However, it’s funny that now you are ok with Instances where is that worry about 3rd parties and escalations now???
When it’s your thing it’s fine but when it’s CCP it’s a problem? That’s not coherent.
Also the problem is that you are trying to solve a different problem than CCP.
Through the Abyss CCP tries to add avenues for people who are short on time and want quick rewarding play sessions. What is introduced now is the long awaited PvP form of that.
What you are trying to solve with this is tournaments and social interactions around PvP, what CCP tries to solve is the absence of short PvP sessions activities.
To better explain this, what is the reward of the people engaging in your Arenas? How does the Corporation grows by hosting those matches? Why would they host those matches?
And I know your answer already: PvP for PvP’s sake. And that’s not enough, I’m sorry. You are asking CCP to put money into making glorified Training grounds when they could instead put money into making a universal, on-demand, available 24/24 to all players PvP option that everyone will be able to use without anchoring a Citadel.
Not even mentionning that your idea doesn’t solve the open-world PvP problem at all.
I give it a 6/10, needs a higher reason than just doing it for its own sake. Otherwise, it’s an interesting idea as a novelty for a corp.
no and i did mentioned it …I am not ok with instanced PVP in a way that presented here , I never told that im up against competetive PVP… i do run torunament style fights … Please DO NOT detorate.
I had already accepted this release is coming and im coming with sugestions and damage control.
Are you trying to come with mutual grounds here or you have another agenda ?
And you have already harrassed me out of topic subjects… your attitudes are out of measurement … what is you agenda here?
Very omnipotent… assuming its only me who is sharing these ideas … majority agree on these … and also
NO … and so many times i had reasoned and backed up my ideas here … unlike you just spilling some omnipotent sentences … claiming self proven … so please … Start learn proper debate methods. what kind of ENTITLED mindset … give you delusion that., im the only one here up against instanced PVP in given conditions and standing up for SANDBOX PVP…??? … so far… majority here against it… … bunch of CSM and you trying to push the idea through our throats and we are reasoning
It would be a much more productive use of your time to try to come up with a good design for those Arenas, what would make them more than simple Training grounds, how they would fit in the EVE ecosystem, what would make them unique?
Oh and again, now I don’t see you talk about the “beautiful tradition” and all those things, where is the “beautiful tradition” you were talking about in anchored Arenas?
@bluelysian - I believe @Dantelion_Shinoni was just offering constructive criticism in his first post. It did not appear to be an attack.
There are issues in your idea with sustainability. If you want to sell the idea, you will need to relax and listen to criticism. It might make your proposal more popular and help you improve it.
You are not understanding the line of reasoning here. Brisc made an assertion, “Players wanted nerfs to highsec aggression”. I challenged him to provide evidence to support it. That’s all. This issue of “a vote of all the players” is something you imagine I implied.
No. I am arguing that highsec criminal gameplay is essential to the social ecosystem of EVE and overall player retention and that there is a correlation between lower player counts and highsec aggression nerfs. I also point out that Brisc makes claims about player retention and what players want without the support of evidence. The implications are coming from you, not me.
@bluelysian - As a developer (not in EVE, yet) everything is constructive criticism. Everyone expresses ideas in their own way. Listen to all of it without becoming emotionally involved and use what you can to improve your project.
P.S. You need your own thread, we are way off-topic now.
I am not making claims - I am telling you facts, confirmed by the Devs, regarding player retention rates. Steve said the same thing. Steve is the longest serving CSM member in history, so he’s been in the room for all these discussions. If you don’t believe me, then believe him.
There is no rational reason why CCP would have made these changes to highsec if they believed that it was reducing the number of players in the game. At least recently, if not before, when they’ve made major changes that have resulted in large numbers of players quitting, they’ve reversed those changes, as we saw with Blackout.
I’m sorry, but you are letting your personal playstyle and idea of fun cloud an objective view as to what most players want. You are not in the majority when it comes to highsec PvP.
Let me say it once more: Either wardecs and the nerfs to them significantly affected retention, or they did not. The narrative around the old wardec mechanics coming from yourself and CCP was that highsec wars amounted to some kind of emergency, that “immediately removing war decs as a mechanic” would be an appropriate response to that emergency. Nowhere was any evidence presented to support that claim (and I have already explained why the ‘corp activity’ metric is nonsense). Not once has CCP said anything to the effect of "Wardecs cause x% of new players to quit the game’. In fact, when retention increased in early 2020, CCP credited it to the (actually very good) improvements to the launcher and character creation UI, the “first five minutes”. No mention of wardecs.
Overall, your pattern in this discussion has been to ignore anything inconvenient to your position, while tossing out random bits of evidence that do not say what you claim they do and blatantly misrepresenting what I and others have written. There are also comments like this:
Cool it on complaining about posts and saying you are outright flagging them. That is just as disruptive to the overall conversation if not more so.
More on topic this should be at least somewhat interesting because in a small 2v2 format EWAR is very stupidly strong when correctly applied. And if somebody is running something ridiculously blingy they might run into a pair of bricks who’s attack is the 15 minute clock insuring that blinged ship and pod go poof.
Prior posts contains several chain personal harrasment ok . Me defending myself in one message disruptive. thank you for feedback. I appreciated and i removed. thanks for your personal opinions we see it
These are not facts, they are anecdotes from forums and blogs. I could link posts from wardeccers and minerbumping that say the opposite, but I don’t. Why? Because opinions are not facts.
Saying “I was there and CCP showed us such and so” is also not evidence. This is just another appeal to authority.
This is true. I agree that CCP believes that the nerfs to highsec aggression are in their best interest. However, I don’t agree with their assessment. The main enemy of player retention is boredom, not ‘griefing’. Players who quit out of boredom do not make forum posts or write blogs. They don’t fill out the little questionnaire on the account management page. They just leave and never come back.
I argue that selling EVE to new players on the strength of its PVE is a mistake and the removal of low entry-barrier PVP in highsec means that new players have no route to get into PVP, aside from dropping some cash on PLEX and skill injectors (or grinding ISK) to compete with established players in low and null. I also argue that the introduction of instanced PVP will not be effective because it reduces social interaction as compared to world PVP and doesn’t address the entry barrier problem. Finally, I argue that there is no hard evidence that highsec PVP damaged player retention, nor that nerfs to highsec PVP improved it. You have addressed none of these arguments in a substantive way, choosing instead to argue like a corporate lobbyist, repeating the same talking points over and over.
There is no question that they affected retention positively. We don’t have enough information from the devs to know whether it was “significant.” But it’s not really disputable that they had an impact.
It was presented in private to the CSM. I saw it. Steve saw it. We both drew the same conclusions.
Next time I have Goodfella on the show, I’ll ask him directly if the war dec mechanics had a positive impact, so he can say yes and you can stop demanding more proof that I’m not legally allowed to give you.
Stop whining. You guys can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
The curious thing is that I totally agree with this statement. We are only disagreeing about how CCP should make decisions as to how Eve evolves - if not by a vote, how would you suggest CCP direct themselves as to the best course of evolution ?
everything is constructive criticism. Everyone expresses ideas in their own way. Listen to all of it without becoming emotionally involved and use what you can to improve your project.