Not really. There are less and less actual fights with trillions of isk worth of ships being destroyed. It’s mostly just minor skirmishes and structures bashes (neither of which would significantly raise destruction).
3 Likes
Significantly. Hm.
I don’t know the numbers.
I would guess that every ship counts and when engagements cover a few hundred people …
… that’s still a lot of minerals getting burned. Never make good the enemy of perfect.
Unless they’ve stopped doing that entirely.
Personally, the only thing that actually impresses me about the whole ordeal is how long they’re all at it already.
That’s because sov warfare is hot garbage.
It takes like 5-6 weeks to prime a system. You need to first cloaky camp the system to drop the ADMs so that it’s at a level you can sustainably attack. Then you need to anchor your own. From there, you literally have to sit on it for 30 days to get the sov adms high enough to anchor and online cyno jammers. Only then can you effectively wage an offensive without getting dreadbombed to hell and back.
That’s just 1 system, and the strategic objective is control over an IHUB (and literally just waiting 30 days). That doesn’t really contribute to any significant destruction. You won’t see people dropping fleets of Titans, supers, and dreads to contest a dinky IHUB.
So yeah, it takes a long time, and not much stuff actually gets blown up in the process.
3 Likes
Thanks for the insights!
A late Merry Christmas, Scoots! 
Merry christmas to you, too!
1 Like
I’m of the opinion that the entire sovereignty system needs to go. Null-sec should be like any other space, except without CONCORD and navies. This whole arbitrary system of needing to satisfy nonsensical conditions is dumb. Just let everyone anchor structures in all space, and then defense of territory would actually come down to having an armed presence in the area you want to protect.
4 Likes
even the low sec sovereignty system is better
we plex thill a bar is full them we can destroy the ihub in one night
like 10 dudes can do it
I had to skim the OP again before making a comment…
For one im not sure on this statement by the OP:
But reading things and a post here and there…
Small gang roams, ganking for profit, solo play, stuff of that nature…no i dont believe EvE is designed to support these things, but it is not designed to no support them either.
What I think that most of the vets from my generation (2011 and onward), not the older ones have forgotten is that organizational play is what EvE is designed to support.
and that organizational play concerns Territorial Control, Security, Resource Control for you and your membership. Yes membership, as a content creator or Leader, your job is to create organizational means and options for your player group to gather resources, sell those resources(preferably internally only), use those resources to build what your organization needs.
If at any time Combat PvP becomes necessary, then it becomes necessary…
I will take myself and partners as an example… we have an organization that mines ores, including even now losec, WH stuff and even Pochven. My corp purchases most if not all of that stuff from the resource group. Our Wardec and Gank groups do mission running, anoms, data sites, etc when not needed or go find a fight by roaming about when not needed.
However my corp we churn out tons of stuff for all 3 of those groups…mining gear and ship for the resource guys, ships and structures for the wardecr’s, and gank stuff for the ganker group. What we dont need to give them…well it goes to market, and I can honestly say thanx jita and perimeter for the 150 Billion ISK profits of your money over the past 2 weeks, it has been a pleasure not spending our ISK and taking yours.
my point is…the economy is not broken, at the individual player level. It really is not broken at the current organizational level my friends and I are playing at. And yeah those that know us as in crossing paths with us…we dont gank for profit, we gank to keep you out of the belts, we bump to stop your mining competition…if are not blue we will mess with you one way or another, if you are not blue and we feel like it…yes we start dropping gank fleets on targets…cause we can, cause we have been building gank ships since 2013 and hoarding them as much as possible.
CCP is not going to stop players like me from hoarding and collecting stuff, their plan is stupid and CCP Rattati is whacked out of his mind if he thinks it will or is working.
And i say that last cause of what OP said in the start of its post…
GIla prices? who cares I got prints coming out of my capsuleer plug ports I can build them they dont cost me 180m ISK.
Shield mods…hmph again right now i have the ability to go get 100 each Faction types from the LP store…just need to build T1’s which are cheap…and T2’s, i have a warhouse container of prints waiting to be built.
Same with any T1 battleship…10 million ISK out of pocket to build, minerals come from me mining, gun mining, and buying the ores from our resource groups…
One simply has to remember and look at EvE one way…a strategy game, the original 3 kindoms or Ghengis Khan from the 1980’s…you need to deal with politics and react to them or be proactive, you need to build a local economy, and grow your civilization, and you can hope for peace, but you should prepare for war, and even be ready to use heavy handed policing actions to secure your territory.
That is EvE…
James 315 and his vision was not EvE, it had a singular path that was not very flexible…and it was geared on profit making and belittling others that were not pure ganker only types.
I could go on but already im realizing im starting to write a book, so ill end it with this…
The so called PvP vs Carebear vs GAnker vs PvPvPE arguments…are well just stupid they all for the most part are singular in nature, not collectively trying to a mix of all of it in one group… want to tal kabout real economy and destruction…join a group, be part of part something greater then yourself…and you will know when that is, when you are playing the game not for yourself but the players in your group. otherwise most every ones arguments on this kind of stuff is…i already said it stupid and rubbish.
2 Likes
I don’t want to jump to argument here but AFAIK there is not so much difference between ganking in high-sec and small gang roams.
- In both cases you have a range of targets you can and cannot (shouldn’t) attack.
- You go to the place where you expect some targets you can kill.
- You don’t start obviously losing fights. You only attack when you sure you can win (at least have high enough chance).
- The only chance to be forced to win-less action is to be tricked to think that you have an upper hand.
- Most of the time small gangs seek fatter targets (rorquals/carriers/etc). Some t1 mining barges or alpha-vexors usually go as means to provoke defense fleet to engage. Again: expectation here is that defense fleets usually unorganized and will provide some kills. If defense fleet looks like not-winnable gang leaves the area.
So yeah, while it looks like there is huge difference in these activities mechanically both of them are not much different.
1 Like
That is why I said small gang vs small gang and not small gang just roaming finding things to shoot. Because yea, its the same if you find something juicy its basically just blobbing but that isn’t really fun.
When you find a similar fleet in equal strength, the fight is worlds apart in terms of enjoyment in my opinion but its super rare like maybe 5% chance per roam of finding a fight like that, and when you do its enough of an endorphin release to make the next roam seem exciting before its even began.
I mean which fight is more exciting to watch nvm fly:
or
It’s pretty obvious
World’s apart
2 Likes
What did I miss? He’s got himself banned finally?
He didnt fit here as much as he thought.
2 Likes
He fitted perfectly. I miss him…
3 Likes
Sorry, holidays have been busy so let the thread lag for a bit. Will try to catch up on various legit questions when I can.
There’s a difference between what I mean by ‘support’ and some other people mean by support. Some of the PvP fanbois who replied are basically using “My ship has guns so EvE supports PvP, DUH!” as their definition.
When I say “support consistent high levels of player combat”, I mean does the design of EVE encourage a substantial portion of the player base to go out and engage in player combat on a relatively frequent basis, thereby leading to higher levels of player-initiated destruction?
Clearly not, as PvP in EVE is a losing proposition that’s often difficult to locate, difficult to manage/control the scope of engagement (hot drops etc.), and has too few rewards to be sustainable. (For the knee-jerk trolls, remember that ‘rewards’ and ‘profit’ are two different concepts.) As a result, PvP in EVE is a minority activity.
You also mentioned
I don’t believe this is correct either. To my view, “organizational play” is supported to the same extent that PvP is supported by having guns on ships: the basic tool is there, and CCP may talk about it a lot (like with PvP), but that doesn’t mean the game is designed to properly support it.
If it was, for instance, there would be more benefits for small corps, more reason for new players to join a corp, more ways to encourage people in your corp to be more active at certain things, more ways to reward the corp and its members for doing their role properly.
All of these things can be accomplished by direct personal intervention of course. You can personally send out a corp email saying “The player who sends me the highest value killmail against Corp X this week gets a new Machariel as a reward”, and then each member can personally log his kills and send you a copy, and you can personally check each of them over and compare them and then contract a Machariel to the winner and he can fly over and pick it up. Pretty much the same way you can still do PvP even though the game isn’t “designed” to support it consistently.
At the moment it’s more appropriate to say “To succeed in EVE you need to have more power than the other guy. One way to have more power is to join a corp with more power than you. Eventually the few biggest corps/alliances in the game will have effectively all the power to do anything they want, and they’ll control whatever parts of the game they feel like.” So saying EVE is designed for organizational play is really just saying “Corps have bigger sticks than solos, so if you don’t want to be clobbered, join a bigger corp.”
Actual organizational design would make it easier to join and warp to fleets, would institute various tools and rewards for corp membership, would allow corps to set up a wider variety of contracts and rewards for members. That sort of thing.
If that would be truth, he would still be here.
I dont.
3 Likes
You’re still dodging the fact that this is just tangential / pretty much irrelevant as it regards CCP’s view on the ecosystem as well as they recent changes they’ve made to wealth generation.
Would it be nice if there were more ways to encourage PvP destruction? Sure.
Does adding some side event like this stop the ISK faucets that CCP wants to close? No.
Same.
I can see how the losses tied to risky behavior can induce impulsive actions of buying more PLEX from CCP, thats why CCP wanted to add more gambling and destruction by NPCs. That way even undocking or jumping gate may be a gamble sometimes.
1 Like
Actually yeah, that is risk aversion. Risk seekers seek risk. Think of people who have a gambling addiction.
Sure, form time - to - time you might do that, but unless you are doing it routinely you are not really a risk seeker. Just like you might go out and plan on throwing away some money in Vegas and having fun. Doesn’t really make you a risk seeker…if anything such excursions underscore your risk averse nature. And again…that isn’t an insult, it means your a normal reasonable person.
2 Likes
So anyone you don’t agree with should be banned immediately ?
If you didn’t want to read his posts, you could easily mute him.
Entirely your choice, but no reason to ban him from the forums altogether.
I want to be clear here. Managing one’s risk - i.e., reducing risk - is risk aversion. If you need to move say a large amount of valuable stuff and you “manage your risk” that is, you mitigate your risk…you are reducing it. You are demonstrating risk aversion. This isn’t bad. This is good. People should do this, IMO. Freighter ganking (is that still a thing - looks like it based on zkill) is where people did not mitigate their risk. Instead they took on more risk than they realized. If you have to move say 8 billion ISK worth of stuff and you “manage your risk” you are risk averse. Nothing wrong with that. Gankers are basically showing players what happens when they do not manage their risk properly.
Seriously stop calling risk averse players “risk averse” as if it is a bad thing. It simply makes you look stupid. If a player undocks with 8 billion ISK in their obelisk and dies in a fire in Uedama you point and laugh at him. But you don’t sneer and heap scorn on the player who uses a JF to bypass Uedama and move his stuff safely…instead you point to him and say, “Well done.”
You have giant contradiction in your game philosophy and it just makes you look dumb. Sit down and have a long and serious think.
1 Like