For once we slightly agree. I’d like a ‘Medium Sec’ area consisting of the current 0.6 and 0.5…and perhaps trade that off with greater security in 1.0 to 0.8.
Yes. More safety should come with less room and less potential profit (eg. limit the tier of Abyssals you can run from the ‘more safe’ sectors, reduced mining potential there, etc).
And then there should be some progression of taking on more risk in order to gain more rewards so newer players (not ‘noobs’, but basically anyone who hasn’t experienced PvP) can ‘scale up’ into riskier areas. As opposed to crossing one boundary and instantly transitioning from ‘semi-safe’ space to “hot-drop bubbles caps instadeath zone”.
2 Likes
It’s literally linked right in the post you replied to. How dumb are you?
You even referred to what “the study didn’t cover” in your post:
I guess it’s par for the course that a gank-supporter would try to argue against something they hadn’t even read, then demand more links to the thing they didn’t read, just so they can have something to argue about.
Oh well, either read the posts you’re trying to argue against, or just settle with being totally ignored because you’re a lazy troll. I’ll be happy to oblige.
This explains the clown face
2 Likes
As EVE is dying , time for some good old funeral music
Coming up on 800 replies to an OP who was a character made to post once and then be deleted.
Congratulations to whichever one of you regulars created @Fatt_Albert. Best troll in a long time.
Mr Epeen 
2 Likes
Reading something doesn’t necessarily mean that one still won’t argue against it or agree with it. Self proclaimed experts and studies do get things wrong. Not saying this is the case here, but real learned people will question any study, and not blindly take it as fact, or proof. Merely evidence that is supporting or refuting a claim at that particular moment, or until something else that comes along to refute it.
Okay so gankers kill the game, or so these people say, but my question is, how much of an influence does ganking have on drawing people in?
And calling me stupid? Really? Ad hominem attacks? You know all that does is point out your own insecurities, lack of argument skills, and a failure to trust the case you’re putting forth.
Your problem, is that you want people to shut up, and blindly agree with you. What you want is an echo chamber.
In fact, I’m going to bring in a forum alt, that is going to blindly agree with everything you say, just to see how you respond, and test my theory.
1 Like
Oh? Thought that was you Kojak
who said anything about ISK losses…
you were trying to make an analogy with RL with Coke…and economics…
In the context of that part of the discussion i showed how your depiction was incorrect.
no one cares about your losses
Speak for yourself
1 Like
Hi Vampy-boo,
How are you doing today?
PLEX is gold, and I already knew you subbed as you said that more than once this past month in various places/posts…
So a sub would be more akin to a house with a mortgage, and gold bars are PLEX and vice versa…
buying gold to buy your cars…buying plex to buy your ships
whilst
paying on a house loan…subbing eve with your bank card.
makes no sense, hence why i said your above quoted analogy was stupid.
Ah…right…so I’m not allowed to make analogies with Coke but it’s fine for you to use houses and mortgages.
The EVE sub isn’t a ‘loan’. One is paying for the right to play on the servers. It is more akin to an Amazon Prime subscription. Buying PLEX is more akin to buying a movie to watch via that subscription.
Over on another MMO, I pay twice the EVE subscription just for a place to live. EVE is peanuts by comparison. I pay for it to have fun…and the day I stop having fun I’ll stop paying for it.
As most of us know, CCP was acquired by Pearl Abyss, none of the original founders are with the game and they laid off a significant percentage of their workforce.
It’s within the realm of possibility that the current owners do not see Eve Online as a stable long-term investment, and with massive layoffs, there’s even less of a reason to expect the same budget for infrastructure to have persisted.
With less funds for infrastructure, you have less capacity to support the large-scale warfare of the past, the absence of which, as one of Eve’s early hallmarks, creates the appearance of a game in decline.
This is merely a theory, but at the least it helps to explain why the state of Eve continues to discourage massive conflicts.
Oh golly, you caught me! Making ‘unproven’ statements on a forum, gosh whatever will I do?
(Oh and you either misquoted or didn’t understand #5, probably both.)
But hey, let’s be sporting about this. Let’s pick a relatively impartial 3rd party as a judge. I will provide proof or supporting references for each of those 9 statements, and you provide your proof or supporting reference that they are incorrect.
Let’s put 5 Billion ISK each on it, just to make it worthwhile, held in escrow by the 3rd party. Then we each submit our supporting info, and let the judge award the 10 bill to the party with the stronger arguments.
After all, they’re “only my opinion” and it’s all waffly BS, right? So easy 5 bill win for you.
What do you say, ready to back up all your nonsense delusional denials of reality with some cold hard ISK?
Edit: since the post I’m replying to is unflagged, I’ll just bring this one back on topic and say that at least part of what’s causing EVE to die is people who can’t tell the difference between real facts and how they affect the game, and “facts the way they want them to be”, regardless of actual impact. This includes CCP as well as players.
There’s a sure-fire method mixed PvE/PvP MMOs have found for creating dead servers. It’s called “make them PvP servers”.
1 Like
They are, as most of them are absolute statements, which means I only have to find ONE counter example to disprove you. For example…
'People only PvP when they both profit from it ’
I cite myself as a counter to this. I shoot solely for kills. It is all I am interested in. And as I am part of ‘people’ then you are wrong. QED.
Phew…well I saved you 5bn there.
UO developers said unrestricted PvP was driving players away by the hundreds of thousands. They said that going to split PvE / PvP servers doubled the player base.
New World developers said that unrestricted PvP was driving so many players away they basically had to re-write the game.
CCP said that Wardecs were driving players to stop playing, wasn’t where they wanted it to be, and the CSM responded by saying the numbers were “so stark” it justified immediate removal of wardecs from the game.
Back up a ways, check EVE Offline.net, EVE’s best year ever for player logins was 2013. Directly after they put in Crimewatch 2.0. You apparently weren’t here for that, but established so-called high-sec “PvPers” were leaving en masse (at the beginning of it) and high sec PvE (especially mining) was expanding so rapidly it drove the creation of CODE. (as PvE growth expanded throughout the year).
So, the net result of full PvP is “players leaving in droves”, and the net result of splitting PvP away is “doubling the player base”. Now, maybe my math isn’t what it used to be but that sounds to me like full PvP in starter zones isn’t exactly a major draw in a PvE MMO.
However, if you have any factual evidence to support the viewpoint that it attracts more players than it drives away, feel free to post and discuss.
Sorry man, gotta call a spade a spade. Doing all those “you must post your references every time you state anything”, “post it within 24 hours or forfeit”, “how hard is it for you to post a link”, “still waiting for that link” stuff when it was literally already in the post you replied to…
That doesn’t make you look like the sharpest tool in the shed, you know. But you’re right, I probably should have said “lazy” and “with poor reading comprehension”, instead of “dumb”.
Why do you keep getting ‘so salty’ when people are only pointing out obvious and supported facts? Do you have trouble dealing with posts whose points trump yours? It’s not a contest you know, just a discussion. Try to add something to it rather than just lazily pretend the facts you don’t like “aren’t properly supported”.
Twenty one minutes ago.
Two hours ago.
At least you changed the words.
Mr Epeen