They are one in the same, in highsec I just pay a fee and wait 24 hours to kill you
Funny, people use to say Eve would never have any Micro Transactions, then when it was introduced players all cried that it would lead to P2W with Gold Ammo and ships. CCP said it would only be cosmetic items, now there’s Skill Injectors. Game has been simplified for instant gratification and made F2P. Skill requirements have been reduced and condensed to allow players faster advancement. The list goes on.
Some players, despite being repeatedly slapped in the face with reality, just won’t accept that this game is no longer the same as it was half a decade ago. In another couple of years Eve will have changed so much that I highly doubt those players will still be here.
7 Likes
I can still Dec you today, that won’t change
Yeah, doesn’t mean it’ll stay that way next month or next year.
But it’ll make me feel better now
The only people this change is aimed at corporations that own no structures. The vast majority of these corporations are new, meaning, people are trying to keep new people as targets as often as they can.
I don’t see how limiting people from killing new people is horrible. This change wont change Null WHs or Lowsec this is exclusively for people who are stationed out of Hisec.
Btw I love watching Null EvE streamers who fly around all day and see 1000 people who are blue and like 3 who aren’t, life is tough eh.
2 Likes
if it’s not something tether related it’s really hard to guess, and this does it more sinister. Something nobody has on the radar yet.
Wardecs are on the agenda since the last CSM meeting, but even if they are scrapped completely (very unlikely, because of structures) this would not be the end of EvE.
The Agency and events are a success (IMO, and what I see in space), but exactly as they are (the principle of accessibility, good rewards, seasonal, PvP). CCP Darwin is even open to add more bait / PvP options in future.
Introducing more of the new AI, patrolling NPCs assisting or killing players. Not a threat. Also CCP has voiced repeatedly, that they know about the missions and the asset of knowing how to do them, and won’t change it lightheartedly.
New P2W options, selling Accelerators, SP, even gold ammo, etc. certainly would harm EvE but not as a “coward mechanic”.
Instancing of PvE (in highsec) … failed with the group mining thing, and the team was reassigned. Instancing is bad, but it would not be the end of EvE, if new players can get some low effort, low reward training area.
PvP arenas, nobody talked about that since the developer who build the prototype left CCP. No coward mechanic, wouldn’t substitute open world PvP if not implemented with this intention (unlikely).
Beside tether, some absolute invulnerability option for players in certain situations. But this does not make sense and conflicts with the new credo everything shall be destructible.
What else? Does Aryth maybe just talks about a threat to the blue doughnut and the nullsec cartels?
I agree. The fact he mentions it in the “Activity” section of problems lead me to speculate it was some new PvE (not just for new players) that breaks something fundamental about Eve’s design but I have no idea. Maybe it is some “coward-mechanic” of instanced/arranged PvP or some new micro-transaction that breaks something core to the sandbox. But from the CSM minutes, and Aryth’s and Jin’s comments elsewhere, it does seem like whatever was proposed really was something more than just another too-safe tweak to an existing mechanic.
I also don’t think this is just nullsec protectionism or meta-gaming by Aryth. There was a real threat to what Eve is tabled during those sessions and the only question to me is whether the CSM was able to successfully make the case why CCP management should respect the core idea of the game, or whether whatever “feature” they are working on to juice player activity numbers will be rammed through anyway.
1 Like
Its like putting bounty on Jita scammers that never undock. You may feel better, but its nothing what would bother EVE player that knows what he is doing.
I dont know why would instanced PvP be called cowardly, when you can have fun shooting other people that are there to shoot other people. Its just that it makes EVE too fair and too easy to make mistakes in. Who doesnt want to learn some PvP without crippling losses? But these mistakes matter. In arena you will never learn how to play real EVE. It could only prepare you somewhat for the stuff that awaits you outside arena.
3 Likes
Instanced/arena/arranged PvP completely undermines the core concept of the game - death is a serious business, actions matter, and so forth. Open-world, full-loot PvP games are hard enough to keep going without having some albatross around a neck like free/easy/consequence-free shooting to compete with player attention. So many people play Eve to acquire and build stuff to trade to other players, and if you take away losses it kills a huge reason why people log-in.
That’s not to say there couldn’t be some form of “arranged” PvP to help players find fights with each other (like FW complexes attempt) that is compatible with the core concept of the game. But some sort of consequence-free arena PvP is anathema to the sandbox and I expect if CCP proposed it, that would be the type of thing to garner the concerned reaction of the CSM after that meeting. That doesn’t mean though that was the proposal.
Giving the bowhead a jump drive, you know it makes sense.
1 Like
I assume the article is there, because the CSM failed to stop it, whatever this is. To my surprise he paints The Agency as something bad, where I can see the events to be what brings live to New Eden, maybe he was referring to Resource Wars, but this was canned.
Something what just comes to my mind … mobile out-of-client access to in-game activity which would otherwise require undocking. Unlikely, I can see things like PI and skill queue stuff moved to APIs, though this would be bad for it’s own reason (support of playing EvE 24/7 and bots).
EDIT: just saw your post above.
… only if loss is mitigated. As long as the winner takes it all, and you lose your ship you have bought with ISK or was sponsored by another player, arenas are not much of a problem IMO.
But I see the point here … if CCP somehow deviates from full-loot mechanics, and loss without detaching it from the economy and the rest of the sandbox (nothing goes in, nothing comes out), this would be really bad.
Hmmm…
Serious guess, then.
Asset safety in WH?
–Skeptical Gadget
Its 2018 mate. People can multibox 20 Rorquals and mine so much in a week that they have enough PvP ships for a year. Carriers are used for money making like drakes in the old days.
These days, losses only matter to the new and casual players. Why be so harsh to these two player groups when nullseccers can basically print money and not worry about losses?
1 Like
I see a danger mainly for economy if the ships would be provided for free. Player should still invest something, risk losing, lose something for economy to flourish.
I dont think arenas would replace all PvP in the game, I could see it be done rather as some noob friendly training field.
Maybe CCP are going to bring out the b******d at last? An ewar ship with unusual capability, a ship that targets up to 20 in single burst of countermeasures that disconnects your opponents eve client and leaves you blind until you re-log. A perfect counter to those late night gate camps.
The only place where players should get free ships is the test server. Any form of arenas need to be supplied by the EVE economy. There is so much stuff produced, we need every bit of destruction we can get.
2 Likes
No… I don’t think that would merit this author risking trouble by skirting the edge of the NDA that much. It may upset people but I think the majority would turn a blind eye.
No this is a fairly dire warning with the war it is worded. It would have to be something more epic or annoying. Only 4 things not discussed could be that bad (at least in the author’s mind)…
-
CCP felt the bad press from the last big battle was negative and they try to put some form of limit on media sites related to EVE. It would be pain, am not everyone, and violate some of the basic ideas of free exchange of information.
-
more likely… Removing suicide ganking from hi-sec. Something fundamentally against the pure mechanics like you can’t set your safety to red in hi sec. You could set to yellow to rob, but no red. That would bring out the pitch forks.
-
CCP create the 3 minute jump timer to counter excessive bumping. It would be annoying. People would complain but I could see CCP doing it.
-
removal of AFK Cloaking in some annoying way (cloak fuel, require input after X time, or structure module)
I think (and could be wrong) it would have to be one of those 4.
Whatever it is, the warning came from a CSM member so its going to nark the null groups, while the solo high-sec player with cap in hand and full paid up sub/ not plexed says thank you CCP.
1 Like