As per request from the GM, I am bringing this here and just copying the issue I had.
Request #2333885
As a casual player I genuinely am not up to date with all the events and such. I only jump on for short periods and had begun to explore the various events recently again.
That being said, after checking the Wiki I completely understand how the faction warfare Insurgencies work now. BUT, could you guys rework or explain in the pop up better that the faction warfare just turns high sec into null sec. And if this is permanent or just an event based timer.
In my uneducated opinion this would give casual players a better understanding given I for example was heading to continue working on an epic arc. Which I effectively cancelled after losing my favorite (and expensive) mission ship. Losing the ship and essentially having no safe route to the actual mission itself is a wee bit â â â â â â â â .
For example, I understand this is a technical coding issue that canât be fixed without massive overhaul so I am not advocating for it. But Orvolle where I lost my ship, when selecting the system it does show up in the kill mail shows up as a 0.7.
Presumably so does it in all mission agent windows and other references. Which makes perfect sense given its âtraditionalâ status is high sec.
BUT the only way to actually notice ahead of time it is in fact not a high sec is to notice the route window and that it suddenly shows up as red. Already this presumes people keep the route window open and not closed to save space.
Lastly, comparing the warning I get for going into low sec versus the event set has vastly different warnings. Low sec actively says Concord CAN NOT assist. The event section says Concord response forces may not be relied upon.
Yes it is labelled as âvery hazardousâ but that doesnât clarify this is essentially null sec and not just a case of Drifters inconveniencing the player base. And again, the only actual indication that anything is amiss is the actual route and only if you hover over the final destination showing Orvolle in 0.7 red and marked as âlawlessâ.
That is just some of my feedback, because I can guarantee you, as a carebear and filthy casual I would not have flown my pride and joy into a system where I can effectively one-shot. For now, I am going to finish up a few more things in Eve and write up some notes for my future self. For now I went ahead and cancelled my subscription and might come back in a few years. Though I am also adding a note about these types of events so I donât forget them.
Lawless âvery hazardousâ space where âCONCORD may not be relied uponâ should be plenty of warnings to tell you to at least stop and ask around or research what that system status means.
I rarely fly in HS and LS and do little with this Faction Warfare system, but I guess it had one of those triangles as system icon to show that the system has gone from a HS system to temporary low-sec-like rules.
Sorry about your Tengu.
If you had known you could probably safely fly a Tengu through with a refit with Covert Ops cloak.
I agree with the OP, sadly the design of some parts of the game is so horrible, as if itâs made by persons who hate EVE and really do their best to drive away players. Insurgencies being one of them. Not saying the idea behind it is bad, but the implementation definitely is. Seen through the eyes of a newbro/casual, EVE is a minefield where every step can lead you into some unexplained death trap with completely different rules, killing you in seconds. Traps that you will only know how to avoid by watching third party videos, reading wikis, guides or following endless dev blogs.
I as a vet can circumvent all that, but it saddens me that those devs canât follow a simple quality codex that makes sure this stuff is a nice and challenging option for players who feel ready for it, while making it close to impossible that a random guy running an agent mission and having no interest in this special content gets blown up by it. It will cost CCP players and subs, and completely unnessessary so.
The GMs should take these matters to the game director instead of passing them to the CSM imo.
For the record i dont think insurgencies should affect the security status of systems. For example people who are in low like the mechics of low. Putting null mechanics on them is just bad.
By all means keep the insurgencies, but corruption should affect anything but security status of the system imo.
The GM clearly thought this was not something for the GM to decide, but something for the general population of the game to form an opinion on.
This I guess was the reason the GM told the player to share their story here.
Now hereâs my opinion:
While I do think that many things in EVE feel dangerous and unclear at first sight, like these insurgencies, I love about EVE that it doesnât hold your hand, unlike many other games.
Warning players about an insurgency but not telling them the exact details is exactly how EVE should warn players. No hand holding, but just enough hints that you could have avoided disaster.
The GMs have a better feel for the issues players are facing than CSM does and afaik the CSM does not get paid unlike the GMs do so why is it the CSM that is responsible for bringing matters to the game director? And how much time can they devote to this due to being volunteers
CSM are players recognised by many other players who present large parts of the player population.
GMs may be CCP employees, but I donât think they have to be players of EVE or that they need X years of experience in the game before they can take that job. (I have no doubt many of them are EVE players though!).
CSM are volunteers to present CCP feedback about the game. Itâs their role.
CSM most likely has a much better feel for the issues than GMs.
So, you received a warning before you entered the jump gate, and you still chose to click yes and enter it anyway, and lost your ship. I fail to see the problem here. You made that choiceâŚ
Wouldnât make much sense to have GMs who donât even play EVE. Youâd think they would want experienced people in that position. But there are some ISDâs that I have been playing for 15 years longer than, soâŚ
There are âissuesâ and there are âissuesâ.
GMs clearly know a lot about questions like âmy Omega payment didnât go throughâ or âI cannot find the clone with implants that I was sure I hadâ.
On the other hand there also are issues like âI do not like it when high sec is dangerousâ, which is less a real issue and more of an opinion.
These opinions can be discussed here in the CSM forum.
I do not think Insurgencies need more warning than âvery hazardousâ and âCONCORD may not be relied uponâ, which according to the OP they read before entering anyway.
Nah, itâs not about âholding handsâ, itâs about informing the players what kind of zone they are about to enter. You know, I once was on vaction on Cyprus, that Island that is divided into a Greek and a Turkish occupied zone. We rode bicycles on the beach and at some point there was a clear warning sign: âAttention: Military Border! DO NOT ENTER! Mines ahead! Personell is permitted to use deadly force!â - THIS is a warning sign. And every tourist is briefed there about the zone before hand, so he actually knows about the consequences of entering.
Now what does EVE say if you try to jump into an Insurgency?
âThis area is under Insurgency effectsâ (which ones? You only see the effects AFTER you have jumpedâŚ) And donât say âInsurgency Map!â - no casual will even find that. Most players arenât even aware it exists.
âConcord response forces may not be relied upon.â May not? Maybe, go try it, jump in! Find out!
Sry, itâs not about âholding handsâ, I am all for EVE having dark corners, much less predictability and less revealing of exact spawns, more randomness, times, mechanics etc.. - But if a System that always has been HighSec suddenly becomes basically LowSec by an Insurgency effect, the Message should be a 100% clear about that.
And you can put this to many many many other aspects of the game. Event anomalies not marked as such, instatackling anything that warps in and throwing much more force at the ship than the normal anomalies right next to it. All marked in green. No warning or gate to have a chance to reconsider. See Autothysian Lancers and their Instadoomsday Drifter reinforcements. Stupid as â â â â . Drifter Battleships entering HS via unidentfied wormholes, basically wiping the floor with anyone just warping there out of curiosity. They even kill Marauders in seconds if not specifically fit against it. All that stuff is simply stupid. It should not happen in HS. It frustrates players for absolutely no reason and adds zero benefit to the game. Anyone wanting to explore all those dark corners and deep voids of unexplained hostile space can do that - outside highsec after getting a clear warning that he enters at his own risk and probably will be destroyed by hostile forces if he proceeds.
This is true everywhere in high sec. Concord is there to avenge, not to protect. Concord will not save you. Ever. So, the fact that they may or may not respond in insurgency systems makes no difference whatsoeverâŚ
That wasnât in question. CONCORD in Highsec can 100% be relied on. Not to save your ship, but to make a kill costly enough that people wonât bring expensive Recons, T3s, HICs that will instantly nail you in place once you jumped into their camp. There is a big difference knowing you will jump into a LowSec system where you can count on the fact that a camp will have all the expensive toys they need to make you a 100% dead in the water or into a known HighSec system where you have a vague hint that some mechanics might work differently. You donât have to agree, but for me that difference in information is gigantic.
