What do you think would bring eve into a new golden age

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Inaishite_Teikei

Since it’s a no risk activity, it would also carry no reward except for the experience gained. The requirement to invite others personally would encourage actual learning and exchange of experience between players who talk to each other,

It looks like you’re basically trying to construct a trainer module, while removing everything that would make it interesting or rewarding to participate in. Other than the ability to have a “safe no risk PvP training encounter”.

Which, technically speaking, you could already do on SiSi. Most of what you outlined is pretty much what you’d end up with if you invited a half-dozen players to log onto SiSi for a PvP training session.

In general, people game for a rewarding and entertaining experience. While some people will take time aside just to “improve their skills for the future”, by far many more won’t. (Otherwise we wouldn’t be complaining about players skipping tutorials, not seeking out the many videos and guides available, not learning how PvP works before trying it, etc.)

I’ve got nothing against your notion so wouldn’t bother me if it went in, but I feel it would have little impact. It’s basically more of the “EVE is all work and no play” design that CCP seems hung up on for the past decade or so.

Games are meant to be interesting, exciting, entertaining and accessible. Not substitutes for real-world drudgery with less reward.

[MB_ThePhotographer]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Other than the ability to have a “safe no risk PvP training encounter”.

What’s wrong with that idea? No risk, no gain. Just training.

Something new players could possibly benefit from?

[ZhaoMin]

@Mindahouf_Davaham

this turned into a hell whole scense i was last on

That’s indeed is the trend, might I suggest that posts that keeps debating the dead horse between PVP and PVE ideas as to which ones are more suitable to bring about a new Golden Age are just…beating the dead horse.

Any back and forth on such topic and trying to make a point is rather pointless as it’s far from even being the core problem that caused stagnation. Destruction does not solely rely upon either so don’t be so fixated on the game dying based on the “current mechanics” if one prevail over another.

Think outside of the box, don’t be a slave to CCP’s own propaganda, if they want the “game” to succeed, they would have to get out of their own box of circular thinking too, that’s up to them.

The sole CCP’s fanatic focus on iterations and balancing passes - be it ship/equipment stats, missions, structures, existing activities, mechanics etc need to end with moderation, and redirect these resources wasted in the past decade into innovation, Eve is predictable and therefore stagnant because each of these passes (iteration, rebalancing, rework) are just fiddling around numbers and formulae that’s based on the same old concepts not long after Eve was born, hence players leave as they have already “solved” the game. THIS, is where the game need to change.

[MB_ThePhotographer]

@ZhaoMin

Eve is predictable

@ZhaoMin

THIS, is where the game need to change.

While I agree. How is the long time question?

[Argel_OTF2]

A rethink of how and why pilots fight, and a true incentive for people to join the good guys.

First, the basics of EVE are ok, they kind of work as a bigger picture thing, you have a sense of scale, and you have a game world that feels somewhat alive. The macro-economic stuff is interesting, the ships are good, and the variety of gameplay is reasonably strong.

But there are some simple elements that feel like they ‘fell’ into the game almost as placeholders, but have become staples of the way the core game works.

First, my main suggestion for the game is to give people more reason to fight gankers, and more means to do so.

The hi-sec ganking thing is so divisive, because it should be a play style that benefits the game, but instead, it is quite clearly a lop-sided affair that is not balanced out by any kind of real incentive for players to police the gankers. That leaves the whole thing feeling like a GTA online public server, where every now and then, for no reason, and with no warning, someone takes away the entire point of playing the game.

So I’d like to see a proper crime and punishment dynamic, where gankers have to be more aware of their transgressions in relation to ganking, and there is a bigger incentive for ‘normal’ players to hunt for gankers and engage them. I’d also say there probably needs to be more means to do so, although in an ideal world, the entry point for this play style could theoretically be pretty low,

The second point is ‘how’ people fight. I think there needs to be more ‘conflict zone’ style of NPC wars going on, where players can join one side or another, and where they aren’t immediately targeted by every NPC. This could bring more players into closer proximity, and incentivise bigger groups of players to play together, whether bonded by corps or not. In an ideal world, this would be the way FW worked.

Really, I think EVE needs to get away from the idea that groups of experienced players will deliberately hunt for unprotected targets where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I have seen this happen so often while cloaked, and I think it’s demoralising watching a person being unable to complete a hard PVE task because they get jumped by a gang who know that no PVE ship can even fight back hard enough to escape, let alone win. There needs to be some kind of way for that engagement to not be a foregone conclusion.

[QuakeGod]

@Argel_OTF2

There needs to be some kind of way for that engagement to not be a foregone conclusion.

D-scan, watch local, flag known gankers and groups, pay attention, don’t fly blinged-out, don’t AFK, don’t drop an MTU in popular L4 mission running hubs, don’t haul 500 million ISK worth of crap in a cheap T1 hauler, etc…

There are multiple ways to avoid being ganked, it just requires some planning and common sense on your part…

I’ve only lost 3 ships to gankers in 17 years, and each one was 100% my fault…

[QuakeGod]

Alphas can no longer gank in high sec, Omega gankers can’t even dock in NPC stations in high sec in anything other than a pod, gankers are chased down in high sec in seconds by faction police in every single system they enter. How much more do you want ganking to be gimped before you feel “safe”?

[Phaade]

Gotta bring the game back to dark, hard, high risk high reward, dystopian future, with character.

[QuakeGod]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of players these days that want “safe” zones where they can make ISK hand over fist with little or no risk…

[Phaade]

I get that. Just make the rewards match the risk. How is there possibly a sansha incursion in a “high security” system?

[Elizabet_Forgrave]

Arguments between people who love ganking and think it’s the most important thing in the game and people who hate ganking and think it’s the worst thing for the game are pointless and get nowhere. Why does every thread have to derail into that argument?

[Phaade]

Ganking is fine, generally. But i do admit that 15 2m isk catalysts should not be able to gank a maurader for example

[QuakeGod]

Exactly. The rewards in high sec would have to be greatly reduced. As it stands, I can PLEX my account in 3 or 4 days and never leave high sec. I can make upwards of 100 million ISK per hour blitzing L4’s and burners. Let’s say I have 10 hours to play that day. I just made 1 billion ISK in a day in high sec. And if there were no gankers allowed, I would be able to do it even faster in a blinged-out 20 billion ISK officer fit, with zero risk…

[QuakeGod]

Depends on how you fit it. 15 Cats with either T2 or Polarized blasters is a LOT of incoming DPS…

[Phaade]

Well blinged out would allow for ganking risk but yes.

It’s an interesting question.

[QuakeGod]

It’s simple. The players that are against ganking are just going to have to get over it as ganking has been a thing since day one, for going on 20 years now. They are playing an open-world, 24/7, PVP anywhere game. Don’t like it? They know where the uninstall button is…

[QuakeGod]

99% of the time it’s the anti-ganking crowd that derails the thread. Personally, I don’t gank, but have you seen me ask for a boost to ganking or to make ganking even easier? No, you haven’t, and you won’t…

[Elizabet_Forgrave]

@QuakeGod

I can make upwards of 100 million ISK per hour blitzing L4’s and burners.

I take it you’ve never tried highsec incursions? What about null ratting?

Most of highsec income is already low and weirdly when people complain about it they always pick things that are low even for highsec, like mining and mission running.

And the thing is, whether you like highsec PvE or not, whether you think everything should be riddled with risk or not, nerfing income will not result in more players or more activity. If CCP drastically reduce highsec mission income, those missioners won’t suddenly jump in a ship, fly into lowsec, get killed, and then keep doing it. They’ll just log off.

@QuakeGod

It’s simple. The players that are against ganking are just going to have to get over it as ganking has been a thing since day one, for going on 20 years now.

It’s clearly not that simple. The view that something existing means it always must exist is by far the worst argument possible, particularly in EVE where so many thing have drastically changed since the beginning.

@QuakeGod

Don’t like it? They know where the uninstall button is…

Again, a common argument. But people do that then there are less people here, CCP makes less money and EVE edges one step closer to death. Saying “Just uninstall the game if you don’t like what I like” is not a good business strategy. You better hope CCP doesn’t;t suddenly realize that they could retain far more players if they made people like you uninstall instead.

@QuakeGod

99% of the time it’s the anti-ganking crowd that derails the thread.

From what I’ve seen that’s nonsense. There are a few incredibly abusive people on this forum that overwhelmingly support ganking and appear to be immune to moderator action, and they constantly try to derail nearly every thread, attacking anyone that doesn’t agree with them.

You’ve used several of their tropes, like complaining about PvE risk while ignoring the lack of risk in ganking, claiming that a mechanic existing means it must exist forever and suggesting that anyone who doesn’t like what you like should leave.

The topic doesn’t get anywhere though. CCP will do what CCP will do. Personally, I don’t gank or get ganked so I couldn’t care less whether it stays or goes but I can guarantee the forum will never reach any sort of consensus.

[QuakeGod]

Again, it’s not that hard to avoid being ganked. If you are in a blinged-out battleship running L4’s, have your D-scan open looking for combat probes, known gankers flagged, and keep an eye on local. You cannot directly warp to someone running a mission. It will drop you at the entry gate. If you are in the 3rd pocket of a mission, you can literally see gankers coming from a hundred miles away. There’s no excuse…

@Elizabet_Forgrave

lack of risk in ganking

How, exactly is there a lack of risk in ganking? You can’t dock except in a pod. You are landed on by faction police within 10 seconds in EVERY high sec system you enter. You can’t just sit still in a safe spot for more than 10 or 15 seconds. You have to be prepared to move on your gank target right then, as soon as you enter the system.

All the gank target has to do is pay attention, be aware, and warp out before they can even get on grid. Of course that would mean they would actually have to play the game and pay attention and not be alt tabbed out to Netflix…

[QuakeGod]

@Elizabet_Forgrave

And the thing is, whether you like highsec PvE or not, whether you think everything should be riddled with risk or not, nerfing income will not result in more players or more activity. If CCP drastically reduce highsec mission income, those missioners won’t suddenly jump in a ship, fly into lowsec, get killed, and then keep doing it. They’ll just log off.

And do you know what would happen to the market if high sec were to be made “safe” with the current level of rewards and resources? Would you like me to tell you? Because I know exactly what would happen…