Security status effects tethering

Communications Center Crime & Punishment
1155

Here’s the true irony that will give Lucas apoplexy…as he is anti P2W every bit as much as anti gank…

What CCP have effectively done over time, and especially with the latest changes, is make ganking an activity for rich people…and especially P2W people. People who can simply mine their wallets aren’t going to spend grind time chasing down clone soldier tags…and let’s face it, the cost of getting security status back to 0 from -2 is really only the cost of a pint of beer.

The irony being that its CCP themselves driving towards more P2W.

There’s also the added factor that groups such as Safety already have a quite high average income per gank…around 400m ISK. I also know other gank groups have things like corp rewards for ganks, so the cost is not actually met by individual players. So the ganker wings of big corps can easily sustain ganking via corp donations.

It’s the ISK poor gankers who lose out from all the changes. Ironic really, when one considers that the changes are supposed to help the ISK poor from being targetted :slight_smile:

3 Likes
1156

This is basically par for the course, though. ‘Balancing’ highsec PvP has always revolved around making it more expensive. One would think the land was a hellscape when wars were 1/50th the price and every corporation was a free for all target but I survived it without feeling like I was being griefed out of the game. By in large, the primary effect of making it more expensive to fight is to take smaller groups and force them to merge into larger entities that a ‘solo player’ or ‘small corp’ has even less chance of defending against. It has never worked, and it never will work to balance PvP against new players because it’s those new players who lose tools and opportunity to fight at all.

Every time they move the PvP that much farther out of reach the people at the bottom have to look up even higher at the plateau they feel like they’ll never reach, and instead of asking to bring it down low, they keep asking for it to be raised so high that nobody can get there and call that ‘balance’: What they can not do, you should not be able to do either.

6 Likes
1157

I have but one like to give you for that succinct summary.

1158

I would say that there is a particular individual who is anti EvE in general. And given their response to past posts and unwillingness to even have an open discussion and argument in good faith, and mostly how he responds to people having fun, is that he doesn’t hate EvE. He Loathes this game, and loathes even more the joy some people get from it and is seeking to destroy that all covered with a bunch of smoke and mirrors

With that said, I don’t even bother anymore with engagement.

The anti-gank thing was just a convenient cover for the real motivation.

Apparently this is how the shareholders view the gaming community. But EvE is still not P2W. It’s Pay to gamble larger losses. And they know it. It’s a nice little racket.

Or, instead of farming tags, just nab the clone soldiers when they spawn on your normal travels about low sec. It’s what I do. I call it, opportunistic game play. Kinda like hunting players.

That would include me. I be poor compared to the vast majority of EvE players. But that doesn’t stop me. There are ways. It’s all about rolling and adapting to the changes.

No, that too was a cover for CCP’s changes. Smoke and mirrors to make it look like they care. But the fact is that it was a tactical decision to protect those that are paying for plex and omega verses those that might, maybe, if they like the game enough. I know a lot of people are saying the devs are out of touch. They aren’t. Remember that CCP is a business. And a business needs to make revenue to pay their employees, pay over head. Pay back investors, etc.

And ib4 but Hellman needs another helicopter!

Look, he built this company. If he wants another helicopter, that’s his prerogative. If you don’t like it, use Capitalism to send him a message. Stop paying for omega/plex. In fact, do one better, don’t even play the game. It shorts there numbers and makes the game look like it’s underperforming to the shareholders/investors/whatever and when they are hit in the pocketbook, that’s when they hold owners, C level management accountable for their financial decisions.

4 Likes
1159

Isn’t that how everything gets balanced though? Over time veteran players get richer and richer, and they get better at mastering mechanics with a high efficiency and so it becomes easier for them to do it at scale. In other games there is usually gear redundancy, so as veteran players reach a peak a new set of gear comes out rendering all old gear redundant and giving everyone a more level playing field.

EVE doesn’t have that so there has to be some way to reduce the advantages veteran players have when they start to affect a lot of new players which their activities.

Why is it never OK to make PvP harder, but it’s always OK to make PvE harder? Lots of people here advocate more risk and cost and less rewards in highsec PvE to try to push people into doing other things. Why is it not OK for highsec PvP to be riskier, more costly and less rewarding to push people into other parts of the universe?

1160

How do I block somebody when their public profile is hidden?

1 Like
1161

Click your face on the top right, preferences. In the left hand menu, pick users. Add their name to the ignored list.

1162

Thanks!

1163

That is spot on.

1164

What I am saying in regard to balance is that making a thing more expensive is to make it a tool that only veterans can afford, and handing exclusive control of play options to the very rich creates or exacerbates the very gulf between the old and new that some people are often complaining about. This method of balance increases the magnitude the imbalance it sought to address making it even worse than useless. It takes things away from the new and the poor and gives them nothing in return, unless you count the opportunity to be at the mercy of an even richer and more powerful foe than before. A foe that the failed attempt to balance PvP probably helped create.

1 Like
1166

The problem with that thinking is that making things cheaper doesn’t open it up for new players, it opens it up to even more abuse from veterans. Keeping with ganking as an example, it’s not a mechanic that a lot of new players get into and it’s not sustainable for most new people as a playstyle even though it’s currently very cheap to do. New players are on the receiving end of the ganks though, so keeping it cheap to do harms new players.

What CCP seem to be trying to do is making it expensive enough that gankers choose to go after targets that can generate a good return, which will mean other veterans in most cases. What they’ve not thought out is that most of the gankers don’t need the ISK as they already get plenty on their alts, and they do it to grief players. It will probably work a bit, but it won’t work enough to solve the problem they have.

1167

That’s a nice opinion you got there :smiley:

And yet, gankers can do it for profit as well. Which you well know :smiley:

Or rather shouldn’t cause you’re just a nub right?

2 Likes
1168

I am including both of you in the quote as i try to catch up on the threadnaught. There are a couple of things I want to address about the ‘core principles’. You do know that Eve has had turnover in the 19 years it has been around both on our side of the screen AND on the dev side.

There are devs that have gone on to other things that I dearly miss and with them went some of the history and continuity of the game. It is the code version of the childrens game ‘telephone’ each loss and replacement muddies the message, alters it in some subtle way. I have joked with the devs that I am part of the institutional memory of eve as are other long time players. We remember better than the new devs what has changed and sometimes even why that change happened. For reference this moment from this years Fanfest actually shocked me,

Youtube link from fanfest

I mean seriously? 57% of the players were not playing 4 years ago and 63% of the CCP crew were not here either. So if you want to talk about the permanence of the core principles you have to push it through the filter of that reality.

Then you have the basic idea that Eve does not WANT to be what it was . . . it wants to grow, change with the times or to quote CCP

“EVE Online was first published in 2003, and back then the world was a very different place,” says EVE creative director Bergur Finnbogason. “The idea of an MMO was very different. Throughout the years we’ve tried a lot of different things, and in many ways this new player experience is the culmination of 18 years of successes, failures, and mishaps.”

The article was written last year that had that quote.

So these changes . . . remember the OP that started this thread oh so many posts ago?

They may not be the original idea of Eve, they may not be what you believe Eve to be or what you want it to be or become. But the changes are ones that the devs saw a purpose to, have a reason for making. It will be interesting to see if it results in the changes they hope for.

m

2 Likes
1169

I disagree.

If you change the original idea of EVE, it isn’t EVE.

Sadly, its prob gonna go that route. It’ll most likely end up like retail UO, a sad shell of itself.

Sad panda man.

1170

@Mike_Azariah
Yeah I agree. I think the argument “but the core principles” is just a way to try to shut down conversation and that any MMO looking to survive can’t rigidly adhere to design decisions made decades ago.

@Gix_Firebrand
There have already been changes to the original idea of EVE, and no, not just recent changes either. I’ve also not seen you argue against every changes CCP makes, which leads me to believe what you’re really upset about isn’t changes to the original idea of EVE, you’re just upset about changes you personally don’t like.

The solution is to make your own MMO, then you don’t have to put up with other people having a say in how the MMO progresses over time.

3 Likes
1171

Wow Mike. What you wrote seems reasonable. So basically we should just let Eve decay and die as there is no way to save it from market forces.

1172

I said the opposite. If things are not working, if the market drives you in a new direction perhaps you should be willing to change/adapt as opposed to decay and die because you want to ‘keep it like it was’. Not sure what you read but I was quoting CCP.

m

1 Like
1173

I don’t want to argue with you, but what you wrote basically told me to go find a different game because Eve is going to continue to evolve away from its original design - in a direction I have no interest in.

4 Likes
1174

Key point being its “successes, failures, and mishaps” have led us to the numbers we now have. Which of those did we have more of?

Sorry Mike, but I have to take that statement as CCP does not want the 50k players it once had and is now happy with what it can keep. CCP can’t keep new players not because of griefing, but more it’s become a boring grind. I do not think they can make an old nitch game appeal to the zoomers but go ahead and try. The numbers will show if they are right or wrong.

“years of successes, failures, and mishaps” were a lot more fun when CCP communicated better, admit mistakes and we could all laugh it off together, CCP and the player base alike. It’s still a “cult classic” to “put in a long skill, a patch is coming”.

I bought a drone. :smirk:

3 Likes
1175

All a bit of a red herring. Most of the people who have ever played chess ( a 500 year old game ) are dead. Yet the core principles of the game remain the same after centuries. I’m pretty sure if a 500 year old game can manage that…a 20 year old one can too !

6 Likes