A large proportion of ratting anoms are green so you can find them with D-Scan
- Solution make them Red so you need to scan them giving the ratter a chance to see the hunters probes.
1 Like
IM fine with this change. Forces Ratting ships to probe them too
1 Like
So please, give me your magic solution. Should we do as Esmeralda says and resort to artificial inflation and powercreep? Because thatâs worked magic in the past. /s
The thing is many have for years said to CCP and CSM that nullsec has become too safe.
The agreements between alliances, the titan shields, etcâŚ, has made nullsec safer than lowsec and even highsec.
Nullsec back in 2005 was deadlier than what we have in current wormhole space. Nearly every week there were battles over stations and systems, players/corps/alliances had to fight to hold stations or systems very few held more than a few systems, as the resources to do so was costly.
For the last god knows how manh years, a noobe can join a nullsec corp fly out to nullsec and live without any real threat of being ganked, and these are toons less than a month old. These players have no knowledge of the real danger EVE really has, if these players (even with millions of SP) went through lowsec or highsec wouldnât last an hour without getting podâed.
Why?
Because theyâve lived in a Carebear environment under the protection of large nullsec alliances.
Remove local, they still have that same protection, but now they have the possible threat to enemy/merc/ROAM hunter groups warping in on them.
And the alliances now have the possible threat of enemy alliances striking stations within their safe space, things theyâve missed for years.
Think about it, sure some donât like losing the safety blanket called local, but its time they learnt to grow up and experience the real EVE gameplay experiance, instead of been breast feed their whole life.
3 Likes
Didnât know anyone with 20, but quite a few people running six or more miner characters-- CCPs fault because they allowed such inattentive piloting for any ship and massively disruptive to the economy with all the minerals they could dump into the game.
1 Like
Well its a default setting for all probes, so making them red would mean all friendly launcher probes are red too.
Ideally corp/alliance members should announce their launcher of probes in corp/alliance channel, so if thereâs probes beyond whatâs been announced you know someone else is out there.
Same practice WHâers do for entering WH or launching probes.
Living in null should still be difficult. Youâre implying that you should be able to âwinâ EVE by basically turning everything into a giant safe-zone. This is what makes people get bored and quit.
Null needs things to shake it up, so players can use the work theyâve done to adapt and overcome new challenges, while also providing players the tools to create those shake-ups themselves. Removing local is an excellent way to do so.
Just read through the posts in this topic thereâs heaps with over 10 accounts and many stating they have 20 accounts.
True CCP allowed this to happen, but under pressure for the mega alliances.
Ideally MAC address logging could be used to control number of accounts a player has, as IP addresses can be ghosted, emails are useless as you can have as many as you want.
I donât mean that⌠the signatures in space as seen in the scanner probe window are either green or red, you have to scan the red ones down to be able to warp to them - the green one (many ratting anoms) are automatically warp-able.
Making them all red would not only force the ratters to probe down the combat sties but that cloaky hunters would also need to scan them - giving attentive ratters a chance to run for cover.
2 Likes
There is no âmagic solutionâ. Frontiers stabilize. Populations settle down. In the real world, where wars take years, not weeks, the process takes decades. In EVE, itâs been going on for 16 years, since the Castor release. Thatâs the equivalent, roughly, of 45-60 years of âreal historyâ in the modern era. Consider the difference between Arizona in 1881, when the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened, and Arizona in 1941, when the State had a population of half a million, and cities like Phoenix were well-established.
People behave like people. Especially in an environment like EVE, which is, beyond everything else that it tries to be, a societal simulation. If you have an environment where there are no artificial constraints forcing people to behave the same way they did 16 years earlier, they wonât. If you introduce those artificial constraints, youâre breaking the sandbox, in a very, very fundamental way.
Thereâs no magic solution for this. Removing local wonât do squat, in the long run. Itâs not even having much effect in the very short run, really.
People are not cartoon characters. Any game environment that lets the same people carve out their own path for more than a decade has to accept that that path will include the two scariest words in any language: Growing up.
1 Like
All right, upon further analysis of eve-offline data, I have discovered that this is still not the worst sunday since 2006.
Reminder, this sunday PCU is 29104.
Over the years, we had closed to this number at (numbers are PCU at sunday):
Christmas 24 Dec 2017: 28505
New year 31 Dec 2017: 28932
(one week before Christmas - 38373, one week after new year - 39944, clearly family holiday bias).
14 Aug 2016: 29400 (citadel issues weekend?) (still more than 29104)
No Sunday below 30k from 2016 to 2008!
14 Sep 2008: 28417 (not sure what happened, 38545 week before, 38386 week after)
30 Sep 2007: 25202 (not sure what happened, 35570 week before, 35806 week later)
8 Apr 2007: 29206 (also not sure, 31385 before, 32038 after) (still more than 29104)
And then itâs 2006, where only 3 sundays broke 30k, which is our future it seems.
And thatâs it folks, weâve never been this low on sunday, except those. At good times itâll go over 60k, more than twice of what we have now.
Just to testify that I really scrutinized the data since 1 Jan 2006, the eve-offline data has gaps in:
24 Jun 2014
18 Jul 2010
13 Apr 2008
25 Nov 2007
4 Nov 2007
You can zoom in to those dates on eve-offline graphs and see for yourself, no more complete Sunday gaps, couldnât have possibly found that without automation.
Therefore, we can conclusively tell: blackout was one of the worst things to hit eve on Sunday in more than a decade. It took international family holidays to drop online that hard. Not even international family holidays could drop it that hard in any year other than 2017 though, so itâs probably worse.
Letâs face it, blackout is a threat to go down to 2006 levels of activity. Even if you say itâs people with multiple accs logging less accounts in, it still wonât explain it all - because then they mustâve had all those accounts logged in back in 2006, when eve broke 30k Sunday PCU by the end of it, which I believe to not be the case for majority of modern multi-account players - which leaves only 1 possible explanation: the players of eve online, for the first time in eve online history, have voted with their feet, and refused to log in on sunday due to blackout.
(in case anyone still thinks I tampered with the data, I can provide raws, code, and method to dump eve-offline data - write me an eve-mail)
3 Likes
Obviously people adapt, thatâs a relatively pointless statement to make. It boils down to how people adapt and settle. Removing local is one positive step in a much larger process of making null a riskier environment, as the system itself just simply isnât, not even really due to player actions. Citadels, asset safety, sov systems, local, rorquals, bosons, HAWs, supers, insurance, direct-to-wallet bounties â all of it, and a lot more, promote risk-averse gameplay via the actual systems provided themselves. Players just took advantage of what CCP handed them, which was originally intended to make things more user friendly and sometimes they ironically backfire.
You should understand these issues better than just about anyone. Itâs not about âbreaking up the big blocsâ or whatever, but about why the players made them in the first place. Why is safety preferred?
Yeah, thatâs how it use to be and it worked great. However CCP decided to make things easier and changed exploration to how it currently is.
1 Like
People promote risk-averse gameplay. People + time + effort = people with things they donât want to lose.
Think about it. Right now, one of the big goals for the biggest bloc in null isnât âblow stuff upâ, but âachieve economic and industrial independence from highsecâ. Does that sound like the same guys who were throwing endless hordes of Rifters at people 13 years ago?
Because it is.
Edit: and before anyone trots out the tired old âItâs just a video gameâ nonsense⌠thatâs not how the human mind works in most cases. Thereâs a reason people fall into sunk cost fallacies: time already invested is valued. Effort already spent is valued. The things that time and that effort got are valued. And screaming âpeople shouldnât care because itâs just a video gameâ completely ignores not only that, but the fact that the people arenât a video game. Relationshipsâespecially those built up over a decade or moreâarenât a video game.
In reality, two things keep the âlawless placesâ lawless. The biggest one is: they change. Frontiers move. They get pushed outward. When they canât be pushed outward anymore, you stop having a frontier in that area. Anyone see any bits of Europe or central China that seem like a frontier?
The other one is: the people who settle down eventually die. New frontiersmen come to new frontiers. For a game, thatâd mean attracting new people at least as fast as it loses old ones. EVE hasnât done that in almost 10 years, in large part because itâs a 16+ year old game, and the new hotness out there will always outshine it.
Itâs not the frontier. So itâs not attracting the curious hordes, desperate for opportunity.
HERE
ALL EVE PLAYERS ARE THE CONTENT OF EVE ONLINE::
All of eve players are content.
All eve online players matter.
All eve online players interact directly an indirectly.
Blackouting out null i not what the players want by being in null by which this is not an advertised feature for eve online.
Therefore the people protesting are leaving due to the misrepresentation of the product to the content of the desired player type.
There is a loop where the following in my post stated how eve works in the game design.
I see where you coming from, yet I have to say that in my own personal experience over this weekend I found that the thing that changed most since blackout is the ability to successfully run away. 
All you need to do is to manage to get away from the initial encounter and you are perfectly safe if you are not completely dumb.
So far the defenders were able to tell you were sitting in a certain system, now they have no way of telling where you went to.
On the other hand, I also feel like missing local makes me engaging more often than before when you saw an entire local chat full of (docked up) hostiles.
1 Like
Demand answers Customers in eve online are also part of the business as investors
One account at time per transaction Within the eve online shopping cart.
CCP Your customers demand for transparencyYeah Yeah⌠we get it, EvE is still dying
Now go look at the period average per year, come back next January and tell me how the year went.
ALSO ⌠Did you notice that the daily totals on even days is an odd number but odd days have and even number⌠Itâs the Illuminati⌠I tell you ⌠Itâs a numerological conspiracy. It may be worse than that ⌠the Shadow Global Government have control of CCP through a Korean proxy.
Of course i could be that S**t like this happens when you change something in a game.
3 Likes
This is, Iâm afraid, completely wrong.
Artificial constraints are benevolent features of sandboxes and any creative endeavor. Creativity canât even truly exist without them. I canât remember who said it, but it roughly went âCreativity is what happens when imagination runs into a barrier.â, and without creativity sandboxes are no more than dead and dry deserts.
As much as we keep calling Eve a sandbox and imagining no real constraints to the âplayer-run economy and butterfly effect gameplayâ nonsense, everything weâve truly created as various disparate communities clashing in ways spanning ideologies, philosophies, abilities and capabilities has come to pass because our sandbox has had various barriers and artificial constraints.
And as we people, not being cartoon characters, âgrow upâ and change so too must the artificial constraints and barriers.
In the end, it really does boil down to something truly very simple: Without change, our âsandboxâ stagnates because weâve solved it down to the last grain of sand. The status quo will kill this game. Slowly, perhaps, but guaranteed. Thus we now run into the point where the people become the barrier, because people donât want change. Itâs scary, itâs uncomfortable, it requires work to adapt to, and so on and so forth.
This does not, however, change the fact that we truly do need actual change for this sandbox to survive. This is inescapable, even if itâs scary, difficult, and risky as hell. Change will chase off those who canât or wonât adapt. Change might go so wrong it kills the game faster. But no matter how we slice it, we need it. Itâs a risk of failure, versus a guaranteed long-term failure.
And that then means that the only real option we have⌠is more and different artificial constraints, this time tailored to who weâve become over the last fifteen yearâs time. Thereâs no magic solution for this, but the various changes that just might come together to actually solve itâŚ
⌠well, a Blackoutâs a good start. Kick up the dust. Shake the sandbox. Frighten and confuse some people. Raise hope in others. Remind everyone EvE used to stand for Everyone vs Everyone a lot of the time.
Then keep doing it with more changes. Artificial constraints.
Creativity catalysts.
4 Likes
Keep it in high sec & change it back everywhere else