What ulterior motive exactly?
Calling someone out on trying to refer to a decade ago in EVE as irrelevant in today’s changed meta means I automatically have an ulterior motive?
I seriously think you need to take a step back and think for a minute or two here.
2 Likes
Newbies are not affected by people ratting in super carriers in any meaningful way. The reason there’s these massive wardecs groups doesn’t come from ppl ratting in supers, other groups do it as well who don’t rat in supers. It comes from CCP changing wardec, agression and buddylist mechanics forcing wardec groups to behave as they now do.
These days to avoid getting in trouble is a simple “don’t be in Jita or Amarr”, it USED to be “you will be hunted anywhere”.
So again, your statement on supers has nothing to do with it it, at all.
2 Likes
PIRATE literally were caught getting funding from Super Carrier Bots.
Literally.
That’s 100% that super carrier ratting making vast sums more isk than people used to have is affecting newbies.
Especially with the massively increased dominance of Jita now.
These are literal facts I’m talking about here.
2 Likes
So what, how does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand other than “I personally don’t like it”. Yet another case of “think of the newbies” which translates to “it’s all about me”.
1 Like
Newbies a decade ago didn’t have PLEX which could allow at least some of them to redistribute that income. Yes, I know that can be seen as a “pay-to-win” argument. But it is also true. What you are describing is bascially income inequality. PLEX is an answer to that even if it is imperfect.
Botting is bad. Always has been and always will be. To try and justify special treatment for a class of players based on this is just bad.
Granting “newbie” protection will likely be abused by older and richer players. Trying to prevent it will likely create a morass of special rules and exceptions that will likely harm “true” new players while missing the one’s masquerading as new players.
Maybe so, but what needs to be shown is that those “different challenges” are somehow greater than the challenges of the past.
This kind of ties into the “Is EVE Fair” thread. I noted in that thread that trying to create an environment of equal outcomes will be a horrible disaster. Providing equal opportunity is quite feasible and probably the best road forward.
You have one case (admittedly that we know of). However, in the past with war decs with the watchlist and 5 million ISK I could hunt you wherever you went in HS. Running was not an option. Dropping corp was, but not running. Now, if there is a war dec and you stay out of the trade hubs/lanes you are pretty darn safe because it is unlikely someone is going to find you in the ass end of nowhere. In fact a player who is reasonably smart should figure that out…going to Jita or Amarr with your main who is in a corp runs a risk of being war decced. Use hauler alts that are OOC and are in a noob or NPC corp.
Does this make EVE harder? Maybe, but I’m not that inclined to agree even with the PIRAT fiasco.
3 Likes
Yeah, that is why there is absolutely no reason to talk to this guy. It’s the same dishonest drivel as always
1 Like
Lucas, how are you going to differentiate between the genuine newbie and the old-timer who creates a ‘n00b’ alt simply to cash-in on the newbie-protection you’re advocating ?
You are wrong! IMO … There are brutal rules to protect newbies. See here … It is actually BANNABLE now to grief a newbie or even habitually trick them! … see HERE … https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203209712-Rookie-Griefing … AND … believe it or not, there actually are (admittedly few) ANGEL individuals and Corporations that will protect the HELL out of you. (Mine is one of them!) If you want to be totally solo and not accept help … then … well … you are going to have a tough time. If you are willing to receive help and not want to play EVE like a SOLO Console game, and do a bit of research, then it is available.
.
me
OMG … I replied before reading all posts. Now I have. I don’t know if you are genuinely concerned or just an intellectual troll … (AKA … Passive/Agressive intelligent troll …
I am a trader and STILL one of them!
Would someone mind showing Lucas Kell his own posting history? -thanks
6 Likes
The OP’s point?
Hmmmm… 
1 Like
EVE does have a spaceload of potential, if it allowed diversity of gameplay, if it thought more about what being a reality set in space is.
But instead they want to be a PvP game which hazes newcomers.
Those people who survive the hazing and continue playing are thus invested in the hazing system, and will continue wanting EVE to remain the same.
Hazing is good for having people commit to a group, but it’s not real good for expanding potentials. It will always be a closed group.
The question becomes how to get that emotional tie that hazing provides, in a system that allows diversity.
The answer is that it’s too much work, and won’t happen, EVE will bumble along as is. Because so far it’s worked, sort of.
1 Like
Appealing to more people doesn’t mean it’ll do better. Because to change EVE to appeal to more people it means it has to do what every MMO out there does, which means it suddenly has to compete with those. Which doesn’t work because when the next new shiny MMO comes out those people will flock there. While at the same time, by making EVE more generic, you LOSE the attraction of the people who like EVE for what it is right now.
So the people you tried to attract will move to greener pastures as they always do, and the people you had you alienated yourself from. Being niche is GOOD, it means there’s always a steady and loyal player base without having to deal with competitors.
So again, “for the good of the game” should be translated to “I personally want this”.
1 Like
Isn’t that the whole point? The game designers decided to make the reality player-driven. They then chose to set the functionality that allows such interaction in a space-simulation. Or at least, an imagined rendering of a space simulation.
If by “they” you mean the players, then I agree.
Which is where it gets tricky. If CCP are “agnostic” or neutral on this style of gameplay - as long as it makes them money / differentiates them from the rest of the market(?) - then who are we (you) to decide it should be something different?
In many ways, you could argue that CCP’s insistence on working with its player base just creates a rod for their own back. The mantra of the “hazers” [sic] is that any interference in the fundamental sand-pit style of the game would mean that CCP were reneging on their foundational game design. So, really, can CCP ever make changes, other than minor tweaking to the playable game environment, if it risks interfering with the “anything goes” approach that they created in the first place?
Who is “they”? Remember the basic idea is that EVE is a sandbox and is largely player driven. The economy is almost entirely player driven.
And what is this “hazing”? Most players don’t go out of their way to shoot noobs. They’ll shoot them if the opportunity presents itself, but it is not like many players seek out new players to shoot them.
So right off the bat we have a couple of issues with your narrative.
This is predicated on the prior commentary being true. If it isn’t then it totally falls apart.
See previous comment.
You are assuming that diversity is not allowed.
Or EVE has always been like this. It isn’t “hazing” it is just if you got an edge…exploit it.
Surely that is all any game designer wants … to create a game that the vast majority of players are interested in extracting enjoyment from? How can that be bad if the players are then succeeding; surely it means the designers have been successful?
It might not, but it certainly did? Plus, on your related point:
Expanding player numbers and or / increasing the revenue base both seem like sound business options to me. But, is your reasoning correct? CCP previously explained that one reason they buffed the free-to-play option was to stop too many of those new players subsequently converting to subscriptions. So, you are correct that alpha clone state appears to be designed to increase player numbers; what’s your evidence for the rest of your statement(s)?
And this is the crux. Why? Why do they have to keep it going? No-one seems to allow that CCP might once have had a creative vision. One they thought would make money, true, but a vision nonetheless. And a sandbox, player-driven one at that. It is logical to think they are driven by the almighty ISK (even if converted to US$ in some offshore tax haven). But maybe, just maybe, they would rather let the game die naturally than bastardize their vision? And certainly a lot of commentators on these forums seem to be of the same opinion from the playerbase perspective. You want to change the game? Fine. Just don’t call it Eve.
The thread title, perhaps ?
1 Like
Let me guess. You eat at McDonalds because it’s mhaute cuisine, right?
There ya go, Lucas, I showed you.
2 Likes