I wish CCP would lower themselves to answer questions like that here.
I think there would be less vitriol all round if they engaged.
3 Likes
Rather than altering the entire game, it would make vastly more sense if the NPE explained things a little better. There’s too much focus on technicalities and shiny new graphics. The NPE introduces noobs to the concept of losing a ship, but because its only a demo it never really emphasises that that sort of thing could happen often. There ought to be an included video where the dangers of Eve are explained. It would not even have to be particularly long. My impression is that noobs are out there in Eve, oblivious to the dangers. And though some like to make out that is the noob’s fault…really it is CCP’s.
Thats like the opposite of my feelings (though CCP and the noob are at fault in my reading of it).
Ramona’s top 5 changes:
Remove NPE
Rewrite combat so it makes sense and/or is fun
Remove caps, buff EVERYTHING else’s HP by 10.
Reduce average resistances by 33%
Mining Lasers to do targetted damage to modules & Exploding Ice
But why is the ability to do it AFK a significant advantage?
I mean, you say this, but I’ve done these trips hundreds if not thousands of times and I’m barely awake for most of them. Never lost a shipment yet.
They are generally going to either have to have low HP in which case they can be alphad by a random gank, or they have a slower ship which gives people plenty of time to scan them and then set up a gank. Sure though, flown properly the risk is still failry low.
But then the idea of making T1 frigates immune isn’t so newbies can haul, that’s just a minor side effect, it’s so that they don’t get blapped moving around early on. As it currently stands there are gankers that camp intersections between career systems getting plenty of newbie kills.
Absolutely. 100% could not agree more. I’d like this twice if I could. Hey, someone else like Ramonas post on my behalf.
If CCP are concerned about new players carrying no cargo being killed and see that as griefing, then ultimately the best thing would be to improve their ability to detect that occurring and to deal with the griefers directly.
Either with warnings and bans, or locking their safety to green for a specific period of time, so they can’t conduct any more griefing activities.
Its really my one serious request Ive ever made and will always stick by.
1 Like
It’s not carrying cargo that’s the real issue though, it’s early negative progress. Like in a traditional MMORPG, imagine you spend a couple of weeks getting up to level 9, then some giant meathead comes along and oneshots you just for a laugh and now you are level 3 and have to repeat most of what you’ve already done. Most players won’t find that enjoyable and many will just leave at that point.
The problem here is that you are not supposed to be safe in EVE, even as a new player. You don’t lose progression levels of your character either when you lose something. The only thing you lose are currency and items. Those things are ephemeral things that you are supposed to lose, use, transform.
The next problem is that contemporary players aren’t willing to accept that they are supposed to be at risk in a video game that is all about risk. Maybe CCP should include the “If you undock, you consent to PVP” phrase in their tutorial so that players understand this concept from the start. This should weed out most of the useless newbies that only hold the game back with weird demands like these.
Not to mention that new players are already sheltered from all forms of PVP in the starter and career agent systems. This was implemented years ago after CCP noticed a lot of suspect baiting in these systems. 
Implementing green lock in 1.0 systems would make tradehubs completely safe. Amarr is in a 1.0 system. Trade from Jita would move to New Cal or Perimeter to be completely safe, and trade from Dodi and Rens to something like Ivar and Bourynes or Luminaire.
2 Likes
No they arent. “Legal” i.e. consenting PvP is still allowed
But you are probably right. Although I don’t understand why that’s a thing. If people don’t understand the suspect flag situation, how are they going to understand a duel that starts with a weak frigate challenging you and then suddenly you are up against a BC or something like that?
1 Like
Hey, preachin to the queer here my friend.
Just when you set foot in this thunderdome, you gotta be careful exactly how you say what you say 
1 Like
Then new players will continue to leave, eventually the game will die and then it’ll be gone. All because your position has zero room for compromise.
And let’s be clear, when a lot of us veterans joined ganking was incredibly rare and almost always done for profit. it’s only more recently that ganking new players has become a sport, so let’s not pretend we all ran through the same gauntlet to get here.
But early on that’s a lot. If a new player grinds up for his first mining barge then loses it that is a lot harder to recover from. For me it’s a rounding error, for them it’s potentially weeks of grinding if they don’t get to play too often.
I think they are, it’s just important to push those losses down to line, to reduce early risks so people can figure out that they actually like the game. If you’ve just joined a game and got through some early grinding and lose it all it’s a lot easier to just bin the game and move on because you’re not invested in it in any meaningful way.
The most pointless protection ever, since gankers just camp the paths between these and career agents regularly send new players out of the starter systems.
Doubt. Trade hubs aren’t selected just on safety. 1.0s are already safer due to shorter concord response times, so if that were the reason they’d have moved already, and certainly so after numerous burn Jita events.
I mean, when I joined the game in 2011, I was never engaged illegally in high sec. And even when I went into Mai with my Harbinger to run a mission, the guy there found me, tackled me and then talked to me about how this is a dangerous place, that I should be careful where my missions lead me and how I could stay safe. Then they let me go. I had a lot of good experiences back then.
I do not think that this is a good approach. What is the point in introducing them to one game that they might like and cushions them in cotton and foam, and then suddenly they are thrust into a relatively different game with different rules and much more risk, which they have not experienced before and which goes against what they like. This approach feels more like predatory marketing by tricking people into something (enjoyable game) and then changing that thing into the opposite (risky, far less enjoyable game). I would not like this at all.
Doubt all you want but the removal of Talos swarms waiting for you in Jita or Tornados on the Amarr or Dodi undock or Maller smartbombers on the Perimeter gate or Catalysts on your Abyssal trace in Jita are pretty big reasons to move trade to new locations. Low Concord latency does not prevent ganks. Locked green safety prevents all PVP except for consensual PVP. That’s a whole different story than just lower concord latency. Definitely much more tangible reasons than anything ever done before to change the status quo of trade hubs.
1 Like
The problem is the type of new players playing EVE these days. They are expecting EVE to be just another easy Fruit Ninja/harvesting game. They have zero patience or will to have to actually compete. I see new players every single day whining that their ship got destroyed in a career agent mission. Why? Because they didn’t even bother to read the mission details where it explicitly says that you are going to lose that ship. Most new players also skip the tutorial, then whine and ask a billion questions in Rookie Help because they can’t even figure out how to warp to the next system. The current generation of gamers are the problem, not the mechanics of EVE…
5 Likes
Yep, and this is exactly the type of experience newbies should have now. Competitive but not pointlessly vicious.
Because once they’ve built up they’ll be in a position that they can handle the loss without it being such a setback. It’s what CCP referred to at fanfest as being able to bootstrap back into the ship. It’s much harder earlier on when you don’t have accrued assets to fall back on. It’s not a trick, players that have built up really will be able to recover a lot easier than players that haven’t had the chance yet.
And because most veterans never experienced a game that was as aggressively hostile to newbies as it is now, most of us did build up that buffer before we encountered our first losses.
It significantly reduces their likelihood though. There are plenty of hubs in lower that 09 systems too. If you were correct that hubs go where the safety is then all of them would be in 1.0 systems. The reality is that hubs go where they are convenient for consumers.
It’s not new, this has always been the case. EVE just wasn’t as aggressive and difficult as you pretend it was back in the day. This is like when old people whine at young people for not being able to get on the housing ladder, even though the older people paid less in relative wealth for their house than most people now have to pay in the deposit alone.
Ganking and bumping have been a thing since day 1. Groups like CODE have been around for over a decade. So yes, we had it just as “bad” as the new players have it. We didn’t even have an NPE, career agents, or even a skill queue. If you wanted to train another skill after one finished, you had to log in and start the next one. Cry me a river…
I do not think that this is how this works with players. Someone who is used to and expects and easy and calm game will not be less aggravated by a loss 1 month or 6 months in. You just need to look at all the vile and vitriol that older players throw around when they lose an Ishtar in null sec or get their Orca bumped for a time in high sec.
This is simply not how players work, especially not in EVE.
A better way is to explain to them as early as possible what they have to expect when they undock.
Amarr is not convenient, it’s far away from most relevant low sec entries. It’s the hub because of lore reasons. Jita was convenient because of the L4 missions, which are all gone, and NewCal or Perimeter are all better options because they are closer to important low sec entries. Dodi and Rens are irrelevant. But in terms of PVP it really does not make a difference if they are in 0.9 or 1.0. With this locked safety there would be a massive difference, once that has never been there before and that is completely impossible to circumvent. This makes it much more convenient for customers.
1 Like
Hello Altara,
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.
But at nowhere near the same scale. You know this.
It works this way in every other game so I don’t know why you think it would suddenly not apply to EVE.
How many ragequit the game because they don’t feel it’s worth the time to grind back into another one?
That still won’t help. Saying “oh hey, you’re gonna lose everything” doesn’t do anything when you lose weeks of effort early on. I think you are looking at this from your point of view, where you already like EVE and want to stick around. A new player does not have that connection with the game so if you remove several weeks of progress early on just because some veteran wanted a killboard stat, they are far less likely to stick around to repeat the grind.
There’s no way we can settle this, so it’s pointless debating. I think you’re categorically wrong but until it happens there’s no way to prove it either way.
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.
2 Likes