There are players there who are not entirely PvE focused tho, and are somewhat willing to experience fleet PvP.
Only the willing players would become members of defence forces, before the action takes place. Of course they would first have to get some expewience in fleet action, so training course would have to be done, within mission environment. With specific overview settings.
Obviously tech I destroyer fitted to a specific doctrine is cheap, alpha alt can be made on another account and trained idependently, so there is no need to sacrifice training time for alpha clone that makes money for alt ship. Destroyers would be in each player ability of aquirement. They would be of course docked and ready in an npc station. Its easy enough, but could take a bit of time for certain fits to train into. Prepared alt would have to be confirmed to officer. Only when this step is completed and enough of people have confirmed, there would be discussion about having any structure, as that inevitably leads to war. Holding corporation is needed for structure.
Where things would become kinda difficult is availability of players on certain date. Willingness I would not discuss, assuming alts have already fitted ship and can get into action at every available moment.
How to get to people even without discord? It can be achieved thru MOTDs, mailing lists and mail sent to every person in game before the action is taking place. At least 24 hours before it takes place.
This is another side effect of you being in an alliance that deliberately goes after easy targets. Since youâre aiming for small corps that canât defend themselves, on the rare occasion when they do try to defend themselves they have no idea what they are doing. When Iâm attacking a structure the goal is to generate a decent fight, so the targets we go after can generally form up well. That means that they use both together pretty much every time.
Most recently weâve been fighting a group that primarily uses fast warping tornados. They warp to a nearby spot, alpha a ship then warp off, while simultaneously fighters are launched and go after the same target then are recalled. This often means their target has no opportunity to broadcast and forces us to upship, and often leads to capital escalation on both sides.
And you were in what, a 20+ fleet? This is the thing. When youâre like âonce on this rare occasion 7 people showed upâ thatâs an extreme outlier for you guys. Look at most of your structure bashes and there are no related kills, just undefended structure after undefended structure. Thatâs not by accident. Chances are 7 people was the most they could form and they were hoping it was enough to put off an attacker, but the only âmajor carnageâ it would have generated is them getting blobbed by a fleet three or more times that size so they left.
I am an advocate for small groups and personal conflicts. People can certainly do as you suggest, and as far as I know it is the only practical option if youâre unwilling to risk losing your structure if it is found, but it is also the most boring way to resolve the problem.
Structures and cores are a problem for me because they increase the price of HS conflict, which I think should be 2M isk. Furthermore, I do not like that all the incentive to fight over cores is provided by NPCs who exclusively deal in the trade. Dropped loot from the station carcass can be fought over and sold to other players.
Higher expenses, of which cores and structures are a part, created Blackflag as it is today at the expense of other mercenary groups that gave the game more interesting color. Iâm also not surprised that people who fight over cores or use them as leverage to extort isk and get paid no matter which answer the victim gives as their preferred form of content consumption think itâs the best thing since sliced bread. This is all in the spirit of Eve so I donât find fault with doing it, but I do find fault in that itâs basically only accessible gameplay if youâre a large group of already well funded players with no real vested interest in the local politics or people. I preferred when weâd piss someone off, theyâd hire Mercs to beat us up, then weâd hire mercs or get friends to ally in defense. Mercs paid by players to fight for other players.
I would not care about cores and stucture costs, honestly, if structures had only industrial use and were not required to declare war, ally in war, or have war declared on you. I donât think any industrial group needs to own structures or is entitled to them. Putting a âcome at me broâ checkbox in a corpoate CEOâs control panel that makes them able to ally and be wardecced for free would do a lot to mitigate my concerns, but to totally address what I donât like about cores and structures in general they would have to be decoupled from the war system so that they (and their accompanied expense) are not required to wage war at all.
I donât think it should be âfun per hourâ either, as people think of games being Type 1 fun (fun in the moment, recalled as being fun when reflecting and looking back upon), and Eve Online canât compete with other games on the market in that.
The competitive edge Eve Online has is it is one of the few games that has Type 2 fun (suffering in the moment, recalled as being fun when reflecting and looking back upon), and Eve Online beats every other game in this regard.
When people say âfun per hourâ it erases this distinction, and most people truly intend âtype 1 fun per hourâ which is just a propagandic meme to say âI want to change Eve away from its core, make it safer, never lose a ship, make my ISK go up to the rightâ.
What we want is more Type 2 fun, and more players that can tolerate it.
The unfortunate reality is thereâs a massive group of gamers that believe things are either Type 1 fun (fun in the moment, recalled as being fun when reflecting and looking back upon) or Type 3 fun (suffering in the moment, recalled as being suffering when reflecting and looking back upon), and they have zero tolerance for Type 2 fun. Eve is not made for them, they have plenty of other games to choose from. Let others who are capable of Type 2 fun, have their Type 2 fun. They are out on a quest to destroy player freedoms to discriminate against and destroy the portion of the diverse playerbase actually capable of Type 2 fun.
Please stop propagating a memetic phrase that destroys the game. It is not âfun per hourâ, it is âengaging player stories made per hourâ and those can be narratives of Type 1 and Type 2 kinds of fun. As players keep recounting stories over time, they may be recalled as fun or suffering and things keep moving between Type 2 and Type 3 fun (it is fluid) but this is a mature and diverse reflection of reality as the playerâs perspective grows. The intolerant gamers cannot and do not know of this nuance and therefore cannot tolerate the gamers that do recognize this nuance.
What a load of baloney. Stop telling me what happened at events where I was there and you werenât. Your propensity for inventing a false narrative is now legendary.
Also youâre 'When Iâm attacking a structureâŚ" is hilarious given that killboard shows you fairly low down in the DPS hits on ONE structure.
Iâm sure youâd like more players to pile into your little niche.
But as it stands what youâre really saying is: "Eve has a small player base. Out of that small player base, an even smaller portion, like 15%, enjoys playing the game the same way âweâ do.
Therefore âweâ declare that 15% of a niche is the âtrueâ player base, and this $60 million company and itâs hundreds of employees should be dedicated to making the game the way we, the absolute minority, want it.
We donât care who the majority of players are, we donât care whoâs actually paying for the most subs and extras for the game, we donât care about the future of EVE. We just want the game to cater to our needs, because weâre very special, and most other game devs are too smart to focus on our tiny niche."
Seriously man, the âweâ youâre referring to here is a tiny slice of a sparse player base. Youâre simply gonna need to roll with the demands of the actual player-base and/or CCPâs increasingly out-of-touch whims, adapt and move on.
Itâs hilarious to keep seeing the âPvP first!â crowd keep calling everyone who doesnât play their way lazy entitled carebears, yet continually demand that their small fragment of a population is the one EVE âneedsâ to support.
How is it a false narrative? Anyone can check numbers of ships hitting a structure and related kills on zkb. Your alliance typically fields at least 20 and rarely has related kills beside the structure (except some of you getting your battleships concorded which is a bit weird, whatâs going on there?). I too wouldnât stay on grid with just 7 marauders.
A literal strawman, if there ever was one. Additionally, you have zero evidence for your â15%â in your psychotic rant.
I get it. You think I am somehow The Paragon Of âThe PVP Crowdâ and want to shove me into a box in your identity politics. Itâs too hard to take what I say seriously and earnestly and debate me on my points. OK.
Reasonable minds can disagree. Stop being unreasonable.
I was there. You werenât. Is that too complex a concept for you to grasp ? Are you going to tell me exactly what happened at Woodstock as well ? ( back in the 70s and 80sâŚand to some extent even todayâŚthere were â I was at Woodstockâ people who clearly were never there yet loved to pretend they were and describe it to everyone. The false â I was at Woodstockâ became a bit of a standing joke and for years described fantasists who knew more about events than people who were actually there )
" You can see some interesting and unexpected things like the fact that only 1.5% of players run Incursions and 13.8% of players engage in PVP on any given day."
However, youâre correct, CCP has not published numbers saying specifically and exactly, âplayers who play like Io Koval prefers make up exactly 15% of the player baseâ.
Itâs still a much more reality-based number than the weird sidetracks youâve been going off on lately. I debate things that are worth debating.
Strongly biased personal opinion isnât one of them.
All thatâs ever discussed here are personal opinions, and engaging with them meaningfully.
If you canât deal with analyzing Eve through the lens of Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 fun, OK. If you donât want to, OK. If you donât like the conclusion I draw, OK.
Itâs not âweird sidetrackâ to analyze it this way. It is an opinion. An informed one, with a rigorous classification of fun used across activities beyond just gaming, so it isnât a strange idea either. It might be strange and new to you. OK.
Your continued painting of me as some sort of crackpot is not cool.
I view Eve Onlineâs players through that lens, instead of some âageistâ âveteran vs non-veteranâ binary lens, or âbittervet vs newbieâ, or âPVP vs PVEâ, or whatever. I get you donât like that I wonât conform. Refusing to debate the idea that âType 2 play is under attack in Eveâ is fine, but doing so because it is an opinion is the dumbest reason ever. No one debates facts, everyone only debates opinions, almost tautologically so.
Sorry, but there are debates informed by facts and based on observation and trends, and there are opinion-arguments that primarily support personal preference only. Itâs two entirely different styles.
I didnât dismiss your views because things canât be looked at that way, I dismissed them because youâre doing your typical âI want EVE to cater to my personal preference niche without any realistic justification for doing so other than âthere arenât a lot of games that cater to me, so EVE needs toâ.â
Games are a business, theyâre there to make money. Except for CCP, which has become sort of a personal vehicle for Hilmarâs endless attempts to create something âcoolâ that he can say was his.
I donât care if you conform or go utter rogue, but at least try to back up your points with something stronger than âThatâs my personal preference, therefore it is the way things should be.â
I think you absolutely are a crackpot. Youâre one of this gameâs biggest griefers to post on the forums. Itâs fairly obviously that youâre trying to steer CCP into turning the game into some kind of kiddie-molestation theme park where you get to diddle three-day-old Venture-piloting rookies with impunity.
Iâve been through this rodeo before. I made my argument. Youâre free to 1) engage with it, 2) leave it alone, or 3) call me names. Youâve gone with 3, that was your choice.
I could spend 30 more minutes of my day interpreting player count numbers, numbers from slideshows from CCP, etc. I have argued as such when they were germane to the thread. This is not that thread.
And even if I satisfied your demand, thereâs no guarantee youâd think any more of the already low opinion you have of me, except âheâs a gullible â â â â who dances when I say âdance, monkeyâ.â. I donât think itâs unreasonable of me to be this skeptical of you, given your responses on this and the bounty thread.
You have made perfectly clear you donât like what Iâve recently had to say about analyzing Type 1-3 of Fun and the other thread analyzing the inaccuracy, arbitrariness, and erasure-of-meaning that is the security status number. Perhaps my arguments were that strange, or perhaps they instead were that compelling, to elicit such vehement vitrol and dismissal and refusal-to-engage-on-the-merits and âplease jump through more hoops and then Iâll stop treating you like a sub-humanâ.
You could have just said âhey, weâre reasonable minds, and we can disagreeâ, but you didnât.
