No entitlement whatsoever. Perhaps try giving your head a wobble and stop accusing anyone who dares to express an HS centric opinion of “unrestrained entitlement”. I would respect a reasoned argument, just that everyone bypasses that option and goes straight for “whining carebear/miner/trader”.
I have simply tried asking what will be the consequences for the economy if chokepoint systems go to maximum corruption for an unknown period of time. Do you have an opinion? A view? No entitlement there, my friend, just a simple, reasonable question, given that the Eve economy is well known to be a fragile and delicate beast?
But if they are chokepoints on the Amarr to Jita route? Or in close proximity to starter systems so that new players blunder into them?
It does not matter if some systems become corrupted. It does matter if certain systems become corrupted. As @DeMichael_Crimson has sensibly observed, there is no mention of whether or how players will be warned that a system has been corrupted. Its security status will ostensibly remain unchanged, but not its mechanics. Plenty of the Career Agent missions send pilots a few systems away; it will be a bit off if they send new players into a corrupted system to get ganked by someone who would not normally throw away their ship on a valueless new player target, but can now do so because there are no consequences for that attack.
As someone who sincerely aims to push people to corrupt high sec, specifically Ohide and Mehatoor, I think corruption is exciting in theory and TBD in practice. I have no doubt that the more entrepreneurial & skilled haulers, traders, and industrialists of high sec will be able to embrace the interruption and profit massively off of the situation. Whether that is:
Waiting for the insurgency to end, and then grabbing a bunch of nice new empty HS moons’ Athanors
Stockpiling resources and timing the market for when the trade route is cut for higher profits
When pirates have cut the trade route, offering to buy pirates’ massive m3 spoils from “liberated” freighters at 90% Jita, moving them to a hub, and reselling them for a tidy profit (the cutoff points are far from hubs and what pirate wants to haul multiple freighter worths of stuff)
You see nothing but calamity upon some “need-to-stay-that-way” systems, that have “no good reason” to be “nonsensically” hit by player pirates. That’s the entitlement speaking. I see infinite opportunity at disrupting the status quo that allows small high sec groups to watch larger, slower, dumber-then-them high sec groups get hit by pirates and letting the smarter, more capable little guys emerge for the better as the crucible burns away weakness, and the lack of stability actually let the game be interesting for those in and out of high sec alike.
Try your head at wobbling, sir.
Edit: not even going to touch “but think of the newbies!” pearl clutching. That one is as old and useless an argument as time itself at this point.
Nice. The security status needed to fluctuate due to in-system activities, all player-influenced. It adds realism and spice and makes the game more immersive.
You’re scared
Nothing wrong with ganking… and if the system is turned it’s not ganking anymore anyway.
Ships need to go boom. Could be yours… could be mine. It’s good for the game, everybody havin fun
I am too! The cluster’s security status cannot stay static, it makes the game feel fake and manipulated.
With this new expansion the game will be more alive.
And if it drives away paying players? How does that benefit Eve? Stockpiling? That does the game so much good that CCP tried to go after it with “scarcity”.
Fine, you see infinite opportunity. I see potential lasting damage to an economy that even CCP does not understand these days. No entitlement there, I am just a lowly solo player. I can survive a period of corruption, but I worry whether the game’s economy, of which we are all just cogs, can do so in such a blase manner.
Good luck to you. Oh, and no pearl clutching re new players, genuine concern. After all, even CCP is not blase about the new player experience and retention, for very good commercial reasons. I would be interested in whether @Mike_Azariah has had any assurances about the impact of these changes on new players, if his NDA permits.
If it acquires more paying players? Been 1:1 mentoring someone who hasn’t decided to buy a sub, and the prospect of pirate FW is enticing him to convert to Omega. I’m sure he’s not the only person out there thinking that. There’s also been zero high sec systems corrupted, so zero people are looking to unsub over the mechanic. So we’re already looking to be net-positive in new players.
And it is not like any system can be corrupted. It has to be <=0.8 security status and reasonably within 1 or 2 jumps of faction warfare lowsec systems. Not just any lowsec systems. So there are still hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of high sec systems that will never be affected by corrpution.
The game is built for groups. I genuinely encourage you to join one. Playing solo is a delibrate self-limiting choice, and I cannot imagine the perspective you’ll gain by grouping up.
I think it’s quite the reverse. In places like corp chat I have heard ‘I am bored’ a lot more than I have heard ’ Eve is too hard’. I think the majority who leave Eve are simply bored, and they are bored because they never took any real risk but just settled into a cosy highsec lifestyle. Thus I welcome things getting more dangerous. I myself could do with more danger…rather than just accumulating endlessly more ships.
I have enjoyed myself immensely for years. Not interested. The reason I actually took the plunge into Eve after years of wavering was when I found enough testimony that solo was viable and enjoyable. The constant propaganda that it only works for groups is not true - some bits may only work for groups, but plenty of other bits do not need that dynamic. Anyway, that is not the issue here, I am sure CCP is grateful for my loyal subscription. My perspective is fine.
As for your other point, I come back to the basic question around which people keep skipping. If the odd random HS systems are corrupted, probably no consequence. If chokepoint systems are corrupted, big consequence. Think of the systems that went Trig. Only one mattered, only one had real, very big consequence, but that had consequence. Now, people can argue about Niarja and whether it was good or bad for the game. That debate is irrelevant. What cannot be denied is that it had a very big impact on how the HS end of the economy, and hauling between the trade hubs, worked. The fact that there have been some small adjustments since then suggest that CCP may feel that perhaps they went too far in allowing Niarja to fall, not that they are ever going to admit to making a mistake.
Fair enough - though I believe it is traditional to blame poor corporation leadership for such issues! Not a problem for me as a solo player, I set my own objectives and play as I want to play. It comes back to the eternal debate over new player retention, part of which involves deciding the definition of “new player”; which groups concern CCP the most for poor retention - those who quit after a few hours, those who quit after a few days, or those who quit after a few months.
I am not against change in principle, it is just that, as I say, even CCP do not seem to understand their economy these days, there is little evidence of devs playing and understanding the game itself, and thus I worry that a well meaning desire to “shake things up” could lead to “things being shaken up too much.” Which might be avoided if some thought was given to “don’t shake things up HERE or HERE, because we do not understand the consequences, but safe to shake things up HERE and HERE.”
Yes, and that is indeed the part that appeals to people. I don’t have too much more to add. I think “big positive consequences” and you think the opposite. That pretty much concludes the discussion.
There is no “basic question around which people keep skipping” here. If there is, it’s probably because you’re not communicating it well enough for me to know what it is – that entire paragraph doesn’t even contain a question. It does include, however, the conspiratorial and unfounded rationale that CCP Games operates as a gaming company around the idea whether “CCP allowing Niarja to fall was a mistake” which is just… not even worth touching. Only by playing alone, in high sec, could such a funny irrational idea persist.
I will agree to disagree on whether potential consequences are good or bad, but now you are committing the sin of arrogance in assuming that your perspective is superior to mine. You are not me, you are not a solo player, therefore you are in no position to have a reasonable view of my playing choices. I do not presume to have one of yours. By the way, I have twice come and gone from LS since DT, having achieved there what I wished to achieve. Sorry if that punctures your stereotype.
Sincere question: Do you believe CCP Games operates and make game design decisions using the idea “we [CCP Games] allowing Niarja to fall was a mistake”?
Because it has nothing to do with me-being-you, or being a solo player (when I returned to the game after 10 years, it was 1 year alone solo, and I can guarantee you I didn’t have this funny idea), and you’re right the above question has nothing to do with your gameplay style. So I don’t know why you’re suddenly hostile over me hating an idea.
I am merely pointing out that your isolation from other players is what allows the above question funny idea to persist. If me saying “I don’t like that idea” bothers you, don’t lash out at me, take a good hard look at your idea. If me pointing out that isolation bothers you, then I do recommend at least socializing with more players, since it’s clear you do not wish to play with them. None of this was intended as malice. It just really is an extremely strange idea.
Sincere question: “Do you believe that CCP assumes that in the twenty years it has run this game, it has never, behind closed doors, decided that maybe, just maybe, it took a wrong turning here or there?”
Sudden changes in staff and direction would suggest otherwise…
There has been, and remains, plenty of debate on questions such as Niarja in these fora. I am not asserting that CCP has definitely decided that the fall of Niarja was a mistake. I am simply noting what others have observed, that there is some evidence of them trying to ameliorate the situation that resulted. Maybe those observations are mistaken. This is not, however, a lone conspiracy theory I have developed. I am not hostile to you except when you presume to tell me I am playing wrong, that I have a wrong perspective for playing solo. I am not isolated from other players - I frequent these fora most days. What you think is an extremely strange idea perhaps says more about you than me.
But I’ve mostly been unimpressed with the play, and like Vortigern, I do like my own company.
I’m the kind of guy that can go to the pub and sit with my Ipad and just read with my earbuds in and ignore everyone. I don’t need to surround myself with others to have a good time irl or online.
But I can sit and have a chat with friends if I feel like it.
This expansion seems to be just another crap idea by CCP/PA to force certain playstyles on those who are just not interested, and probably never will be, just as some will never mine (so they say).
I agree. For one, I don’t presume to “read into” the patch notes and try to divine a whole complex organization’s rationale for a player-driven change that happened years ago. Similarly, I also don’t stare at a new Coke bottle design wondering whether it is because of a quarterly performance 3 years ago. So forgive me for finding it strange and I have no problem with the readers thinking more of me for it.
Well of course. Capitalist systems are unpredictable. But the alternative of 5 year pig iron plans and telling the people what they want doesn’t exactly have a great track record either…and that’s not a road CCP should be going down for the economy.
