Did you even read the OP?
1 Like
With the current rounds of nerfs it’s hard to call anything OP anymore, I can barely fit a loki.
I’m still finding it hard to have sympathy for your preventable loss fitting issues are no excuse for afk hauling losses.
You can also just stop giving CCP your money and time. Like a normal consumer would, when they dislike a product. It’s not even that hard anymore, since a few alternatives have appeared on the market.
GJ, you got me.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Being a “single issue voter” is downright silly.
CCP’s been nerfing my preferred play style for over a decade now, but I still think that the game has merit, and offers an experience I can’t find elsewhere. If I quit games (instead of trying to improve them) every time a single thing comes along that’s contrary to my preferences, I’d have very few things to play.
What do you think is going to speak louder? A loss in revenue or some random “improvement/rant” threads on a useless forum?
The way how asset safety was removed only for abandoned structures has a really fishy taste in my opinion.
A lot of people state that asset safety was bad from the start. Maybe it was, maybe not.
But what I really don’t understand: Why is the asset safety still there for fueled structures. Imagine some group manages to destroy the Keepstar in Perimeter, grinding through all the reinforcement cycles, defeating the defenders multiple times. Why is the stuff in there safe? Because TEST managed to put some fuel into it? What has fuel to do with asset safety?
I would like to see the reactions here if they introduce some way to hack into Nullsec Keepstars and let them self-destruct without any asset safety or warning…
2 Likes
The forum threads. One person quitting makes zero difference, and the majority of the people who lost stuff to this change weren’t paying customers anyway. At least the forum thread might earn you some undeserved sympathy.
Good question. It should be removed entirely.
I was not talking about this specific change. I was arguing generally. I don’t care about this specific change.
Generally, if a company can correlate loss of revenue to some specific changes they made, they will want to improve that. They are not going to care about some random forum posts, if they can look at other more objective metrics to improve profits.
So my point still stands, if you dislike the direction eve is going, then stop giving CCP money and time. If this is then going to have negative impact to CCPs bottomline, then CCP will change course.
Edit: I’m smart.
What? I think you’ve confused me with someone else. Otherwise, please show me where I’ve been whining about this change.
Been taking the “General Discussion” acid for too long? Some of those vapors starting to have some impact?
EDIT: Yeah, I thought so…
A loss in revenue is a scorched earth tactic. It might not leave a game to come back to.
Then that game was never meant to succeed.
Can that be said about EVE?
Sure. Just because it is EVE, are we supposed to tolerate bad company practice and management?
I thought EVE players were supposed to understand economy…?
The effect was by proxy, but CCP enabled it.
Can’t lock a dog in a room with a steak, and then say “I never fed the steak to the dog, the dog ate it!”
I think that from a business perspective, a customer that is currently not paying is not necessarily the same thing as a non-paying customer. People can stop paying for subscriptions for any number of reasons, and I’m sure that any business would like to see them come back when they’re able to.
Also, I won’t speculate whether most of the people who got affected by this change negatively are, or aren’t, paying customers. Regardless of what the ratio is, it still has very little bearing on my argument that alienating any customers without some kind of resulting utility is contrary to the nature of any business.
That is why I believe that this change was conscious on CCP’s part. Maybe they made some calculations that throwing some players to the wolves would create enough media coverage to make up for it. If so, that’s impressively Machiavellian of them, but does very little to inspire player trust going forward.
2 Likes
I feel sorry for the op.
Seems CCP have done it again, really would love to know who makes those decisions.
In all seriousness if CCP did say that before that anything in these structures are safe, they should have remained safe. With the way MMO players move around or have time constraints due to RL you would think CCP would know better than to just write off the players in-game assets.
I guess the moral of the story is not to keep your assets in player structures as you can no longer expect CCP to play fair.
“I can’t legitimately earn my killboard glory/phat lewt, not even by preying on the weak and feeble or gate camping, but fortunately CCP made it easy for me to take advantage of AFK corps instead of earning it through actual battle, therefore I suppose this concept” - The Worse-Than-Hardcore-Carebears
That is the end result. Loss of trust in the company.
2 Likes
It’s ironic that the players quoted in various articles who scored the big kills from this also think that this change was pretty ■■■■■■■■. They still do it, because they essentially have the obligation to, since the rules allow them to, and if they don’t, then someone else will. But when hundreds of billions of stuff drops, and you realize that you just ruined someone’s life at no real fault of their own, all you can think about is “what the hell was CCP thinking when they did this?” This isn’t like ganking someone’s freighter with 50b of stuff inside, where the rightful argument is “yeah, you deserved that, you idiot.”
So I wouldn’t blame the PvPers themselves for this, just because they choose to hunt inactive structures. They are merely using the tools available to them for profit.
2 Likes
I agree, it’s not the PvPers fault. it’s CCP’s fault for allowing it to happen.
2 Likes