Yes. People knew they had no chance and just did not log in. The behavior was the same, the effect on players presence was disastrous.
There was more wars against people so yes you had more fun. It as still a way to harass people out of the game. Which IS bad for the game, whatever you believe.
But how is it the same if the evil griefing has been fixed, and people arenāt quitting the game anymore?
Aside from the whole shooting ships piloted by players compared to shooting unmanned structures while people are asleep thing, I mean.
The same what ? The same way people donāt take fight they know they are gonna lose and battles are predictable ? Yes itās the same. The effect on population is different since people canāt be harassed out of the game anymore.
Again, please, learn to read.
Sorry, youāve completely lost me.
You claim the battles were more unpredictable. Itās wrong, the predictability of the battles were the same : most of the time people just logged off the game. Now people who are willing to defend the structures do it when they have a chance.
Your claim, that it was better before, is just a phantasm.
The difference, is that the battles slaughters actually can be avoided by doing something else than logging off and never coming back.
All in all, the battles that are not predictable are still present but the effect of imbalanced slaughters is not.
All your arguments that say āit was better beforeā are just not saying anything on how better it was. You just liked it better, does not mean it was. And it was not.
Sorry, I was busy dragging another miner into the āwhy was I ganked?ā channel. Anyways, thanks for explaining, I really appreciate it.
Dang, he left, and not in local anymore. Hopefully Iāll be able to catch him online to continue the conversation later.
Not always.
But you are correct.
We rarely have somebody pay us 5 bill to protect a raitaru. but getting 10bill to protect a fortizar or 6 for an azbel is common. At the end of the day it depends on what it is worth to the client.
Sometimes just having somebody show up to kick an aggressors stool back in wins you all future wars as well. For some then 5 bill is worth protecting a irrelevant little Raitaru. You also then get comfort because it is in your corp history that one tried lost.
You need think bigger picture here. My goal is always scorched earth, this way I wont have any issues in future with an aggressor or aggravator.
1 Like
We get enough.
We loose some ships we kill some ships. I am never going to change CCP mind on the direction they want to go. All I can do is adapt the changing gameplay and take as much enjoyment from it as possible. I left the game many years ago because I was not willing to adapt due to a game change. I missed eve and decided to shift my focus and change along side the game.
1 Like
How many actual āfightsā happen during those ops? It kind of seems to me that theyād see the name, ā ā ā ā themselves, and you collect the money for sitting on your ass and playing poker. The one time I hired to defend a structure recently (for the same reason you mention, to show the willingness to defend it - I was tired of constantly babysitting my own little war HQ), thatās exactly what happened.
We engaged 3 separate fleets for defense on 3 different structures within an hour, Amarr/Caldari space apart using high to high wh to travel quickly. We engaged and won all 3 without loss.
You are correct, many times they see us coming they leave. And we see that as easy isk then while we wait for the repair timer. It does not mean the person that actually paid us is any less gratefull. Because he knows they will not try again. Now or in future.
The fact that you said you hired somebody but had to babaysit your own structure means you hired the wrong people. We normally ask the owner to be there as well during the timer as a structure is a great force multiplier in a defense.
1 Like
No, I had to babysit it until I hired. It was a tiny alt corp of mine with a much smaller combat history and I only had like two friends available to help. The hiring was very successful, and there was no fight. We took their POCOs too, and they never defended. Havenāt had to worry about anything for months now.
Then again, that kind of shows how the system is really screwed up now. Itās all a numbers game.
They can still access a structure held by an alt corp with no costs. They are using the very feature that is supposed to make them war eligible in a way that is supposed to make them war eligible, but they are not war eligible. Itās not a trade-off.
Even if you wardec the structure, these players are still immune to the dec.
No agency. No commitment. Just isolationist and impersonal risk free farming.
Iāve said it above. But here it is again.
Social corps should be equivalent to npc corps in every way except for the social aspects.
They get a mail list, a killboard, chat channels, certain roles etc. But they pay npc tax. No friendly fire.
No corp wallet. No offices. No structures. No wardecs.
Once they open an office (or plant a structure which includes an office), it opens the corp wallet and allows wardecs (i may even allow friendly fire).
Why is this better? Besides that it encourages interaction and meaningful choices?
Players are still getting out of the notorious npc corp but arenāt completely bypassing the wardec mechanic. And you canāt spam corp invites to exploit noobs for corp tax.
Higher level of gameplay (sharing assets) comes with higher exposure to the sandbox.
1 Like
They dont, thats the point, they have no reason to fight.
This is just naive. It does nothing of the sort. The assets within the structure arenāt even at risk.
One rich guy loses a structure. May or may not have paid for itself by the time itās destroyed and after itās done, they put up another structure under a new corp name using the money skimmed from players in a non-wardeccable corp.
But the actual players? They are entirely disconnected. Isolated. They have no commitment. No agency.
Everyone knows that shooting nothing but structures isnāt engaging play. So making wardecs only about structures was a huge mistake.
Youāre trying to say hunting/shooting anyone not as strong as you is abuse or harassment now?
I can still do this in other areas of space. And the effect is the same.
Goons got camped into a single low sec station and a great many of them just stopped logging in. The collapse of alliances leads to people leaving the game. Getting kicked out of a wormhole: same thing.
Fights are often one sided. Pandering to those that will not take responsibility for their own choices is a race to the bottom.
1 Like
Iām saying that performing aggressive actions, repeatedly, in order to deny the opposing force the ability to do anything, is harassment.
Not only does it fit the definition, but also it has the same RL effect : loss of will to fight, loss of interest in the game.
Unrelated. āother areas of spaceā, while wars only have effect in HS.
Youāre correct that itās harassment. But harassment in NS is not an issue, as long as it remains in the game and about the game.
Keep in mind that what we see in the forums is only a fraction of what the EVE playerbase says, and is not representative proportionally of the player base as a whole. Forum posters have a different set of perspectives than those who just game the way they feel like gaming.
Keep the range of numbers in mind. When CCP says āwe found many of these players were leaving the game never to returnā theyāre talking about something like 3-4% of all active players. So yes, any business would rather retain those players and keep those customers, but itās not saying thereās any major drive towards āsafety in spaceā.
Notice also that the entire āhigh sec PvPā crowd is, in fact, actually begging, constantly, for safety in space. Theyāve already stated they moved out of Null and low-sec when they started getting dropped on by foes too big for them to fight. So they moved to the space where they could be safe from being hunted while they went about their game. Exactly what those they despise as ācarebearsā are doing.
The real mechanic at play here is overall, lack of agency on the part of one group vs. another group. If youāre in a mining vessel and a few Catalysts happen by to gank you, you have no real agency. Thereās nothing you can do except suck up the loss. You can make the loss harder or more expensive for them (by tank fitting), or you can be aligned and attentive at all times (to escape, although thatās exactly why CCP designed PVE activities to be slow, repetitive and boring - so you would be more likely to be inattentive). What you essentially canāt do, however, is retaliate effectively.
The same if youāre a small corp decād by a large corp, or a PvE corp decād by a PvP corp. All the BS from high sec so-called 'PvPāers aside - reshipping into a combat ship, or hiring allies, or putting bounties on someone (when this was still possible) are all non-starters in general. And forget the video about the guy who took a year to worm his way into a corp and exact revengeā¦ thatās just for psychos.
People donāt generally play games to feel weak, powerless and without options. They certainly donāt do so to get mocked and taunted by some toad stroking his e-peen because his Catalyst can nuke your mining vessel or his 8 alts can nuke your freighter. Sure, that doesnāt always happen, but it happens often enough to make a dent in EVEās player base.
The goals CCP originally aimed for was how to design a space game like Ultima Online, but where the gankers, PKers and pirates had opportunity to loot and plunder. So they designed intensely slow and boring resource gathering, repetitive PvE, choke points at all travel, big beacons on almost all space activity to easily identify targets, scanners and cloaks to make it all easier.
When you design an environment to appeal to the wolves, donāt be surprised when the livestock decides to move elsewhere. The player base as a whole does not require safety. But a sizeable portion of them donāt want to be someone elseās free lunch, either.
1 Like
Even if the opposing force opted-in? And can opt-out without having to quit altogether?
Why is it so different outside of hi-sec?
The nuances of pvp mechanics may be different. But the nature of the game is still applies.
I disagree a game should be made easier to appeal to a wider audience when the appeal of the game in the first place compared to others was its danger.
Still, it doesnt answer what inspires someone to start playing EvE, but want it to be a peaceful game without actually doing anything to make that happen other than ask for it.
1 Like
But we got it before? There already was taxes to push players out of NPC corporations to make them eligible for wars. This is done nothing good, CCP had to change wars, because masses of players stopped playing while being wardecced, and many never come back after war ends.