Perhaps. Primarily, I criticize certain players for seeking ‘easy prey’ as a solution to EVE’s problems, or a factor in player retention. Really, all they are seeking is easy and safe gratification of their desire to victimize others for personal gain. I critique this primarily because IMO this behaviour pattern is bad for the long-term population of the game, and I believe I have references and logic to back that up.
I also criticize game design that rewards too much passive activity: boring, repetitive, bottable farming; setting up skill training queues, PI, AFK farming, bot-or-AFK trading, etc. etc. The list is long. This is an indirect criticism of the players who do these things, and while it is true these behaviours have long term effects on the economy, I do not believe the economic effects lead to lower game population.
The process of indulging in boring, repetitive PvE/farming and never learning or being incentivized to play actively… now that definitely hurts player population IMO as players get bored and leave.
Opinion, unbacked by facts. They are tools that certainly could be used as counters, in some instances, but there is no evidence I’ve seen that they actually were effective for that purpose.
Again, opinion, unbacked by facts. Stating your opinion is fine, declaring it as a fact is BS. If you have numbers to back this, go ahead. Otherwise, I will use CCPs statistics that wardecs are nearly useless griefing tools used by the powerful against the weak, with nearly no ability to fight back, and a detriment to game population.
EVE is far too oriented towards tools that allow the powerful to exploit and abuse the weak. All the “but weak players used this to ease into PvP!” arguments in the world won’t change that.
EVE needs tools that encourage, teach and incentivize newer players to engage in PvP and to find enough reward/entertainment in doing so that they continue to engage in PvP. PvE won’t drive this game, ever. It’s a support role. But the PvP that has always existed in EVE is not a player population growth driver. It’s always been a “attract 10 players, drive away 100” type of setup and that is not long term sustainable.
Perhaps something like the way there are BCs which are bonused for large/battleship weapons, we could get smaller, faster mini-capitals that are bonused for capital-hunting weapons.
The rock/paper/scissors balance would be:
- Capital hunters are like destroyers/attack BCs to capitals - a heavy damage weapons loadout of anti-cap weapons with less tank/survivability
- Capital hunters weapons loadout/tracking etc. would make them capable against sub-caps but not overwhelming
- Some of the ‘in-between BS and caps’ would be balanced for combat against sub-capitals
- Capitals would be balanced towards fighting other capitals, supers, and structures. Some application against Capital hunters, weak application against sub-caps.
I’m absolutely not a capital balance person so these are just ideas to toss out. The combat balance would then be:
- Sub-caps/BS do things like tackle, scout, bomb, cyno - niche roles, plus shoot down Capital Hunters.
- Capital Hunter/Capital Defense class are cheaper and more numerous and used to both apply firepower to capitals as well as provide some sub-cap defense.
- Capitals shoot down Capitals, Supers, Structures and with less effectiveness, Capital Hunters/Defenders. Reduced application against sub-caps.
- As suggested above, Titans/Supers take on the anti-capital, DD, fleet support roles.
(Hopefully people with more knowledge of the sub-cap/cap/super interplay and their uses in various game mechanics could find more/better roles for a Capital Hunter class of ships.)
Something like that, I don’t have more specifics sorry, as said I’m not really a capital combat person, nor do I think balancing capital combat is significant to stopping the current player decline - except as a way to entice some veterans back to the game and hold their interest long enough for other improvements to be made.