Well. Some of you might disagree, but i do believe more people are playing Eve together (cooperative) than against each other (competitive). That’s why i think this is a sandbox with a PvP part in it, and not the other way 'round.
1 Like
oh no , i was thinking about normal porn
its not personal dude , i chat with the trash minmatar all the time , they are cool dudes, that happen to be in the soulless part of the game , in a strange way we are cooperating because there would be no game if one side didn’t come to work , its like that dog from the cartoon let me try to find a photo … found it
1 Like
No, it’s a necessary part of maintaining the sandbox for everyone else. There are two types of people here, with conflicting goals: the people who want a competitive PvP game where success really means something because it is earned against adversity, and the people who want a mindless farming game where “rewards” are handed to you with minimal effort and no interaction with other players is required. To even attempt to satisfy both you have two options:
- Minimize the rewards from no-PvP activities so that they have no meaningful effect on the game as a whole, at which point why bother playing?
or
- Make a separate PvE-only server that will soon fail because the economy does not function and too many people get bored and quit.
Neither one of these options is good, so CCP has rightly chosen to focus on the group that wants EVE’s niche and not compromise to attract players who don’t really belong here anyway.
Also, “sandbox” does not mean “anything you want to do is possible”. In fact, your idea goes completely against the idea of a sandbox by allowing people to wall off their own private instance of the game and build stuff without anyone else being allowed to influence it.
1 Like
Because they are part of the shared economy and persistent world. If risk-averse farmers get to opt out of PvP and flood the market with excess production it drives down prices for people who can succeed despite PvP threats.
That’s just you yet again being abusive to people who don’t play like you. It could easily be said that the two types are those that enjoy the sandbox and want to play predominantly with PvE mechanics and incel neckbeards who get off on harassing players.
Yes, you could say that if for some reason you are compelled to say incredibly stupid things. It would have nothing to do with reality, but you could say it.
PS: the part about “success means something because it is earned” also applies to becoming rich by succeeding at industry, not just combat PvP.
Those aren’t the only two options though.
Then what other option is there that doesn’t break the player-driven industry and warfare parts of the game?
Ultimately EVE is a game and is supposed to be entertaining. Other players are also supposed to be enjoying it, they are not there purely to act as a gameplay element for you.
And guess what: the game I describe is entertaining for everyone involved. If you don’t enjoy that kind of game then why are you trying to join a PvP-focused game of warfare and competitive capitalism? Why don’t you go play a single-player game instead?
3 Likes
This game is actually an interesting demonstration of my point.
The paperclip game, as nothing but a “click to increment the counter by +1” exercise where all you do is show off how many times you clicked the button would be pointless and quickly forgotten.
The paperclip game, as an illustration of the “paperclip optimizer AI” concept and the power of exponential growth/consumption is interesting and gets passed around. And I suspect quite a bit of thought went into making sure that the game starts to take off before people get bored with the menial “click the button” starting point.
Take away the PvP parts of EVE and you’re left with the boring sort of paperclip game: nothing matters, there is no greater purpose, all you do is click the “build spaceship” button until you get tired of clicking the button and decide to stop paying your $15/month.
Only because you use an incorrect definition of PvP, considering only two or more players shooting at each other to be PvP instead of all player vs. player activities. In reality industry has a lot to do with PvP losses because failing to sell your stuff (and eating a modification fee to fix the problem) because another player undercut your prices is a PvP loss.
Having areas of the game with little or no PvP risk that have lower rewards and higher taxes than other areas. Kinda like there is now without new pilots being harassed out of the game by your mates.
Which, again, requires keeping those areas irrelevant to the larger economy. Few people want to stay in the tutorial zone running level 0.5 tutorial missions and building civilian ships/modules, so this is not a realistic solution.
EVE is a space trading simulator. PvP is only a part of that.
Trade is PvP, so you’re wrong.
(Except the virtually irrelevant trade with NPC buy/sell orders.)
Competetive capitalism doesn’t involve newer haulers getting oneshot by glass cannons piloted by disposable alts.
Sure it does. Competitive capitalism rewards the smart players who avoid getting ganked, and learning to avoid ganks is part of the process of growing as a new player. That makes it rewarding when a new player manages to make a safe cargo run and earn profit, instead of just an inevitable result of investing X hours playing. And it also creates incentive to spread out the markets, as suicide ganking is concentrated in the major market systems and routes between them.
Just learn to actually PvP and you won’t need easy targets.
Just learn to actually PvP and you won’t be an easy target.
Nice job missing the point, because the paperclip game isn’t just a game of watching the number go up. It’s a demonstration of a concept in AI research/theory, and that’s why people play it and share it. If you strip out all of that stuff and only have the “make the number go up” factor it would have been forgotten years ago.
For people who like building spaceships and casually firing lasers at rocks, that’s a dream game.
It really can’t, because again there is no point without the PvP market. Few people are going to pay $15 a month to play a game where all they do is click “build spaceship” and see how many spaceships they can put in their hangar before they get bored.
In my view if highsec were perfectly safe from PvP danger but had increased PvE danger the economy would barely change but player retention would rise because players who don’t want to deal with idiots would stick around.
The sheer amount of whining and crying about triglavian spawns would disagree with you. All this would do is shift the complaints from “ban suicide ganking” to “make NPCs easier”.
1 Like
i was not really interested in the paperclip game , but i would have play it to share scores with lucas and gerard and mine together , the social part to me was the most important
It. Is. The. Same. System. And. The. Same. Game.
If they are built on the same programming how is it different? The mirror is an exact snapshot of TQ at any given time. The rules are the same, with a few extra ones that are VERY RARELY ever executed, and subject to huge debate.
No one is saying pve isn’t necessary if you don’t build stuff we cant shoot it. There are no npc builders of T3s. There are no npc builders of supers. But don’t kid yourself that pvp isn’t important. All market transactions are confrontational. All miners competing for resources is pvp.
EDIT
All that aside, if pvp wasn’t a big part of the game, why is CONCORD there?
thonking
test server is boring because there is no risk
look … could be the best thing ever but it was on sisi so meh
no man, sisi is fun because you get to harvest really tasty salt.
theres no salt quite like the lacrimix from sisi
i like it to test fits , but get boring really fast, i used to undock my dread and pew battleships but thats it
I think the issue is that you seem to think that people shooting miners are shitlords. I just had a bomber come visit me while I was mining ice. While I did away in time before his bomb hit me, it’s all part of the game and I’m not sour for getting attacked in a non-combat ship.
Of course things are a little different in high sec, as it’s much safer there with Concord back up, I really don’t think this player interaction should be completely removed from any part in the game. Player danger is part of the game and scripted NPC events just aren’t unpredicable and thus scary anymore once you learn how they work.
Players are pretty good at abusing game mechanics. If people were left todo their highsec PvE without player intervention, we’d see a lot more afk multibox mining, autopiloted max cargo haulers and similar.
I think it’s a good thing high sec ‘rewards’ the players who put a minimum of thought into their fits and their gameplay, by giving them a higher survival chance.
1 Like
You obviously havent been on sisi lately.
Who are you to tell anyone what the game is? Their opinion is their opinion. Stop trolling, it seems like the only shitlord here is you and your whining.
1 Like
You haven’t ever been in Niarja then have you?
That’s 33 trillion in isk. Sure tell me that number doesn’t have any economic impact
I like your post, OP, although I’m not really sure why you took the trouble of writing it. It’s in the name, you see. EvE stands for Everything versus Everything. That means players as well as environment, at any time, any level, anywhere and for any activity.
Embrace the truth, ye all, and ye shall be free (to have fun and get guud).
Also, EvE is Real… 
Of course it is, I just made it a real interpretation. But then, you’re not real, you’re not really here, are you ?
Nothing to be afraid of, Lucas…
1 Like
I agree with this. The idea that eve is ONLY a pvp game is NEW. OF COURSE EVE NEEDS PVP no one is arguing that.
1 Like
you know the real bot problems are in the null blocks right? You can nerf High sec all day long – until you break up the biggest Carebear null empires ever you are going to have this.
I find it funny that the l33t pvp of the game are actually The biggest carebears ever.
‘But they’re doing it too!’ And more often!’ is not a valid reason to encourage botting in high sec. And yes, it would be nice if the botting problem in null were also addressed.
3 Likes