I buy car to drive it over highway, Lada Niva for wood and rough terrain, and speed boat for lake. Only stupid one like will buy car for lake …
2 Likes
When I came to auto dealer I ask for red car 1,6 l turbo motor, parking camera, surraund sound, collor android display … this and that… and if he can satisfy my request he will get my money simple as that …
If ccp is satisfied with the amount of money it gets from PVPers then it is everything ok, let’s stick to PVPers …
but i know it is not … 
1 Like
So if you spend your money intelligently there, why would you try to spend money on a game whose number 1 virtue is always-pvp, and then say you don’t want to be forced to pvp?
Here’s the thing. PVP is what makes this game. Take away the always-pvp and what do we have? Honestly, even Elite Dangerous has more depth than Eve at that point. Sure, the odd nimby like yourself would be happy, but you are by and large the minority. And even if you were somehow in the majority, whatever it is you’re doing, you’d likely notice the effects on everything else (such as the market), and you’d stop having fun too.
Destruction drives Eve. NOBODY wants to get their ■■■■ blown up unless they’ve decided to quit Eve and officer-fit a thrasher with everything they own. You might not like it either, but honestly, this game would die in every way without constant destruction, unless you singular goal was gathering as much isk as you could for the sole purpose of having the isk.
2 Likes
This is a “false dilemma” fallacy.
New players don’t influence the economics of EVE (unless they’re “PLEX-buying whales”). Destruction of a few ships worth a few 10’s of millions of ISK each is insignificant.
Making EVE more fun for them collectively will have no short/medium-term effect on EVE’s internal economy.
The argument that loss of rookie ganks would be the end of EVE does send a message though.
The problem isn’t rookies as you identified: it is the rich veterans exploiting the safety of highsec to influence the economy of New Eden. Again, you are conflating ‘new player’ with all of highsec which it is not. In fact, even with the resurgence of nullsec, most of the production and destruction goes on in highsec by veteran players farming and building in near safety.
No one, well almost no one is against helping new players get into the game and would be averse to more about safety for them if needed. The trick is to do that without giving that safety to the veterans who will just use it to out-compete those same new players and make it even harder for them to get a foothold.
Eve is already suffering massively due to overproduction of things, to the point it is harder than ever for a new player to get a start as an industrialist. We definitely don’t need more general safety buffs, especially for highsec where any established player who spends a modicum of effort and pays attention is invulnerable. Perhaps there are more ways to target safety or income just to new players but it isn’t that easy a problem to solve without completely isolating them in a dedicated sector of space. You don’t want to keep them there forever, but I think a real dedicated new player area is an idea worth exploring.
So what… we all play the same game, do we not? We aren’t all new players, and there’s no cut-off where you can assert that a player is new vs a player is a veteran, both because players can roll alts and because we all learn at different speeds. I’m not talking about rookie ganks at all, I’m talking to LSG, a dude who literally has an entire corp of his own alts. Clearly not a rookie, even if such exceptions were possible which they clearly aren’t.
Sounds like you need a Corp friend.
You think you’re joking, but i brought a small t1 fleet into fw space and got carriers dropped on us.
Everything you do in eve is PvP. The market, industry, mining, mission running, recruitment; you are always competing against other players. I suggest you embrace that. It is what makes this game great.
I suspect you however refer to ship-to-ship combat. Make an alpha alt and join a large nullsec entity, focus on participating in what they do. Be it ratting, mining, roaming, whatever. Go out of your way to make new friends. Listen to the advice they give you. Do it for a month and keep an open mind. I think you’ll find that the game has opened itself up to you in way you’ll like.
That is your idea of a good time. That is not necessarily their idea of a good time.
Lets hope they never find out about goon’s supercap umbrella then, eh?
1 Like
I hope you continue to get blobbed until you unsub
1 Like
Exactly! I just saw a two year old vet mining in a Mackinaw in a rookie system. I don’t believe these guys have any shame at all. Luckily some elite pvp’rs were on hand to help. 
(Praise James)
If you want to get into small gang pvp, with plenty of targets, loads of fun, and for a cause that is just and exciting,…
I mean we are litteraly the “ready player ones” of the game, saving Eve from economic ruin and providing content for thousands of players.
Might I be so bold as to recommend joining my Corp, a member of the mighty CODE. Alliance and the New Order of High Sec. Ranked #12 in pvp in Eve, #1 in High Sec.
Email me in game. Check us out at…
For a pretend ally, an example can be given as follows
entity A and B are hostile to each other
entity C is hostile to both A and B
entities A and B set +5 standings (usually for 2-4 hours or the duration of the op, usually killing/taking sob related) and then complete their task.
entity C is now removed from null, or in danger of being removed.
the premise
Behind all of this is that instant standings allow for null (and other) entities to artificially expand their sphere of “allies” for the purpose of a task. this in ways highly invalidates the entire purpose of a standing system and alliance.
I believe that Alliances are something that are built upon slowly, over time, and work up to military interaction.
Thus, in eve, benefits (including station use) should require standings, standings that however, require a month or more to build.
There will always be work around’s but there is better ways to structure something, then other ways. In general the more complex the system is, the more difficult it is to find a workaround to a change.
Yes, to put it lightly, I am extremely experienced with nullsec pvp.
that is true, but there is not limits on the sizes that anyone meets. think about it for a moment. What alliance has Maxed / unlimited corporations with 16,500 players?
So this argument does not really hold water, because in essence the claim you are making is that “limiting the size of alliance will not change the game”.
the important thing to take here is that this is only part of the equation. The intent behind these changes is to make it logistically impossible to coordinate military fleets on a battlefield with no identifiable markers.
For example
Lets say we impose a set of rules on the standing system which are as follows
- alliances now are limited in the amount of allies based on a skill, up to 5
- alliances are now limited in active wars, based on a skill, up to 5
- both treaty types require 100m Isk a week + 100% per an ally or enemy
- A skill exists to reduce this value by 5% up to 25% at level 5.
- Overviews no longer allow you to sort by tickers (corporate, or alliance)
Now lets say we pile 7500 players in a system.
This means that roughly 30 fleets will be in system.
From your alliances perspective, you can view 5 of them as blue, and 5 of them as red. This leaves the other 20 as neutral, with no way of identifying who is friendly, or not.
this will persist on through all the fleets, likely ending with at best, 5 blues, 25 neutrals, or worse, 5 blues, 5 reds, and 20 neutrals.
From this point the engagement will be very difficult to manage, eve if you could come up with a work around, there is a high chance of you killing allies, and thus the result is searching for potential work around to the system.
The best options i can think of consist of two.
The first, and more practical results in wave attacks with two coalitions fighting 5 allies, vs 5 enemies, and this is a highly desirable effect. With smaller, more frequently battles we increase pvp content, and also make alliances more meaningful. I am highly support of finding huge benefits to “real allies” and to having “real enemies”.
The second solution would require some minor alterations to the way the standing systems work for players themselves, but this would simply be resolved by removing individual players ability to set personal standings.
This would transite players into the scope of belonging to entities view points, as opposed to individual. honestly, many problems have come from personal to personal standings in eve, which eventually and may still merit/merrited change (like adding titan /super alts to watch list).
Please understand, the intent of these changes are as follows
- Breaking up the population into smaller organizations in the hopes of encouraging them to create purpose. This purpose in return will result in social interaction in corporations, and as a result will spring eve back to life. I believe this effect will demonstrate itself almost instantly (likely around a week period or two of showing its fruit).
Second,
These changes improve the value of the standings system, and help create even more player narrative on the game.
Third,
This changes allow for more complex political interactions, which as a result allow for more new entities a chance to find new friends, and find a place to fit in.
Forth,
The breaking up of the major blue donuts provide a large amount of content and help invalidate pvp intelligence channels which work preventing pvp from taking place. The
result of this interestingly provide more validity to gate camping, and alliance alliances to naturally defend and protect their space. this is a huge change to eve’s pvp and shift from roaming to get pvp, to camping to get pvp. That is more casual friendly, with out making eve change in any significant way (in terms of the actual pvp) which is a good common ground for pvpers.
when we talk about external communications we can break down those conversations generally into two types of interactions.
- entities agree not to shoot or challenge each others sov
- entities enter a coalition or alliance together.
I do not see a very big issue with the non-sov taking rule set, though i would probably eventually advocate for some sort of mechanic that has a chance to trigger stations to becoming killable out side of desired times (probably something dealing with farming rates so that the more you farm, the more likely you are to lose your crap to help balance the economy).
What i do see as a major problem in eve is that the population should not be consolidating into massive groups. this behavior is highly destructive to the game
The above changes are changes that are intended to make military interaction and massive webs impossible, if not down right difficult.
Thus, the topic is not really so much about “external communications” as it is about blue donuts since the topic is more about how they interact and what they do, then the topic of 3rd party software related interaction.
There is actually cars that can drive from land into the water and act as boats. I’v seen them in person and they are awesome
I’ve never seen one IRL, but yes, boat cars are a real thing. I’m pretty sure there were even a few prototype car planes too, back in the day. They flew, kind of.
we use to take the boat and jet skies out to mission bay all the time, the old married cupple had one It was nice. Looked like an old classic convertible, nice polish.
It drove right down the boat ramp into the water.
In general, the more complex the system is the more open it is to total breakdown.
Never fought with neutrals in system when they were ‘friendly’ then? Cause I’ve done that a bunch of times (in low as well as null)… it’s not as difficult as you seem to think it would be. Even if there’s a ton of stuff on the overview broadcasts go to the top so they’re easy to identify.
What? You just aren’t making any sense now. I’m saying there are already these limits in place, and arbitrarily changing these will not “make it logistically impossible to coordinate military fleets on a battlefield” (with or without ‘identifiable markers’)… unless you’re removing the player info from local as well and all we can see is ships in space? Cause the FC says “Shoot the primary” and the fleet (mostly) does that. And the FCs of multiple fleets can all communicate on the one talky app… so i can’t see how the chaos you want to see would ever ensue.
No it won’t and no there isn’t, see above.
And now finally we get to the heart of the matter. The problem it seems is the unlimited resources which allow the population to consolidate into massive groups. Because as long as there is no resource scarcity having a larger group than ‘the other guy’ will always be preferential. Stopping a basic human trait in an MMO game seems like a tall order.
What you have proposed is not going to achieve your intended outcomes.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.