Yes, I quite agree. Because CCP has not understood the mechanics of the ecosystem, or even the psychology of players, for years now, they have mismanaged the entire process. I am not and never have said ‘PvP is bad for EVE’. I have often said “Certain kinds of PvP are non-productive because they kill off their own food supply, then complain that they’re starving”.
While a certain amount of this is due to the mentality and behaviour of the weaker types of PVPer (the ones who want easy prey in ‘safe’ space), this is most directly due to CCP being both unaware of and unable to design an environment that provides ‘food’, encouragement and growth opportunities for both the PvE ‘food crop’ and the potential ‘harvesters’.
In essence, both sides are being starved by a lack of creative attention.
is the problem the highSec pseudo-PvPers are facing.
The solution isn’t to force other players to become unwilling targets of one-sided PvP.
Everyone would be happy enough if they were to content themselves with attacking targets where the reward is enough to cover the time and expenses it takes to find and destroy them. The usual example is a freighter full of high-value cargo with an AFK pilot, though it seems unlikely this is a common scenario.
But there’s a little more to it, isn’t there? Another member of the herd of elephants in the room.
Evasion is when you stand in the ring and try not to get punched
Avoidance is when you stay out of the ring so as not to get punched.
See the difference?
At the moment the advantage is well and truly with the gankers, you never said that, I said that, because that is the level of strategic and tactical control that bumping gives them.
Well go and watch it and try doing some AG stuff then think about it, the proof is in the eating. Find out for yourself.
My objective is to remove the advantage of bumping and get some play where the freighter pilot can make choices that will decide whether he loses his ship or not. That is what I am after.
Pvp simply cannot be optional or you have farms of players exacerbating the issues with the economy. Why risk losing anything when you can make billions risk free?
The economy (plex prices included) would not be as bad as it is if more people got shot.
Hardly anyone complains that here are significant risks in lowSec, or that one-sided PvP is a problem there.
In the real free-fire zones of EVE, the rule is: “If you find yourself in a fair fight, someone has already made a mistake.”
It’s rational. Almost everyone who’s played EVE for a few weeks realizes this.
The part of the PvE/PvP debate we’re currently involved in is based on highSec. Pure PvE players want zones somewhere in EVE where they can do missions and mine undisturbed by other players. HighSec is the only option for them.
They don’t want all of highSec to be that way. They expect the no-fire zones to pay less than other parts of EVE. They don’t want it to be rat-free.
But they rightly feel no responsibility to feed the EvE economy. Nor do they feel an obligation to spend their personal time entertaining strangers for free.
:
:
BTW. Every now and again I suggest that pseudo-PvPers pay for targets. That way rookies would get cash for their time (it would pay a lot better than mining in a frigate), more experienced PvE players would get some variation in their activities, and pseudo-PvPers could get kills (even capsule kills for an extra fee) and whatever ego-buff they get from ganking helpless targets.
I do this to prove that the pseudo-PvPers aren’t being entirely honest when they post
Hardly anyone ever even sees that this is the “sandbox” compromise - the rational way to make everyone happy.
They jump instantly to convoluted explanations of why pseudo-PvPers should have unlimited free access to unwilling targets /lol.
If the ring is “EVE”, then what do you make of people who play the game on multiple characters. Isn’t logging out leaving the ring? And, isn’t leaving the ring avoidance, not evasion? And isn’t leaving the “ring” grounds for disqualification of gameplay and even participation in other games?
Why don’t you tell me a little more about this “EVE” that constitutes the gamefield. What are it’s limits? Define it for me. Please.
I honestly think you are overestimating the effect bumping has. It is just the mechanic that gets the blame at the moment. Anyway, I’m sure they will nerf it one day and we will see exactly how little changes in that regard.
I find it a bit strange that you accuse me of having no clue without knowing anything about me and when ask to point at the errors you just send me off to go look for myself. Sounds more like a deflection.
I don’t believe removing bumping will enable that, even if the Freighter has an MWD. I don’t even see you mentioning a coherent reason why that should be the result of the change. Maybe it isn’t me who should take a look at the ganking mechanics (which I’m pretty familiar with) to better understand what the consequences would be.
Not saying this is ‘the answer’, but it is an interesting notion. How would it work? Would ‘pirates’ pay a fine or a fee to Concord, which Concord would then distribute to victims? Would Concord pay more to people who put up a better fight, or would they pay more to victims who were in a more ‘helpless’ state when attacked? (Eg., freighter)
Since one of the motivations for the piracy is fat easy profitable targets, this would certainly cut back on the profit side. Which makes it less likely for pirates to be interested. I’m also a bit leery on the idea of ‘compensating people for being easy targets’… I wouldn’t want to see a system where it was profitable for A to kill B and they both milk the process.
That I totally agree with. It is also the reason why I’m extremely frustrated with the wardec overhaul. It is like for the majority of devs at CCP, or at least those in charge, highsec is just some after thought, an attachment no one cares about to their otherwise glorious grand strategy of big nullsec overloards who command thousands of minions in epic wars. Dealing with highsec problems is just an annoyance so it doesn’t deserve much attention and if a problem becomes apparent a small band aid will suffice.
This would have been a great opportunity for an overhaul of the whole wardec system and conflicts in highsec. No one was happy with the situation, not the defender, not the attackers, no one actually liked the crippled wardec system. And now they rushed a solution that helps no one. The defenders still have no way to fight back hide. The small wardecers will probably no longer bother and for the big mercs business is as usual.
I mean I wasn’t really surprised. I’m not even sure how long ago it was that they promissed the last “empire expansion” and what we got was freakin resource wars…
Sorry for the rant. But honestly, it looks like both sides feel that highsec is completely neglected by CCP.
Well, yes, except you aren’t really going far enough here. CCP is treating high sec like an afterthought, and just slapping poorly designed band-aid solutions on to show they are ‘doing something about it’. BUT… CCP is also treating low-sec (IMO) like even more of an afterthought, which they have been largely ignoring for years. But wait, it gets worse! Because CCP is also semi-ignoring Nullsec problems, simply setting things up the way the Goons, the CSM (largely Goons) and the large Nullsec alliances want things and find profitable, and leaving it at that.
(Although the recent balance proposals at least show they are thinking about Nullsec, it’s more botting/farming targeted and less ‘Nullsec design’ oriented.)
Essentially, CCP got a decent game started at a decent time in the development of the MMO market, and because of certain elements of the game design which attracts certain spending/behaviour patterns, they have been coasting on subscriptions and sales (for the most part) since about 2010, in my opinion.
They have had neither the will nor the talent nor the vision to undertake large changes to overall game design since then, and have instead relied on making smaller tweaks and adjustments, about half of which have done some good and half of which were bad for the overall game.
So this is my beef. Not about PvP/lack of PvP/removal of PvP, not about high sec vs null sec, not about carebears vs ‘real’ EVErs… it’s about having a cash cow and using a large base of sub income to enable the management of the game to sit back and coast and convince themselves they’re doing a good job.
No fire zones can’t pay anything or they will effect the market. And the no-fire zone pvp will be farmed en-mass, so it’s effects on the economy, if it’s allowed to have one, will surely be felt.
As will their separation from players seeking content.
This is faction warfare, wormholes or null ratting. They all pay very well, but you run the risk of getting shot.
This is a million times better than saying I’ll pay you to let me blow you up.
This is evasion and risk mitigation.
Taking another route because you’ve spotted a camp on the killboards is still evasion, you’re still playing the game and still rolling the die (there maybe another camp or the camp may move)
Logging off to only log back in on another character is still participating in eve.
I have detailed the advantage that it gives and I say that from observing it and playing against it. I Have also detailed the change in terms of freighter pilots, numbers of ganks don’t matter to me, it is game play, balance and counters for freighter pilots that matter.
I never accused you of having no clue, in fact you seemed to be a thoughtful chap. Accusing me of deflection is a bit rich as it was a suggestion nothing more than that. By making such a point I think you are the one deflecting or in need of a deflection.
I am after improvements in counter play and fun at the level of the freighter pilot. Being bumped for hours is not fun. It is not difficult to understand, that you cannot is rather odd.
In fact I think you are turning insulting and going into troll mode. I have clearly pointed out the issues and benefits above, if you refuse to understand it then accusing me of a lack of understanding is typical of HTFU ganker posters. So with that in mind if you don’t get it tough on you.
You are slipping into accusing me of deflecting and stuff like that when I suggested that you try out AG yourself to get an understanding from the other side.
I am not trolling I am pointing out that you are showing sign of posting behaviour which I have come to expect from certain HTFU ganker type posters on this forum.
So with that in mind I am pointing out that if you don’t want to understand it or can’t that is not my issue. People have to work it out themselves especially as you don’t seem to trust or believe what I am saying and suggesting I am deflecting.
At this point I think you are trolling because above I have detailed the issues as I see it and you are ignoring it and giving your feelings that I am wrong, well I feel you are wrong, so there. As I said I don’t give a monkies if you believe me or not.
OK, it is sad this discussion ended that way. I think it was just a small misunderstanding but you seem quite jumpy. I have my reasons why I think you are wrong and I think I detailed them here as well. So let’s end this and maybe if they nerf it one day we will see whos prediction was closer to reality.
I’m not really interested in AG gameplay, I find that rather dull and there is zero motivation from my side to safe some AFK ship who will not even notice.