To make sure I understand your arguement, you are suggesting removing PvE completely from EVE because it encourages/teaches people to not be willing to accept losses through PvP?
That’s a business model that won’t work.
Sometimes one, more often the latter. You’ll also notice, though, that I’ve never said that was a foolish decision. Just that it, and neutral logi, combine for a ‘broke af’ mechanic. Just like a lot of the stuff out here that we’d like to get fixed.
No. As I said does a game always have to sacrifice some players for the sake of making a good game for others.
Some people are just not compatible to one another. You cannot marry anyone to just anyone.
No, I don’t.
Neutral logi needs to go, that I agree. It’s been a pain for way longer than off grid links imo
And as I’ve said, there’s a world of difference between the idea that not every game is right for every player, and ‘you have to sacrifice some people’.
That’s what I mean when I ask why you keep phrasing things in a way that sounds downright sociopathic.
Please fix neutral logi. I really don’t care for incursions groups, nor even NPSI fleets especially. I’m not sure sure I totally buy CCP’s view that removal of neutral logi will make their lives more difficult, but if it does, I’m cool with that.
But honestly, it won’t change much at all. I agree, it is a pretty inane mechanic, but the highsec PvP groups will just pull their logi in house and instead of constant moaning about neutral logi, the whining will switch to too much red logi. You already can shoot neutral logi, so I highly doubt it is going to change much regarding the balance of wardecs. It’s just a make-work project for CCP with little hope of much payofff.
That’s because you got it the wrong way round. I don’t mean to sacrifice just anyone to make it a good game. That’s not what makes it a good game. It’s knowing that some don’t fit in is the sacrifice we make.
Also depnds if you are the sacrificer or the sacrificed…
Can I take a moment to point out that 22-1 is not even a high kd with the way zkill works. There are super pilots in pl with several hundred to 1. Hell my own KB is 20-1 and I’ve spent almost my entire career in small gangs or just me and my ALTs
3 Likes
Irrelevant and not really the topic.
My point is that we must differentiate between those who we sacrifice and those who we want to keep, because when we don’t make this distinction then we also cannot talk about how we are going to keep those who we want to keep without risking getting the wrong kind in, who only further skew the data.
Because if we really only care for making a game, which includes as many players as possible, then why not create a clone of WoW? just change EVE totally and save it by copying a successful game.
Of course that’s stupid, but that’s also what happens when one doesn’t know where to draw the line and begins to make a distinction for who you want this game to be.
People talk about how EVE is losing players, but they don’t seem to be looking at who we are losing, or to whom we are losing them, but they only look at the numbers. What if they choose to play Battlefield, Fallout or Minecraft instead? Would you try to change EVE to be more like these games for the sake of the player numbers?
I think the point I made is evident, it is more to do with the low number of losses than the kill ratio. But focus on the kill ratio if it makes you feel better. As for you, you were a very active hisec war decker, before you became Rabble Rabble…
I have 2,171 kills and 126 losses, but I lost 20 ships in 2018 so far. So comparing the hisec war deckers to PL dunk supers with all their advantages is rather interesting in how your own mind framed it?
I am also scrolling through PIRAT’s killboard and it is full of stuff that they ambushed in the pipes, with between 2 to eight characters on the kill, with the odd solo against non-threatening stuff. Definitely low risk fare…, so let me scroll down to see how many pages before I find a loss…, page 4… So lets compare to PL, a loss on page 1, another, hmm five losses on page one.
Seems like very low risk to me to war deck in hisec…, so who did they lose that to, well Jita Holdings, who are a group who recently decided to take PIRAT on and good luck to them. Next loss is page 6, a Stileto, but then we have 6 people on the Domi that killed it. Ah and Faylee in his Marshall…, using that not as a BLOPS drop as such show a lot of confidence, normally people use them drop and get safe fast. The attitude with the Marshall is interesting, again the perception of no real risk at all.
A stroll in the park in fact…
And an interesting one, a character called Lass Suicide, this one was in the early part of 2018 doing lowsec FW I think, and in the first three months. So 502 / 38 in Jan doing small gang stuff in FW I would assume, but then in September got 582 / 0 in hisec with PIRAT. Does that give a clue on risk perhaps?
Actually, as a business concern, CCP is concerned with lower player population creating less revenue, creating less profit and development resources. What caused the lower population? Well, they found that people in wardecced HS corporations tended to leave the game at a much higher rate than others in HS corps who were not wardecked. Question for CCP then becomes can they keep the current game mechanics and maintain the game’s health despite the player loss. You seem to think they can. What happens if their data analysis have a different conclusion; i.e., change the mechanics or risk reaching critical mass for the game to implode? It appears that you are recommending having the game fold instead of changing if it makes good business sense. Is this your view?
Seems to me like the sacrifice you’re talking about is the players, not ‘knowing that some don’t fit’.
It’s in the best interests of the game to get and keep as many people in space as we can. No, it doesn’t matter if they’re wank-all-over-the-killmails types or complete pve carebears. Get them in, get them invested, get them to keep coming back. They’ll adjust. It’ll take time, but they’ll adjust. And if the way to get them to stay is ‘better gameplay’, then that’s a win-win.
EVE already has room for all of them. Exploration, building, killing people, EVE has aspects that approach those games. You just don’t seem to want to see that. Maybe you’re too wrapped up in thinking you have the one ‘right’ way to play EVE, I don’t know. You’re the one who insisted people could have ‘wrong’ reasons for quitting.
2 Likes
I cannot see who you are replying to, but I’m guessing this is a follow-up.
No, this is not my view. My view is that we should keep as much of EVE’s culture as it as and keep making it a game for EVE players. A removal of wardecs would be a big loss for the game’s culture. Same goes for trying to give an upside to loss, when much of EVE’s culture is build upon the idea of inflicting losses and these being intentionally hurtful. EVE can be a very emotional game, but this is because of loss. Hence the saying “loss is meaningful”. To start giving out medals just for a participation and to keep everyone happy strikes hard at the core of EVE’s culture. I find it’s outright stupid and can only bring the most unwanted kind of players to EVE.
And the issue appears to be that in the long term, you can either keep EVE’s culture… or you can keep EVE.
Pick one.
2 Likes
That doesn’t change the facts that Noragen is right.
Let’s see your answer to this 
There is no long term. Stop thinking you could fix all problems, present and future, in one go.
Seems you’ve made your choice. And it’s not surprising.
Doom-saying isn’t a choice at all.