Questions welcomed
m
6 Likes
āThey believe safety is your problem, not theirsā.
The core of EVE.
6 Likes
Mike, gotta love the eurozone education system pumping out a population that speaks more than just their native language. One day I hope that EVE is translated into Australian, to deal with issues where items use armor vs armour and color vs colour.
I liked your story about why CCP will not deal with ganking, but I am both dissapointed and unsurprised by the response.
In an environment where safety is considered a personal responsibility, it seems to be an assumption that everyone pesonally has equal knowledge of what is safe and what is not.
Volcano and Lava are very uncommon in Australia, at least its not common ( there are caves up north made by lava a long time ago ) these days. There are a lot of indicators that being near it is bad, the heat, the bad smell, the fact everything it touches catches fireā¦
Iceland may beat Australia when it comes to the population standing on lava, though would the argument be as valid if it referred to anyone from either country standing on the beach?
It is a very serious problem in Australia, people arrive from overseas who are used to the water of their home country and think Australia is the same.
If it is ok to āblameā people who walk on the lava, is it also ok to āblameā people who drown at the beach?
The EVE ecosystem is clearly tilted in favour of the ganker. They have passive scanner alts on every trade route. They know the response time of CONCORD, the EHP of the target and the value of its cargo. They have the established wealth to pay for ships needed to achieve the raw alpha to kill a target and the transport ships poised to loot wrecks. They have the option of using ISK to buy security status to mitigate their āpunishmentā if it can even be called that.
This ecosystem is so different to any other game and the two sides are operating on completely different levels with only one side suffering the consequence of being unable to do the activity as the last resort risk mitigation.
Really appreciate your advocacy on this subject and taking the time to post a video, certainly makes me feel my votes were not wasted!
5 Likes
Equating IRL things to a fantasy video game set in a fantasy dangerous universe is fallacious reasoning.
A ship loss is a ship loss. There is no āblameā. There is only getting better for next time. Learning and preparation. Haul less, make more trips, tank more, scout more, live far from Jita, actively D-Scan, set scouts to Terrible Standing. If people donāt want to do that, then thereās still no āblameā. Just donāt expect a different outcome.
As soon as someone reaches for the āblameā tool, learning and preparation and getting better has stopped. Thatās a bummer.
2 Likes
No reason why the would be victim doesnt. 20 yrs of being around all the information someone needs, even how to avoid being ganked is available on the web. Rookie chat has all this stuff linked.
1 Like
Did you watch Mikeās video? The IRL example speaks to the mindset of those who make up and exert control over this virtual world.
Oh please, this is the same tired tropes from the gank threads. Where in the video was it mentioned Mike was having difficulty getting CCP to talk about maintaining the status quo?
Every time an issue is raised on this forum where the response is lacking, eg, chat disconnects, the launcher, industry tax changes, blackout, diversion of resources into non-eve side projects like gunjack, vanguard and CCP looks to ignores community concern its a symptom of this attitude of ājust avoid the lavaā that impacts everyone.
But things are not getting better. PLEX costs more than ever, Null sov is largely stagnant. FW got a brief bump but people are quickly tiring of the repetition. The latest industry tax increase made everything objectively more expensive. Where is the new Zarzak content?
Its a even bet that the next expansion for null will have little effect, at least not one that the large blocks will not benefit more from than the small.
2 Likes
Yes. The fact that a fantasy game is made by humans that exist IRL doesnāt mean that the fantasy has to be constrained by the morals of the real world. Itās basic freedom of expression. The only people IRL who are interested in ham-fisting creative expression of fantasy words expressed in games, art, movies, and pictures have historically been oppressive authoritarians.
In case you missed it, I was responding to you, directly, not Mike. I thought it would be obvious since I quoted your comment about āblameā ā the word is nowhere in Mikeās video. If youād like to engage me in good faith, Iām right here.
Speaking of, this whole paragraph:
Makes no sense. I am talking specifically about people who have lost ships to gankers. This is a topic you specifically brought up, and Iām engaging with it. Such players can always self improve and get better, and those specific tips I gave ā which you deride as ātired tropesā ā are for players. Not CCP.
You either unintentionally or willfully misunderstood the āplayers getting betterā to mean āEve Online the game code getting betterā, which is not what Iām talking about. Itās what you want to talk about. And thatās fine, you can play pretend game developer, but please dont quote me and pretend like youāre actually listening to me and responding to me. Youāre going on a tangent.
2 Likes
Was there any talk on QoL? Particularly was item stack multi-split[1] considered/mentioned?
Item stack multi-split would be ability to split an item stack in more than two sub-stacks in one go. Instead of āSplit stackā asking solely for sub-stack size, it could ask how many times to repeat the split or just do it it automatically until source stack size is lower than ordered target stack size. Also keyboard shortcut or RMB menu action for āStack splitā instead of Mouse Click+Shift+Mouse drag would also be massive QoL improvement. ā©ļø
1 Like
The topic, or rather the lack of meaningful discourse on the topic by the developers, is indicative. There are so many preventable miss-steps where the CSM and forum feedback was ignored. Ganking is specific area where this is playing out and a classic example of survivor bias at play.
So discouting changes to EVE code like removing the ability for alpha character to go red safety in high security space?
If a mechanic does port work changing your oil, is it not safe to assume the possibility that work on the braking system will be equally sub-par?
Which is all people want from the developers, some form of response, even if its not what they want to hear. If CCP only said āHey, sure, we know the player base has concerns with X, but we just do not careā we could at least know that they are doing something other than sweep it under the rug.
Theyve mentioned ganking several times over the years. Its not an issue
They have, over the years. Ganking is not going away.
Explicitly:
- from CCP Falcon
- EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do
- the rookie guide from CCP Games
- In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no
matter where they happen to be
- In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no
- also from CCP Swift on these very forums
- Asymmetric PvP, as well as ganking, is still allowed in EVE.
- the ā8 Golden Rulesā thread.
- You consent to PvP when you click āundockā.
- You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
Implicitly:
- Not removing ganking for >20 years at this point. Should be a VERY clear sign at this point.
I know itās not what you want to hear.
Yes, and gacha game mechanics have a playerbase that is classic survivor bias at play: people who are OK with all-luck no-skill gameplay locking them into an artificial ceiling at best, gambling addicts at worst. Thereās a reason you wonāt find me there, but Iām not sitting in those gamesā forums railing against their core game mechanic.
6 Likes
Do you think adjusting CONCORD reaction times (to faster ofc) or spawning more CONCORD ships with faster guns and higher DPS would be a bad idea?
Ultra multiboxing ganking is only possible because of advancements in gamming computers and the CONCORD timers might be inadequate atm 
How old are they? 2016? Or older?
1 Like
This is a false premise; ultra multiboxing ganking is only happening because of the balance changes over the decades that makes it required. By nature of the combat they are in, it is irrational to āultraā multibox (I donāt know what this really means) when you didnt have to and therefore historically it was unnecessary to throw away more ships than necessary.
Yeah, it is a bad idea. All youāre doing is banning ganking under another name.
Technically someone could gank you. Theyād just need to āultra megaā multibox now and lose a lot of ISK because itās probably not worth it. So in reality, no one would do it. Which is the goal of a few folks that grace the forums. Somehow I have my doubts that theyād stop there, given how so few of them speak up in my defense when someone complains about lowsec piracy.
1 Like
FYI, by ultra multiboxing I mean running a dozen clients (or more ) on same physical machine mainly thanks to High-End CPU + GPU + multiple display setups of today that wasnāt easily achievable few years ago - without horizontal scaling by actual hardware multiboxing - i.e. multiple physical computers with several keyboards or hooked to keyboard (and display) switch. Not everybody could afford that then or had space at their room/desk.
Todayās vertical scaling with monster CPU+GPU is relatively cheaper, mass affordable and waaaaay more convenient to use than that clunky multi-hardware approach of yesteryears.
So the outside world balance has changed in a wayā¦
I am pretty sure one of the others asked about that as well as asking for selling from containers.
no, as always I cannot say what the response was but it did come up.
m
2 Likes
Thanks for the heads up, thatās all what I hoped to hear 
It is great that it was brought up before CCP Devs 
Makes it required? CCP nerfed resistance modules a few years ago, sure battleships got some role bonus changes, but its not like a impel full of cargo expanders has doubled its EHP in the past 10 years, let alone 20.
This ^ this exactly. Doubling the number of EVE clients is way easier than doubling a single ships EHP.
1 Like
Yes. Literally yes: more EHP means more Catalysts to take HP to zero in a constant amount of time.
Cherry-picking single changes is going to get you into troubled reasoning.
You can find a more comprehensive list of piracy nerfs or learn the full history of mining barge EHP buffs in 2009/2010, 2012, and 2016.
From there you can make an informed point that isnāt just āthis one time there was a patch that nerfed resistancesā. So? All the other changes you didnāt mention effectively raised EHP over the decades and requires multiboxing.
As nice as it sounds, it really isnāt true. Up until recently Eve Online supported the cruftiest of operating systems and the most potato of graphics (aka: none, you can turn them off). From my time installing to miners when I lived in nullsec, they could multibox an unreasonable amount of clients on mediocre machines.
What does it matter anyway? If the āmultiboxing plagueā is a problem because of ātoo good machinesā, it isnāt like CCP Games is gonna nuke a Tesla fabrication factory or force your CPU to clock back to MHz range. 
We donāt have to like multiboxing but donāt use that discussion as a āI hate gankersā innuendo.
1 Like
By the way Eloken, do you have any response to me earlier about how yes CCP Games and devs have given you an answer even when you self proclaim to not have to like it? Going through the trouble to try to have a cited, well-sourced response only for you to completely ignore it and return to the thread talking about something completely different isnāt very constructive.
Noticed I got linked to in this thread. Hereās a comprehensive list of direct and indirect Piracy/PvP changes CCP has implemented over the years that I have saved. I updated it with a few entries of the latest changes CCP has made over the past year or two:
Direct non-consensual PvP nerfs
- CONCORD being made invulnerable, given firepower/e-war boosts, and being made a kill trigger instead of a functional NPC (āYulai Incidentā)
- Wars increased in cost by 25x during the āPrivateersā era
- Multiple additional CONCORD buffs to damage, e-war, and response time (I could make a line for each one, but Iām too lazy to find the individual patch notes)
- Mining barge EHP boosted significantly, and fitting options improved:
- Buffed across the board in 2009/2010 due to emergence of barge ganking
- Buffed across the board in 2012, when they were put in their defensive ātiersā
- Covetors/Hulks given extra low slots in 2016 due to miner complaints about not being able to maximize yields because they āhad toā use Procurers/Skiffs to avoid being ganked
- Barge EHP was effectively doubled 2021, except for the tanky versions, which went kind of plus/minus depending on fit because they already had battleship-tier EHP
- Removal of fleet warfare aggro transfer (āLofty scamā)
- GM ruling that the MWD/cloak warp ātrickā is not an exploit after a long series of community debates
- Multiple increases to criminal act security status penalties (you used to need to pod multiple people just to get to -2.0, and now all you need is one final blow on a ship)
- Officially making it legal to repeatedly roll corporations to avoid wars, after disallowing it for many years
- Removal of insurance payouts for ship losses in which CONCORD is involved
- War costs becoming a function of amount of members the target has (so that a small corporation declaring war against a large one would pay orders of magnitude more than a large corporation declaring war against a small one - utterly asinine and fortunately reversed a few years later)
- Introduction of the war ally system, which costs much less than declaring war does (acts as an uneven restricting mechanism against small wardec groups since large hub camper groups join as allies for free just to have more targets - this has contributed to killing off most small-scale high-sec mercenary work)
- Introduction of the āsafetyā button, which made it impossible to trick someone into shooting you by employing social engineering
- Introduction of Crimewatch, with the following primary components:
- Suspect timers instead of being flagged to owning corporation only for theft of assets in space
- Kill rights awarded for criminal actions, even if unsuccessful (bad mechanic, as they make the target a suspect, as opposed to facilitating targeted bounty-hunting)
- Corporate friendly fire toggle (eliminated assassinations in high-sec space)
- Removal of hyper-dunking (being able to board ships while under the global criminal countdown)
- Removal of all legal neutral assistance (made many forms of baiting impossible)
- Nerf to bumping mechanics (limited to 3 minutes instead of being possible indefinitely)
- Removal of watchlist login status tracking (generally more useful to attackers)
- Blockade runners gaining immunity to cargo scans
- Addition of specific rigs/gear that are aimed at increasing hauler/freighter resilience
- Instantly being unable to warp after a crime, instead of after CONCORDās arrival (āboomerangingā)
- Removal of hyperdunking (boarding ships while criminally-flagged)
- Disallowing wars unless targets own assets in space (cut war eligibility by over 90%)
- Requiring war declarers to own war HQs (forced the creation of a single, invulnerable war cartel and the extinction of the concept of small mercenary corporations)
- Removal of bounties (allegedly due to performance issues, but no alternative system has thus far been provided or even discussed)
- PvE content offloaded from belts into anomalies and signatures (more time to escape)
- Special PvE sites that can only be entered by one player at a time and/or requiring specific ships
- Mobile Observatories in null-sec (eliminate the āAFKā cloaking threat)
Indirect non-consensual PvP nerfs
- Damage Control hull resists partially integrated into base hull resists in 2016
- Battleship EHP mod bonuses (e.g. 1600mm plates)
- Various slot changes and random +HP additions to individual hulls (especially faction/navy variants); everything on average has become about 2-3x more survivable since the gameās early years
Direct non-consensual PvP buffs
- War transfer mechanics making the āDec Shieldā impossible to work, because corporations could shed their wars repeatedly with one click (this was basically a bug fix and not a new feature addition)
- Tags-for-sec mechanic (balanced by relatively prohibitive costs)
- GM ruling that āpulling CONCORDā is not an exploit after a long series of community debates
- Addition of PvE sites that make you suspect-flagged upon entry or exit
Indirect non-consensual PvP buffs
- Removal of clone costs
- Removal of Destroyer RoF penalties
- New ship additions, some having piracy-friendly stats (e.g. Tornado for ganking)
- Surgical Strike update in 2021
- Added 15% damage bonus to short-range Tech II ammo for short-range weapons
- Reduction of resistance module stats across the board (partially reversed later)
4 Likes