that’s right, I’ve created my account back in 2020 but since then I’ve mostly kept my client open while working from home, and trying to complete career agent’s/arc missions during weekends. Never really engaged in PvP yet.
I believe we can agree that there is no real correlation between account age and effective in-game experience. Besides, I don’t know the average ship loss of an account old as mine but I bet would be higher then 36
Finally, I’ve never stated that my question was deriving from any sort of grief/bad experience, I was just curious to know people’s opinions related to the hypothetical scenario I presented around a topic that I thought to be significant for new players.
Which other game is like EVE with no PVP protection anywhere by design? Albion is certainly not because you have lots of areas where you can farm and are completely safe from PVP because it’s not allowed. Which other games that are like EVE by design have new player protection that cushions them completely?
Then they quit a game that they do not enjoy and do not waste money and time into something that they won’t enjoy a month or 2 down the line either when the newbie protection runs out. It’s a flawed notion that EVE needs every player it can get at all cost. That only draws in more people that do not understand EVE, do not want to understand EVE and who want to change into something that EVE is not supposed to be. Sadly, we have already been making big strides into that direction with more and more instanced PVE and PVP.
And losing weeks of grinding 2 months or so later is different in which way? By that time these people have invested money and time into a game that taught them it’s safe to do whatever you want if you stay in certain systems. But the moment you go outside of these systems or the moment your newbie protection runs out, your marauder or exhumer that you trained and ground for suddenly is at a completely different level of risk everywhere. These people who cannot sustain to lose a mining frigate or PVE cruiser or a barge won’t have a different opinion on the loss 2 days in or 2 months in.
You think that because you and the OP approach this from a fundamentally flawed perspective. Newbies or any player (since this Green Lock is for all players and not just newbies) don’t need more protection than they already have. They need to learn to survive in a risky environment. You do that best if you know what to expect when you undock and are out in space and when someone gave you hints to things to pay attention to. You will still lose things but you know why it happened and can learn from it.
I totally see why this opinion is “categorically wrong” these days but that doesn’t mean anyone who says I am categorically wrong is right in return.
Hang on a minute. Your entire position is based on the supposition that you know the answer to that question. Otherwise you are inventing a problem, not responding to one.
Player numbers fall because of completely different reasons than ganking a single digit number of new players every day.
You lose me because I do not think that this is how players think. This is based on past experiences with EVE players. If they cannot bear a cheap loss, they are very likely not a personality that can bear a bigger loss, regardless of how much buffer wealth they have – Especially since you can lose your shiny toy very quickly again after you replaced it if you go into the same areas of space where it’s risky to do things. The psychology principle that enough buffer makes someone less likely to ragequit is bogus. If a person cannot deal with a loss, it will not be able to, regardless of the level of wealth they have.
That is not my logic. My logic is that you are a player that learned to play the game, learned to pay attention and be mindful of your surroundings. That is what the game and the players taught you, and you are a personality that can deal with it. Players who need additional protection to not quit this environment after losing a cheap frigate or barge (regardless if it’s their entire wealth or not) don’t have this personality and will only make the game worse with demands like these.
Their research is not worth the energy to light up the digits on the screen that display it. Their research has also shown that their past umpteenth attempts at NPE were a success. They base their research on people who do not play EVE and thus do not understand EVE. Of course, that kind of research tells them that these people want this kind of stuff to feel safe and welcomed and will only stay if they are being kept safe from danger.
Mhhh, no, I probably did not. Back then, the game was in a much healthier state. Back then I could talk in my starter corp’s chat for hours and have a great conversation and get answers to my questions when I could not find them online. But I also see myself as someone who doesn’t shy away from the first bit of danger (evidenced by me mindlessly going into low sec because I thought it’s almost empty, so what are 2 guys in local going to do to me anyway?) Back then, suspect baiting was not prohibited in starter systems. Back then, niarja was a hellhole. Back then people used can flipping to trick miners everywhere into getting suspect timers so that they could be killed legally. Nothing of that exists anymore because CCP put a lot of restrictions on involuntary PVP. In a way, EVE then had much fewer safeties for newbies and clueless people than it has now.
I don’t need to do that. CCP does it for me. They still market EVE as a hardcore, full loot, always on PVP game where you aren’t safe anywhere. If they stop advertising EVE like that, then I will get behind more safety measures for people … mostly because I will quit for real when it happens.
Every time anyone raises this issue here, my response is that if they survived being a noob…why wouldn’t anyone else ?
There is a certain irony to people who clearly got past noobness, and thus proved it can be done, complaining in large numbers that things are too hard for noobs ! If you and I can manage it…why can’t anyone else ?
Truth to be told: Not everyone is like you or Quake or me. Some people simply lack the necessary character traits to live in and find enjoyment in the kind of environment that EVE offers. It arguably requires quite a bit of effort and willpower not to get demoralized by a loss. Frankly, losses fester on my mind for a long time and I find the logistics of replacing a lost thing utterly frustrating.
However, the question is: What should change: The environment that was designed in a certain way to purport certain emotions and experience to accommodate players that do not want these emotions or experiences? Or the players towards the environment by accepting the specifically designed nature of the environment and whether they can really live and have fun in something that goes against what they want?
The environment has been changed a lot already to accommodate incompatible players to an extent. I think it’s time that the players change to accustom themselves to the environment again.
Consider also the psychology of making life easier for noobs. Seemingly altruistic, but there’s a darker element that people may not even be aware of. The easier life is progressively made for noobs, the more the person ‘supporting’ the moves can boost their ego by feeling that they survived when things were harder. Make life sufficiently easy for noobs and you can ‘win’ Eve because it will never be that hard again. Sometimes I do wonder if this sort of attempt of people to close the gate behind them is the real cause…and the shining white nooby protector knight is all an illusion. Is all the ‘protect noobs’ really just gatekeeping.
It is already happening btw. Not on that big scale fortunately and gankers do sometimes kill such Orcas even in 1.0, but it takes many resources and they are then even accused to breaking rules of no ganking in starter/career systems.
I am sure that this being already the case will be used as an argument why we should definitely do this nonsense that OP is promoting, but you are right, remove safety in 1.0 and these systems will be out of ore in hour after downtime…
They actually are. But it takes a while as the amount of veterans mining in 1.0/0.9 in Orcas or with multiboxing fleet is not that high right now. Partially also because of the gankers, because many of those who did that in past lost their Orca or Mackinaw in these systems anyway so they realized that not even that makes them perfectly safe and stopped doing that. Second reason is that there is no plagioclase and the belts are quite on low volume compared to lower security status systems.
These players are denying the resources to those they “belong” to - new players who are supposed to mine for missions in these systems or who lives there as they are protected there, but not even 1jump outside of that system.
Anyone mining with a multiboxing fleet of barges/exhumers or Orcas is griefing new players.
CCP stated that ganking helps player retention in the previous fanfest. Now they say it harms player retention. See what I mean with that their research is worthless?
A couple of weeks protection and then you still lose everything because your protection ended puts you in the same spot.
And it’s still not my logic that you should quit. People who can deal with this kind of environment won’t quit because of a loss, early or later. But if you keep insisting that you are one of these people after all, despite having made it in EVE for years, I start to think that you are just a fluke.
EVE does the same in newbie starter systems and career agent systems. That’s akin to the starter areas in other games. Other than that, EVE is purported as lawless, dystopian space. If people get ganked too often in systems adjacent to starter systems (I checked Ekura next door to Amsen and say a number of dead Ventures thanks to Safety., but I also see days without any kills or only NPC kills.), CCP should do a better job at explaining what happens and how to pay more attention.
One could argue that CCP could add Safety. as red contact by default for newbies and explain to them why this is the case and what they need to do when they see a red in local. Instead of locking people into green safety (by the way, it would not work in Josameto anyway if the 1.0 Green were a thing), CCP should introduce people to the existing tools to stay alive and navigate the treacherous environment.
I don’t claim to be superior. I state solely that these people won’t make it in EVE anyway. If they get demoralized by a cheap loss early on, they will always get demoralized and frustrated by losses. It doesn’t matter if they had a day or “a few weeks” to build up a buffer. If they cannot deal with losses early on, they don’t learn the most valuable lessons to survive in EVE.
Lmao. You even managed to make 5 quotes from short post like that.
When I saw there is a new thread and it already has 100 replies within hours of creation I knew it is you again.
You are spamming these forums really hard lately. I am not engaging in this ■■■■. You can have your last word if you need it. I am blocking you from now on because these nonsense that you are spouting lately are damaging my health.
Also, since when is Niballe 1.0 ? LOL just what the hell are you smoking?
Well I think he won anyway. I completely lost my will to even read these threads that swollen 200+ replies over night… Might have been his goal from the very beginning.
AG propaganda is using every petty tricks they can.
According to CCP, the griefing issue is where there is no obvious payoff to the ganker and the new player with no cargo was the specific example used. If a new player is carrying something of value, then there would clearly be a potential payoff for the ganker.
None of us might agree with that, but it is what they outlined at Fanfest.
We would need to draw the line as anywhere CCP sets it. It’s always been that way. Whether we agree or not on where the line is, is another thing and the subject of endless discussion in the forum.
I don’t personally think CCP can pull it off. I don’t think they have sufficiently skilled game designers any longer, to get it right. I hope I’m wrong.
