I miss her so much
3 Likes
I posted the solution to your whole problem way back somewhere about post 150.
I’m not interested in a game that gets safer in any way (including for me), so no, I think the ideas are a waste of time, when there are tools and mechanisms to already resolve the entire premise of the thread.
But mostly, I’m not a game designer and I don’t profess to be able to develop good alternatives to what the professionals at CCP come up with. I can certainly see problems in proposals though, because I’ve played the game for a long time in every profession there is. There are a lot of people in the forum that have (so I’m not claiming to be some oracle of the game, just a long-term dedicated player who has seen proposal after proposal after proposal that just seeks to destroy someone else’s gameply because they don’t like how someone else plays the game).
I just came back to game a couple weeks ago and was trying to find something in settings bc the voice was not sounding right lol…Thought I had an audio problem or turned on “secretary GPS voice” mode.
1 Like
“Warp Drive Activate… I guess”
She sounds as tired as I feel sometimes
Well, is it a good idea to remove structures from hisec? They won’t be able to wardec hisec corps full stop then. The vast majority will be war immune with no structures.
I feel now is the time to ask;
What do you feel is the purpose of Wardecs?
1 Like
When a game has one group marauding other groups with 96-99% efficiency, game has a massive problem. In other games, if one side wins 95% plus of all fights, it is not good for the health of the game. The ones on the losing side end up leaving the game. They get fed up and quit and the game loses players.
They literally cannot do this any longer, since December 2018.
They can do it to anyone who wishes to play with toys the game provides.
But I keep telling you, I AM one of the smaller groups, and I dont have this issue
1 Like
Only if those groups are incompetent in the way they structure themselves, and the numbers of corps and alliances in highsec with hundreds to thousands of members who are not war eligible, but still have access to owned assets, shows this is easy to do.
If a Corp wants to make itself war eligible, then that is a deliberate and conscious decision. Choices have consequences, but even for wars, those consequences can be easily side stepped, more than ever.
Ok so let competent players maraud less competent ones and the less competent ones quit the game and this cycle just continues as the game suffers from the loss of players.
I totally agree that this is a sign of the bad state of the game.
Yet, your solution would make it even worse. Since last changes, wardecs are a tool to remove structures from HS, and that’s all.
Unrelated.
You can have uncompetent players try to learn so as to not repeat their mistake, or leave and competent players come instead. Which is what is happening.
Yes. That is the way EVE has always been and those that take responsibility for themselves learn from mistakes and move on, less incompetent than they were before.
Really, if players don’t know how to keep themselves safe, they shouldn’t be running a corporation to begin with, not one that exposes its members to wars. Incompetent CEOs have always been a presence in EVE and they will continue to be, but CCP has made it so much easier in recent times to be incompetent and still safe from wars.
Making wars cost more wouldnt end …
If you wanted that to end and for the game to remain what its supposed to be (a game for both sides of this equation) only something like a skill point based system would work, granted splinter cells/factions of smaller war deck corps would appear… that would be good…
but i dont think its what the op would want… what the op would want more i think would be an end to wardecks, in highsec, which; tbvfh; is not equitable for ‘both sides’.
Bring back watchlists i say…
3 Likes
Those first priceless moments when you start playing EvE
2 Likes
Yeah see that’s baised right there. And no Im not going to have a 14 hour arguement on the meaning of the word. We can agree to disagree that the article is one sided, but truth be told, its hard enough not to rise to the fact that you think there’s “normal” people.
If there is, Im happy to be sub-normal, thanks.
1 Like
Actually, yes, +1
1 Like
That’s a recursive argument : you assume it to confirm it’s correct. “My argument is good beacuse people who agree with my argument agree with me that my argument is good”
So completely BS.
Does not impact if it’s a good article or not. But your argument, is stupid.