Huh ? Where in this splurge of nonsense is ‘ Don’t undock what you can’t afford to lose’ taken into account ?
If someone is idiot enough to only have a 1bn ISK ship and nothing else, and they undock in that and lose it……no, we should not be changing the entire game mechanics to make things ‘fair’ for stupid people.
A sensible player would split that billion into a variety of smaller ships….so they don’t lose everything in one go.
You talk about ‘time invested’…..but that time is precisely what allows the player to have multiple ships. I’ve reached the point where even my most expensive ship, 2bn ISK or so, is less than 1% of my total worth. I don’t put all my wealth into a 200bn ISK ship….lol.
No, the company wants money from players. Not non-PvP or PvP… Just - players. Besides, PvP will be all good and healthy even if ganking is completely removed.
Those who do have their bills paid for by EVE/CCP, says that ganking is fine. Their company is doing so well that they are investing money into making other games. You don’t take such risks if your flagship game isn’t doing well.
Your entire ‘argument’ is quite pathetic. In every walk of life there are people who try things…and decide it is not for them. No-one ‘makes them leave’. They just decide, after trying, that golf, or chess, or bungie jumping off the north face of the Eiger, is not really their thing.
No-one comes along and argues that the north face of the Eiger should be made easier. No-one argues that chess should be made easier. Or golf. Or scuba diving. Yet for some insane reason you are incapable of applying that same rationale to EVE.
And I should care about that why exactly? If a CEO of a company sees his product and envisions how people should use it in one way, it doesn’t mean that the customers will see it the same and use it in the same way.
Yes. It tells me that I’m right - I don’t play the game how Hilmar or others see it and how Hilmar or you want me to play, and I’m still here after 18 years.
