You want everyone to fight?
It doesnt matter, you only want those who want to PvP to fight, not those who doesnt. Those who doesnt will have to do things that dont involve fighting, or they wil escape from battlefield. They can do farming, producing ammo, they can do everyting but not fight,
You dont put Alan Turing into a Soviet tank without radio and give him order to fight with Tigers.
No. I want to understand why people do what they do. Whatever that is. Because thatâs the only way you understand what you need to provide in order to retain players even when theyâve been forced by circumstance into gameplay they didnât want.
The question of âwhy do they want to fight?â is relevant with regard to those players (the highsec gankers, pirates, and wardeccers, nullsec and lowsec combat pilots, etc) because thatâs what they do want.
So, if thatâs what they want⌠why do they want it? And the answer is⌠social bonds, even for just a moment. Even negative ones. Connecting with other people in a way that feels significant.
The question for the people leaving is âwhat arenât they getting that they wanted? Why are they finding other options?â And from talking to the highsec players there, some of whom have quit for a time themselves, all of whom know people who have⌠and remembering my own reasons for my several abortive attempts⌠you feel helpless. You feel like you donât matter. Youâre just a fly on someoneâs windshield. Youâre insignificant.
The commonality is that most people in EVE seem to do what they do because it gives them a feeling of relevance, of mattering. Of being in control of something, in some ways, in a life where weâre so often not.
People do what they do because of multiple reasons. You only want to gather them, this type or another and do something with them. Unfortunately you cant grow an eve player from beginning, from childhood.
These are like blocks that come preformed, some are fitting into their places in EVE more than others, and you have to work with already formed individuals. You cant break their will. They will just run away.
And Iâm not trying to break their wills. I donât care what they do, I want them to keep doing it. I want them to feel like they can do what they want to do without feeling abused and helpless and driven to quit. WHATEVER what they want to do is.
Keeping them in the game matters far more than any other aspect of all of this. Iâm not trying to tell them what to do, at all. So no, I donât âonly want to gather them, this type or another and do something with themâ. Stop looking for an agenda when Iâve already told you what mine is: Player retention.
You compete by deploying the rigs. Yes, that puts you at greater risk so you better deal with a prepare for that risk.
There is no point in giving players equal benefits to those who take risks. Then no one would do it. It only makes sense that more efficiency comes with more risk.
CCP really has no choice but to make it work this way.
Wardeccers have risk, but we can give them more if that seems reasonable They seem quite comfortable with risk, or at least dealing with risk.
But the issue raised in the CSM minutes isnât wardeccers, but rather their targets who are logging off. Raising the mechanical risk on the aggressor is of no use if the defender is unable, or unwilling to undock.
Iâm not sure of that. Highsec is suppose to be safer and more conducive to small groups, but I am not sure it is suppose to be less competitive. CCP doesnât really like to say what highsec is suppose to be which makes these discussion more difficult.
You have a point that controlling say a market hub in the highsec system of Perimiter is highly competitive, but I think that is intended. Certainly, the mechanics as designed are going to make control of the markets there the domain of only the largest groups in the game.
Ganking is mechanically harder than ever. This is demonstrably true. Lucas Kell is being disingenuous or mistaken.
But this has nothing to do with wardecs. Criminals operate on the fringes and catch only the laziest, ignorant and unluckiest of players. Maybe they need more risk, maybe they donât, but they are not driving non-competitive corporations from the game by forcing them inactive for 7 days or more.
Maybe. Personally I think all the nerfs to PvP, and buffs to income outside of highsec are what is responsible for decreased highsec activity. But regardless, a social corp would go a long way to giving social players a way to opt-out of wars and play the game together.
Simple, when players that want to mine cant mine, they leave, when players that want to pvp cant pvp they leave. When they meet each other they will both leave, because there is no common goal.
PvE guy meets PvP guy, what s happening? Should it happen?
Whats wrong here? EVE creators thought that nothing is wrong here.
EVE was always about clashing everything with everyone. Its open PvP and as such is niche. Its natural what is happening, happened always in this game.
Now Plase reread it because I edited, too much errors. 
And I think thatâs too facile and shallow a reading of things, especially if youâre trying to design a good skinner box (which is all any game is).
Maybe there IS a way to encourage a HS corporation to participate in a wardec.
Spitballing here, but the thinking goes like this:
HS social corporations usually form to create a group of friends who are united in their way of playing EVE. For most of them, this includes mining,missioning, and exploring; PvP is at the bottom of the list outside of the usual ganks in belts/tradehubs. When a corporation gets decced the options to them are either engaging in PvP or remain docked up, the current costs of hiring mercenary protection are prohibitive and ripe for scamming via rotating deccers/protection. To the decced corporation, there are no good choices.
What if EVE offered a way where a decced corp could fight back by undertaking activities they already were doing and enjoying in EVE? The rough plan would be:
Corporation would be wardecked.
The social corporation has its available missions turned into mining missions if no mining agent available or mining missions are added to the available pool of missions. Exploration missions would be added/or sites probed down and explored.
The corporation is tasked with options to choose between or combine of mining,manufacturing, transporting,exploration, in addition to âregularâ PvP.
Only resources that are gathered in the missions or existing belts count toward earning âvictory pointsâ, you cannot buy your way to victory using the market.
Victory is achieved when one side earns enough victory points: the deccer through ships destroyed, the defender by accumulating points doing activities they like doing already.
Still spiballing, but a scenario may go like this:
Corp decced. The defender likes mining and missioning. Decides to mine for victory points. Escapes station/system camp and travels to another system to mine belts; bolder defending players attempt to mine in home system/surrounding systems via established belts or through assigned missions. All product must be brought back to home station to qualify for victory points. While the defender may have Insta docks/undocks there will be plenty of chances during the event for the deccer to interfere.
This creates a situation where the defender gets an option to remain active during a Dec doing activities he likes. The deccer interrupts the normal activity of the defender by making them drop their current profit making activities to focus on earning vp; points that are worth nothing in themselves except in regards to adding together to end the war. Hard to be gamed since there is nothing special,unique, or valuable in gaming vp and the defender is forced to stop doing their normal activities for the profit and temporarily do it to end the war.
Anyway, just trying to keep people involved with the game; what better way than adding a mechanic that allows people to continue to do activites they are comfortable with while the deccer gets the interuption in the defenders normal routine and more PvP opportunities. Win/Win?
They have no chance, I want them to have a chance.
That risk of losing their ship is pretty low, though recent events may in fact change that.
Of course, you have to change attitudes and that takes time, and having something that they can achieve is what will change that attitude, and then we can see a balance change back in the direction of war decs.
Well it is very risky and competitive, I am not against competition, but in a game if you have it skewed too much in favour of one side, then people do not partake and you have to adjust.
That is not an issue, that is high reward and therefore needs to be competitive, however getting in touching distance of null sec producers is that supposed to be ultra high risk?
Nope, I agree with him, and it appears that others do too.
Oh dear, ganking is part of the game, and war deckers and gankers are often the same players. War decs make ganking easier, because most players end up using less skilled secondary characters to move stuff so they use industrials rather than DSTâs and kaboom⌠Also pushing the players to use out of corp alts for freighters ends up creating less security, because the duel their webber and that means people canât rep them without going suspect. War decs are often used to create the easier ganks.
Wel yes, but still war decs will continue to drive out a lot of players, because at this point they have no way to fight back to end the war dec. They are at the mercy of the war decker deciding to end the war dec and that is the issue. I donât think the solution of a Propaganda structure on itâs own will solve it, but it can create the feeling that they can fight back and then people will have to stand up and do it.
If wars would be allowed only from a certain treshhold, like amount of kills, then pvp would meet pvp, but pvp wants to meet pve because it is easy kill.
If you devise a system that finds a place for everyone. makes corporations for people and will be operated on actual research, like when you fill blanks, get corp suggestion, then it would be a small step FORWARD. 
But all corps would have to be balanced. And PvP corps fighting with PvP corps, while the industry guys are immune and produce.
Read: Think if the children!!!111eleventy
Children actually are so inexperienced they would rather do stupid things, you are dealing with adults, and these are carefull beings, not some âI will touch fireâ types.
Have you met EVE players? Theyâre far closer to âhold mah beer.â
It depends who you meet I suppose. Generally tho, these are adults.
I would rather treat them as such and make systems that are for them. Elsewhere only some drunks will stay.
People, by and large, are not rational actors. Theyâre stimulus-response engines with enough recursive complexity that the aggregate response actually deludes itself into consciousness. People self-select for the games that suit them, and the games then shape them further in that direction.
EVE will never be populated by adults. It makes drooling idiots of most of its players.
Rest leaves with wardecs. Not being shaped.
Cant blame them. I blame CCP.
I resent that remark.
I was a fully qualified drooling idiot before ever finding EvE. I contract out my services to test claims of systems being foolproof.
They have a chance. Everyone does in New Eden. But New Eden is a massive, persistent, open world Battle Royale. âWinningâ isnât going to be handed to everyone on a platter.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. People lose stuff to gankers when they fail to take sufficient precautions and get unlucky. That is normal and intended gameplay.
Maybe there are some issues that need fixing around neutral repping when it comes to wars, but criminals are often already free-to-shoot, and immediately become so if they arenât already when they commit a criminal act. As does anyone who tries to rep them.
Ganking has nothing significant to do with wars, even if the subset of players willing to engage in both somewhat overlaps. Profitable ganking is only possible after several decisions are made by the victim that make them a viable target. It also is over in minutes, not a week. We can discuss whether it is âbalancedâ somewhere else, but conflating criminal suicide ganking this with the current discussion of wars is just a distraction.
Exactly. So why not give them the ability to end the war by moving back to a social corp (or equivalent)? I agree, this the paramount issue that needs to be addressed: to provide a mechanism for groups who have had enough of wars to get out of them, or never experience them in the first place.
But let not be suddenly surprised that when you have to manufacture the platter, kill the bear, cook it and all of that when battling wolfs, you dont get much survivors that survive to a dining part.
I get your point, but it isnât really true. If anything, CCP has doubled down on the âmaking everyone a winnerâ strategy. They have cranked open the wealth faucets, turned safety up to 11, and embraced a strategy of âa supercapital in every hangerâ to keep people playing the game. Personally, I think the chickens will shortly be coming home to roost and we will see serious, possibly fatal, ramifications for the last years of excess.
But perhaps today is just one of the pessimistic ones. Maybe everything is just fine and will keep chugging along indefinitely. Maybe CCP will be able to reconcile the massive power creep of bribing veteran players with all these capital ships with the serious problem of the growing power gap between new entrants and the establishment.
