I kill barges every day I log in. I don’t need an event for that.
It seems to me you have some seriously wrong expectations about this game. EVE is not a space shooter where flying skills count above all else. It is more like a strategy game where you have to plan ahead of what you want to put on the table and what security measures you want to take.
It is perfectly possible to play in Highsec without having to fear anything at all. You just have to do some research to make yourself secure by chosing the proper ship and the proper fit for the thing you want to do. That is not only part of the game, THAT IS THE GAME.
Your post makes it sound like you want CCP to play the game for you, where they should dumb it down so heavily that choices of ships and ship fittings no longer matter.
My entire point is that there’s no strategy involved, they can pick a place where you won’t be fit to fight them, engage at their prerogative and kill at will. I’d have NO PROBLEM if you had to play smart to fly safe, the problem is that isn’t how things work in practice.
Why? That sounds like an extremely good strategy to me, to kill your enemy with the biggest available club when he least expects it is an art in war.
But you can fly smart and then you avoid all the problems.
Let’s do an example. Tell us what you want to do in the game where you are currently afraid you could lose your ship and we can give you right here right now some tips how you can improve your gameplay tho mitigate that risk.
Then you don’t have to wait for CCP to change the game, because you would actually wait forever since the game is not really the problem
That’s all pretty wrong and completely misrepresents how the game works. Depending on how and where you operate, you greatly control the cost, and therefore the chance, of someone aggressing you. Take highsec mining for an example: attacking a tanked Skiff in a 1.0 or 0.9 system costs much, much more, like an order or two of magnitude more, than shooting an untanked Covetor in a 0.5 system. Claiming that you have an equal chance at being killed in those two circumstances is just silly.
Just because you can be killed by some hypothetical attacker with unlimited resources, accounts and time in a tanked ship in a 1.0 system doesn’t mean there is a realistic chance of that ever happening, or that you have the same chance of being exploded as in if you flew an untanked ship in a 0.5 security system.
Further, you can play smart to be safer in most circumstances. Scouting, being vigilant, watching local and dscan and flying slippery ships, will allow you to escape even the most determined attacker. Whether it is worth spending your time on that given the safety blanket of the deterrence of CONCORD is another issue, but it is possible. All the active mechanics that allow players to operate reasonably safely in lowsec/nullsec exist in highsec as well.
EVE should and does penalize behavior that would often be penalized in RL. Just look at the KB. Ships lost to laziness,failing to fit properly,overstuffing with high value cargo, traveling through known gank systems, ignoring being a war target, trying to earn money while being afk and not understanding game mechanics (i.e., how things work) to name just part of the errors being revealed. Granted there are ship losses where the player did everything right and still lost his ship, but I would argue that most of the ship losses where the loser was PvEing are due to player error, not anything generally faulty in EVE. While issues like the current bumping mechanics should be reviewed (unlimited unlawfull restraint not causing some type of suspect flag?), most of your loss risk can be mitigated by making an effort to do your homework, learn the rules, plan ahead, be current with the news, and not be lazy and actually do the work you are being “paid” for (actually be at the keyboard). These qualities are part of what makes you succeed in RL,too.
If you are talkin about RL, then you should also notice that some atrocities are not penalized, even when there is law prohibiting commiting the atrocities. Some stuff slips thru the cracks.
Game system should in theory be a lot more easy to balance, but of course CCP thinks EVE is real, and they would rather take your money, laugh and leave you with people who would “put poo in someones boots” than make a game where its impossible to “put poo in someones boots”.
I am not sure exactly what your reply to my post is trying to say. Are you claiming that destroying another person’s ship in a labled PvP designed game is an atrocity? Of course you aren’t. Are you then claiming that a person’s ship should be inviolate unless he chooses to volunteer to engage in battle and that such battle is equal in ability no matter the circumstances? I sure hope not. CCP developed this game with a certain concept in mind, developed a set of rules to facilitate and structure gameplay, is willing to look at the rules and change them if they violate or change what their concept of EVE is, and have been relatively clear on what they want to happen within their product. This concept may or may not be what you hoped or want, but it clearly has been listed and revealed before someone purchases it. Kind of like buying laundry detergent because it cleans so well, deciding to use it as mouthwash, and then complaining that it should be safe for consumption. CCP has set the rules and the concept of the game that everyone must follow or get banned; the only other reasonable choice is to find another game that better matches your needs.
Probably won’t be Falcon at that point, maybe Guard…maybe…
forecast edit:
All good things must end eventually, of course. When that happens; Falcon will have left to pursue his passion for studying moss’, Hilmar will become the Hákarl export king of Iceland, Guard will be elected mayor of Reykjavik for many terms, some ccp employees will band together to form a fishing fleet, some will get jobs in the gaming/tech industry, and some will become Mimes and Buskers on the streets of the world. We former players will gather together in EvE-reunions attended by fewer and fewer and tell EvE stories on forums and to anyone who will listen until they get sick of it. It will all work out.
EVE was designed and programmed by people and people make errors. There will always be areas that need to be improved/fixed, the “cracks” you mentioned, but CCP has always worked within their asset resources to make EVE a better game within their concept. That last part is important, because no matter what improvements CCP makes in the game, the cracks and faults you percieve will always remain huge or gamebreaking if you cannot accept their vision of what they want the game to be. Wanting something different isn’t wrong, demanding the devs change their concept to better fit your gameplay is. Could CCP make better use of their assets? Sure. Could CCP redesign or tinker with some of the rules a bit? Probably. Should they change the underlying concept of EVE? Hell no!
Of course! You can see my post above. You like this. Others not necessarily. One time CCP wanted to make it for wider audience, they completely failed, because of many, many reasons. Do I really have to repeat everything over and over? No, I dont.
But I would like see CCP succeding at last with immersive experience including characters and enviroments really showing out the EVE world, how humans see it, not thru camera drones. Bring WIS CCP!
They will probably never return to that given the history of CQ. Also what would the gameplay be? Look at starcitizen, those animations look awesome sure, but after five times you have seen it and you don’t want to run 10 min trough the same city over and over again just to buy some stuff. There is just not a lot of gameplay value if the thing is just some sort of 3d menu which you could otherwise fit into a flat ui.
Actually I dont like animations there. There is better way of animating characters than SC have. Procedural animation is the way to go I think. Overgrowth and GTA5 have some good systems.
I dont say CCP have to bring it to EVE, as there is even better candidate for WIS in the making. Project Nova.
