You still evading my question. What will make “cattle” to fight for their cans? If i understand you you need first “cattle” to fight back and then you will play with newly appeared attackers. But i still do not see what will do the first step.
I don’t think I understand the question.
I need the mechanic for crime to be functional enough to where a portion of the population will participate in it.
I play in Umokka. Before retribution, there were about half a dozen permanent PvP corps in Umokka alone, and quite a few locals who liked to dabble.
One of us had pissed someone off badly enough to bring in a fleet after us probably once a week.
We would piss in each other’s directions daily, mess with the actual miners, and create mayhem and drama for everyone to see.
Yes, we took people’s ships away but we were a host of content that no longer exists.
If the mechanics become functional again, people will use them. Eve from pre-retribution is still the golden standard for PvP in many of our minds. I’m sure many would come back.
3 Likes
it sounds like you’re speaking of can-baiting , the act of jetting a can to have a 1 vs. 1 , usually outside a station . there’s now a duel mechanic that allows just that , without going suspect .
i think your memory is faulty as some of the mechanics you speak of never existed . like how do you get to fight someone , who’s fighting a miner over a flipped can ? remote repping didn’t do it , there really was no way to do some of the things you seem to remember . although bait mining-ospreys ya i remember them . or my pre-bandwidth barge , solo mining in low-sec with 5 heavy drones active … 
Yes, I’m aware of the duel mechanic. I’ve spend hours ourside station challenging everyone I see.
Not as effective as you might imagine.
And it was the aggro share that repping provided I used to pick fights. Before retribution, you could get aggro allowed on yourself by repping someone’s enemy. I would sometimes rep both sides of a fight to see if one of them would shoot me.
I always thought it was good form to spout peacenik propaganda while I did that. “Why can’t we all get along”
Then once one of them red boxed me, I’d redock and clean their clocks.
If you google “welcome to PvP”, you will find a tutorial I wrote on high-sec fighting mechanics from pre-retribution.
1 Like
I might be totally wrong here but this is what i read from Your posts:
- You want can flipping back in old form where it was only matter of 2 persons (not suspect status of modern era).
What You want it for:
- You somehow want to play with can flippers who will appear when can flipping will stop giving suspect timer.
Now what can flipping is:
- The first person drops a container
- The second person takes from this container and gets limited aggression with the first person
- The first person decides if he wants to fight over this container or not.
(I might have worded it badly but i hope it describes the case properly).
Now to achieve what you want you need:
- return original mechanics of can flipping
- owners of containers be up for fights with flippers
While technically mechanics can return i do not see how would you get second condition (owners of containers up for fights with can flippers). That’s what i’m asking for.
Cheers Mo for carrying the standard of the evils of Retribution and Crimewatch and keeping up the good fight.
Forgotten in all of this is that can flipping didn’t create 1-v-1s, but rather 1 v Corporation. I remember flying many, many jumps to the ping of “Corp Aggro”. As the lone can flipper, you were often challenging an entire mining op. It forced people into more group-oriented activities in High Sec which, let’s face it, that’s STILL where everyone (or 70% or so) is located. It created content in what is now exceptionally boring space where no one talks in local and nothing happens other than the occasional CODE hi-jinks.
1 Like
The mechanic was always that the corp of whoever you stole off could agress (unless in NPC corp).
This is the mechanic that made Eve “hardcore PvP.”
Yes, people would do this. It was an absolute blast.
2 Likes
Even under the old system you never had to fight - and nobody is saying you cant go into hs and carebear as always. What you want is an ultra safe risk free highsec. You mostly have that now - and look what it has got you - 2006 log in numbers. Without risk, for most folk this game isnt fun - and the numbers tell the truth. What you going to do with your rocks when there is no one left?
2 Likes
Totally missed the point here, mate. Reread what i wrote again.
And for start: it’s not me asking for something but it’s you who wants changes. And it’s your job to provide proofs and reasons for it. And “let’s just nerf someone” is not enough for my taste.
1 Like
what do you mean, “nerf someone”?
Unless i missed something, he wants a nerf to be removed.
1 Like
Yes, I want to un-nerf. I have been nerfed into a sponge whereas I used to be digitally dangerous.
I still don’t get the question, I think it relates to whether I think the state-of-nature is good or bad?
I’m more into Hobbes than Locke, is that’s what you mean. Yes, in an anarchy my character will attempt to take from other characters. I think many will.
You might find arguments, or helpful thoughts, in some long posts i’ve written. they touch the subject. you’re a man of with a long attention span and a sharp mind, so i thought you might find something useful.
What more proof do you need then 2006 numbers for consecutive logons?
CCP has a way of never admitting a mistake and doubling down on failure. They have been softening this game for years chasing after new/causal players and it hasnt worked. All they have done is drive away their own players. Its well past time they tried something new. CCP should bring back some of the edge that used to be in game and see if that boosts their numbers. Certainly cant do worse then what they have been doing so far.
You make some very valid points and the end-state is quite visible.
The sad thing about all of this is that there actually was a need for a nerf, but it wasn’t can flipping.
Can flipping was, and always has been, completely consentual. With the exception of a noob losing a ship worth a laughable quantity of isk in his first days… losing a ship in this manner is a deliberately made mistake. You always know the risks.
The cultural hatred of can flippers amongst the “law abiding” that drove this nerf was also what made the game itself compelling.
Conversely, it was the war-dec mechanic that needed to be nerfed. Though guys like me could rationalize that we were tiny 3-person corps attacking large 50 person corps… the truth is that we (taken in aggregate with all of the other small wardec corps) made it nearly impossible for noob corps to be successful in high-sec.
If a noob-corp broke 30 people, it would be peemadecced by multiple warded corps until it closed… not intentionally, but as a factor of being big and soft and in the area of a PvP corp.
The increased prices that were applied to war decs just lead to pooling of assets and large merc corps who really aren’t a lot better… and who now blanket declare on everyone and are MUCH harder to fight.
I think the actual price-nerf would have been more effective if they left a single war cheap and then exponentially increased prices after that (or made prices climb to do repetitive wars).
If they know how many noob corps they have and how many PvP corps they have, they could just alott the quantity of wars that are acceptable and develop a way to manage to it, economically or otherwise.
Had they fixed that, at least there would be a criminal element left to give the game flavor.
One of changes to be removed is proper size of cargo hold of mining barges. Decreasing it means either increased risk or reduced ISK/hour for miners. Isn’t it nerf?
If you call this change nerf to other activity then remember that since then many new players joined the game. And they started with this state. So your un-nerf does not mean the same for them. And they will see it as straight nerf. And you would need to offer something in exchange for them.
I’m totally agree that there is something wrong with the game.
However exact reason is to be found and proven. There is many threads of these very forums discussing it. And opinions are very differ (from lack of high-sec risk to too big high-sec risk to simple “that’s the way all MMOs live these days”).
no amount of proof, no amount of explanations, and no matter how much we would write down, in dozens of letter sized pages worth of posts, there is no simple conclusion which can be pushed into the collective’s mind, or yours.
all we can do, is KISS. We look back at better times and analyse properly. That means we boil it down to essentials and fundamentals.
EVE’s selling point were the social interactions and huge amount of player freedom. the game had no artificial content worth speaking of, for a long time.
The game itself, through the community’s past culture, tells us that …
- player retention was the players’ responsibility.
- in farther pasts actual griefing was extremely low (extremists will always exaggerate)
- the game grew during times of more social interactions happening.
- highsec local was far more active, in many more systems, which acts as a multiplier. (because of social interactions)
- the game had the hidden requirement, aka you had to make it past the learning cliff. it literally kept out those seeking plain fun, favouring those who looked for satisfaction.
See also:
there’s more i guess, but it’s not needed for the point, and details make no difference.
How about you just believe me, for once. you know the quality, and accuracy, i try to put into my posts. when i show this post to my friend petar, from bulgaria, he’ll call me autistic af again and congratulate me for my continuous improvement. 
i’m still not convinced of their lack of awareness, but what CCP did when they’ve implemented measures which psychologically prevent, or deterr, people from exploring the depths of EVE’s social interactions, they drove the final stake into EVE’s vampire heart. The primary deterrent, the protection button, and suspect state.
Mr. Mo explains the differences between nowadays and past times above, and also why he wants can flipping back. What he wants, maybe unknowingly hidden behind his request, is EVE’s old culture back. and he’s right! But it comes at a cost! What he needs to do for it, is taking care of retention! Otherwise it will degenerate the same way it did in the recent past, with actual griefers only seeking tears, instead of future-friends-who-I-shot-once.
Recruiting by shooting.
when CCP decided to take care of retention themselves, they’ve behaved like a government declaring a totalitarian state. the technologically advanced state raises, indoctrinates and brainwashes the future of society. its children. forever. Culture Control Productions.
Welcome to the new NPE, and see also: new fleet PvE.
Over the years, there were continuous nerfs to social interaction, caused by continuous demands raised by a specific group of people, in each and every new generation.
We can look at it from another perspective too, where likemindedly evil people caused nerfs, because they didn’t care about society as a whole. the griefers on the side of awoxers, deccers, gankers. there’s a group of people i call “assholes” (feel free to quote me on that one), and they cover both sides of the fence!
Griefers who abused legit mechanics for tears, without taking care of retention, except when it comes to likeminded people. it was them, who awoxed new player corps mercilessly, without taking the players under their wings. it was the ego tripping wardeccers, gankers and awoxers who, despite having been warned, overdid it as a collective. the cultivated society of respectful gentlemen of low moral fiber degenerated into tear sucking idiots.
I believe that behaviour, which harms society as a whole, should be severely punished. publicly, so everyone knows that “this ■■■■ ends now”.
There also were, and still are, bad CEOs, most often of the bigmouthing carebear side, running horribly bad new player corps. their egos are seeking power, with no actual clue about the game or what to do with it, and no regards for the new players. they did a lot of harm to the game, but the blame was put onto those deccers and awoxers, who actually tried to keep the CEO from abusing the new players.
there were, likely still are, griefers who tell new players that lowsec is a death trap by default, deterring them from entering, despite it being lucrative for new players once they’ve got killed and didn’t “cry like little babies”!
there is social responsibility, which exists in every social system. when people stop feeling responsible for their children, then society as a whole degenerates and “the state” has to take over.
there were times, when this was different. these times passed, for reasons, leading to griefers on both sides of the fence ruining the game for everyone. ego trippers on both sides continuously gave fuel to the ego trippers of the other side, leading CCP to nerf social interactions.
they’re all alike. they undermine everything. they lie, use fallacies, move the goalposts, use passive aggressiveness, QQ MOAR, and outright redeclare definitions, all for their horrible form of escapism. the quest for making others feel miserable, because they themselves feel miserable. and they have a lot in common with totalitarians.
and now we’re at a point where there’s a serious imbalance. a lack of player antagonists who provide content for highsec. and even now, as ganking (and all forms of social interaction in highsec) are on an all time low, there still are people of newer generations, who demand more nerfs, more safety and more protection from ones own mistakes. It all eventually boils down to the removal of social interactions.
And why do people keep demanding?
Because their norm, in which they grew up in, is a more safe and secure norm compared to the norms of the generations before theirs. they grow up in a status quo they believe is “unbalanced” (actual quote), because someone “harmed” them in the jungle they choose to play in. they can not comprehend that it is their own fault. it’s the mind of a totalitarian, who bases his logic on his feelings instead of rational thought. nothing else matters for him, except that the world has to be how he wants it, with no regards for the past, others, or the fact that EVE’s a crippled jungle already.
i’m not making this up. i wish i would.
every new generation, people of a certain mentality will demand a nerf to social interactions, and they will not ever stop, because they don’t accept the already crippled jungle they choose to play in!
and now i’m out of gas… and i hope i got my point accross. took me two 3.44.3h hours to write this down. 
the TL;DR is that Mr. Mo is right, but nothing will turn to the better if he (he, as representative of all those who agree with him) doesn’t start taking care of new player retention himself. Mr. Mo, btw, does not appear to be an ego tripper.
4 Likes
i know that you’re reasonable, so i want to address this.
“if you want to do x, then go to y” isn’t an argument in a game that is supposed to not have zones. you are limiting social interaction to specific spots in space, ignoring the differences of said spaces ad why they’re important. a lot of people abuse the “new player” as argument, pretending that people like Mr. Mo only ever attacks new players, which is outright nonsense to assume. blindly putting every single one who likes the shenanigans, into this bucket, is unreasonable.
I have always been strong at retention and making friends.
I’ve bought countless ships for those who needed a helping hand.
In fact, I have one visible medal. I got it for bagging a faction fit macharial that was baiting in Akiainavas. 9 locals undocked reps (which were completely unnecessary) to help me. Not all of those ships were even fit for it, and most of them I had “griefer” at some point.
My corp mates were horrified to discover I had split the loot (2+ billion)evenly between the lot of us… thus the medal.
This is how you retain players.
1 Like
Great! i apologize for my potentially rude tone, but now, shoving everything else aside, what amount of effort are you willing to put into the actions necessary to force change towards that which you ask for?