenly costs twice as much to replace, why would I still fly it like I stole it? Scarcity does not breed conflict, boredom from being filthy rich does. Being able to afford dying motivates you to take risks. Not being able motivates you to survive first and foremost. I don’t understand why CCP doesn’t grasp that simple concept.
3 Likes
Yes, mostly agreed. Although I would say that perhaps boredom as a driver of conflict in a game is a strong indication of bad game design.
However, artificial scarcity is a very bad driver as well, and as you say, leads to more safety/turtling behavior than it does conflict.
Being able to easily afford replacement ships helps drive conflict. Having everything cost twice as much doesn’t. It’s a weird thing I keep seeing from the (mostly hi-sec ganker) PvP crowd: “scarcity and fewer players will lead to higher prices and better quality and we’ll all get paid more for what we do”.
(The hilarious irony being that these so-called PvPers end up showing that all they really want is to increase their income… you know, the thing they spit on productive players for. Ah well.)
However, the real driver of conflict in games is and always has been having a goal worth fighting for. At the moment we have sov-null wars, which is basically about “who holds the territory that yields the fattest loot”, and while large, they’re next to meaningless to the day-to-day play of EVE.
Ganking-for-profit is one goal some players go for, because profit. But it’s a pretty sad statement when your “hardcore PvP” space game boils down to “come fit out a cheap PvP ship and throw it away shooting weak, defenseless targets because, hey, that’s really badass huh?”.
CCP could implement a number of worthwhile goals (not necessarily profit/ISK related) in order to encourage widespread PvP between combat ready players, but they lack either the talent, skill or motivation to do so. From their point of view, as long as players are willing to buy subs to mine and gank, why fix what ain’t broke?
This quite literally goes against everything we’ve observed about the evolution of social interaction in this game, especially in null-sec, over the past decade. The more money and resources they have, the more entrenched they become in turning space into a pacifistic rental farm backed up by the power to drop 5,000 supers onto anyone who tries to disturb the grind.
I can’t even begin to fathom how you arrived at your conclusion. You sound like one of those null-sec line members who have been sold a lie into spending their own time and money to fight for someone else’s power and profit. Not insulting you, just making an observation. I’ve known a lot of players like that. In fact, to some degree I was one myself at one point, when I was still very young and didn’t know any better. I thought that the “fleet fights” and the “roaming gangs” were so cool, but when it came time for me to replace my losses, they wouldn’t even allow me to use the 6/10 complexes, which were farmed by the leadership and the rent-paying farmers. And that was like fifteen years ago. It only got much worse since then.
3 Likes
You mean with this char LOL.
Who made them weak and defenseless? This is the victimhood perspective I’m fighting. You out making like there are toddlers undocking and flying around.
You can be flying around in a shuttle and still be competent. If they are in everywhere but WH/pochpoch they got a system wide infallible radar that tells them who is in system with them.
All types of PvP is PvP. You may not like the flavor but the dish is the same.
They just need to yennoe, learn to EVE.
1 Like
I honestly don’t see a connection between a wallet content and the willingness to expose oneself to destruction, it’s a fact that PVP could be considered a high maintenance luxury but it still depends on the scale.
What if we separate destruction from PVP?
On the other hand, we can conclude that PVE also contributes to destruction but this is a negligible percentage.
We end up with 2 main paths to destruction but both can be avoided endlessly, specially when a character is exposed to the “trauma” caused by the gank scenario or the “natural catastrophe” of a “random” invasion derived from sketchy mechanics.
I wonder what could be the issue here:
- Is it a problem of the loss of assets to PVP? --whether it’s considered fair or not–
- The fact that it is “you” who’s publicly exposed for your “fail”?
Of course, there are other issues but take those as example.
What if we could not avoid destruction? What if it comes from another source other than the 2 paths mentioned?
How can we revert the overprotective posture towards both assets and the fear of biomass --or whatever reason–?
Do you think asset depletion would “liberate” you from being overprotective?
Keep in mind I am not the one who stated that there is need for destruction. I just want to see if the initiatives and actions for supposedly provoking it are merely viable for in the end, I find that none of them have contributed to a positive or even acceptable outcome.
I believe you are incorrect on that. When the Trig invasion was ongoing it was clear that the Trigs were causing way more destruction than players. Way way back, there were some devblogs showing something like PvP averaging less than 1 ship destroyed, per account, per month. It seems to have disappeared, but it was back when there was a lot more PvP than now.
CCP could add all the destruction it needs via PvE quite easily. In fact they’ve been doing so steadily over the past 4 years or so simply because players aren’t destroying enough.
That said, EVE is supposed to be about player vs. player combat, or at least that’s supposed to be a core tenet of EVE. Unfortunately the game just isn’t really well designed to promote players to fight other players.
Keep in mind that literally millions of players are plunging into shooters, MOBAs, survival games, battle royales etc. every day. People aren’t worried about dying or being “publicly exposed for a fail” if the game is designed in such a way as to make the conflict seem at least somewhat equitable.
People get upset in EVE because the game mechanics lure them into being exposed to attack in ships and situations where they have no valid method to fight back, and no real recourse to retaliate afterwards. In effect, the game design takes away player agency in many cases.
EVE also pretty much fails to reward players fighting each other in combat-capable ships. Either the rewards are too low to motivate the effort, or the lack of “good fights” is too low to sustain the activity, or it blows up into a Ti-Di endurance test, or various other issues.
Yes, ganking and ambushing and gate camping are all there and viable, and the game is designed to support those. (Mission hubs, trade hubs, bottlenecks, choke points, visible beacons etc.) However that’s all pretty much the lowest hanging fruit of actual player combat, and only a very small niche of players are interested in that sort of thing.
Yes, this is exactly the issue. CCP keeps trying to design EVE for more “trapping players in space”, and has never really focused on making general space combat better, more interesting, and more varied.
But this doesn’t mean that it was enough. I believe Trigs contributed but only to the destruction of a marginal percentage of active players. Stuff was still… let’s say, saveable, right?. I’d remove most neglected assets that were Trig victims from the equation.
Tru, tru… I didn’t want to fall on the lack of conflict cliché --to put it somehow-- But I guess it’s an undeniable connection, yes.
Still, none of the interventions --that I know of-- increased conflict.
When Trigs were introduced, and the invasion was active, Steam reviews of the game nosedived into the 50s and threads about complaints of dying to NPCs considerably overtook ganking and other PvP complaint threads in volume.
That proves that it’s not about who or what kills these players, but rather about whether or not their grind for make-believe video game currency is disrupted in some manner. People have this inherent nature to accumulate and hoard. You can’t really accumulate and hoard anything in some generic “PvP” title like Counter-Strike or Battlefield, so players don’t complain about being shot by other players in those games. But in pretty much all survival games I’ve played, including those that very clearly state their open-world PvP gameplay on the store page, have masses of players complaining about getting killed and making countless “PVE SERVER WHEN???” threads on their respective forums.
It’s probably impossible to “fix” EVE in a way that would eliminate these complaints without turning EVE into a generic multiplayer shooter where the economy doesn’t matter. As long as there’s an economy where items have value, most players will try to avoid PvP, and complain about it when they can’t.
When gaming was still relatively new, and gamers were geeks and enthusiasts, the hoarding mentality was balanced out by the competitiveness inherent in the gaming demographic. But these days, the gaming demographic has been normalized by the influx of casual gamers who don’t possess these qualities, and so it acts as a sample of the population as a whole, which is to say it’s composed of regular people who put their hoarding instincts at the forefront of their priority list.
The only thing that developers who are brave enough to try to run open-world PvP titles in this day and age can do is try to weather the storm, and ensure that their games are polished and high-quality.
Of course the smarter decision (for CCP as an example) would be to just turn the PvP off completely (I don’t mean in high-sec, but in the entire game) and launch a massive marketing push to inform the hungry gamer masses of this change.
6 Likes
Understood…
Obviously no recipe will make everyone happy, I guess.
Setting a premise for changes, buffs or nerfs doesn’t seem as a great idea. I wonder if changes came with no ‘slogan’ or excuse to be introduced, perhaps the outcome would be less… contaminated.
With ‘chaos’ I thought we were gonna be surprised like going blind on a rollercoaster. No warning sign, nada… but after the feedback on blackout… chaos was never mentioned again.
Some peeps see EVE through a negative scope, which has it’s own plausible logic. I rather mingle and watch how tenacious the punchbag is, TBH.
These interventions and pompous adverts of things to come will continue to set a questionable hype until the day of consequent actions that truly rock the environment as promised in stuff like the untouchable SOV, for example.
We’ll see.
Dunno… I think EVE still holds the crown on geeks and enthusiasts… more on geeks, of course. I hardly see an example of anything even close out there.
Point, but with a corner eye on the fact that the niche is intact at least through my scope. On the other hand, I don’t sell EVE. Hell! I get asked many times … “what is that game you…” I interject in a spring punch: “You… don’t wanna go there”.
It’s that hardcore to my mind. I consider a mistake to even wonder how EVE would sell out of it’s niche.
2 Likes
I routinely end my diatribe about that video game I play with a hearty: “Yeah, but you shouldn’t play it.”
I always secretly wonder about people who admit to playing an online video, but refuse to tell me about it. I go away heavily suspecting they’re EvE players, but that’s because I never press the topic once it comes up.
I don’t tell most people they shouldn’t play EvE because it’s bad, but because I know they lack the imagination to make more of the game than what they see directly on their screens. Which one of us are the suckers is still up in the air.
I’ve played a lot of MMOs, and I disagree. Pretty much all others, like WoW for example, had more “hardcore” player bases than this game. In EVE, the players I’ve met were often like…the “redneck,” or the “stockbroker here for an experiment,” or the “active duty/retired military guy.” In those other games, it was almost always a “hardcore gamer in their 20s” type or just someone straight-up still in grade school.
1 Like
I talk about eve with other folks just fine but do preface it by telling it’s a competitive sandbox with tons of play style options where you have to provide your own content for the most part.
Some people are instantly interested but most are not, just as expected with a niche product.
I told people several nights ago the most exciting thing to happen in my MMO of choice was this:
Which to me is very exciting.
1 Like
How I arrived at that conclusion? Well, by doing the exact opposite of what you’re suggesting! We always operated in a small group that stuck flags in a system to exploit it. So we set up some POSes and such, let the money trickle in so we needn’t PVE to PVP. The conclusion is derived from us having the most fun once we had our infrastructure set up and being free to do whatever, free of nullsec masters. I find it regrettable that you count me among those nullsec boys that “who have been sold a lie into spending their own time and money to fight for someone else’s power and profit”… my corporation was founded because I have a personal aversion for 1984 pseudopolitics. Madam, you wound me!
We operated on sort of an organised chaos. Just enough org to keep the ISK rolling in. And we never pushed CTA on our dudes, everyone was in agreement ransoming the POS of a dude that thought to exploit “our” lowsec system to be more fun then mining/ratting. In our neck of the woods we were known for keeping to our word, our code, while simultaniously being “those assholes” that caught your nulsec alt cap in transit.
Perhaps I should not have used the word “bored”. I meant the moment where you have some ISK rolling in and can live comfortably in Eve without stressing out about having to do PVE. I didn’t mean “being bored out of your skull having nothing to do”.
We didn’t do rules like who-gets-to-farm. That’s for nerds. You could do whatever PVE you wanted to do, sell to whom you wanted to sell, why would we care? We were a gang. All we were concerned about was getting our dudes in ships and shooting at something, ha ha.