You mean like the motivations to why people pvp or not?
Depending on your definition of carebear, there isn’t.
Carebears, by the definition most used by these forums, seek the removal of non-consensual pvp. This is fundamentally incompatible with what many pvp players seek and anathema to EVE’s core design.
Stats you’re talking to is after increases to hi-sec safety. Naturally when you nerf pvp into the ground, less people are going to do it.
This was the result of wardecs nerfs and ganking nerfs. Simply less people are doing it in the same way less people are null ratting when it came to blackout.
Such as?
You say that, but you have become one of the most miserable people on the forums and CCP always seem to take the game in directions at odds with your own desires.
You think CCP are doing it wrong, but you don’t think that the reason for this may be that CCP goals are not what you think?
Last changes on ganking where a buff as I remember, it was 20% buff to close range ammo damage if im not mistaken, also active resists where needed too. So think gankers got buffed after all
I have a long standing sort of competition with @Dracvlad about the buffs/nerfs to ganking.
And ganking has indeed received buffs. Surgical strike was a big buff to ganking as you describe (and what do you know retention is apparently better these days). The introduction of Attack Battle Cruisers was another buff to ganking.
And what a few people are explaining above when destroyers became a lot more dangerous, is when CCP removed from all destroyers their 50% rof penalty.
But, prior to the statistic offered by @Kezrai_Charzai, ganking had not been nerfed as much as today.
Concord took longer to respond (there was even a time when concord could be fought off)
All ships had lower EHP (much much lower).
Suicided ships paid insurance so ganking expenses were more recoverable.
victims couldn’t share kill rights and had to seek their own vengeance.
It was even possible to warp out before concord arrived meaning you could gank without losing a ship.
This is far from an exhaustive list. But it used to be much easier and far cheaper to gank.
Thank you, that was a good post. Much better than your usual information-free “carebears killed the game” insult posts. Although what you’re really saying here isn’t anything about carebears, it’s actually about a maturing game that got bigger than the stage you preferred it at. All the things you’re complaining about here (TiDi, Captial meta, larger mining vessels) are due to EVE growing and expanding and working it’s way up CCP’s “bigger is better, move to Null, join a bloc, farm with capitals, fight news-making wars and above all, sub those alts!” game plan.
The odd thing about it is, what you’re really saying here is “make PvP more accessible, more engaging, more interesting, more rewarding, for more players again”.
So in other words you’re totally agreeing with my position:
Sorry, once again you see only the most obvious surface level that supports your greivances.
The actual point was, once the game meta matured to where you couldn’t score wins, but would instead rack up losses and costs, you left that area. Because you weren’t getting the results you wanted, and you were losing ships and ISK, and you were just free targets for bored Nullers who only wanted an easy kill.
Which is exactly the same complaints the so-called high-sec carebears make about you.
The nullers joked about how your “PvP” crowd turned tail and fled the scene, rather than getting organized and fighting back.
Which is exactly what the high-sec ‘PvP’ crowd says about ‘carebears’.
Basically, you’ve got your head so far up your nether regions that you’ve decided somehow your own victims, who are responding to the game exactly the same way you did (given their own preferred playstyle), somehow those victims are the source of your troubles rather than CCP’s “move to null join a bloc farm free forever on multiple subbed alts” game design.
And the hilarious thing is you’ve been blaming those high sec players, doing their own thing, for ruining the game for years because they’re simply declining to be easy targets for you. Your playstyle requires people to essentially volunteer to be consumable victims for you. When the Null folks made you a consumable victim, you fled. The high sec players have nowhere to flee to, so they just leave the game. CCP sees they leave the game, which means they never graduate to becoming null-sec multi-alt bloc farmers, and sees the drop in potential subs, and changes the game to retain more of those farmers who voted with their feet.
It is literally your playstyle (executed upon you by other more capable players) that killed small-gang PvP, and then pushed enough PvE players out of high-sec that CCP ‘nerfed’ things. You’ll be too committed to one single viewpoint to admit that of course, but that’s what happened.
The problem with EVE was and always has been that the base design of the PvP in the game causes these results. A bigger group targets a weaker group, causing enough losses that the other group has essentially no choice but to leave the field and go elsewhere. Since there is a limited number of places to go, eventually players are pushed out of the game. CCP nerfs their ‘PvP’ game to retain the much larger PvE crowd, so the PvP becomes even less workable, and the game starts to die.
The current high sec ‘PvP’ crowd, crying for ‘better PvP in high sec’ (without even realizing the irony of that), and the null sec N+1 crowd, and the EVE game designers, are all just in a huge cycle of making things worse and blaming someone else for the problem (it’s the carebears, it’s the Sov system, it’s the players who don’t play right).
You may be informed about your one narrow aspect of the game, but you’re apparently clueless about overall game design or how people react to a dynamically shifting risk environment. That’s no big deal, apparently nobody at CCP understands it either.
It is, however, the thing people are going to have to address if they want any hope at all of actually improving EVE. As opposed to just making “Chaos changes” to simulate life for a few years longer before PA decides to send in some new directors and turn it into Space Desert Online.
Well, you’re definitely hitting the ball out of the park with most every reply you post.
Unfortunately the crowd you’re responding to will never change their minds. They’ll just call in a few more mates to gangbang you with the hope of chasing you away from the forums, just like they’ve done in the past to countless others.
Hi-sec PvP did not cause retention problems. CCP themselves said that. Instead it seemed the opposite was true and player subs were growing every year. CCP did not see player retention problems before they nerfed hi-sec PvP, they read the incessant whining of carebears and believed these whiners when they said they’d play more if PvP was more restricted.
Surprise surprise it was a lie. These players did not play more, or at least not enough to make-up for the players they were then losing. And the PvP’ers practiced exactly what they preached, they consolidated into bigger groups and became even more oppressive to the carebears.
And CCP didn’t learn from this straight away and further iterated hi-sec safety and lost even more players every time hi-sec became more safe.
So you have it all backwards.
Smallgang pvp wasn’t drying up. Hi-sec pvp wasnt drying up. And pvp wasn’t driving a significant amount of players out of the game.
CCP had to make the game more farmer friendly before any of that started to happen. And even then, the latest war dec changes transformed the stable game activity into yet another decline.
That’s the case on both “sides” It’s just the tension between “pvpers” and “pveers”: a clash of views and that’s fine tbh, it just gets kinda boring when the same people bring up the same points, on both sides.
Its something that has become very obvious, to me.
The easier an activity is, the more players will do it on their own or in small groups. The harder an activity is, the more players will form together into larger groups.
It has become harder to wardec and gank, and the players pursuing that activity have formed larger and larger groups to do so. It has become very easy to run a corp in hisec and tax-free alt corps have become increasingly common.
Look, Daichi, I know you like to hairsplit over words, chop logic, and argue endlessly about he said/she said. But you only ever have your completely unsupported opinion to offer, and that opinion only ever has one focus, and you’ve rarely got anything constructive to say. Apparently you’re only looking for validation that someone feels you’re worth arguing with.
When you have facts, data, references to refer to, you might be worth engaging in debate. If you’re too lazy to do anything but re-state your opinion endlessly then there’s no content to your posts. Until there’s content, you’ll get few replies from me. I’m only interested in real workable information. All the published data supports my hypothesis. No published data anywhere shows PvP as being even 30% of game activity.
Again, you ignore the simple facts. Apparently just because you can’t argue with them. The year after Crimewatch 2.0 was released was EVE’s biggest and most active year ever. Go check the logins. Go check the posts and blogs from the time of Retributions release for the next year.
And the PvPers themselves are the ones claiming that Smallgang and Hi-sec dried up at that time.
Facts. References. Supporting information. Your opinion is only of any relevance to you.
‘Most miserable’? I certainly may make your forum days rougher, by requesting you actually put some effort in it you want to participate and be taken seriously. If you can spot any posts where I’m crying about my losses, saying I can’t make ISK anymore, hate the game, or Eve is doomed, you’re more than welcome to start linking them. Stating the obvious facts that make you unhappy certainly doesn’t make me miserable.
And still is very easy to do. those changes where AGES ago, whole game had diff mechanics and stuff, but talking about 2 years ago to present day( the time I play) I saw only buffs to ganking , so when someone say " ganking got nerfed " it’s not an accurate term, since ganking been buffed over and over.
You just said CCP saw that hi-sec PvP was driving players out the game which was never supported by anything other than players spreading anecdotes on the forums (much like you are doing now.)
What CCP saw was this:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
And this:
There is in fact no published data that supports your hypothesis. Your hypothesis literally talking about subjects from a period where there was no data related to such subjects save for log in numbers and the above.
I’m not denying that eve had a good year immediately after that, but it didn’t KEEP did it? It was not the steady increase of subs that the game had been experiencing before. And shortly after EVE logins fell fast.
Almost like a whole bunch of players thought they had gotten what they wanted…and then realised they weren’t going to stick around anyways.
This whole thread is basically opinion without such.
You’ve misunderstood what players were talking about when they said the economy was broken and then explained how it was actually broken. Then said everyone else had poorly informed opinion and then started making your own opinion of subjects for which there is no information to be informed on.
Your demanding everyone show facts on such subjects to argue against your lack of facts…It just goes on and on.
Exactly. It was a time when hi-sec PvP wasn’t so restricted.
The data @Kezrai_Charzai was using was from a few years back and he’s using it as though it demonstrates the the proportion of PvP players for the entire of eve’s existence. This is particularly dishonest since we know that activities that get nerfed often see a decline in participation.
See blackout, ESS/DBS, Datacore agents, level 5 mission agents, wardecs, production, anchoring structures etc etc.
So the fact that hi-sec PvP saw such heavy nerfs long before the % of PvP’ers numbers was released strongly suggests it is not representative of the % of PvP’ers before such nerfs.
It’s just the tension between “pvpers” and “pveers”: a clash of views and that’s fine tbh, it just gets kinda boring when the same people bring up the same points, on both sides.