State of EVE?

You fail to understand that I’m not baiting in a 1000 dps PvP ship. People will not engage that. I have to be able to GET the content before I can even worry about winning the content. People are not going to shoot something that they think has any chance at all of killing them. Therefore I have to be selective about what ships I bait in.

It’s not like I can just land in a rattlesnake, shoot an MTU and expect to get any content. Furthermore it’s not like I’m doing this for the “riveting” PvP experience. I’m doing it to be a pirate, ransom, negotiate, make money, be the bad guy, be social, play with my friends. I can no longer do any of that.

Furthermore, without logi I cannot stabilize the fight for long enough to even begin the ransom conversation. PvP in high-sec is my PROFESSION not my pass time. Since I can no longer make enough isk suspect baiting I will switch to the next best option, suicide ganking. That’s how I am adapting. It is my best option. Trust me, I know, and you do not. I’ve made the mission baiting meta for 10 years, you’ve probably never been suspect in your entire eve career.

1 Like

ye i know the baiting, actually killed a guys exeq before , he warped in close enought for me to change to it :slight_smile: (his likkle enyo got away while i was killing his exeq though)
More recently a small group of us even killed some oddly fitted rr bs that was being use as neutral logi (i was the ecm bro)

I dislike the change they made for wardecks, it was too simple a change for too complex an issue; and to be frank - not a very good fix… tbvh, i wouldnt even call it that.

Argument for bringing more numbers is what is literally killing eve content. Please stop that if you want to see EvE live a little while longer. Never forget NO ONE wants to play a game thats basically log in, get in fleet… wait… blueball.
STOP
ARGUING
THE COUNTER
IS BRING
MORE
NUMBERS

Get good you f*******g scrub. :slight_smile:
kidding but seriously stop with the bring more ‘friends’; their not friends and thats not gameplay.

yeh, they’re*

because you literally have no argument, i thought id make it easier for you.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I was not arguing to bring more friends. Try being less angry and looking for a fight when posting.

Your argument is still invalid. You do not understand the mechanics involved. Currently we WANT them to bring logi because their logi goes SUSPECT meaning we can engage EVERYTHING on field which results in an insanely fun fleet fight. We DONT want them bringing 10k dps fleets that can instablap everything we have 1 at a time without us being able to do anything about it.

They can still bring a 10k dps fleet, we can no longer even have a fleet or even play together at all.

1 Like

Probably but the eve o forums always seem like such a struggle to communicate with people; and its usually with those that dont understand the the gameplay as such.

But, suspect baiting in missions and neutral logi are wholly different to wardeckers using the same mechanic.

Back in the day i could bring in neutral logi OR CORP logi for that sort of fight (suspect/can baiting) and, we had a LOT of fun in highsec killing baiters… i tried mission baiting myself before… its not as simple as it sounds.

We used to love having a newbro mining in an osprey in a hs belt, ready to pounce with all our 4 or 5 guys - now, cant do that. its… less of a game for small groups now, and it continues down this path. Unfortunate but hey, it had a good innings as they say.

2 Likes

Sad to say!
EvE was a great game!

Sorry, but the whole “I am the master of the game, you are not fit to discuss with me” thing just shows you don’t really have the facts/points/data to back up your preferences. Like many of the other PvPers, you think that simply screaming “PvE carebears killed everything, ALL the game was built by PVP but CCP just cruelly ignored us! wah wah wah” is making an effective point. You think only your game play is important, this guy The Real EVE thinks your playstyle is weak and irrelevant, they next guy is gonna say “No way, only my playstyle is the one true EVE!”.

Opinions are like assholes… everybody’s got one, most of them aren’t worth a first glance much less a second.

Back up your loud, mouthy statements with data, or, you know, HTFU, STFU, and/or GTFO. Which appears to be the mantra of your style of discussion.

I have backed up literally everything. The points at which I am responding “you are not worthy” are in response to arguments that show a baseline misunderstanding of how the mechanics and incentives interact. When I try to outline what they are missing then they come back with “you just hate PvEers wah wah wah, I think I should be safer me me me” instead of realizing that the ever deteriorating (and most PvPers would argue, all but demolished) state of PvP in this game needs much more consideration as it bodes serious consequences for the overall game health. Certainly more-so than a few PvE players thinking they shouldn’t have to put any effort into protecting their assets.

You’re basically doing the exact same thing. Instead of challenging ANY of the NUMEROUS points I’ve presented you instead cherry picked the most irrelevant part of what I’ve said to try to make me look bad.

Also, just because 3/4 of the characters RESIDE in high-sec does not mean 3/4 of the playerbase agree with everything you are saying or even that 3/4 of Eve’s playerbase only PvE so your “data” proves literally nothing.

But just to CONTINUE to be thorough. What would you change about Eve to make it safer? It would be nice if you considered not removing an entire line of play with your suggestion.

image
Here is some actual data from CCP.

Figured that was your alt. Either way I can’t read the graph because the text is too small :confused:

First, you should see a professional, your delusions over who is who’s alt really are serious, and a sign you aren’t interested in addressing arguments.
Secondly, go to the image source, of those who log in on a given day an average of 13.8% actually engaged in PvP of any sort, at the time the graph was produced obviously.

Img src is the same size. Still that just further proves my point. There’s barely any PvPers left. Also this doesn’t take into account having multiple accounts for things like mining or botting. Also many PvPers have more PvE accounts than PvP accounts so this graph still says literally nothing.

But sure if you want a PvE only game, have at it. Watch it crash and burn vOv

https://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68738/1/activity.16.png Try that link, found you a higher res one.
It was in answer to your claim regarding how many people do PvP, it’s “Unique logins” also, not characters, now if that is accounts or actual players I’m not sure.

Also try https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5183c058e4b065e39b3de2ee/t/56378abbe4b00a214926fca1/1446480572199/?format=750w
If that links properly, don’t have the CCP source.

Not to mention, great strawman, I’ve never said I want a PvE only game. I encourage PvP happening in EVE, I can do that and feel that some types of PvP could be much better balanced to be far more fun for both/all sides and far more understandable so players get to actually fight each other and not fight game mechanics that aren’t easy to understand. The two views are not contradictory.

1 Like

See it’s the “better balanced” thing that I’m combating. Better balanced would not be giving PvEers more safety. Better balance would be doing the exact opposite. Furthermore this graph still says nothing. There are so many days where I log in, update my skills, buy a ship and log off.

If you want to enjoy your side of the PvP, you have to be prepared for the PvP and know what engagements you can and can’t win. I have to do that as a PvPer as well it’s not like I’m out here on top able to take on any entity in the game with my 2 or 3 friends. I would LOVE to be able to bait the Jita undock but I do not have a big enough fleet for that, so I don’t. I’m sure you would LOVE to be able to blow up that mission baiter but you likely haven’t done the research to even know how to prepare for the engagement.

But again to be thorough, what would you change about the game that would be “better balanced”?

The big change I want to see is a pipe dream, but it’s changing the base philosophy behind industrials.
Currently we have most of them designed in a Modern era way, giant cargo carriers (haulers) or tools (miners) with basically no defence. This creates an incredibly boring experience for any industrial pilot who is attacked, and because of the short concord timer it’s also over super fast. Gankers get to choose their moment of action so they are prepared, a hauler is not going to be prepared for frantic action all the time, it’s simply not humanly possible, our bodies & minds just don’t work like that. Which means it’s also sometimes over even before the target works out what is going on.

I’d prefer to see a WW2 engineering tanks or spanish main era idea taken. (which you know… was the real era for piracy after all). Where you have full number of slots relative to similar sized combat vessels, (cargo expanders should also have a stacking penalty so you don’t get 50% of your cargo size from the very last expander thereby making a whole rack of expanders basically required for anything but DST or Freighter), base EHP is comparable except hull hp is a class smaller, mobility is a class larger, and turret/launcher slots ‘might’ be one fewer than a normal combat vessel, though the lack of damage bonuses would do that anyway.
Now change Concord to a remote self destruct, plenty of RP reasons you could have that change, and make the timer longer so gankers don’t have to have 10 max DPS ships to get it done in 15 seconds, but instead are only needing to fly one or two combat vessels.

Bonus points for making a ‘drop cargo bay’ mechanic for industrials that drops their ore bay container, or hauling container (large haulers could even have several containers/hangers) and the base ship then gains significant agility/speed (or the lock gets kept on the container and the ship breaks free) to allow for real piracy where they can dump loot to manage to escape.
And further bonus points for removing the industrial skills as separate skills and integrating haulers into the cruiser/bc/battleship line properly, which then also means that haulers have to be able to fly combat hulls as well, further making the point clear to them that they should expect combat. (Decent turrets/launchers on haulers to start with should make this point, but I see no reason they couldn’t be integrated into the standard vessel size line up as that helps manage expectations as well).

A smaller change I’d like to see is making it impossible to lock people down permanently, or for hours, but always be able to lock people down for a few seconds. I.E. remove WCS, and then implement some kind of spool up mechanic for someone loosing a fight to slowly step up their warp core until they are able to escape ‘if’ they can tank for long enough.

Also intel is too binary which also adds to safety.

Would this make them more or less safe? Or is it a sideways step in expectations and to try and apply a simple more or less would be apples to oranges.
Yes, in many cases PvE’ers are probably too safe, but it’s also a terrible experience being targetted because the systems to fight back ‘once you are actually there’ don’t really exist in any kind of practical manner. 99% of the systems for the PvE’er evolve around avoidance, not fighting. All you can do once targetted is twiddle thumbs and wait to die really.
It’s also too safe being a PvP’er because of some of the above though, especially in high sec, which means if you apply nerfs to make PvE less safe in the current meta, you will cause them all to quit. Due to viewpoints.

(And yes yes, there is always the ‘but what about this’, but the reality is that what about this is a 0.1% occurrence and shouldn’t be taken into significant account when designing the system)

See the problem isn’t the mechanics. If PvEers really wanted to PvP then they could easily shut down CODE. and defend their assets. They could easily smash any sort of mission baiter out of existence but they don’t. If you took every carebear, in Osmon alone, and warped them to defend a citadel, no PvP entity would stand a chance save a massive Null-bloc that would never bother with the content in the first place.

The expectation that your gameplay should always be fun and engaging and exactly what you want it to be is a fallacy. I HATE PvE, and even I spend far more time salvaging and looting missions fishing for a target than I do actually killing people.

PvEers need to understand though, that removing the tools of the PvPer, as has been the trend for literally years, first of all does nothing to solve your problem, and second creates far greater problems for the overall health of the game. Plex prices for instance, were 250mil a month when I first started playing. Now they’re 10x that and that is DIRECTLY RELATED to PvE player being likely 10x as safe.

The game has gotten to the point where PvP-minded players get content so rarely doing anything other than camping hubs and suicide ganking that these are the only activities you see 9x out of 10.

We had all of the things you want back before crimewatch, before the orca hotswap nerf, before loot and salvage were worthless and before PvEers stood to lose next to nothing at the hands of another player.

Now with this logi change it gets even worse. This leaves literally NO WAY for a suspect to escalate an engagement. They can either kill what shot them by themselves, or they cannot. There’s no counterplay on the suspects end and subsequently many lines of play, all of which far more interesting than hub camping and suicide ganking, will no longer exist come April.

This is why PvEers need to be FAR more mindful of the changes they ask for. There is a lot more to high-sec PvP than any PvEer will ever understand unless they’ve attempted it first-hand. The mechanics and incentives used to be rich, the content was insanely enjoyable. Now the game is a shell of its former self and the changes that most PvEers are clamoring for will only make it worse for all parties involved.

EDIT: Just one more thing, adding more avenues of play doesn’t make a PvEer any less safe in high-sec. If I could still swap ships from an Orca with a weapons timer it doesn’t make you less safe. You’re still only as safe as your trigger finger says you are.

It is though. We know that people don’t mind losing in games if they have fun and it doesn’t set them back too much. Now, in EVE the ‘set back too much’ we don’t have a lot of control over via mechanics. That one is on the person to control how much is ‘too much’ and ensure they have a reserve, or accept that they are taking a huge risk.
However the ‘fun’ aspect, we can control. And right now it is decidedly not fun for the PvE’er who gets targetted. They have the choice of ‘don’t be there’ which in many cases involves logging off, and ‘die’.
If instead the PvE’er gets several minutes of taking combat actions to defend themselves, they get to see themselves shooting back, they get to see your ship taking damage, and in some cases they might even get to see you blow up because they were effective at fighting, or their friend also in a hauler stopped to help fight as well.
I’m sure my idea isn’t the only way to make it more fun for the target to lose, but it’s a way to make it more fun and make them feel that they had a chance to impact on the outcome. The current system you blink and either you are dead or concord saved you.

You are just too bitter at the moment over the neutral logi going away to really engage in this as an honest discussion, that is becoming clear. Because no matter what is discussed you keep coming back to complain about that.

(P.S. No none of what I want existed before Crimewatch 2.0, Crimewatch 1.0 was a horrible system which could trap people into PvP with other entities not even on grid at the time, and no the changes have not caused this, PvP’ers as a collective group pushing the meta too far caused the changes. You are mistaking which is cause and which is effect based on personal bias)