Yet ironically is the safest area to live in…
1 Like
Yet ironically is the safest area to live in…
100 percent fact. intel networks mean you can’t get within 5 jumps of any target without being called out. even further, in some cases, for some areas. that, and response fleets mean you will be overwhelmingly dropped on 9 times out of 10. ironically its also more stable in nullsec.
1 Like
On the contrary, it’s completely normal. There’s nothing worse than a false sense of security while there’s no one to protect you. CONCORD is here for retribution, the intel chans and cap umbrella for protection.
2 Likes
highsec should be renamed to something more accurate. it isn’t actually high security.
security implies protection. if thats not concord’s job, rename it to something that doesn’t confuse people and make the design goal for the area explicit to everyone.
additionally, if concord isn’t enough of a deterrant, another deterrant should be found to restore balance.
1 Like
If this was true, then why didn’t the ‘friendly fire’ toggle produce a spike in player activity? CCP introduced a significant buff to safety for highsec corps to address this “catastrophic reduction” in highsec recruitment you say existed and yet not only did game activity not go up, it cratered immediately after the change. So much for the hypothesis that highsec corps just needed to be safer to get more people playing the game.
Again, there is no evidence making the game more safe and less interesting does anything to attract or keep new players. The ‘friendly fire’ switch and its increased safety did not increase player activity, at least as assessed by the PCU numbers, nor did any other of the major buffs to highsec safety CCP has attempted over the years. This experiment has been repeated many times and the data is clear: just adding more safety doesn’t work as a method to increase player activity.
“Improving” your sandbox game by constantly removing tools for interaction and making it more difficult to make anything interesting happen is not a recipe for success. Yet, we have been barraged with constant calls for more nerfs and more safety for 15 years now despite the fact whenever CCP tries it, the game gets less active. Removing wars would do the same, but thankfully CCP seems committed to giving them a proper revamp. Let’s hope they find a way to foster more interesting content via a new war system to keep people playing the game.
1 Like
No. People will keep thinking it’s a safe zone and I believe we’re past the point where a name change would be sufficient to resolve the ongoing dispute.
1 Like
Because it was too far gone, and other factors were in play then that caused the decline in player numbers. But are you effectively saying that there was that many AWOXer’s who left the game because of that safety?
Like I said you cannot use overall player count to define the effect of specific mechanic changes in hisec for example. Eve was in a decline over that period for a number of reasons, most notably the stagnation in nullsec.
Well I would not say that applying a blanket war dec to everyone on the chance that they go to a market hub or use a camped pipe is interesting…
In any case it is not about safety, it is all about correct game balance.
And now you think it is a good idea to remove more mechanics to make wardecers quit without new players replacing them because “it is too far gone”. Or will it be different this time? Go on, dance!
So you are ignoring the fact that nullsec alliances at around the same time had a big push to recruit new players directly into nullsec. And what did hisec have to offer, well blanket war decs and poor ISK returns. As I said too far gone…
And now that corps will have the option to opt-in on wardecs do you think THIS TIME the player floods will start? Or will it change nothing for player retention?
1 Like
It’s almost always about safety. “Balance” is just a euphemism for safety in an open-world PvP game like Eve.
Highsec has never been safer, nor the virtual items in it worth less, yet highsec activity is a fraction of what it was in the day when the game was more dangerous and losses mattered more. Some of that is due to a nullsec stuffed with easy wealth, but I still don’t see any evidence that more safety and immunity to the actions of the other players can make your sandbox game more active. Players are the content and players make the content in this game and the harder you make that, the less people will play your sandbox game.
This is not an argument to say the mechanics shouldn’t be touched or tweaked, but just that they should be changed with the idea of increasing player interactions, not decreasing them by adding immunity or more safety. Historically, more safety has never worked to make the game more active. I think any war revamp needs to prominently feature war-immune social groups, but if CCP just adds that, there will be no big increase in player activity. They need to come up with some system that drives player interaction and engagement by getting players excited to play the game and allows them to shoot each other over real sandbox objectives.
2 Likes
I don’t understand what you mean by opt in, the exact choice is whether to have a structure which offers real value to the corp, but makes you vulnerable to wars. It is not so much an opt in as such, but a block.
Player floods, in which direction, well ganking is an issue in some areas, and if you lot do as you seem to be threatening to do, you will drive players out of the game with excessive ganking and then declare that this was due to the nerf in terms of war decs,
As for player retention there is a big if, in isolation I think it would, but you and others like you have decided to act to prove a point, so if you carry through with those actions then any benefit could well be hidden by your actions. CODE, PIRAT and Marmite will effectively skew the results as they have enough muscle to force people to leave.
Rubbish, game balance is the ability for competing entities to compete.
I don’t think hisec is safer than when I started in 2009 for example, it is massively unsafe in comparison.
I disagree, I was mining in a system in Caldari space and hardly ever saw a ganker, now I see gankers all the time.
That is what the issue was, all those miners who found it too difficult to cover their losses to easy destroyer buffed ganking losses to expensive mining ships caused the significant loss of active hisec players from 2010 to 2015 made the game less interesting.
I have been asking for a way to end a war by blowing up a structure for that very reason.
You need to prove it, because what you detailed above is not proof, it is a massive assumption.
I agree, as I said I keep calling for a structure that when blown up will end the war, and I want it doable by smaller corps.
Structures are gonna go the way of the dinosaur once people realise no war decs ever, the use of empire stations will sky rocket along with large null structures that will be placed in high-sec for corps to dine on. It may even make high-sec relevant again at the CCP and CSM meetings.
2 Likes
The proportional PVP gradient should be NS>LS>HS.
Afaik, that is not currently the case.
1 Like
So you say that the actions of CODE., PIRATE, Marmite and other are responsible for a retention problem and why players quit now and possibly in the future because the change will not drive us away?
I disagree. All it needs for a corp to have their own structure is for one player to create an alt on their account and train it sufficiently to be able to open a corp. Said corp puts their structure down and transfers ownership to the shell corp immediately and Bobs your mothers brother (and in some places, your dad as well). You have complete control over a structure that can be used exclusively by your corp if you so wish.
1 Like
A Cathy Goldman moment…, I saw Tora and Faylee in C&P detail a large number of gank chracters that they are setting up to prove a point. So if all of CODE, PIRAT and Marmite go into all out gank mode then you will obviously impact player retention, and force CCP to take steps against ganking. If you are that unwise to do that then reap the benefits, but don’t blame people like me, I am warning you that you are about to make a pretty major error.
1 Like
Yes, its clear that the actions of CODE, PIRAT and Marmite are substantially responsible for the retention problem and causing players to quit.
Did you only get that now?
Are you blind in both eyes?
No, they’re not responsible. They’re just playing the game. Please stop antagonising others here on the forum.
1 Like
When you close down one playstyle, players will either leave or move to another. I’ve said this many times before - I hope CCP realised what they were doing. It’s an obvious jump from Wardecs to ganking and with the resources that the wardec corps have and the sheer level of isk that most of us have to back us up, that’s a lot of catalysts, nados and talos’s.
This is unless CCP want an excuse to remove ganking as well - an increase would put more pressure on them certainly.
1 Like