{citation needed}
It does hinder the retention of a certain class of players, but they’re poorly suited to EVE and probably going to quit soon anyway. And it is a massive encouragement to retention of the players that are most likely to be a good fit for EVE and become long term customers. So IMO overall non-consensual PvP is a net advantage for retention of new players.
Until they do the rest of the math.
so the Miners and the haulers, are poorer and carrying smaller cargos,
so for the suicide gankers out there, that means less return for their loss of a ship, and they will find replacement ships to suicide gank in becoming harder and harder to find.
True,
but perhaps the marketing department shouldn’t be trying to sell the game as “a sandbox, where you can do anything you want to have fun *”
Stop tying isk to ganking. Ship cost does not matter to them. Cat’s could be 20mil isk each, and it would not put a dent in the activity.
well, if they want to throw their money away, that’s on them… still doesn’t mean the scarcity driving the supply of replacement ships down won’t affect them.
You’re disingenuous whine aside, CCP did screw up with marketing in a few areas.
Trying to accommodate the average MMO player in eve has seemed more like trying to trick them into spending money before they realise their mistake whilst simultaneously alienating the core playerbase and destroying the economy.
Back on topic, I think Dunk hit the nail right on the head. This “resource re-balancing” just makes more pain for the average player and does little to address the built up stockpiles of the super rich. Although something needed to be done to bring the economy into a healthier place what we’ve gotten is an extremely unimaginative (and dare I say, lazy) set of nerfs with nothing more than vague promises that things will get better in the future.
Too much stick and no carrot. Nothing to be excited about and nerfs that hit the average or more casual player disproportionately harder. Yep, that sounds like a winning recipe to me!
I don’t see a ‘disingenuous whine’, unless that’s the new definition to ‘an opinion differing from my own’
Only if there is reasonable chance to get any profit out of this fight + mining.
For example: if you have high chance to lose your PvP ships (say, 50% chance to lose 100 million ISK) then you definitely won’t fight for mining area where you can mine 10 million will you?
And then CCP reduces sizes of minable asteroids. I’m curious: how much ISK can one get from mining one full belt in high-sec for example? Is it possible to calculate, considering NPC mining fleets and respawn mechanics?
You know this is a game, right? You are just planning to dock up and do nothing, rather than trying to solve the new problems?
Daichi,
you are making wrong comparisons here…
“What would you say to a COD player that doesn’t like military style games?”
when what you have is more along the android phone games that ‘sell’ the game by having you try and solve logic puzzles to get by traps, and when you actuaally get the game it’s “hey, look we are -totally- different than bejweled, because we use pig heads instead of jewels”
Xeus,
that’s not my plan at all… just saying if you advertise a game as A-Z, but then Nerf everything that isn’t B, K, M and W, you’ll quickly lose your supply of new folks.
Xeux,
you may get some folks who will fight over the rocks, but you’ll get a lot more people who do the “well, this space game isn’t what they advertised on the tin, I guess I’ll go try one of the others instead”
I don’t know about others but me being 40-year old Team Leader of a group of developers have enough of issues and problems to solve in my working week and outside of it.
So, yeah. If a game wants to provide me with problems to solve it has to make the process fun and rewarding. And this is the issue I see with current CCP approach: the changes do not look like they can provide fun for those who will adapt and overcome. Maybe I’m missing something. It’s definitely possible.
Solving the problem IS the reward.
Xeux,
so I guess the PVP folks get no rewards then, since they don’t get to share in the bounty of the nerfs?
We’ve had too much carrot for 5 years. More even. Stick is long over due.
Average players have been enjoying things they should never have had. Like structures and high end ores.
Of course taking that away is going to hurt them.
This is disingenuous. Or ignorant.
Take your pick.
Hi-sec has 200-300 mil in a belt. But who fights over hi-sec belts?
Low sec mining however is different. A small anomaly had 2.5mil m3 of crokite (in two rocks!). That’s over 1bil easily. Maybe 2bil isk. Not counting the gneiss and orchre that was also present.
I’m not. But the essential message you need to understand is this:
Non-consensual pvp is a core feature of eve. Players leaving because they don’t like that is simply players realising they are playing the wrong game.
The relative nature of wealth means that solving problems that others don’t is rewarding.
And eve players do enjoy spreadsheets and conplex problems.
would you care to show how it’s ‘disingenuous’ or ‘ignorant’???
I’d don’t come from the standpoint that if an opinion differs from mine that makes it inherently wrong… too bad you can’t say the same.
funny, when I say that I’m ‘disingenous’…
Are you being deliberately ironic? The only one making ad hominem attacks is you.
Your opinion isn’t wrong because you made it, or that it’s different than mine.
It’s wrong because it’s reductive of the choices and relationships between players. ‘ganker or victim’ is dishonest. I can be both and neither in the same day. I can form relationships and trade that involve neither. When i spend a day trading, am i a ‘ganker’ or a ‘victim’? I may lose my home today, but what if i burn down someone elses tomorrow? What does that make me?
That’s the point behind eve’s marketing slogans. Players don’t have to define themselves as anything. They can do whatever they find fun.
You never said it…