Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Monday, March 11, 2013

Revisiting the conflict

First, a big thank you to everyone who sent me your sympathies and kind words about the loss of my dog Riley on Friday night.  I also appreciate those of you who sent me remembrances of your own pets and animal companions.  Lots of you realized that I need a couple of days away from all of this to remember my faithful and loving friend, and I appreciate that as well.

As I get back into the groove here, I'd like to share a response that I've made in my CSM candidacy thread on the EVE-O forums.  The response isn't political, per se, and instead covers a topic that I've gone over once on this blog already.  But it seems an important item to revisit because whether I'm elected to CSM8 or not it's going to be an important aspect of EVE's development in the next 18 months or so.

I'm getting raked over the coals pretty hard on that thread on one topic in particular, and that's nothing I didn't expect, of course.  That topic speaks to the nature of EVE Online itself, specifically should high-sec be "safe"?  I'll have more to say about this topic today, including my own opinion on the matter but before I talk about that I want to cover why I started talking about this topic in the first place.  The blog post that got me in hot water was an old favorite, the Comment of the Week I subtitled "Ganking isn't PvP and never was".

At the time I chose the topic for that post, I knew it was gonna be controversial, and unsurprisingly a lot of people seem to think the title of the piece and the COTW that prompted it are my opinion.  That part, I've already talked about here and I don't feel the need to do it again.

But the person that asked me this particular question took a slightly different tack and made an impassioned defense for EVE not to be fair, and for the right of long-time players to prey on short-time players if they so desired.  Here's what I had to say in response.  I repeat it here in full because it belongs here.  This is important stuff...
Remember when reading [the post I link above] that the opinions in it were expressed by the commenter, not myself. There is one and only one opinion of mine in that entire post. I do agree a lot of people have been confused by the distinction in a rush to judgement. And that's probably quibbling over semantics in any case.

One of the things I respect about New Order is that while they're not completely ideologically pure in this regard, the bulk of their pilots are not "level 90"s; they've made a deliberate choice to ply their trade with only a few million skill points. I respect that. I'm still not convinced it's anything like a majority stake in suicide ganking, but I can get behind what they do for that reason.

You on the other hand are making a strong argument for the right of "level 90"s to attack all the "level 1"s they want. After all, you paid your dues, got your level 90 and now it is your duty to inflict misery on the pathetic level 1s. I'm sure a lot of people feel that it is a valid argument.

I'm a level 90 myself. Someone just one page back is having some fun at my expense because I'm out there most every night doing what level 90s do, too. I'm just not doing it high-sec, that's all. The irony of that is completely lost on this person. I say it only to remind you. But let's get back to your statements and those two blog posts.

The one and only one opinion I expressed in the first post you listed is that I myself am conflicted about how far and to what extent this should be part of EVE. Because as long as it is part of EVE, then I believe EVE is doomed to a niche that it will never break out of. DUST 514 is very rapidly becoming the tail that wags EVE's dog and 25 years in business has taught me that successful businesses follow the money. If DUST 514 becomes a massive success and EVE continues to languish, then we're going to watch as more and more of EVE's best people leave to develop for DUST. Smart companies and smart people follow the money.

Put another way: it's called "World of Warcraft". Gee. That kind of implies there was a "Warcraft" once, doesn't it? Was that a game of some sort at some point? I wonder what ever happened to that?

So yeah, you bet I'm conflicted. I admit to that readily.

You didn't link the post that prompted the philosophical discussion, Conflict of self-interest

Read it and you will be reminded that I'm not the only one who's conflicted about this. CCP IS TOO. They were the ones that brought it up. I'm not alone in this boat.
In short, the topic of safety in high-sec is one that I would have brought up whether I ran for CSM or not.  It's an important topic and it's going to drive a lot of the dialogue about EVE development in the coming months.  I'm just taking more than the usual amount of flak for this one, which I find ironic... 'cause CCP ain't, as far as I can see.  I'm sort of taking the flak for them this time.

Guess I can handle it.  ;-)

Anyway, more to come on this topic today.  I just wanted to introduce the topic properly.


  1. "... 'cause CCP ain't, as far as I can see."

    And now you know why the CSM exists. :)

  2. It occurs to me that a lot of people dragging you over the coals on this may be struggling with accepting that you aren't 'taking a side'.

    People are so used to politicians putting forth a strong opinion on big issues (truthfully or otherwise) so they appear decisive and action-oriented- also it's fairly well documented that when someone sits on the fence on any contentious issue, both sides accuse them of being a 'sympathiser' at best, or 'ineffective' at worst. As I'm sure you are aware, you ARE taking a risk by not picking a side, but you're damned if you do or damned if you don't.

    I for one respect that you can separate yourself from the argument enough to analyse these issues with an impartiality that is all too often absent in this discussion (and many others- I would go so far as to say it's sorely missing from the CSM itself, particularly since the departure of certain characters).

    I only wish that there were more people around that could engage in the discussion without throwing their toys out of the pram, so to speak. I will do my best to keep track and try to add some value to the discussion. (Hopefully I can break my long post habit at some point, too.)

  3. "I'm just taking more than the usual amount of flak for this one, which I find ironic... 'cause CCP ain't, as far as I can see. "

    Hohohohoho, CCP isn't taking flak for making highsec too safe? That's a very amusing assertion. Is this some deal where you're following James315's lead and making your blog funnier to support your CSM aspirations? This is a great opportunity to demonstrate your mutant ability to admit you are wrong, and post a mea culpa about how CCP has indeed been taking flak for making hisec too safe, for years now.

    "If DUST 514 becomes a massive success and EVE continues to languish, then we're going to watch as more and more of EVE's best people leave to develop for DUST. Smart companies and smart people follow the money."

    I for one would be happy if this happened. My desires for EVE online development are small and convenience oriented. I want a pos revamp, not Incarna. CCP's best and most creative developers don't want to do a pos revamp, they want to create a new game. If there's anything CCP should emulate from world of warcraft, it is exactly that. Everyone who created world of warcraft was moved off the WoW team after a few years to create new games, and replaced with a maintanence team. You seem to want CCP to emulate blizzard and world of warcraft, by doing the opposite of what blizzard did with WoW. This does not make sense.

    "Put another way: it's called "World of Warcraft". Gee. That kind of implies there was a "Warcraft" once, doesn't it? Was that a game of some sort at some point? I wonder what ever happened to that?"

    Warcraft spawned war2, war3, which spawned dota which inspired LoL and spawned a sequel dota2, two massively successful PVP games in the current market. (also you could mention SC and SC2 here) You hadn't heard of these games? This is quite odd. These are the most common games that PVP'ers in EVE will turn to if EVE continues its carebearification, so they're really quite relevant. Themittani.com has posts about them, etc. They're really hard to avoid learning about, tbh.

    1. You know if the best and brightest move on to something else, we'll end up with Greyscale, right?

    2. The more stuff I read from you Ramm, the more you sound like an idiot...
      "I for one would be happy if this happened. My desires for EVE online development are small and convenience oriented. I want a POS revamp, not Incarna."

      'You' would be 'happy' if the best minds left EVE to slide slowly into the mud... and you somehow believe that those left behind after the brain-drain would be able to pull off a complete POS revamp?

      You said all I ever need to hear to understand you... that your desires are small and for your convenience only. I wish you everything you desire... stay 'small' and within your feeble shortsighted grasp. And I pray EvE never goes the way you wish... but stays BIG and OUT of your grasp...

      Nice take on the Elephant In the Room of EvE Ripard... While I agree and worry that as always the gifted follow the money, as they should, and I worry that there are real risks with EvE remaining a niche MMO... there is a lot to be said for that Niche... and more ways to overcome it that nerfing freedom, which is the base idea banded about by so many, Ramm, James315, Poetic, etc...

      However, if we instead of Nerfing Freedom of Action we try Buffing the New Players Training instead... actually properly prepare them for the likes of J315 and the uber l33t griefers and L90s of EvE... and if we do this BEFORE they get ganked and griefed into ragequitting, then this niche game we all love so will still be able to grow. Let's not make Hiec Safer... let's make our Noobs Safer... more informed and better prepared.

      Unlike Ramm, my desires for EvE are Grand and All Inclusive... if I want "small and convenient", I'll go play Halo...

    3. @Rammstein 1:24am

      Not sure what you're trying to say. However, Jester's point is rather obvious. EVE won't stand a chance at becoming a mainstream success (and could possibly fail) until several things occur (one of which is the limitation of the strong preying on the weak in hi-sec).

      For all of those Internet Spaceship Tough Guys/Gals there's lo-sec, null, and wormhole space to find your targets. The problem is that those targets will shoot back (if in wormhole or low-sec; in null you're probably already blue with them). In hi-sec the targets are not equipped to efficiently defend themselves (mentally and spaceship wise), nor do they feel they should have too. The whole 'undocking is consent for PvP' is one of most stupefyingly clueless arguments, for ganking in hi-sec that I've ever heard. On top of that, the time and expensive nature of EVE makes it not very attractive for new players to want to lose their stuff to a veteran player who is too weak (mentally) to go and fight someone who shoots back.

      The idea of people teaming up to defend their assets is not palpable either. Teaming up in players corps makes you a target. Again, not everyone wants to PvP. Some folks like to role-play, mine, play the market, etc...

      This is just a game, and more importantly, it's supposed to be a sandbox. Which means that people are free to play how they like, and should not be forced into a particular type of gameplay. Nor should anyone attempt to manipulate CCP and the gamers to believe such.

      CCP will follow the dollars, and the dollars are not in allowing the strong to prey on the weak in hi-sec space. Especially when there are plenty of other areas for mutual, and non-consenting pvp to take place. Any further nerf to hi-sec will likely result in a revenue loss for EVE, and that's not something anyone wants to see.

    4. "You haven't heard of these games?"

      I hope you're joking...I hope you're trying to one up Jester's irony...

    5. The sarcasm of the last quote is lost on you it would seem...

      Also, about Blizzard moving all their staff off of WoW, and putting a maintenance team in instead, can you give any credible source for this information whatsoever? Because if you can't, then I would make an educated guess that you're making an uneducated guess.

      Finally, CCP are like a government, they'll always take flak from someone, about absolutely everything. Decisions and choices you make are always going to please some people, and displease others. The key is to find a balance, and if a balance can't be struck, do what's best for the country (i.e., CCP), which in this case will be to bow down to the majorities desires. The majority is definitely not the people wanting a hi-sec nerf, although the most vocal.

      Some c.400,000 accounts are meant to be actively subscribed on EVE. Have 200,000 complaints been made about the state of hi-sec? I don't think so. So in sticking with the majority, I can't see it changing dramatically, not at all.

      [Subscription numbers taken from http://mmodata.net/ - Where in March 2012 the sub numbers were 352.5k, submitted by CCP themselves]

      "Every fact you hear on the internet is true."
      - Abraham Lincoln, 1968

    6. "Also, about Blizzard moving all their staff off of WoW, and putting a maintenance team in instead, can you give any credible source for this information whatsoever? Because if you can't, then I would make an educated guess that you're making an uneducated guess."

      What would you accept as a credible source? A number of bloggers and game journalists have written about it. e.g.: http://www.eldergame.com/2009/07/the-warcraft-live-teams-b-squad/#comments If you want a statement from blizzard admitting that they have a b-team working on anything, that's obviously not going to happen. In fact blizzard has specifically denied the charge.

      "Every fact you hear on the internet is true."
      - Abraham Lincoln, 1968"

      My favorite internet quotation :)

      "The sarcasm of the last quote is lost on you it would seem..."

      Because I replied to it in like kind? You don't understand how people generally respond to sarcasm, it would seem...

      @ turamarth : "The more stuff I read from you Ramm, the more you sound like an idiot..."

      I can't say that the opinion of such a foul-mouthed and insulting person is very relevant to me, but thank you for your interest in me.

      You said all I ever need to hear to understand you... that your desires are small and for your convenience only."

      This is an intentional misquote on your part, also known as a lie. I said my desires for the development of EVE online are small. What's next, you go after people whose desires are for the US government's budget and taxes to stay small and accuse them of having a small soul? How about people who want prisons and mental institutions to stay small, are they evil too? I could explicate further on how EVE development slowing down is best for all concerned, and not just for me, but if you were capable of understanding that, you already would have.

  4. Eve isn't so much broken as the people that play it are. Null sec might be a grind, but the huge money is already there, people have made up a few big excuses to not access it because they all want the easy money of moon goo and SRPs, and yes, it's easy money. Low sec is the same. It's got more money by far than high sec, but all it's used for is to gank anyone who tries to travel through it or play in it. So the natural response is like one in real life, people don't go there. Duh.

    The . . . "Logical" assumption of null players and low players is that "obviously" high sec is too easy, so it needs to be fucked with. It represents about fifteen percent of the game space and eighty percent of the active accounts. CSM candidates need to be able to think about customer wants and commercial viability. Eve is stagnating because it is a broken social experiment, because it's gotten big enough and complicated enough that CCP have no clue what they're doing with it anymore. DUST has well over a million accounts now, and WOD has been worked onion the background, even while CCP claimed their focus was on Eve. Eve players are obviously gullible enough to have believed that while they poured on the money to get WOD into closed beta. As the poster states, the writing is on the wall. Eve was good for bankrolling CCP for years, but now, they are working on things that will make them more money, ie Dust and WOD. If CCP is smart, they won't make WOD a toxic environment where the few assholes and griefers get to poison the water for the many, and keep thousands of potential customers away.

    They won't rush to fix sov or pos's, because they don't have to. Eve players have put up with that shit for years, so CCP will put their money where it will get hem the greatest return, ie, NOT into Eve.

    1. Sadly but true, i agree with your words !

    2. I agree with this, largely. CCP wants to be hands off. That's not going to work. They are going to have to code and innovate and add to the game to keep it viable. It can still be as much of a "sandbox" (an argument to be lazy and put limited resources into the game I feel at this point) as it is now after adding fun new features and better tools to implement current features.

      I don't think they have faith in Eve as a potential growing cash cow. They are looking elsewhere. Fools?


  5. And that's why you have my vote. You DO understand how things work and the implications of every change. I can't stand idiots like Gevlon or J315 trying to justify nerfing hisec. We need new players, both in the form of new blood in the game and in the form of resources they introduce to CCP ($$$). We also need carebears, industrialists, missioners etc. People may not like them, people may be attacking them, but the truth is that we all need them. EVE needs players above all else. What EVE doesn't need is wasteland where everyone, who is either new or peaceful, gets blown to oblivion.

  6. I couldn't agree more. I consider myself a hardcore gamer. When I play something, I go all-in. For Eve, this meant that over the course of a year, I grew from a single account, to 9 alt accounts for myself and three for friends. Yes, these were all active at more or less the same time.

    I quit eve three month's ago and am letting these accounts lapse, with no major intention of returning. Why? Because of the reasons expressed in this post. I am not poor and have no issue plexing my way to 'glory', but this will not magically allow me to fight off gankers or defend our small 5 man ops. What takes hours to earn on risky missioning can be lost in minutes on those very missions, making it impossible to earn ISK or progress.

    When attacked, the best I can expect to do is minimize the losses. We cannot fight back or hit the enemy back. We cannot afford to lose ship after ship. Sure, tough luck, sucks to be me right?

    Wrong. I expect, and want, a game to be hard. However I demand a chance, however small, of being able to do something 'besides' run away. Eve does not offer this and the null-sec powers will continue to manipulate CCP to prevent this from occurring. As such, Myself and my corp have quit as there is no point spending the large amount of time and money Eve requires to simply waste time.

    1. Looks like Eve wasn't the game for you, good luck finding your next 'risk free, collect piles of gold without any interaction with anyone else and by a fancy multicolored sword to show off with' MMO.

    2. @Bios Element 4:04am

      There are lots of players in your position, and it's extremely unfortunate. Nine alt accounts represents a considerable investment into the game (not just the accounts, but the actual computer hardware, internet, etc... used to run the accounts).

      The ignorant minority of hi-sec gankers/griefers will give you moronic advice that you have no doubt have heard to defend yourself, and as you have already witnessed...it's futile at best.

      At the end of the day there is no justification that nine accounts should go by the wayside because of the strong preying on the weak. There is not a logical argument that can be made by the hi-sec ganker/griefer minority(or anyone for that matter), on how this is good for the game, the players, and CCP in general.

    3. Ganking of miners is at historic lows. Many miners gloat that getting ganked is so rare, that fitting for max yield instead of tanking is long term profitable. Your assertion that a 9 alt player can't hack it in high sec is just not the case.

      As someone who regularly ganks, log back in and I'll show you how you can never be ganked again and mine/run missions to your hearts content.

    4. @Tiye Q What makes you beliefe that the gankers are the strong? They are gankers, that it. Some natural disaster of eve like a blizzard or storm.
      It can be avoided if you keep an eye on the weather forcast, but sometimes they may still surprise you. Life in eve goes on.

      The problem is, if you think of hi-sec-Gankers as humans, you may get angry at them, and you can not really punch them in their face like you want because they are delusive. You will "always" lose more than they do if you want to punish/fight them. Revenge is a great thing in eve, which does not work very well against Gankers.

  7. Even the most militaristic civilizations let their children grow up! People who want a wide open field need to remember that if all the kids get strangled in their cribs, very few survive to become subscription-paying warriors. This is just common sense, but you can bet CCP has ample hard evidence to support it. We could hope the EVE world could remain wide open, but too many are unwilling to practice "sustainable noob slaughter." Thus, CCP has to force rules on the sandbox to enforce it.

    1. So... make the "sustainable noob slaughter." unsustainable... not by nerfing the game, but by buffing the new players. And I don't mean changing skilling or mechanics... but TRAINING. I did OK in my first months ingame because, as a 50 y.o. adult I READ everything I could lay eyes on as regards everything I came into contact with BEFORE I 'jumped gate'.

      Vastly better and more lucrative Tutorials that actually teach our nubbins about the real world... about the mugger and the rapist and the Ganker and the Griefer... IE about how the game 'actually is' once they undock on their own. But make it a Challenge! Make it an Exciting Risk and tech them how to beat them at their own game! Make the Gankers and the Griefers PART of the expectation in the game and a risk and challenge to BEAT...

      Make the Noobs Griferproof... Teach our Children how to live in EvE... As it is now all the Tutorials teach is how and why to push what keys our mouse buttons, the raw how-tos... we need to incorporate the Grifers and Gankers into the Tutorials... and teach How-tos for winning against them.

    2. Everything you've said is correct, however, you haven't finished making an argument backing any point of discussion. Continuing your analogy, kids generally earn less than mature adults. The principle at stake for the followers of the 'nerf highsec' crowd is to balance risk and reward. The question at hand here is whether these kids should be paid like kids, or like adults. You've completely failed to address this basic issue, so your comment is moot.

      lengthy rambling tangential point: Sandbox game==a sandbox with rules to make it into a game. If you want a true sandbox, order a hard drive from amazon. A blank slate with which you can do whatever you want, build anything, destroy anything, etc. That's a sandbox. If you want a sandbox game, install a sandbox game onto that hard drive. This game doesn't add any potential to the hard drive(potential in a configuration space mathematical way, not potential in a practical way; think thermodynamics not starting up a program), it is merely a limiting selection of 0's and 1's from the pre-existing design potential of 0's and 1's which the hard drive could possibly contain. This is an admirable metaphor for game design. Start with a configuration space, and add rules and limits. Because the remaining space is so much larger and elaborately shaped in a sandbox game than in a themepark, people think that rules are somehow antithetical to a sandbox game. In practice, sandboxes tend to have more rules than themeparks. Rules demarcate allowable actions, think of them as the edges and surfaces of the spaces of allowable actions. The more, and more variegated, these allowable actions are, the more edges and surfaces will be necessary.

      e.g.: how many things could one do in WoW that were exploits, that you could do with a bare game client(most of the examples I can think of are historical, unexpected moves in raid encounters that were quickly removed)? how many such things could one do in EVE? Even though things like scamming are allowed in EVE and disallowed in WoW, I think EVE still ends up with more types of exploits, because the gameplay is more complex and more edge cases are possible. market manipulations(of the FW exploit type), drone/can spamming on stargates, convo spams, etc.

    3. Sherman, set the wabac machine to pre-removal of drone poo and meta zero modules drops.

      So called Gun Mining depressed the minerals market. When miners pointed out there was little reward in mining. ie lot of risk and poor reward. There was no talk of needing buffs - the most common response was "go do something else". These days the ratio is in the opposite direction. gankers are complaining that is it not profitable to gank miners. Really? your activity is not rewarding? hey remember what was previously said about that "go do something else"?! Good advice.

      So since so linked. Removal of drone poo and meta zero were championed by CSM6. A null bloc dominated council. Drone Poo was not supported to help miners (they're only targets after all in preditor/prey cycle) - but to economically cripple the russians which controlled drone space. Said same group when told there was ABC in wormholes - immediatelly called for a nerf of WH. A warning to us all about self-servicing of blocs. Maybe CSM7 was better off after all.

  8. as long as [unfair PVP] is part of EVE, then I believe EVE is doomed to a niche

    And by contrast, others of us believe the opposite.

    Of course EVE is "doomed" to a niche; but this doom is not likely to be evaded. EVE cannot be a mass-market game as it is. Its PVE is adequate for a month or two, but not long-term subs. EVE simply is not rich and interesting enough without PVP.

    If you remove unfair PVP, you remove most of the PVP in the game. Even if you remove unfair PVP only in highsec, you will kill the game. Or rather, you will make it even more niche than it currently is.

    The current niche is, "spaceship game for hardcore players". The niche the game is headed toward is "spaceship game for hardcore PVPer". Spot the difference? It is hardcore carebears, like me. Because without involuntary, unfair, bullying, nasty, awful PVP, there's not much to EVE. I ran out into lowsec to finish an escalation last night. Nobody scanned me down. Know what? It was a thrill anyway because I knew what might happen. This morning I helped a corpie cross lowsec, to get fuel to his tower. Nothing really happened; there was a guy at a gate but he did not attack. No pay, but again, a thrill. I remember both of these actions much better than all the exploring I did last night in highsec.

    In a safe highsec themepark, you will get a continual thrash of highsec players afraid to leave highsec and then unsubbing because they are bored bored bored. A very few will graduate out to the beyond, but not many.

  9. I'm not even sure that "safe" vs. "not safe" is the root question. I'm not much of a PVP enthusiast, although I'll give it the ol' college try, but I've acclimated to the risk of EVE--and if you don't feel the risk in highsec, fly around in an Iteron with a full cargo hold for a while--and I enjoy it. It adds a thrill even to something like flying around in an Iteron. But that's my opinion now that I have a pretty good grasp of the game.

    The issue, IMO, is that EVE is not treating new players well. They go into the game with no clue, and they're most likely to be ganked when they're most overwhelmed and vulnerable, and unless they have a pre-existing invitation to join a particular group within EVE, ganks are likely to be their only interactions with non-newbies. In other words, most players are confronted with the most confusing, frustrating and hostile part of EVE before they have a chance to see the rest of the game, and even before they've learned most of the most basic survival skills. (Level 1 missions hardly count.) So for many newbies, "level 90s ganking level 1s" is the whole of the game, and it's not exactly surprising that many level 1s decide to blow EVE off for something else.

    I'm not sure that EVE should ever try to be a mainstream MMO (I'm not convinced that WoD will be, either--I see these more as CCP not putting their eggs in one single niche basket than anything else). My concern is that they're leaving money on the table from people who would like the game *as it currently is* if they had a better chance to understand it and acclimate to it before getting thrown in the deep end. EVE can be dangerous, but it should educate new players to the dangers and make it much easier for them to find allies and educators within the game.

    But, as to the question of "how safe should high sec be," a safe high sec is a PVE high sec, and EVE's PVE, especially at the lower levels, is at least as good at driving people off as all the most dedicated griefers put together. So I'm far from convinced that a safer high sec would bring in more people. I've seen enough "what do I do now? missions are boring!" complaints in NPC corp channels to know better.

  10. I say let people kill anyone they like. Let players run away from concord after a gank. Just take away the ability to gank in highsec as they kill... somehow.

    It worked in the cheap Eve knockoff MMO Pardus.
    The only real difference between Highsec and lowsec in Pardus was if your rep dropped low from killing you could not use any of the stations in highsec.
    This made it so alliances and bounty hunters would actively try and hunt down pirates in faction space to keep the traders safe. However they could also put up a POS's on jumpgates that can keep select people from using them. Most faction and alliance warfare involved busting those gates to pillage the enemy's land before being driven away, and most pirate or mercenary jobs involved sneaking past them somehow.

    Anyway not really something EVE could or even would want to do...making this post kinda pointless.

  11. @Bios Element:

    "Wrong. I expect, and want, a game to be hard. However I demand a chance, however small, of being able to do something 'besides' run away.....As such, Myself and my corp have quit as there is no point spending the large amount of time and money Eve requires to simply waste time."

    Goodbye and thanks for all the fish. For you didn't really want a chance, but a reassurance that no matter the tools and tactics you were using you would have your peace of mind.

    You didn't choose to fly a Skiff in ganker-infested systems.
    You wanted a chance to be safe while having max yield.

    You didn't choose to check your star map for gank activity.
    You wanted a chance to be safe while flying in any system.

    You didn't choose to check your scanner.
    You wanted a chance to fly without paying much attention.

    You didn't choose to fly a cheaper mission battleship in shady systems.
    You wanted a chance to fly your bling for slightly faster runs.

    You didn't choose to try adapting to human-created content.
    You wanted a chance to fly invisible behind the safety of game mechanics.

    You despise risk and that's understandable. You don't even want to spend effort and resources trying to minimize it, and I can get that too.

    But tell me please, what was it that drew you to this game in the first place, a game that you now want to change so much?

  12. You have made it a habit of not taking positions on topics. Which is fine, but there are going to be those that attribute a position to you and then build propaganda around that.

    To counter this propaganda I suggest either taking a position, or be prepared to offer ideas on both sides of the issue. Otherwise you are going to find it difficult to dispute the wave of propaganda that you are about to experience.

    The Eve forums really needs a no Eeyore-ing rule. If you complain about something then you must offer a solution.

  13. I am a 53 yr old player with 5 active accounts: 2 are in faction warfare, 2 are in wormhole space (C3) and one is used to mine and run missions in high sec. Believe it or not there are times after a long hard day at work that I just don’t have the motivation, energy or concentration to run PVP. So call me a “care bear” if you must. But sometimes I just want to log in to high sec, crack open a cold one, and mine ice – I have to fuel my POS. I bet there are many more “care bears” just like me out there in high sec: multiple accounts, plenty of spare time, but not up for PVP around the clock. So be careful not to tar care bears with the same brush. There are many ways to play Eve. After all it is a sand box - right?

  14. revisit a conflict while you're emotional and have just stated you were taking a few days from posting.

    get it together man


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.