Yeah it pretty much is. Removing a broken old mechanic that’s basically impossible to fix and replacing it by improving the balance of existing mechanics. I don’t see why that’s particularly controversial.
And that’s fine, we don’t have to agree. I personally think that for a game as old as EVE struggling to retain a playerbase it’s even more important that ever to diversify playstyles and whether you accept it or not some people prefer playing against the system.
Hell, even ganking itself is an example of this. Gankers aren’t fighting a hauler or a miner, they are racing concord. They don’t want to go out to places where there will actually be player skill vs player skill, they want to race NPCs.
I think in most cases it’ll be the game that makes people quit. But negative progress makes you reassess what you’re doing.
From my personal experience I know I’ve played games, reached a point where something creates negative progress (even like a crash that takes you back an hour) and when getting ready to repeat the progress I’ve thought “Oh man I CBA to do this” which then makes me realise I’m not enjoying the activity, so I go do something else.
I think it’s very easy for negative progress to make people question whether they can be bothered to play EVE and the earlier that takes place in a players experience of the game, the easier it is for them to go because they have fewer attachments to the game.
It’s just part of the game. And remember PvP is not limited to combat PvP. Competing over resources and markets, and things like that are all part of it. I’ve never really understood people who think that if you can’t be shot by another player you’re not contributing to the game in any way.
Mostly because the NPCs that have replaced gankers so far are far from balanced. You may scoff but Iif I get ganked by a person, I know they havent cheated. If its by an NPC, I know they do cheat.
Right, which is the opposite result of removing humans from the equation.
Right, so remove CONCORD and give everyone more of a chance to decide their own fate.
Yes, the NPCs are the part of the game that nearly made me quit.
Yup and I dont want that to be NPCs either.
There’s already far too many NPCs in EvE, from the utterly pointless HS rats to the utterly unkillable ones.
I happen to disagree that the game itself is interesting enough without a human element to measure yourself against.
How is it? In my view we have a very niche group that create a scenario that puts off a pretty huge category of players. I don’t even think this is contested, because gankers frequently talk about how they are totally find with “carebears” quitting.
What I find odd is that people seeming have no problem with CCP putting in instanced arena combat and microtransactions to appeal to the battle royale crowd, but when you suggest they should cater to PvE players the same people start falling about screaming “YOU’RE RUINING EVE!”
All that does is make highsec like nullsec and the end result is the loss of more players.
And currently it’s not, because all that stuff is done predominantly by PvE players, the ones you think should be forced into combat PvP.
We actually agree on that principle. I think the human element is important too. I just don’t think the human element should always be able to be forced into combat with other human elements.
For me the primary appeal of EVE has been the player-driven economy, I love the idea that most assets exist in the game because players have created them. I see PvE players as a replacement for the mechanics in most games that stock vendors and things like that and I just don’t see the benefit in alienating players who just like that bit and don’t want to be forced into combat.
I think EVE is broad enough for both PvE and PvP players (in terms of combat) to exist without forcing one side to engage in the activity of the other side. And I really do mean one side, because a combat pilot can force a miner into having to engage in combat, but a miner cannot force a combat pilot to have to mine.
And these two opinions are extremes that I dont share vOv
Not really, its still open to everyone, unlike Nullsec. And how would it be the same if combat was completely different in HS than it is now in Nullsec? Do you think there should be an active counterplay to ganking or not? Because youd need to explain how you can have that AND CONCORD, otherwise theres no point in the active counter, like you believe the case is atm.
Lucas, if you are going to try and tell me how I think, then you know we are done, right?
The best idea I could come up with for a CONCORD compromise was some sort of module or mode that could be activated that would make the ship immune to illegal weapons fire for a period of time and extending the CONCORD response time by the same amount. You’d probably have to delay FacPo as well, though, which probably has other knock on effects.
This is all a dead end line of reasoning, though, because it wouldn’t really satisfy many people. People are either accepting of the way things are or want to make ganking harder. Few people want an opportunity to interject themselves into a gank in progress but are perfectly willing to bang on it as a talking point to support the removal of ganking.
For some reason unrelated to Eve, this makes me want to scream “There are 4 lights!”
You know that nullsec include NPC null, right? That’s pretty much what highsec would be if concord didn’t exist.
I think that if ganking continues to exist there should be a balanced counterplay mechanic yes. In reality I don’t think that’s possible without significant changes that kill off multiple playstyles anyway.
If that’s not your view I apologise, but that’s the impression I got from your previous comments, that you think that all PvE players should be able to be engaged in combat PvP whether they want to or not.
Again, if you ignore changing the combat system as the basis for CONCORD removal, sure. Again, except including access issues, and general ease of everything else that HS currently provides.
I cant think of a playstyle would be killed off by making ships take longer to destroy.
I actually think there is room for a module that does damage to systems or lowers resistances. Something other than neuts and smart bombs that can go in the high slots.
No, this idea isnt specifically for Barges. They have drones after all but if they wanted to could switch out a Strip Miner for a Mining Laser, I suppose.
In regards to top slot systems, Im more concerned about balancing the basic combat system and making it more interesting than buffs and debuffs, but sure, I dont see why not.
Probably what the silly Edencom weapon should have been.
A series of weapons that can render a ship helpless. Actively damaging shields armour and then modules but never hull. They could be used in high sec without Concorde intervention.
This would let anti-gankers have their playstyle and remove the argument of ganking having no ‘counterplay’.
It would also allow you to have more kinds of high sec pvp. Miners reshipping into destroyers with module damaging weapons to force other miners off the belt and to have to pay to fix up their modules. People invading missions and stripping the mission ships of their dps tanks so they can steal all the loot and salvage.
They would have less use in null but wouldn’t be without their uses. For instance if you wanted to capture a capital ship rather than destroy it you could swarm it strip it of shields and modules and then hold it there completely depleted of resources till the player is forced to choose between having that expensive loss mail to justify to their alliance or ejecting from the ship.
It would be no different than anything. Any kind of griefing you could do with these modules could also be done with a gank. You just punish people doing it to new players which is currently the only CCP defined method of griefing.
