Sure it would. The only real drawback to botting is that bots can’t cope with PvP. Remove combat PvP from highsec and the bots no longer have to worry about being ganked, and can fit billion of ISK in expensive modules to optimize their farming and guarantee that even with poor bot AI they can’t fail.
Pointing out nullsec is important because people keep banging on about the economy as if the only thing holding it together are gankers shooting highsec miners and that without them there would be floods of ore toppling the market. In reality if gankers ceased to exist you’d barely even notice the uptick in highsec mining in the MER.
Again, why are you assuming that being opposed to 100% safe highsec farming is mutually exclusive with being opposed to the current state of nullsec? For example, for all you complain about me calling highsec players “farmer trash” I’ve said the exact same thing to bot-like nullbear trash that demands things like the removal of AFK cloaking so they can farm without interference.
Also, it’s pretty dishonest to suggest that removing combat PvP from highsec will have minimal effect on the economy while simultaneously claiming that it needs to be done to attract players who want a no-PvP farming game. Success in player acquisition/retention has a direct result of increasing highsec production, likely way beyond what the current numbers show. So why do you think that the current numbers are at all relevant?
Because local allows them to. The PvP avoidance tools that nullsec bots use wouldn’t work in a crowded highsec system, the bot would stay docked 23/7 and never do anything.
And I never said that nobody can currently bot in highsec. I disagreed with the claim that botting wouldn’t be encouraged even more, and I stand by that claim. Even if you feel the increase in botting would be small it’s still encouragement.
I’m not. I didn’t assume that at all. I was simply explaining why brining up nullsec was relevant.
Oh please. You constantly bring up nullsec as if the people arguing against your ideas for highsec feel that nullsec is just fine. If you don’t hold this belief then nullsec is an irrelevant tangent that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
Not at all. I’m saying it needs to be done to attract more of all players types because people leave before they get into the variety of the game. It would have a minimal effect on the economy.
“Not at all”, but then you go and explain that you want to do exactly what I said: simultaneously claim that removing combat PvP will recruit/retain players who would otherwise quit and have minimal effect on the economy. If the economic effects are so low then how many people do you think are staying?
How much of the economy do you think is controlled by highsec players with so little experience that they get ganked?
I reject the premise that only inexperienced players get ganked. The regular killmails and “I LOST MY 10 BILLION ISK SHIP BAN SUICIDE GANKING” whine threads pretty clearly demonstrate that wealthy players do in fact get suicide ganked.
Uh, sure, I suppose they’re all clueless newbies RMTing large amounts of ISK in a game they barely understand. That’s got to be it…
Also, let’s not forget that when I proposed a system of 100% combat PvP immunity for all players for their first 30 days (or until they exceed wealth/activity levels that only alts of experienced players could reach) you rejected it because it wasn’t broad enough. So spare us the nonsense about being concerned for the poor newbies, that’s just an excuse to buff farming for experienced players.
Lolwut? Now you’re resorting to making impossible demands and claiming victory because I can’t provide information that nobody outside of CCP has?
It would because the vast majority of players have a minimal impact on the economy anyway, and because new players bring both production and consumption the net effect would be even more negligible.
Guess what: your goal of retaining players means that they won’t stay new players mining in their newbie frigates or doing level 1 missions. And those players are going to be overwhelmingly weighted towards risk-averse PvE-only players who will never leave highsec, as the competitive PvP players aren’t getting driven out just because they’re forced to engage in PvP. So, again, it is dishonest to use current highsec economic numbers with the assumption that they won’t change under your proposal.
People calling mining PvP and saying that it’s PvP if you compete for a rock but then stating that combat is needed otherwise it would be a PvE playstyle.
Oh look, now you’re building straw men again. The argument about mining being a PvP activity is a response to your absurd claim that a PvP-only version of EVE would have no economy, do not take it out of that context.
The actual reason that combat is necessary is that a basic premise of EVE is that, outside of the newbie tutorial systems, combat PvP is possible against every target in every location. You’re asking CCP to break a fundamental design principle of EVE to pander to risk-averse players who want to sit there AFK in complete safety while their wallet numbers go up as fast as possible.
Btw 11 years. No one is saying youcan’t have an opinion. It’s just that your opinion is short sighted, wrong and would kill the game entirely. You want Farmville so bad, go play it on Facebook.
PLEX is RMT. Is your claim that the majority of expensive ganks are newbies that RMTed their wealth, not experienced players who obtained it through in-game means?
Yes when you suggested a system that you throw on loads of caveats to make it preferential to you, it got rejected. Shocker.
Hint for the clueless: I don’t do suicide ganking, so no I didn’t make it preferential to me. The caveats were about making it so that the people who benefit are genuine newbies, not experienced players using the system to give combat PvP immunity to their hauler alts and similar abuses. The fact that you consider these restrictions unacceptable is a concession that your concern is risk-averse veterans, not poor newbies.
I’m saying that if you want to make such a wild claim, the onus is on you to bring evidence.
TIL that “making it easier for bots to operate will encourage botting” counts as a wild claim, in your bizarre alternate reality. In the real world it’s a pretty obvious conclusion to draw.
IR SO SMART ABOUT ECONOMY I WIN
Ok, whatever you say.
It wouldn’t, because by CCPs definition the act of mining is a PvE mechanic.
That’s nice. By the actual definition of the words “player versus environment” it is not a PvE mechanic. If some CCP employee wants to use the wrong label that’s their problem, it has nothing to do with a hypothetical PvP-only version of EVE being discussed by people who are not that CCP employee.
And don’t worry, I’m well aware of your view that you actively discourage new players from staying unless they subscribe to your vision, but I’m pretty sure CCP would prefer to have better player retention.
That depends on how smart CCP is, and how well they appreciate the danger of losing their core audience by attempting to pander to people who don’t want a game like EVE and are probably going to quit over something else even if suicide ganking is removed.
Honestly, I think if there were a bunch of people sitting there paying CCP so they could mine veldspar at a fraction of the rate that a nullsec miner can pull in value, it would have nearly no impact on the entire game and zero impact on you beyond the amount of whining you’d do about it.
There you go again, assuming that I (and other people who disagree with you) are fine with nullsec being as it is now. Here’s a concept for you: your ideas about highsec are stupid, and nullsec also needs to have its income and risk levels fixed.
Also, if these hypothetical players are mining at such low rates then why are they paying CCP? You can’t talk about poor newbies being abused by suicide ganking and driven out of the game and ignore the fact that there’s very little incentive to pay CCP anything at that stage of the game. So in reality you’re talking about a ton of alpha accounts that, at best, might someday become paying customers but are providing zero income currently.
But doesn’t this hold true for people switching “definition/meaning” of PvE all the time as well? Doesn’t it hold true in every conversation when you haven’t agreed to a mutual definition/meaning of the subject beining discussed? I even think it is THE reason why similar “discussions” here (and other forums) drag on for years… not because one or the other is right or wrong, but because there is no consensus about what is actually being discussed. As longs as you do no first agree on the parameters of the discussed subject you will end up in a back and forth exchange of useless bickering.
Then your position is utter nonsense. Unless you are claiming that most of these people were RMTing the only way to get wealth in EVE is through playing the game and getting experience.
Except the caveats in your idea didn’t just make it preferential to gankers.
Oh really? So where is the benefit to me, given the fact that I do very little combat PvP in highsec? If anything my idea is worse for me than your desire to remove all combat PvP from highsec, as complete PvP immunity would let me throw billions of ISK worth of cargo into a ship and AFK it somewhere while I’m at work.
The wild claim is that you believe removing ganking makes botting easier. Show me the evidence.
Only in your delusional world is it a wild claim to point out that the only risk to a bot in highsec is from suicide ganking, so the removal of the only risk would make botting easier. I’m sorry if you lack the mental capacity to understand the cause and effect there, but making demands for evidence that you know perfectly well nobody has is not helping your credibility.
So shooting a laser at the environment is not “player versus environment”?
Nope. “Player versus environment” requires that the player and the environment be in opposition. Take away the emotionally loaded term of “shooting a laser” and its connotations of violence and you see that there is no opposition at all. The environment does not resist or obstruct the player’s efforts in any way whatsoever, once a player clicks the “mine” button the exact ore units per second specified in their ship stats will be obtained without any chance of failure.
(Now, if there was a hypothetical hacking-style minigame required for mining, where the player was in fact challenged by the environment and defeat in this challenge meant failure to obtain ore, then mining would have a PvE element. But as it is now the only opposition or conflict in mining is between players.)
See, you think it’s people like you who want Fornite in space and to ban PvE, but it’s not.
No, that’s you making up idiotic straw man arguments again. Unlike you I recognize that EVE is a game of competitive capitalism and empire building and their core audience is ambitious players who want to compete and dominate the world. The person they want is the one who comes in with the goal of building their industrial empire and making piles of ISK as they ruthlessly crush their rivals, not the risk-averse farmer who wants to passively sit in a belt watching their wallet numbers go up and will ragequit if anything disrupts this process.
I understand that you have no idea what gamers like but once again they are paying to be entertained and many players are entertained by things you think are boring.
Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. I asked why they are paying, not why they are playing. Genuine newbies play for free on alpha accounts. If you want to talk about paying customers then you’re talking about omega accounts and more experienced players that can have a bigger impact on the game. And you can no longer hide them behind the shield “but that poor week-old newbie getting suicide ganked in their mining frigate”.
yes , on point , its impossible to stop a circular argument before both parts define with extremely precision the scope of what they are arguing , that said eve is a pvp game
Classic Lucas Kell, ignore the explanation of why your position is nonsense and provide no explanation for how an inexperienced player gets billions of ISK without RMTing.
Because it included things you want. First off it didn’t include ganking as we were discussing wardecs, plus int wend hand in hand with removing war structure requirements.
Well yes, an idea I proposed had things I want. Shocking how that works. But that’s entirely separate from me having personal benefit from the idea.
And yes, it did include ganking. A literal 100% immunity to all combat PvP would make it impossible to suicide gank newbies. And one of the conditions I put on the immunity, locking the safety to green unless the player voluntarily ends their immunity early with a cooldown timer before it takes effect, was specifically in response to concerns about suicide gankers using immunity to attack to get into position without being vulnerable to counter-ganking.
It’s strange that you claim to not be a highseccer yet you bang on to no end about highsec.
It’s not my fault whiny highsec players keep making threads with stupid ideas for highsec. Perhaps you should go read the AFK cloaking thread if you need to see some balance in my hatred of farmer trash?
What stops you from breaking it down and afking it anyway?
Nothing. I didn’t say it was impossible to move the cargo, I said that your no-combat-PvP proposal would make it easier to do so. Moving an unlimited value of cargo in a single AFK trip is indisputably easier than having to coordinate multiple AFK trips of smaller value, especially since doing multiple trips requires a non-AFK period in between each trip while doing it in a single trip allows you to walk away and come back to the entire value at its destination.
That’s not the only risk
Lolwut? What exactly is the risk to a highsec bot? The NPCs?
stating that botting would have some huge rise if ganking didn’t exist
Stop lying. I never said it would be a huge risk, I disagreed with your statement that removing suicide ganking would not encourage botting.
As for your whining about evidence, I expect you to apply the same standards to yourself and retract your claim that removing suicide ganking would not encourage botting. After all, if there is no evidence then you don’t have any evidence and you are no longer permitted to talk about the subject.
(Oh wait, the demand for inaccessible evidence only applies to other people, not you.)
Citation needed. If mining existed in isolation, a game where you just zap rocks and stockpile ore in single player, what would the mechanic be?
What citation do you need? It’s literally the meaning of the words “player”, “versus”, and “environment”. Do you honestly need me to copy some dictionary definitions because you are unable to find them yourself?
And a “game” where you just press the “mine rocks” button and passively watch the amount of ore you have obtained increase would not be a game at all. It would be an activity, but not a game.
False, you’ve made your position clear.
I have made my position clear. I have stated explicitly that it is not the position you accuse me of holding. Now stop posting idiotic straw man arguments.
You don’t have to engage in any of that.
Sure. You are not held at gunpoint and forced to engage with the core parts of EVE. You are free to do anything you want. You can even pay $15/month to sit in station and spin your ship. But you and I both know that CCP does not consider “people who never undock and just spin their ship all day” a target market for EVE.
The fact that some people who are not interested in the core parts of EVE will play EVE anyway is a nice bonus for CCP, and they’ll happily harvest subscription fees from these people until they quit. But it doesn’t change the fact that EVE is a game of competitive capitalism and empire building, not of passive AFK farming where other players are banned from interfering.
How did I miss the point considering the fact that I answered it? You even quoted me saying “they are paying to be entertained”.
You didn’t answer a thing. You said they are being entertained, you offered no explanation for why they are paying for the entertainment when CCP gives it to them for free. Is your theory that people are so entertained that they give CCP $15 purely as a charitable contribution?
What is this based on?
The obvious fact that you can’t use most of the benefits of an omega subscription until you are no longer a newbie? The fact that most people don’t pay immediately for something when there is a free trial they can use? What’s next, demanding evidence for the claim that people don’t say “no thanks, I’d rather pay full price right now” when Amazon offers them a free 30 days of Prime?
Some great examples of why I don’t comes here a lot, it’s the same pedantic nonsense.
EVE is a pvp game and it always has been. I’m a PVE ,minded player and even I know that, and knowing that (and mitigating the effect of other people on your gameplay) is how you become competent at EVE when you are not so much into the shooty shooty pvp part of it.
But as is usual , people try to rationalize away the parts of things they don’t like, no matter how obvious and self evident those things are. EVE being a PVP game doesn’t make you bad for being into pve (or role-playing or anything else), it’s just a simple and plainly visible fact that can’t be denied. Hell, the pvp nature of the game is what makes PVE good in EVE. Getting the loot is pve, getting away with it when people want to kill you is pvp.
“The founders had two passions which they wanted to join,” explained Richardsson. “The sci-fi feel and vastness of space from Elite and the social interaction of massively multiplayer and player vs. player gaming from Ultima Online . I should also add that they were quite active PvPers in UO and this is the main reason for our emphasis on PvP . We feel that the emotions involved with losing something of value is just as important as gaining something of value, it makes a very immersive experience. There have to be lows to make the highs more enjoyable. PvP allows us to achieve that.”
You gave no such example because I said “outside of RMTing wealth equals experience”. Giving an example of a newbie has wealth because of RMTing does not do anything to disprove my point.
Congratulations on admitting it. Now do you want to stop pretending you were proposing some altruistic idea that conveyed huge benefits to new players every time a discussion about PvP comes up?
No, because unlike you I can understand the difference between “this idea had things I want because I want to help new players” and “this idea had things I want because they benefit me directly”, and how stating the obvious fact that when someone proposes an idea it’s generally an idea they want to see implemented is not a concession of selfish interest.
It’s not unlimited. Also, why does it matter if it’s easier? The gameplay is not engaging anyway and it ultimately doesn’t really affect anything, so I have no problem with it being easier.
Why have hauling at all then? Do you think we should have an option to instantly transport stuff from one highsec station to another?
NPCs are a bigger risk than gankers, for sure.
Lolwut? NPCs are zero risk in highsec farming. Gankers may be a small risk, but that risk is not zero. And the risk of ganking increases if you give your bot expensive modules to make it generate more ISK per hour.
I’ve explained the evidence that exists showing botting and ganking co-exist
Which is not evidence for the argument in question. Nobody is disputing the fact that bots exist despite ganking, the question was whether or not removing ganking would encourage more botting. Stop making these dishonest attempts to move the goalposts.
The problem is that I think that any gamers interested in EVE should play it, while you think that only players who subscribe to your views of what EVE is should play it. You fundamentally do not understand what a sandbox is.
I understand perfectly well what a sandbox is and is not, and it has nothing to do with your bizarre idea of “everyone should be able to play it and do whatever they want”. A sandbox game still has a target market, and compromising its appeal to that target market in pursuit of players who want an entirely different game (and are probably already playing those other games) is financial suicide for a business.
CCP did not build the game around your opinions.
Actually they did. If you look back at the original design concepts of EVE you find exactly the game I describe: a game of competitive capitalism and empire building created by a bunch of old-school player killers from a PvP fantasy MMO. It’s only relatively recently that CCP has started to pander to risk-averse PvE farmers.
You can start using the benefits of Omega on day 1.
Some of them, but they don’t really appeal to genuine newbies. Newbies aren’t multiboxing because they don’t even understand how to play one account yet. Newbies can’t fly omega-only ships yet because they don’t have the SP or ISK for it. If all you want to do is passively sit in a belt in your mining frigate watching your ore hold fill up there’s very little reason to pay CCP for it.
I think the real problem here is that you’re looking at it with the mindset of an experienced player trying to figure out how to optimize a new alt, not a genuine newbie struggling with trying to learn how the game works and decide if they want to buy it or not.
Ah yes, back to lying I see. And yet you still can’t list the things that supposedly benefit me, other than a genuine belief that the idea is good for the game as a whole.
Thanks for confirming.
Thanks for snipping out a sentence fragment and ignoring the part where I explain that “do bots exist?” was never in question, and even if bots currently exist they can still increase if your desired changes are made.
Clearly that is not true which is why you keep banging on about how everyone has to play your way or leave.
Again, I understand what a sandbox is and is not. Wanting people who don’t fit the sandbox to leave rather than modify the rules of the sandbox in a desperate attempt to keep them at the expense of everyone else in no way contradicts the idea of a sandbox.
Double training speed doesn’t appeal to a newbie who wants to try things but has no skills to do so?
Not when newbie skills are short, a full 24 hour skill queue can unlock a bunch of stuff while they’re asleep, and they don’t really understand the skill training mechanic very well anyway. Whenever I’ve tried introducing people to the game not a single one of them has been interested in giving CCP $15 to turn a 5 minute skill into a 2.5 minute skill.
Nope, the problem here is that you have no idea what people actually find enjoyable, and since all you enjoy is a PvP arena, you can’t see any value in anything outside of that and downplay every other playstyle.
And now you’re back to lying about my goals, despite me explicitly stating over and over again that I do not want arena-style PvP. This is why most people here consider you a dishonest troll.
