EN24 Network WTZ Forums HackNSmash.com EN24 Facebook EN24 Twitter Community
Comments

I’ve been at Norwescon 37 all weekend, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t read the dev blog Building Better Worlds before I left. It doesn’t mean I haven’t thought about it constantly since last Monday. It doesn’t mean I haven’t read Jester’s initial post on the subject here, or Eve Hermits post on the subject here, or much more importantly, K162′s posts on it, here, here and here. As I see it, Jester means well and is a very knowledgeable EVE Online player with the inside track on these changes, though he can’t talk about it. But he’s a PvP player first and foremost. He himself has admitted he uses industry and PvE to pay for his PvP habit like so many multi-account players. EVE Hermit is also a knowledgeable player who actually concentrates on industrial matters first and doesn’t just pursue it in an Alt capacity to support his PvP. But when it comes to things industrial, my personal go-to blog is K162. That’s what corporation industry is all about. They do it right in my opinion, so I pay close attention to anything written there.

What K162 tells me is to pay attention to Douglas Adams: don’t panic. This industrial revamp is nothing to go all Yosemite Sam over. In fact, it really shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise to anyone who’s been following CCP’s dev blogs and interviews over the past several expansions. For those who need it spelled out, they put it right at the very start of the Building Better Worlds post. The summer industrial revamp (it really isn’t an expansion unless you count it as foundation for a later expansion) adhere to policies CCP has been following for quite some time.

  1. Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist
  2. Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy
  3. Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base

These are not things they invented just for the industrial revamp. There was never any doubt in my mind they would apply to such a redesign, if such a redesign were to ever happen. Now the cat’s out of the bag, I’m not shocked by it. From and EVE Online industrialist perspective, there’s nothing wrong and there is actually quite a bit right about it.

But it is wrong nonetheless. It’s all about that first item above. Who determines what “actual gameplay” is? CCP is probably the only game company who takes it upon themselves to make that decision. I don’t mean that they allow certain gameplay and disallow other gameplay. They are not so blatant about. They do, however, favor certain gameplay over others and that is writ large on this revamp.

That said, it’s obvious I’m concerned with the direction CCP seems to be going overall. I prefer one of the gameplay styles CCP does not favor. You see, I evidently have committed the horrible sin of not generating player content. The same goes for EVE Hermit. He too will suffer for this revamp along with every other casual industrialist in EVE Online. This revamp isn’t about making industry better for us. It sends an ultimatum. Play our way and don’t expect any sympathy from us when you can’t make any ISK to continue playing this game. This is our game and we say what is a good gameplay and what is not.

A couple of weeks ago I received an in-game message from one of my readers. He had a very specific question for me. I want to share that question and my response because it outlines my overarching concerns about EVE Online. Here’s the question.

A while back you had a post about how Eve was not able to keep the new subs that came from the huge super cap battle. I was a bit confused because a short time later CCP released a dev blog indicating a large number of people had continued past their trial. Then I read Jester’s post indicating the same. Jester wrote that his numbers could be off simply because an insufficient amount of time had passed since the event. I look at the numbers now and it appears there was a peak, but now it’s gone.

What’s your take on this? Did CCP gain a bunch of new subs, then lose them or do you think there was a net gain for CCP?

I’d also love to hear any thoughts you have on the future of Eve. I always considered Jester an optimist, but recently he’s had some negative blogs about the future of Eve. What’s your take here as well. Oh, and today we get a survey that focuses on PVP? That has to mean something.

These questions are precisely what I’ve been asking myself for well over a year. I’ve thought a lot about EVE Online not from a gameplay perspective, but from a gamer perspective. My concerns for EVE Online are not about the gameplay as my answer to the questions asked above illustrates.

I play a lot of different games. I’ve played EVE Online longer than any of them. That speaks to its allure even to people like me who don’t particularly enjoy PvP. That said, I know I am not the average gamer in this world. The average gamer will not devote hours and hours a session to get somewhere – to unlock achievements if you would. That’s where I believe EVE Online is weak. There is not much you can do in the game in a 30 minute stretch. I can go through an entire League of Legends game in 30 minutes. The same goes with Starcraft II. In The Elder Scrolls Online, my latest addiction, I can do something worthwhile in 30 minutes any day of the week.

When large events like B-R happen, people read about it and think, “Wow, I want to be a part of that!” So they subscribe. They may even understand that EVE is hard, that it has a very steep learning curve. Most gamers aren’t afraid of steep learning curves. It’s what we do after all. But when these new player find out it can take three hours just to reach a very small goal, they often realize they can’t devote that sort of time to the game.

The other thing they want is to keep those achievements they’ve earned. In most MMOs, that’s a foregone fact. You earn special armor in TESO, you keep it. No one can take it from you. In EVE Online, that’s certainly not true. You can’t dare undock in a pimped out ship because there is always a suicide ganker lurking nearby who feels that since they can’t have it you can’t have it. Instead, the only achievement system we have is the killmail system and that is too easily gamed. It makes no distinction between noobs and veterans on the killmail, so most PvPers would rather go after a noob. In fact, that may be the only PvP that lasts less than 30 minutes. Even PvPers can’t spent hour after hour trying to get the “good fight.”

That in a nutshell is what I meant about B-R not being able to give CCP a permanent increase in subscribers. There is no long-term reward in the game for those with only 30 minutes every other day to commit. And people with those time constraints are a vast majority of all the potential gamers who might want to try EVE Online. I think CCP already has those of us who can and will spend hours upon hours trying to “get somewhere.”

And that is why EVE Online is not dying. It could probably go on like this for years. But EVE Online is also not growing. That is my biggest concern. In our world, companies who don’t show year after year growth do not get the investments they need to expand. Lack of expansion means even less business interest in the company. It is not EVE Online I fear will die, it’s the company that writes it. If CCP goes under, our game ends – period.

I believe CCP understands this. That is why we have DUST 514 and now EVE Valkyrie. That’s expansion of the company. That brings interest and investment. But DUST 514 didn’t pan out as much as CCP likely needed. EVE Valkyrie was absolutely (IMO) a god send. It likely really saved their bacon. I believed that even more strongly after their writeoffs of last year. The only reason you keep something on the books like obsoleted code is to pad them. Padding the books means nothing good in the business world, nothing at all.

This was obviously written before the World of Darkness announcement. That announcement only heightens my concern. The last paragraph is billed as something positive, but is it really?

Although this was a tough decision that affects our friends and family, uniting the company behind the EVE Universe will put us in a stronger position moving forward, and we are more committed than ever to solidify EVE as the biggest gaming universe in the world.

Here’s another view of that statement: all their eggs are in one basket now. With this revamp and its bent toward group play, you can surmise they only like white eggs. That is horrendously frightening from my gamer point of view.

Still, it is not necessarily wrong for CCP to feel this way. At the con Saturday I was talking to a friend, Tanaku Green, about EVE Online and more specifically DUST 514. He is not an EVE Online player. He is, in fact, a Blizzard Boy – no offense intended. But he is absolutely fascinated by the idea of being able to affect the EVE Online universe from the first person shooter console game that is DUST 514. And guess what: you can do that in a 30 minute gaming session. You can help make a difference even if you have limited play time – like the 99.9% of gamers who don’t play EVE Online.

Of course, there is risk in tieing your company to one product and then narrowing supported gameplay to large-scale operations. We’d like to think of EVE Online, DUST 514, and EVE: Valkyrie as separate products. That is not entirely true. One universe means one core development process. They are all tentacles on the same octopus. Shoot the Octopus between the eyes with a spear gun and all the tentacles curl up lifeless. Octopi have a highly efficient body plan, but it’s not the most redundant ever evolved.

But hey, what do you expect from a company whose #2 guiding principle on an industrial revamp is all about risk versus reward? They’re putting your money where their mouth is. Just don’t forget game developers are not immortal like capsuleers. The only game developers who look to be immortal at this point in history are Sid Meier and Chris Roberts. I think many EVE Online players are already familiar with Star Citizen. As a go it alone sort of gamer I know I am. How many of you know the next Civilization, due out this fall, is called Civilization Beyond Earth? Follow the link for Sid Meier above and watch the trailer folks – O M G. It’s not MMO, but it supports up to 8-player games and it’s C I V I L I Z A T I O N I N S P A C E. You know, I don’t know any EVE Online PvPers who see this as competition, but believe this gamer when he says… this is competition. It’s competition for my time and my money. Never forget there are far more of my type of gamer out there than those who are die-hard PvPers. Knowledgeable individuals like Doctor Nick Yee have shown this.

To all those PvPers who may have just read that and thought to themselves (or yelled at the monitor,) “Then go play another game you pubbie!” …that’s my point. There are folks who will do just that. They will walk away from EVE Online over this. They are in love with the space aspect of the game, not the PvP aspect of the game. They want blinged out ships, not questionable killmail lists. Sooner or later they tire of being suicide ganked undocking from Jita, and they go play elsewhere. That hurts EVE Online because in a game with only 500,000 subscriptions every real person counts. And this PvP or DIAF attitude eliminates real players, not just accounts.

There is one thing CCP could throw into this revamp that would make me not care about the nerfing done to high-sec time-limited gameplay. Just make it impossible to blow another ship up in high-sec unless it’s an agreed upon duel or a war dec. That’s it. Make it impossible to suicide gank anyone who chooses to stay in an NPC corporation and pay for bling with real money. If they pay for it, they should be allowed to keep it. That’s what gamers of that ilk expect.

As for suicide gankers, if they want to shoot other players, force them to go to low-sec or null-sec too do it. If CCP is truly serious about their risk philosophy, then they must stop suicide ganking – and that means Burn Jita too. There is no risk in it for those that do it. I know. I was a member of an alliance with a suicide-gank wing for nearly a year. I remember well their laughs about blowing up stupid carebears in high-sec. If you don’t do this CCP, then you’ll only confirm your bias. So how about it? Do you have the guts to end suicide ganking in high-sec once and for all? Will you prove you are as willing to take your low-risk no-reward philosophy and apply it to so-called PvPers as readily as you apply it to players who prefer to live and work in high-sec for legitimate time constraint reasons?

- Mabrick

He’s been around the block a time or five. With over 15 years of MMO playing under his belt and a memory that reaches back to pencils and dice, he offers his insights into the not so virtual reality we call Eve Online.

  • euknemarchon

    The overall sense that CCP may be shooting themselves in the foot is well-taken, but–like all of us, I think–the practical advice is a bit poorly stated. If there are no suicide ganks, there is no regulation for freighters beyond m3, and that itself could have stunning unforeseen consequences for EVE. And I’m not sure limiting this to wars is a panacea–griefdecs are probably worse for the game than bling suicide ganks. All in all, we’re getting close to the problem, but we’re short on good solutions.

    • Flaneur

      How often do neutral freighters get ganked in hi-sec? Enough to “regulate” freighters? IDK.
      I do know I’m not flying a freighter partly because of the high risk-vs-price-tag ratio… But I doubt it’s important in regulating freighter traffic.
      Aside from upsetting PvP players (ganker tears! Lol)I don’t see why this is a bad idea. I know it would appeal to a lot of gamers who otherwise won’t enjoy Eve.
      Suicide ganking is an exploit anyway. It’s not even “real” PvP imho.
      If there needs to be some risk in hi-sec to replace the (uncommon) threat of gankers, maybe let it be roaming rats or some other pve content.

      So I provisionally agree – make it impossible to gank in hi-sec. For the good of the galaxy.

      I think, leave war decs alone though. Hi-sec war decs don’t last long anyway. It’s content. Ganking? More like discontent.

      A half measure might be – to make it impossible to loot a wreck in a CONCORD action. Maybe the cops grab all the loot. RICO in space. That might even be a better idea.

      • Elshar Khandar

        If you get CONCORDed you don’t get insurance payments, right? Why not just extend CONCORD so they pod the people they attack as well as blow up their ship and have the clone SP insurance no work just like insurance so every time someone gets CONCORDed they lose their ship, their pod and some SP.

        That way, it can still be done but is damaging enough to make people think twice about doing it.

        At the moment it’s way too easy.

        • eve player

          No need to be extreme.
          For example, Let me pay as a freighter pilot concord a fee for reduced response time.
          This will put back the risk into gankers, instead of just being able to use a DPS/EPH calculator, they now have to truly risk their ships for nothing.

  • pod

    i think suicide gank need to stop and then ppl will move to low and null if they want or just farm 40m per hour in high sec. suicide gank is the lowest for of pvp ccp lost much more then they can earn from it,
    huge games are comming this year and eve will drop players. juct check the stats when eso came out and see that about 30k of the active players looking for batter/other game.
    i myself will move the moment i get a proper sandbox. and i hold 5 accounts.
    when i canceled my subs i wrote the same stuff now i will wait till i burn my 68b on plexes and will move to other game.

  • JD

    Well written and hell, a lot written. I agree in some points, but with that risk vs. reward aspect and no ‘non agreed pvp’ in high sec I dont think thats good.
    If you remove the suicide ganks, the can-flips, the baits in high sec you will lose all the left over risk in high sec, what means you can earn ISK without risk (lost NPC fights don’t count). And in the philosophy of risk vs. reward, there should be no reward. What will turn high sec into useless space. 20% of the player will quit cause they loved it like it was, 75% will move to low and null, and the left over 5% will fly their bling-bling-26mrd.-Raven in absolute save but useless space.

    I’m no PVP-Guy (I have 0 Kills and 3 Lose in 5years of Eve) but i love the fact that you could be killed anywhere and anytime.
    May be CCP should print the first rules of Eve on the startup screen:

    Rule no.1: Never undock what you can’t afford to lose!
    Rule no.2: Fly it as cheap as possible.
    Rule no.3: There is no “if you get killed”, only “when will you get killed”.

  • Chris

    *Gets mad at CCP for favoring certain type of gameplay over others.

    *Proceeds to advocate for the remove of suicide ganks ie non-consensual pvp, which is what eve is about, thereby favoring certain types of gameplay over others.*

    Makes perfect sense.

    • theseconddavid

      It actually does. Hi-sec isn’t safe. It isn’t less risky than the heart of the Null superpowers, it’s more risky. In order to stay true to the supposed road map, Hi-sec either needs to be less risky or more profitable. Low-Sec is getting screwed even worse.

      • Sieveboy

        Man you are special. With a miniscule modicum of effort you are perfectly safe in high sec. For example, you can use a freighter in hi sec easily, it just takes a little bit of caution, i.e. don’t undock whilst war deced, don’t load your freighter up with more than about 3 billion worth of goods, stay away from Jita next weekend and off you go. It is also a good idea not to auto pilot and having a fleet mate web you into warp is smart play.

        Meanwhile, try sending the same freighter into null-sec? You are nuts if you don’t have a gang escorting you. You are reliant on corp/alliance/coalition mates keeping intel updated and in the end your better off using a couple of jump freighters, which cost about 7 times more to buy and have a higher cost to run and fly.

        And you reckon hi sec needs to be safer or have a better reward? Get real, the risk reward in industry has not been balanced for a very long time and the proof is in the reality that null sec industry is pretty much all super caps (which can only be done in null sec) and daylight after that.

        • Crash

          I agree it doesn’t need more rewards or making safer… it just doesn’t need touching at all.

          • Sieveboy

            Too bad, industry risks and rewards were unbalanced and it is being fixed. Your butthurtedness amuses me.

      • Dirk MacGirk

        It is NOT less risky than even in the heart of the Null superpowers. Under no circumstances can another group of players, no matter how larger or well funded and organized, take ownership of the stations in hisec (or lowsec) away from the NPC corps that own them. Thus, any assets in those stations will be forever and always accessible. The same is not true in nullsec. The game changes, the alliances and coalitions change. Someday, the CFC or N3 or any other sov-holding group can, and probably will, be turned out of their space. Now unless your version of “risk” is ONLY applicable to your ship at a given place and time, then yes, perhaps you have some kind of statistically significant chance of being killed more than my orca pilot in nullsec hiding in a POS. But that is ultimately not what is referred to when speaking of risk versus hisec and nullsec. It is not about a single sheep and your statistical chance of being culled from the herd by the wolves. Especially if you drenched yourself in the blood of faction mods or waved your hands in the air telling the world you were carrying 20 billion isk in a T1 hauler.

    • Grand Formage

      Wrong. EVE is about letting people be whom they wish to be and to do as they wish within the confines of the game mechanics. To go beyond that would more accurately be the statement “That’s what is about for me”. This is why it is called a sandbox. The sandbox allows us to be what we can’t be due to the myriad of restrictions placed upon us in RL both for good and bad. Can’t be the villain in RL, be one in EVE. Can’t be the rich in RL, you can be in EVE. Don’t have what it takes to be a Leader in RL, yet in the facelessness of the internet, you a now a Giant with boundless charisma, charm. To say that EVE is only about the violence diminishes the depth and scope of what EVE is… A large universe filled with a vast diversity ranging from both ends of the far reaching spectrum of individual types.

  • Union

    Could have left off the last two paragraphs, imo. But other than that, it’s a great article. Just goes to show how the forces that desire to ‘ruin the game’ are willing to destroy companies just to see their goals come to fruition…

  • Lee Thrace

    Growed ups are bleeding this game dry for capitalist rent money & ToysRuS kids get no love

  • Dirk MacGirk

    Really just one question: has anyone been able to determine the definition for: 1. Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist.

    What does that mean and what relevance is there to the changes in industry? It is cited quite a bit in this article and we even asked CCP Manifest via Eve Radio last week, and nobody had an answer. It may be a guiding principle, but where does it show up in these changes?

    Other than that, I think too many people are making way too much out of these changes. Some interesting things, but nothing EVE shattering. At least so far.

  • Red Teufel

    or you could just add wow content to highsec instead of taking things away.

  • Homophobic John

    So since you were talking about games that seem to want to attract people that like Eve and things about Eve’s game design (im going into a different area here than you), allow me to introduce Skyforge.
    This shits pretty cool if you havent heard about it. Its single shard, well multiple shard but shards can support up to 1m players at a time, so essentially single. When they release it will have 1. Massive PvP battles are a thing the devs are going for. Its sandbox based and has a supposedly changing world depending on players actions, like EQN is trying to do. Also it has a non tab-targeting combat system and feels more like an action game. Its all in all pretty sweet.
    But since people hate the WoW type MMOs now, this one is like Eve in that its not level based. So imagine taking a trip back to Ultima Online in that regard. Also people will drop items when they die.

    All in all its looks like the RPG version of Eve. And that will attract a fuckload of players to it. Especially some of the ones that are just playing Eve because they like the style of the game.

  • Hazmatt Heimdallr

    I thought the article, as well as Jester’s and Mynnna’s, was a good perspective on the potential ramifications of these changes. Personally, I play EVE for the changes and I play EVE for the business metagame. Business is constantly changing by external forces that are unpredictable and often not announced in some blog.

    Industrialists purists who complain about PvP fail to see how mass destruction benefits them. PvP purists who deny the importance of efficient and predictable industry must think affordable ships respawn on the market like NPC rats.
    Obviously, my opinion is that this ant farm we all live in, regulated by the CCP gods, is symbiotic in nature.

    When CCP changed ore holds on exhumers, that was an opportunity to make vast amounts of isk, but we lost afk mining ice in high-sec. When CCP changed reactions who else made billions with their holds exponentially growing overnight, but I invite rapid and radical change since we as a community have the tools to adapt; between test servers, dev blogs and simply nothing better to do. Eliminate high-sec – great my jump freighter can go anywhere. Eliminate local in null-sec – great I will pay guards to watch the gates.

    I function on one simple premise – I expect to be fairly compensated for the risk I am taking. And I think CCP has done a decent job to allow that to flourish.

    • CarlGustav

      Rapid huge changes will kill any game look at Starwars Galaxies .. *cough cough*

      But i agree with you. CCP have done a good job lateley I would want Nullsec to be self sufficent both in minerals and in manufacturing this moves the risk to higher for higher profit….

    • Alpha

      One of the finest posts i’ve seen in a while.(and you are welcome to comment more)
      Thumbs up.

  • Nullsec Overlord

    WOW tears taste so goood

  • EasyKill

    This (much deserved and needed) revamp is really bringing the Chicken Littles out of their coops.

  • Batelle

    “But it is wrong nonetheless. It’s all about that first item above. Who
    determines what “actual gameplay” is? CCP is probably the only game
    company who takes it upon themselves to make that decision.”

    Wtf are you smoking. Your article completely jumps the rails here and becomes random, irrelevant, poorly-informed nonsense.

  • 2.4

    With Goonswarm at the helm year after year, are you REALLY surprised with nerf after nerf to whomever doesn’t play there way?

    • eve player

      Honestly, I see these changes as a buff to industry quality of life. There will be a 14% worst case scenario cost, that will hit all those poor 50 people using up the manufacturing slots of jita 4-4 and amarr hubs. On average I expect less than a 3% increase in manufacture costs.

      In nullsec is almost a given that anything less than a 20% margin will be a loss. Why? because of risk. Every active system in null spotted by the enemy will be cloaky camped, 2 ceptors can disrupt 4 hours of gameplay by just warping arround all the place. Try to do your large scale mining op or logistics run in these conditions and you will soon understand.

      This patch means only that nullsec indy is now *viable* instead of insanely dumb, mostly so you can self produce some of your more pressing needs, it is far far away from impacting highsec in a meaningfull way. And everyone gets quite a few nice quality of life changes to blueprints.

      People are overreacting as usual to change. Any ammount of change in most ppl eyes is bad.

  • Ciaphas Cyne

    “There are folks who will do just that. They will walk away from EVE Online over this”

    bye!

    • CarlGustav

      *lol* don’t let the door hit you on the way out….

      no seriously im tierd of the demagogs that yell i will quit if this happens…

      especialy since you don’t know the whole picture.
      they have released 2 of 5 dev blogs about the subject
      you could complain on the normal forum about a specific thing you think isn’t working with this. or you could wait untill you got the whole picture or you could just stop playing and “Show CCP that they did you some thing wrong” do what you must but stop threatening…

    • troll

      Let’s see if you say that “bye” again with so enthusiasm when CCP is in financial trouble of not getting another investment loan from banks to develop their only successful IP and after that CCPs board decides to fuc* it and sell to another company. I’d love to see your face when you read that EA has acquired Eve Online IP.

      You might think that it is not coming, and sure in short term it probably isn’t, but in the long term…

      • Ciaphas Cyne

        yes yes yes eve is dying and numbers are falling…..except they arent. at all.

        “players” that quit over this indy revamp were never playing EVE in the first place. again, i say goodbye, and please dont come back!

  • dichzor

    no non-consensual pvp in empire?! Highsec is “low risk”, not “no risk”… Yes, there might be more casual players. But do you really wanna play EVE with apathetic lizardmen, that have 3 minute attention span? Isnt that what dota and lol and such is for?

  • The One you know ?

    I am for an completely restart of EvE.
    Maybe if CCP would place a second Server and you can choose to go on playing on the “old” one or the other one where everyone must start from the beginning.

    I am really sad that I just noticed EvE 2 years before… I would really like to go through the beginning of EvE and I think that I am not the only one with this point of view.
    There are lots of People who would come back or just need such a push more to begin with it.

    I don t know the costs of such a Server and I can absolutely understand that many players don t want to lose theyr progress. But I think to start a “new Universe” (in the best way besides the one that allready exists) would be the right way.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      I recognize newer players coming to the game are a bit behind the curve compared to those who have been around longer. But wouldn’t you expect the same outcome to occur? “New players” who chose to be part of the new server would just repeat what has worked on the old server. In the end, it would probably just weaken both servers.

      • nolongergallente

        This isn’t true. If you consider the state of the current game, the wealth distribution, who has power and influence due to historical consequences. The vast rule changes and the slowly evolving rule set in new eden has had its own unique influence on the current state of the universe. This is not a “persistent world” in the truest sense. Some things do persist, but the rules do not. How many fortunes have been made overnight when suddenly a NPC spawned commodity became harvest only? I can count tens of billions of isk in personal wealth from Tyrannus release alone (I was in t2 missile manu, and had large quantities of rocketfuel). The biggest factor in my personal wealth has been anticipating rule changes (can you guess how many Domi’s I built last year?)
        To start again on fresh ground, with all the rules in place would see a completely chaotic land rush of epic proportions and crazy fights in frigates and cruisers for months. Would be fun, if you ask me.

      • The One you know ?

        yeh… besides the fact of the costs for CCP thats a point I also see as a problem…
        There isn t any really good reason to tell WHEN it is ok to start a new server and when not. If you do it once there will new people come in some years and say “but last time you did it too…”.

        So it maybe will just stay a dream of mine =/
        But also I think something that should be thought about sometimes.

        • Dirk MacGirk

          I’ve mentioned before having a place where new players could learn the ropes before getting neck-deep into the real game. A starter server that allows you to train skills and do all the things you can do in EVE, but not engage in non-consensual PVP. Then when you are ready, or after some reasonable period of time, you migrate to the real server. But you only bring your skills with you. No assets or ISK. I call it EVE Light. But most people disagree with that concept.

          • The One you know ?

            EvE is hard, and EvE is Dirty…
            most games hold your hand and bring you through it “ohh you lost ? thats ok, lets try it again <3"

            no… when you fall, EvE kicks you in the nuts. "DIE ANOTHER 100 TIMES AND LEARN HOW TO DO IT RIGHT SUCKER !" thats kinda how EvE works =D

            and I think that the most players think the way: "I had to learn it the hard way, why letting them now get it easyer ?"

            and in some way thats also ok i think, because this complexity and hard environment is what makes this game so good, you also earn the things you worked for and if you got into these complex parts of the game und understood how it works there you don t want these things to become easy and understandable for everyone =o it gives you a feeling of being able to do something others are not.

            So I can understand why the community often don t wants the game to become easyer.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            no, but we also realize the game evolves and needs to take into consideration players who didn’t start in 2003 or 2008. Many changes CCP has made are directly related to that. Believe me, it was harder years ago in some ways. Easier in others. Again, it evolves. Sometimes against the will of bitter vets, but also knowing it has to in order to stay alive..

          • eve player

            That’s the reasoning for college hazing, someone made me suffer, so now I make the new guys suffer too.
            3 dudes drowned in my country recently for that little gem of human reasoning.

            There is a difference between a game being hard and being just plain sick and twisted. D3 was hard but was that kind of stupid hard that no matter what skill or strategy you had you just lost. Minecraft was hard in the sense you had to work hard to build something, and when you finally could it felt good cause you worked for it.

            Now think of minecraft but where players just grief destroy with little penalty all of your hard built work and what you need to protect yourself is held 5 months away from you like a carrot. Makes you feel like a donkey. Then you got a very bad EvE for a new player.

            For example, CCP is removing the exploring loot spew, that is a GOOD thing. If one just wants to keep it to make all new players suffer through it like you had to you are just hurting oneself.

    • CarlGustav

      No and No

      I have accepted new players in to our nullsec corp thats less then 6month old

      In nullsec you can fly a Rifter in < 3 days and atleast in my alliance you make money on using thoes.

      You can use a Destroyer and fit it with salvagers and the new Mobile Tractor beam and salvage after a ratter to make isk …
      if your realy low on sp …. otherwise the lowend anom are decent

      Is the problem that Player X is better then you ? well then how often are we going to create a new universe? ever week as then someone else is better then the one starting after a week…. this will only lead to fragmentation of the playerbase, higher cost for CCP and no gain for the playerbase more then that you could feel special on server "Tranqulity-2123"

      EVE is a persistent MMO you just don't do reset…

      • The One you know ?

        no no, you understand me wrong, I know that there are also opertunitys for new players to go into null sec soon.

        And I am not THIS new to EvE my main has about 30 mil skillpoints, thats not much, but enough to have a few experience.

        But:
        First I think the situation in Null-sec is really bad… I don t like that you have to join a coalition or go to rent a system from one to live there… I think it should be more acessable for Corps or even Aliances themselfes to claim one or 2 system and call it theyr home… But thats not possible… anything belongs to blob Coalitions and thats an absolute waste I think =/

        Another point is the Production. There are really bad chances for players who started in the last years with EvE to compete with older players which has allready hundreds of Blueprints completely researched (and there i don t even speak about T2 BPOs).

        But one of the Mainfacts is that there is just to much isk in the game. (I know, this sounds completely stupid) but I think its sad that coalitions bring 100 of titans and just care about the loss because of reputation… i mean… its a fucking TITAN ! The biggest ship in game !

        I heared from some corpys from the time when EvE started, when it wasn t natural that you find any ship 100 times in the sell orders in Jita, When there where nearly only blueprints and you had to build your own battlecruisers or even cruisers and frigates and really had to think on what do you research now and where to spend your money and time.

        I just would like to make these experiences myself (maybe i am just sad about the fact I didn t knew about EvE when all these started,) But I would really wish for a new server to start over.

        (and maybe…. if we are allowed to dream… there can be a new world… without goons <3 )

  • Shattershark

    That “risk vs reward” thing is a load of crap for a long time by now. EVE players demonstrated time and again ability to take a feature with high reward and remove the most risk that devs built in it, numerical and organizational advantage being the main instrument of that.

    Right now a single player or member of a small corp doing industry in high- or lowsec faces equal or greater risk of loss compared to goon pet in SOV 0.0. Same will be true after changes in industry will kick in, but then high- or lowsec industrialists will lose a chunk of their reward to pay for CCP’s present to goon’s pet.

    Either CCP should start designing risks that cannot be mitigated by having a biggest blob or napfest, or change “risk vs reward” to “blob vs reward”.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      How does one mitigate human nature? The desire for people to band together for the goal of mutual security? How does one say to a group of people in a community-based simulator that we won’t let you be part of a community bigger than X. Are they not doing what humans have been doing since the first two cavemen ganged up on the other caveman and reinforced his cave. And even if you could, because it is a game that can create artificial barriers, would you want to?

      The case can be made that for the sake of game play, in a video game, that you should in fact create artificial barriers to human nature. But others would argue the complete opposite.

      • Shattershark

        “Nullsec risk v reward is a bit different than hisec. Any degree to which
        you see nullsec being safe is only because the players made it so”
        Take a look at main page of this site, scroll down to April 19th. Article there is an example of highsec security. In 0.0 CFC’s renter faces only one risk: remote possibility of having to pay rent to other masters.

        “How does one mitigate human nature? The desire for people to band together for the goal of mutual security?”
        Beats me, but I’m not the one pushing “risk vs reward” bromide.

        Again, point is not that there is no security in highsec. Point is that *ahem* certain player groups managed to eliminate most of the risk in SOV 0.0. Given existing renting and napfest in 0.0, stacking the game in favor of SOV 0.0 in the name of “risk vs reward” is either stupid, dishonest or both.

        • Dirk MacGirk

          I guess if its so safe in 0.0 we’ll see hordes of industrialists coming to the fertile indy grounds of nullsec. I’m pretty sure peeps who live in hisec either don’t find null as safe as they like to say or find hisec plenty lucrative enough to not have to go to null for any added income. Or they don’t want the responsibility/hassle of having to hold space in null.

          • Shattershark

            Yeah, I get it, I get it: everyone should go join one of CFC’s renters or stay in highsec and enjoy decreasing profit margins. In the meantime blob gets bigger, funding gets better, rental circlejerk becomes safer.
            Whatever.

            Just don’t call it risk vs reward.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            nobody telling you to become a renter for anyone. unless you just want to be “your own boss” or have nothing to offer an alliance. But if null is so safe with a risk/reward skewed in its favor, why wouldn’t you seek out that option? Renter, nullsec alliance, whichever.

          • Shattershark

            “Join the blob” by any other name.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            as opposed to what? Play the game in a suboptimal manner just so you can say you aren’t part of the blob? Guess that is a choice too.

          • some guy

            some people wanna stay neutral, one has to respect that. its a sandbox. problem is there is no sand to play with because every piece of it is protectet by one bloc’s fleets

          • Dirk MacGirk

            Don’t misinterpret what sandbox means. It means you can do what you want within the confines of the sandbox. It may work, it may not. It doesn’t mean you can do anything you want and no matter what choice you make it will all work out. It may not.

          • Seth

            U r just ignoring that a large number of players want to be in high sec and this is negatively affecting their game play.
            U we’re saying how to put limits to human nature, similarly human nature is also at play in high sec.
            Call it sub optimal call it carebears, call it wow theme park, it is there and this is the main point IT PAYS CCP BILLS and consequently keeps the game, ur game, running

            Now saying that this game is not for everyone, htfo or leave, will lead only to a dark empty universe

            New players start in high sec, some stay some leave to null, and most STOP playing. This is the problem not moving all ppl and all vets to null sec, and nerfing high sec, while buffing null is only increasing the problem.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            Not ignoring the 50% of players that live in hisec at all. While many of them are 0.0 alts who live there for a reason associated with 0.0, many are not. They are not ignored. But CCP is never, not ever, going to change this game into the theme park that some of those players want hisec to be. I try and live in the reality of the gam the developers provide rather than wish they would change it to suit my personal needs. Nobody should expect that. Can CCP do some things better? Yes. Should all the things that happen in hisec be allowed? No. That may include ganking and that may include the current ability to generate ISK. If you want it 0 risk, what should you expect the reward to be? If you want the risk 50% less than what it is today, what should you expect the ability to generate ISK be? This game isn’t for everyone. It’s not for people who can’t think a little bit more than the average console player. It is a highly complex game that also has some simple things thrown in. But not many. It just isn’t designed for players seeking a game that doesn’t take much effort or brain cells. It’s not about HTFU, it’s about making choices that fit your playstyle. Both in EVE or in choosing a game that fits you better as an individual. But like I said, hisec will never ever not ever become a theme park. That is not the vision of the creators let alone most of the players.

          • 1337 PVP FTW

            Dude guys like him will let you play in the sandbox as long as you build the sandcastle they want where they want it and let them knock it over whenever they feel like it. Which to me is not a sandbox at all. These clowns are just comical at this point. They made it impossible to have fun fights by their own design and now look to CCP to remove the security from hi sec to find more targets. It’s really ridiculous if you ask me. There is no shortage of players in null that want to PVP. The only thing that stops them is the construct implemented by other null players. Coalitions, non aggression packs and all sorts of other bull shit that they have the power to fix themselves.

          • Noisrevbus

            I didn’t know which comment to reply to, to adress the general concerns of the self-proclaimed “highsec player”, but I’ll pick yours Seth and try to make as general reference as I can:

            I believe that you, and many players like you, misunderstand what people are talking about when they refer to the sandbox and risk-reward. No one is talking about Carebears and references to games like WoW or themeparks are often just superficially thrown around rather than argued in relation to the sandbox.

            The “dangerous” bit about that is that EVE remains a sandbox and most perspectives void of that is simply protected by the good graces of the playerbase. We have a trend now where FWL4 is, with all factors considered, the hands down best way to make money in this game. That means that everyone looking for effective PvE play FWL4. It doesn’t matter what region you call home, your age or your amount of alts. The same goes for the birth of new corporations or alliances. One very appealing aspect of FW is just that. Access to content in terms of regional access, access to new players and especially access to new player organisations.

            The problem with an inward protraction rather than an outward expansion like that is that focus will continue to shift to where development is made and content is generated. This is also where it becomes interesting because players who do not understand the full perspective of the sandbox: that regardless of trends that move away from- or retract sandbox content – EVE is and have always been a sandbox – and that more players do not come to interact and compete with you in your element is mainly down to the good graces of the players themselves.

            Given the often described poisonous collective mentality of our playerbase that probably comes as a surprise to many. It is nonetheless the truth. Ice interdictions and events like Burn Jita spawned out of an elevated position of highsec. Not primarily to spite, but as a natural reaction and to prove a point. Further inward attention and elevation of highsec in development will necessarily lead to more player-attention to that side of EVE – up to the point where every day might become Burn Jita day. In an interactive game, you will be affected either way and believing that space should secure your personal playstyle a safe haven and or privileges will quickly be put to the test as the competetive players come to meet the elevated value of your preferred subset of the game.

            Something similar can be said for Nullsec regions like Providence, where the cold hard truth is that said space remain NRDS for the simple reason that the content generated there supercedes any desire to unseat the small coalition holding the space. It’s not worth losing the positives it gives the community so the supercoalitions leave it be, and whatever insurgents rarely step their skirmishes up into much more. It’s people being “nice” or understanding mutual gain because they believe in the sandbox.

            Most people do not player interactively, are young in the game or subscribe to a limited scope of perspective per region or otherwise, simply do not understand that nature of the sandbox. They will not, until it hits them where it hurts.

            In order for eg., FW to become the birthplace and/or regroup for aspiring player-projects, other areas or aspects of the game have lost out. Lowsec at large has a massive malbalance between FW and Lowsec outside of FW. The same goes for NPC-null and it’s former role as a breeding pool, regroup-point or roaming-base: all of which are outward content-expansions that interact with the larger world around it and takes competition away from eg., highsec.

          • 1337 PVP FTW

            You’re a fucking idiot. You join a big bloated coalition because of safety in numbers, the tell people that 00 isn’t as safe as hi sec. You must be bored seeing how you have no one left to shoot. People like you are killing the PVP aspect of the game and then want CCP to make all space security less so you find more targets. All that would do is push the remaining people into either quitting or joining one of the super coalitions and the cycle continues. The answer to your problems dear null bears is you. Disband your fucking super coalitions and let’s get some fucking fun and quick pew pew in every day. It’s sad when good fights are so hard to come by and the tidi lag feasts are so mis marketed as to lead people into believing that they are the be all end all in eve. Most of us have a fucking job to go to. A family to take care of and spend time with. We don’t have time for a fucking 4 hour lag feast. I don’t even know how anyone that’s sitting in a 2000 man fleet in massive tidi with overwhelming odds in their favour finds that kind of game play amusing. You can’t even see the pretty explosions because you have to turn your graphics settings all the way down not to lag out. How is this fun for anyone. Oh yea we kicked their ass. We outnumbered then 5 to 1 and I think I almost saw my guns cycle and I think I saw some heavily pixelated explosions. Wow what a thrill. Really? Fucking really? Why don’t you get a job clubbing baby seals. You’ll find it just as amusing.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            “Fucking Idiot”? Ok, allow me to retort: Pussies like you can never get past the fact that the players of nullsec created or maintain whatever sense of security exists in nullsec. It wasn’t just granted to them by act of the developer and hard-wired into the game. Why should a group of players who have found a method for supremacy based on how the game is crafted, take it upon themselves to disband? Seriously, you need to find a less failed argument than that one. On top of that, you make irrational assumptions about what it is I prefer. I prefer a good many things. 2,000-man fleet fights isn’t one of them. Ganking n00bs isn’t one of them. Ganking defenseless ships and calling it “PVP” isn’t one of them. Only taking a fight because I know for a fact that I outmatch my opponent and will only engage if I do, aka “1337 PVP” also isn’t one of them. I’m not going to fall back on the tired old mantra of “if you don’t like how the game is played then quit”. But if you don’t like how the game is played, the use all of your fine words to try and get the game changed. You wont get very far with your weak arguments, but better than just whining about how you don’t have time because you assume you’re the only one with a job or a famil. I try to get the game changed all the time and have some of the same concerns that you do. But then, when you begin you statement with “You’re a fucking idiot”, I tend to not give a fuck what you have to say because you sound like just another whining shitlord who thinks insults are a valid argument.

          • 1337 PVP FTW

            Yes sir you joined the biggest and therefore the most powerful coalition in the game because you’re a hero and a tough guy. I get it.

          • Alpha

            Coalitions are full of chest-pumping gorillas. Let them all have their fucking zoo that is EvE.. Sandbox my ass lol

          • Dirk MacGirk

            saying that is no better than saying anyone who permanently stays in hisec is nothing more than a pussy. Just ignorant and without merit

          • Alpha

            Sandbox? More like concrete box.

          • Shattershark

            As opposed to my (or any other dude’s) way of playing in the sandbox. Again, if they’ll take away enough sand I’ll unsub and that’ll remain between me and CCP.

            But “risk vs reward” bullshit is bullshit and I will call it bullshit, because it just is.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            OK. Good luck.

          • some guy

            null IS save as long as you get your blue to CFC or N2PL
            tell me otherwise while im sitting in a null system building stuff and watching everyone who dares attacking my 100man-corp’s sov getting dropped by PLs supercap fleet

          • Dirk MacGirk

            I’ve been on the side of fighting PL and feeling like I had no option. Too strong, can’t compete, all that. But its why people learn to band together as a counter. “The blob” forms for safety in numbers and then finds itself in the position of being powerful in its own way. You can’t be the lone wolf and expect to go it alone. I’m not saying it’s fair. But just because you may want things to be a certain way has nothing to do with fairness either.

          • some guy

            the problem is not risk vs reward, the problem is the existance of powerblocs. risk vs reward in null works fine as long as a nullsec system is in danger of being taken. introduce mechanics to prevent single alliances from holding several regions at once and you have free systems that one can take without messing with 1/3 of eve’s null at once

          • crash

            No that’s not the case at all. Most of the people who live in high sec jus hate the mechanics of null sec or just hate the idiots who run it. It’s a middle finger to all of those people who enjoy their game in their own way. Now it feels as though we’re been forced to play how other people within the game want us too. “risk vs reward” is a terrible idea and it should be effort vs reward. To acutally make that isk off of industry in high sec you still have to put a lot of effort into it, especially solo.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            I know the world is getting a bit soft, but trophies for “trying hard” aren’t the answer. I’m not trying to be flip. Its hard to make profits in hisec because hisec is buried deep with people all trying to do the same thing living under the safety of knowing the space can’t change hands. Would you expect to be able to compete in the real world if everyone made the same product using the same process and had the same cost of production?

          • Crash

            it’s a game though for people to enjoy… not “the real world”

          • Dirk MacGirk

            I’m all about the “its a game” concept. There have to be some limits in order to keep it a game. But its not an arcade game or an amusement park game. CCP itself would tell you it is as much a simulator of human interaction as it is a game. In fact, in many ways, it is more of a simulator than a game. But I recognize that not everyone is seeking that kind of environment.

    • CarlGustav

      You can’t compare Sov 0.0 industry or even Lowsec industry to Highsec
      It plays the same gamish but on totaly different rules set.

      In highsec:
      You have your pos:es in two modes industry mode and war mode
      full industry modules online and guns/hardenes offline and the oposite if your at war

      In lowsec:
      You have to have your tower protected but with npc stations your BPO are always safe….
      After patch this will change alot in the Risk/Reward
      the time it takes for Dreads / SC to maul your tower is just minutes between warning time and reinforce timer starts

      In NPC nullsec:
      same as lowsec but now you got bubbles to worry about on the towers to
      they could spring a bubbletrap on your tower and “Rapecage it”

      In Sov nullsec:
      Everything is at risk

      so please don’t compare nullsec industry to highsec industry
      Its not the same type of industry.
      I belive Nullsec should be able to sustain its self if they choice to….
      Before last Outpost change nullsec was not even able to build the ammo needed in the fleetfights … Yes Highsec industry will suffer from this shift of power but i belive its a good thing….. (even tho 90% of my income comes from Highsec industry)

      • DeKaf

        Nothing is at risk in nullsec except what Goonswarm decides is at risk.

      • el Matador

        Chingas a tu puta madre en su zócalo del ojo, y vete folla con los burros en el campo

  • CarlGustav

    There is good and there is bad in this changes…

    I no longer have to fuel several Pos:es in highsec and build in several stations….

    I will do my math on the highest cost slot i use and do most of my industry in highsec….

    considering the increase in research cost… well thats nothing compared to running a Large Caldari pos 24/7 especialy since im at work for most of the time… making the invent cylce time have alot of waste cycles. I would have to do alot of resarch/Copy to offset the 500m in fuelblocks …… just saying….
    With a T2 BPO or expensive build items there is no incentative to build them in a pos anymore.
    Actualy you don’t want to take the risk with a multi B BPO

    even Copying of Freighter BPO:s is risky with wardecs in highsec.

    BUT if there is bigger incentative for me to do my manufacturing in Nullsec i will move some of the Industry there….. I don’t want to do more research on the matter then this untill I have the full information about Nullsec Industry and Cooperative Industry as it effects everything…..

    TL;DR;

    I would hold of the doomsday prophecys untill we know the whole picture…..

  • eve player

    This post started of good, ended of horribly.

    EVE identity is the sandbox (not the PVP, not the Mission, not the Miners.
    While I think suicide ganking is far too easy in highsec (spending only 500mil in gank ships to kill a freighter with 0 risk of failure is just insane) it is an integral part of the experience. Safety must remain relative, not absolute.

    Should a blinged out ship be able to undock, sure, with sufficient escort. Unfortunately there is no ammount of escort that will prevent a suicide bombe…. excuse me, ganker.
    Should people try to kill it for the goods, absolutely, if they are given an oportunity. I just would wish creating the opportunity would take allot more effort than just being on grid with the poor dumb victim.

    The problem with highsec is not being subject to unconsensual PvP, the problem is that there are absolutly no mechanisms for defense from suicide ganking and from griefing wardecs (looking for those l33t noob kills). And I seriously mean defence not immunity, cause right now they are the same: only defense is to not undock, and that is the same as leaving the game.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      mechanic to avoid wardec: NPC corp

      mechanic to avoid the typical gank: don’t make yourself a target worthy of being ganked.

      I know, both of those have drawbacks. Nobody ever wants to give up the positive things they want in order to mitigate the risk of loss. But thats a reality. All gank, no tank has its advantages and its disadvantages. Conversely, so does all tank and no gank. Want to survive a gank in a miner? You’re going to have to drop some yield potential.

      Choices abound. Some may just not wish to make those choices.

      • eve player

        I know that reply by heart, and the spirit of it is: everything is right just as it is.

        Well, I just don’t think that is true, I also did not put in question the mecanics, I put in question the ridiculous low cost of ganking. Wardecs are a tricky beast, but if you think NPC corp’ing is a mechanic… well, it’s just gonna turn into a very dumb pissing match real fast, not worth discussing.

        All gank and no tank only has drawbacks in lowsec and nullsec, in highsec is *the* best nonconsensual PvP ship possible and is way overpowered. Sure in a wardec its a crap fit, but that is not nonconsensual.

        Choices most definitely do not abound. Your answer, repeating exactly all 9999 other answers to any arguments similar to mine prove it quite nicelly. Proof in the sense you can actually search in forums and see for yourself. Your answer is exactly the same. I hardly call that an abundance of available choices for players (for both prey and predator).

        • Dirk MacGirk

          Well if 9999 other people say the same thing, maybe there is something to it.

          Low cost of ganking? Pure ganks where they don’t factor in the cost? I agree. You can’t stop a suicide bomber if he has no regard for his own life. But other gankers do take into account cost. The value of what they will lose to gank someone versus what they will get out of it: either loot or value of the killmail. You don’t gank a freighter worth 1 billion by using 2 billion worth of ships that are guaranteed to die. That is a bad trade. So like I said, don’t make yourself a target worth being ganked. Its just a method for not becoming a target

          The all gank, no tank statement was meant to reflect that everything has a possible tradeoff. If you want no tradeoffs then you are asking for something nobody should have. The predator or the prey.

          And if you want to be 100% secure from wardec, then being in an NPC corp will in fact get you 100% security from wardecs. But you probably want the benefits of a player corp too. So I’m sorry, you can’t have both.

          But again, I know, same old answer everyone else gives. That must make it wrong. By the way, the sky is blue, not brown.

          • eve player

            I’m not looking for a pissing match here, I’m arguing tweaks and changes are good, and that changing to a NPC corp and keeping your freighter cargo under that 1bil magic number should not be the only options.
            (I should know better that to touch the wardec subject with a 10 foot pole, lol, its almost as bad as mentioning cloaky afk, oh noes… sry I said that)

            EvE players repeat those solutions because they heard them themselves over and over. I am putting them in question because it’s a healthy habit to put common knowledge to question, even facts like the sky being blue. Its what makes the world go forward, what makes us know the sun does not circle the earth. Its what game designers do to create new gameplay… break conventions, exploring them sometimes for bad, other times for greatness.

            All you said is 100% correct, i’m saying it can be better. There ARE things that can be done.

            2 examples:
            A huge buff to highsec would be to double the EHP of every single ship in the game. This would cut in half most of the alpha siliness of ganks, nullsec alpha doctrines, pvp duels that last 5 seconds, and actualy give noobs reaction time to think how theyr fit is wrong before it blows up. Freighters in highsec cost 1.2bil and run around with 10% cargo space used to keep cargo value under 1bil. CCP tryed this but got hammered by l33t pvp’ers that wanted instant splosion gratification, fights just took way too long and logi became too powerfull (because they should have halved the logi reps).

            Pay concord a fee to reduce their response time to aggression to you for 1 hour (protection money if you will). This will put back some risk into ganking that will no longer be able to calculate DPS. They never know if i just payd 500mil to concord for the privivedge of escorting my 10bil cargo hold (again alpha is just problematic).

            Fixing logi agression rules in HS might also be a nice ideia.

            Now all of these are probably bad ideias, It’s the fact the 99% of eve players not even admit to discussing them that is anoying to new players who see the obvious faults in eve and are dismissed with a solid HTFU.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            Well, at least you are thinking about the issues and possible solutions rather than just saying “it’s not fair they can gank me”. You raise some valis specifics. Lots of people put forth ideas. Its not uncommon with EVE Players. But then you have others that just want to make blanket statements about this or that not being right. The blob is bad, etc. You raise issues that come up all the time. In fact, they are issues we talk about every week on Eve Radio (Wednesday at 00:00 Eve time). Sites like EN24 and TMC and various bloggers all talk about these things. Nobody wants EVE to be stagnant. But many also don’t want it to change to being WOW in Space. We’re OK with 40,000 players online at a time. Its not a game for all gamers.

      • some guy

        The problem is not ganked miners who could have dropped yield for tank but e.G. freighters or t1 industrials (i personally alpha’ed deadspace-overtanked ones with a 100mil nado)

        • Dirk MacGirk

          What did that T1 deadspace-overtanked indy have in it that made you gank it? Well, maybe just the deadspace tank was enough.

      • nolongergallente

        In Eve, a target worthy of being ganked is one who undocks.

        • Dirk MacGirk

          that’s not true. hyperbole. I wont say it doesn’t happen, but statistically in hisec it doesn’t quite happen like that. Undock in an Ibis carrying 20 PLEX? Yeah, you’re probably going to die.

          • nolongergallente

            I guess you missed the time when sitting in the noob systems and blowing up every noob who undocked was considered a “thing” by vast numbers of players, requiring CCP to make the rule that now protects them.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            No, that was shit play by shit people. CCP has worked to protect true noobs. But they can’t seek to protect hisec vets in the same way as they protect noobs.

          • nolongergallente

            The problem as I mentioned in my above post isn’t highsec, its null. Highsec serves a valuable purpose to the health of the game, and these changes will undo a good deal of that.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            it serves no more of a purpose than any other location in the game. No part of EVE has a “Special Snowflake” designation

          • nolongergallente

            I don’t understand the basis on which you can say this, really. Clearly it has utility to you as a player in your time on eve. The experience is vastly different than being in null or wspace or low. I don’t know if you do serious industry, but there is no way I would bother with it at all if it weren’t for highsec.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            yeah I do quite a bit of industry. not as much today as I used to, but that is because I got bored with it. Part came from hisec but most was produced in null. Hisec has its purpose, but so does null. Once can’t exist without the other. How many ships and mods and pieces parts do you think you would need to build if it wasn’t for what is getting blown up in other parts of space? Both need each other.

          • nolongergallente

            But they shouldn’t really. Null should be able to self-supply its fleets, and highsec should be for newer players making ships for faction and missions and whatnot. I think quite a lot would still be made in highsec even if null became much more full scale capable.

          • Dirk MacGirk

            well, that would be a complete reinvention of the symbiosis between hisec and nullsec. Hisec is the land of low end minerals and stations galore in order to produce in relative safety. Nullsec has production, but typically geared toward bigger items. Its also the place most ships die, which are then replaced by something built in hisec. Destruction requires someone to replace it. How many ships would you need to build to replace those lost in missions. Not many. Tehy don;t die that often. But Hisec was never designed to be nursery school. Hisec is a place where whatever security it has is pre-programmed and unchanging. Nullsec is a place where the players determine its relative safety. CCP tends to lean toward those places where the players determine the future rather than some pre-planned playbook.

      • Joseph Blade

        NPC corps are what is wrong with highsec in eve. You avoid wardecs and pretty much any other meaningful interaction. the tax on npc corps should at least also be added to the manufacturing to entice some people to but their balls on the block.

        no risk, no reward

        • Dirk MacGirk

          I’ll disagree. NPC corps are just fine for the casual player. Yes, they allow you to avoid wardecs. But you also don’t have the benefits of being in a player corp. Set your own tax rate, rent an office, drop a POS, etc. Players in NPC corps are not what is wrong with highsec anymore than players in the CFC/PL/N3 etc are what is wrong with EVE. NPC corps aren’t breaking the game.

          • Joseph Blade

            Actually no, as I see it, it is exactly what is wrong with highsec.
            It creates a large mass of untouchables in a sandbox game. In particular if, as the OP suggests, highsec is made free of non-consensual pvp. It would be a step closer to having a separate PVE server for eve.

            It is risk that makes people work together and it is consequences that keep people from being insufferable douchebags :D

            I admit, part of this stems from my inability to hunt down said douchebags that mouth off in local, because they hide in npc corps.

        • Alpha

          in a NPC or not, you still get your freighter ganked. No fucks given.

        • Dirk MacGirk

          they avoid wardecs. that is all. for the most part, wardecs are typically nothing more than the ability for a group looking to fight a group that probably has no interest in fighting. Some use it for its intended purpose, but by and large, its more of a griefing mechanism where the intention is to go after those uninterested in “always on” combat.

  • nolongergallente

    The game already has balanced risk vs. reward in the form of ore, t2, t3, PI, plexsites and rats. That is what drives the desire to hold sov and live in null in the first place.
    These changes seem to me way overdone and would be better if they took a look at each problem individually instead of trying this shotgun approach. Stuff like refining arrays giving penalties and aborting the whole load was ridiculous from the beginning. The way outposts worked (need amarr for factories, and only one station one per, limit of corps and crap like that, and need min for refining, or get lucky and get a capturable NPC with everything), the rapid equipment assembly array with penalty for materials. The difficulty of actually using a rorqual as it was intended to be used.
    But instead of fixing obvious dumb, they go and try to shake up the core mechanisms that make highsec indy a safer/easier alternative for a large number of players (both new, old, busy IRL etc). Seems to me highsec indy is a really popular avenue for new players to learn and enjoy eve without the nullsec politics. And this could be bad for subscriptions as older players aren’t replaced with as many new players because highsec indy isn’t as easy and rewarding.
    The should just focus on why null industrial sucks (besides the moonharvest).

  • eve is dying

    Elitist bunch of *@$$#* eve players. We need growth all else is the end of eve, not tomorrow but it will end. So no don’t let them go. CCP knows this to. They should stop screwing around with their so called expansions. New content beside the so precious 0.0 blob warfare witch btw is nothing but a lagfest still.

  • Joseph Blade

    suicide gankers introduce a little bit of risk to eve players in highsec, especially the NPC corp dwellers. It is the only thing left out there to threaten them. Why would people organize themselves into corps, alliances, etc if they can hide in the fold of the all-protected highsec npc corps.

    sure you could remove ganking from highsec, but only if you make corp membership mandatory. You have to put something at risk when you undock, even if it is only the risk of being occasionally wardecced and having your schedule a little disrupted.

    completely risk free experience is not an eve experience.

    <– Farmville is thataway

    • Dearthair

      His whole point is that suicide ganking is risk free gameplay. The loss of the ganker’s ship is not a “risk”. It is a cost associated with the gameplay, much in the same way that the materials used by a producer are a cost associated with his or her gameplay.

      The only risk a ganker suffers is that of miscalculating the type and number of ships needed for a gank, or a suboptimal amount of isk dropped from the ganked ship.

      The author makes the case that if CCP is committed to removing or nerfing risk-free gameplay, then that must also apply to PvPers.

      • Joseph Blade

        Actually, that’s not true. Because there are kill rights, you can actually hunt a ganker down as well. There is a risk that the next time this ganker is in highsec, setting up his next kill, someone will destroy his ship or pod

        Whether this is effective or not, they are accepting a larger risk than just losing the one ship they fly.

        • FlakAttack

          You call that risk? I make an alt, I transfer money to him, I gank with him. He never undocks unless its for a gank.

          Gankers control the whole scenario: they choose who, where, when, how… miners, haulers, mission runners can’t control when and where the ganker will show up, they can’t manage the encounter; all they can do is *mitigate* risk. The ganker has no risk to mitigate: along with controlling every aspect of the scenario, he planned to get his ship popped from the beginning.

          Suicide gankers (good or bad) operate with less risk than even the smartest of carebears. Does that sound right to you?

          • Joseph Blade

            When you do undock your alt, you could pop him though. if you (or your enemy) wants, they can watchlist your ganker, wait for him to log, head to their gank spot and shoot him there and then. causing him to miss his target (and possibly have all his buddies waste their attempt for lack of dps)

            Rolling a new ganker alt every time you succeed will mean a lot of training on alts that costs that character cash, so indeed they will likely log off in space/only undock when the time is right.

            I would personally like it if there was a docking prohibition based on sec status as well, to see if gankers move closer to lowsec / lower sec systems. Docking (in highsec) while you’re a known criminal feels as wrong as receiving bounty on a ship concord blows up.

            However my point remains: it is not true that you can do “nothing”. your choices may be limited and you can argue you should be given more choices in the matter, but removing ganking from highsec altogether will make it into a farce

  • qwer

    One thing that I don’t get in current world; why people assume corporations should be growing and expanding? Why it’s either grow or die? Why the fuck you would need “bussiness interest” in your gaming company? Only interest you really need is the interest of gamers.

    • 1337 PVP FTW

      It’s a retarded concept isn’t it. As a sales rep I get that all the time. My sales targets get bigger and bigger every year up to the point where it’s impossible to keep up and you eventually get the ax. How anyone thinks that infinite growth in a finite world is possible is beyond me.

      • economics, even not a science

        it’s easy
        every year the economies add money to the market. as long as they add more money than their “growth”rate is …

        but i assume you didn’t go to uni and got sick while having to attend economy classes – einstein and his quote on infinity …

  • sadleric

    Quite literally “stop suicide ganking.”

    What the fuck.

    • Muul Udonii

      I think the issue is that for the gankers, they have done some organisation and can now probably kill anything and scoop the loot.

      For the gankee, they just undocked. There’s almost nothing the gankee can do (absolutely nothing in the case of a freighter or JF as you can’t fit it) to increase their chance of survival.

      There is no counter to 50 destroyers, and if you’re carrying more than a billion isk of stuff, odds are that you’ll make it financially viable to gank you.

      “Don’t undock with 1 bil in your cargo”? 1 bil is woefully little. even 4 BS hulls and fits comes to more than that, and fills up what, 1/4 of a jump freighter?

      Does it even take 50 to kill one? Fuck knows, if it’s lower than that that lowers the value a freighter pilot should limit his cargo to.

      Suicide ganking should be a thing, but it shouldn’t be something that is quite so easy and profitable, except in rare cases.

  • 1337 PVP FTW

    Face it asshats your game fucking sucks and you made it that way. Not only that but CCP is helping you in a misguided effort to save their bottom line. These big bloated coalitions make it impossible to get quick fun fights so bore people turn to imposing PVP onto those that do not want it. Excuse me but I thought this game was a fucking sandbox. It seems that it is but you have to play in the sandbox the way that your told, which makes it a fucking theme park in discuise. I play eve to get my PVP fix, I like PVP hardcore. As I like that idea of destroying something that someone owns. Not some gay penalty to gear durability but they still get to keep their shit. However I understand that some people do not want that. I understand that CCP needs to make money so maybe making it difficult to plex accounts is a good idea. But there should be room to accommodate the game to different play styles because to me that is a fucking sandbox. You start off with a bunch of fucking sand and make it into what you want. Now that doesn’t mean that the parants of the bully make it easy for the bully to fuck up your sand castle because that gets media attention.
    My point is that these changes will just either push people out of game or into rental empires further perpetuating the bloated coalitions that do not have the balls to fight each other. So yea I agree there should be hi sec areas that do not allow ganking. Maybe living in those area makes it hard to plex accounts so that those people pay for the game. An if all you 1337 pvpers want to PVP then you have the power to tell the leaders of all those massive coalitions to fuck off and start a bunch of small ones and get a shot ton of pew pew on. Don’t just be a fucking coward and pile into a massive coalition because of the safety in numbers then bitch that ou can’t go to hi sec and pick on people cuz now you’re bored and the closest hostile force is fucking 60 jumps away.

    • Frans Bovens

      Dang u use the word fucking alot

      • Dirk MacGirk

        space anger. its a disease

  • I just do not know

    I have played Eve since 2009 and bluntly put already this year I almost stopped playing twice, I am still here for the moment, but lets be blunt about it, when Star Citizen comes out, my paid for with real money, not ISK accounts are stopping and I will play Star Citizen only. I do PvP but I do not shoot anything that moves. Eve has a problem, the competition is really going to be tough for them.

    And to ram home the point, I joined an organisation in Star Citizen, of the 30 people there 8 had played eve, all 8 left because they had been ganked out of the game, that shocked me and in truth its really an issue for Eve, as far as I can see Eve will be left to just power gamers, gankers and griefers,and that is not growth for CCP, but stagnation and ultimately failure.

    Many what we call independent professions have been nerfed out of the game, the 50% nerf in reinfing of modules is a real kick to those doing gun mining, which is what I was doing, I was rather annoyed at this, but when the next announcements were made I went into I don’t care mode and that is simple, when Star Citizen starts I am off, I wonder how many are like me in regards to this?

    • 1337 PVP FTW

      Exactly I don’t see what the problem is with having an area that you can’t gank people or you can but the repercussions are so sever that you really think twice. That way in a true sandbox fashion the game can accommodate different play styles. It’s not the hi sec dwellers fault that all you pussies grouped into a bunch of super coalitions and are now bored.

    • Ghftrg

      I predict this guy will unsubscribe before Burn Jita 3 finishes

    • Dirk MacGirk

      many of the same people who play EVE will most likely give Star Citizen a shot. So expect to see many of the same faces there. If they like the gameplay, they will stay and maybe shift their focus there instead of here. If it isn;t the “OMGCAN”TWAITFORSC” they were hoping for, they will probably com back to EVE. But that doesn’t differ from any other game. Once EVE stops giving them what they are looking for, it doesn’t require another spaceship game to drag them away. There are already other options available unless you are tied to the spaceship genre.

  • Frans Bovens

    Atm building in null is often hindered by lack of available mins off all right mix. Mins are shipped of to empire and ship hulls are flown back, kinda idiotic anyway. And those that build locally null ship their missing ores in, in guns and other forms of good m3 to achieve the right mix for their builds. So what happens if u build more in null with the more scarse or rarely mined ores? Their price might get pushed in nul, and high sec might see low end mineral mining increase and vaiable because of price changes. Traffic will change, all in all a adapting indy will find his angle or niche, and nul will see more viable localised hulls, renters will bevome valuable for their hub function, and a re population of null might change the endless fields of emoty null. Add ring and moon belts, nerv pos income even more, and let people use more accounts to make their precious isk… Mmh..

  • Eric loto

    One problem…
    Eliminate ganking- fine, we eliminate risk in highsec.
    Zero risk means zero reward, so we would also have to eliminate high sec mining and missioning.

    You call CCP out for this, but there has to be some risk in order for there to be a reward.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      Fuck dat shite. It is a human right to have 0 risk and the ability to earn as much wealth as possible. And if I can’t earn it then the government should give it to me. We really do need welfare in EVE.

  • bummelbuh

    not my expertise, but i think these newbie systems, iirc ganking is not allowed there.

  • diomedes

    I actually agree that suicide ganks should go, they don’t fit the risk vs reward mantra and they certainly do nothing to promote newer players or carebears to stay in the game.

    They really only serve as an ALT pass time or for bottom feeders, it’s not pvp, and it has no risk for those partaking in the gankage.

    Rather then make them impossible I’d like to see some real consequences for them, this is eve right and we live for consequences… Let’s start by having pods be far game for concord and the Navies, so if you have bad sec status you can’t just wonder around high sec in a pod to avoid legal retribution.

    Hell you can make so the gates just won’t fire for someone with -10 in 0.6 or higher, but allow covert cyno’s to open in highsec :-)

    • Nobody Important

      I don’t really see suicide ganking as a problem; at least it never happens to me, even though I frequently haul 1-2 bil in a T1 indy (any newbies that read this, that doesn’t mean it’s safe; stay away from Jita and major Jita trade routes and don’t autopilot and it isn’t so bad). That being said, I like where you’re head is at anyway. Once your security status is low enough they ought to pod you. With alts low sec status is already somewhat of a useless punishment, but at least that would add a little bit of a penalty. Another great idea is that maybe being podded (or some other consequence) only happens in systems where you committed piracy. So it’s like you were wanted in that system. I think that would be pretty cool really.

      Maybe your sec status should be that of your lowest character on your account too! If that sounds harsh, I think it’s cool that there’s real life pirates, but they’re not really outlaws- at least not enough I think. Even that measure can be mitigated by multiple accounts or friends, but I think it would add something to the game. I’m not all “anti-pirate,” and in fact I think it might make being a pirate more fun (in sort of a frustrating way- which is what EVE is all about!). “I’m an outlaw, a wanted man, I can’t go to that system.” All those ideas probably need some work, but they’re some interesting proposals.

  • Nobody Important

    How often do people even get suicided? It’s never happened to me, ever. Ok, once a cata took a shot at my T1 indy (I had a couple bil in there even though I knew I wasn’t supposed to- but I frequently do), but Concord killed him before he could finish me. I guess he didn’t expect me to have shield extenders and an anti thermal mod.

    Other than Jita, the systems adjacent, and a few .05s on routes between Jita and other hubs, it’s pretty safe. There’s just way too much space to cover for suicide ganking to be too widespread. I’ve never done it, but I imagine it’s boring as all hell. “Let’s sit here in hi sec and scan everyone’s cargo for several hours!” I don’t think too many people are up for such a boring night. If you just keep in mind how people find targets, the chances of you running into someone with a gank squad on a less used route are very low. I haul “dangerous” valuations of cargo quite often in T1 indys or frigs, and I’ve only had one attempt on me and never lost anything. Just stay away from Jita and Jita routes and you’ll be fine. Unless you’re trying to find ultra some rare officer mod or 40,000 of a ship or anything with a huge quantity it’s not necessary; you don’t HAVE to go to Jita for everything. If you do though your chances of getting blown up increase by a ton. That’s not CCP’s problem so far as I can tell.

    • Katze

      https://zkillboard.com/kill/36117828/
      I just leave that here. I am over it, I learned something from it.
      But the names of the gankers, (one player with a tool to use multiple ACC at the same time with one mouse) only a handfull ships needed for the gank and the time until concord arrived made ne angry.