Monday, February 11, 2013

Real Talk for the EVE Community, Part 2

Last time, I offered up a dose of real talk about the state of EVE and the CSM. Much reality was had. In Part 2, I'll provide an additional helping of real talk, specifically relating to the concerns that new players might be driven from the game if we fix risk/reward. Fair warning: If you scroll down past the picture of my face and continue to read, you will be subjected to real talk.


When I laid out my platform for fixing EVE, one of the most common objections was that if risk/reward is no longer heavily tilted in favor of risk-free, AFK money gushing from highsec, all the new players will leave the game. As the argument goes, encouraging people to go to low/null by properly rewarding them for their risk-taking would result in new players getting mercilessly slaughtered again and again until they quit, and then CCP files bankruptcy.

You can probably tell from the way I phrased that argument that I don't put much stock in it. Yet I'm not unfairly characterizing it, when you boil it down: People are admitting that risk/reward is imbalanced, but they're saying we need to maintain that imbalance in order to keep all the carebears in the game and sending subscription fees to CCP. They admit that they would like to see risk/reward brought into line, but they fear for CCP's solvency. Any easy test for the truth of my characterization is the following hypothetical: If we could somehow guarantee that subscriptions remained constant, would you be in favor of having highsec PvE nerfed and low/null buffed? Almost every serious observer would say "yes".

Granted, the carebears who want their guaranteed supply of isk would still object. So too would certain misguided PvP'ers--the ones who think free isk is good because it keeps them supplied with ships. To those PvP'ers I would simply point out that PvP doesn't rely solely on a supply of ships, but of targets. It does you no good whatsoever to have a fat wallet and a hangar full of combat ships if there's nothing for you to shoot at. As the situation worsens, you'll have your roaming ops and go for hours with no targets, since they're all safely tucked away in highsec, where it's easy and safe to make money--safe from PvP'ers like you.

While I'm on this tangent I may as well point out that I have good reason for preferring active sources of income in which the money-makers are at least somewhat catchable. Without the ability of pirates and roamers to ambush money-makers in the asteroid belts, there will increasingly be only one way to force a battle: All-out structure-grinding sov war. So you'll have either total peace or total war. The alliance leaders--the people who decide whether sov war takes place--will therefore also be ones deciding whether you get any PvP opportunities. If current events in nullsec are any indication, that might not be such a great thing.

My preference for active income from asteroid belts is controversial, but pragmatic. The time it takes to locate targets in asteroid belts can be measured in seconds rather than minutes. A lazy, complacent, or semi-AFK target can be caught. If money-makers need to be probed, they'll have ample time to cloak up in a safe no matter what, essentially making that source of income as invulnerable to attack as moongoo. By focusing on creating income sources that are vulnerable, PvP opportunities abound in what would otherwise be the increasingly-barren middle ground between peace and sov war. And, I think, the potential for cold wars to go hot will be enhanced.

Critics say that highsec is filled with people who will never take the risk of going to low/null, even if risk/reward is fixed. That's demonstrably false. In fact, many of the highsec residents are already in low/null on other characters. They send their alts to highsec to make money. If risk/reward is fixed, they'll make their money in low/null and provide targets.

If you've been around for awhile, you've probably heard players complain about the lack of small-scale PvP. You've probably wondered how it is that with so many people complaining about the lack of small-scale PvP, all those roaming gangs don't run into each other. The answer is that roaming gangs need targets like fire needs fuel. Without the base of the PvP foodchain provided by PvE'ers in low/null, the roaming gangs disband and log off in frustration. And they never get called to action by warnings of intruders, because no one is being intruded upon. Targets facilitate combat. Otherwise, roaming gangs won't meet up unless they schedule it in advance like some kind of tournament.

My belief that a lot of low/null players' alts are in highsec to make money isn't just based on anecdotal evidence. The day after the barge buff in August 2012, the ice fields of highsec underwent a remarkable transformation. Overnight, they became flooded with Retrievers and Mackinaws. (As an aside, I would also note that the suicide ganking of miners nearly stopped. Before, there would be at least a few attempts per day in each of the ice fields I visited. After the barge buff, months would go by without a single gank sighting.)

Where did all of those new highsec miners come from? It wasn't from new players, since no one ever comes to EVE because they heard an advertisement about Mackinaw EHP or ore bay sizes. The new miners came from lowsec and nullsec, as well as some highsec missioners changing professions--to something even less active.

Day by day, change by change, low/null PvE'ers move to highsec to make money the easy way. Remember, isk/hour calculations are turned on their head once you don't actually need to work during the hour. If you only need to make a routine mouse-click per hour, then you're really making X million isk per every few seconds, rather than per hour. An AFK PvE'er can "spend" a lot more time doing their PvE, since their ability to multitask is almost absolute.

Let's suppose that instead of buffing highsec PvE, CCP buffed low/null PvE. Putting aside the highsec-dwellers who are actually low/null players, critics say the highsec-dwellers would quit rather than expose themselves to the danger of low/null. I don't think that's true, but I also think it's perfectly fine if all the players who will only participate in risk-free AFK money do quit. I have no qualms whatsoever about forcing them to leave EVE.

Don't be too shocked, because there's precedent for this. CCP have on their own initiative permabanned many thousands of players. They ban them for botting. CCP is willing to throw away thousands upon thousands of subscribers, under the right circumstances. Their motive for banning the bots is that the bots don't add anything to the game, and they harm the game. I feel the same way about people who will only play a game if they can do so risk-free and AFK. A miner who contributes a routine mouse-click per hour contributes no more than a bot does. And, in my view, they do more harm than bots, because they influence CCP in a destructive manner.

There are hundreds of thousands of EVE subscribers, including perhaps tens of thousands of carebears, but there are tens or hundreds of millions of potential subscribers. We don't need the carebears. Imagine you were recruiting people to work as a crew on a ship. Some potential recruits say, "We'll work, but only if you also let us drill holes into the ship and let water in." Would you hire them? No, you would rather have fewer crewmen than hire people who want to sink the ship.

The botters say, "Let me bot, or ban me." CCP bans them. The carebears say, "Let me [virtually bot], and change the game to my benefit and everyone else's detriment, or I quit." CCP should let them quit.

As long as we're having real talk, let's be real. We shouldn't be afraid of people quitting the game. Under the right circumstances, as with the botters, we should encourage some people to quit. There is no coexistence with the carebears; we can't just let them do whatever they want on "sandbox" grounds. Consider the following:

Let's say you're a can-flipper. Can you coexist with carebears? No, because they virtually eliminated can-flipping. Suppose you like wardecs. Can you coexist with carebears? No, because right now they're pushing CCP to ban non-consensual wardecs. How do you coexist with people who are eliminating your gameplay?

I don't believe the carebears should all quit, though. I think many of them can be reformed. We should also work on the preventive side of things. One of the most destructive things people do to new players is tell them that they belong in highsec. New players, in my view, do not come to EVE with any affinity for Concord protection--it's learned. I think they would be more than happy to take additional risk and not be AFK, if they were rewarded for it. But people tell newbies to spend a bunch of time in highsec. After awhile, they come to rely on Concord. Then, when they realize there isn't much more reward for going to low/null, they stay in highsec.

The truth of lowsec and nullsec is very different from the way it's portrayed to the new generations of players in EVE. Earlier, I shared my own experience as a new player in EVE. After doing the tutorial and a few courier missions, I immediately went to lowsec because I was misinformed that the reward was much higher there. I did some ninja-mining and then spent a few months ninja-ratting in lowsec. Carebears will tell you that living in lowsec means dying a lot, and paying for a lot of replacement ships. But do you know how many ships I lost in all that time? One. I lost one cruiser not too long after I began playing. I learned to pay more attention to local and take it more seriously. I never lost another ship, despite spending months ratting--usually on my own--in lowsec, and delivering rats' module drops to Rens.

You might object that things have changed since then. They have--to the benefit of PvE'ers and new players. Back then, we didn't have warp to zero to get from gate to gate. Nor did we have standings symbols in local. You might object that I was particularly skilled in some way. Definitely not. I was a clueless newbie like the rest. While ratting, I had no concept of basic things like optimal damage types to use against rats. I didn't know how to use the D-scanner. But I did know that if someone I didn't recognize appeared in local, I was in danger. That was enough.

I'm not saying everyone should move out to low/null today. I am saying that low/null should be buffed, and highsec nerfed, so that people have reason to make the move. The difference between PvE in high versus low/null is not that you'll lose a bunch of ships in low/null, because you probably won't. The only difference is that PvE in low/null requires you to be alert, as opposed to AFK.

You might think this contradicts the PvP foodchain theory. However, being a target does not mean you'll be killed. Most of the time, the prey escapes the predator--which is why prey don't go extinct. But the prey are killed just often enough. If the PvE'ers of highsec moved to low/null, they wouldn't be sheep led to a slaughter. They would simply present themselves as a population of targets from which some percentage would be killed due to complacency or bad luck. The predator population would be replenished thereby, and gangs could form to roam and attack the predators, rather than spending their days complaining about the lack of small-scale PvP and AFK mining on their highsec alts.

Now that's a game that people might actually like to play enough not to quit. What the carebears and their advocates don't realize is, it's not just carebears who have the ability to unsubscribe. People have already been quitting EVE. Not because it's not safe enough, but because it's too boring, and because PvP has vanished. Those are the people we should be worried about keeping. If people say that fixing risk/reward would cause people to quit the game, my response is that people will quit the game if it remains broken, or (as is likely) it becomes more broken.

The choice is between EVE as a "cold, harsh universe" or a theme park. CCP proudly says it's in favor of a cold, harsh universe, all while debating the removal of wardecs and nerfing everything that makes EVE remotely cold or harsh. But I tell you that in reality, it's not a choice between a cold, harsh universe or a theme park, because the theme park option is not an option. Be warned, because the following paragraphs may be offensive to sensitive readers.

CCP is good at some things. They're great at some things. They're terrible at others. One of the things CCP would be terrible at: Building a mainstream, theme park-style MMORPG. For evidence of that, look no further than EVE itself. It's sometimes called "spreadsheets in space", and not unfairly. The main interface, the overview, is quite literally a spreadsheet. Compare that to the bright, colorful landscapes and characters in the popular theme park MMOs. Without meaningful gameplay (in other words, non-consensual PvP), all you're left with is the environment. CCP could not hope to compete.

Don't get me wrong. I like some of the EVE spaceships, they're pretty. But people don't spend their time in EVE looking at a bunch of Nyxes flying around up close and personal. Players zoom out so as to reduce the lag on their overview spreadsheet. At most, they see only their own ship, and CCP proved they didn't even grasp that concept when they (temporarily) removed the ship-spinning feature.

When CCP did try to add a theme park element, "Walking in Stations", it was a complete disaster. I believe CCP just doesn't have what it takes to build that kind of game. For the ultimate proof, let's consider the main element of EVE's graphical user interface. Behold the product of ten years of work, creativity, and artistry, the tirelessly-refined product that represents the pinnacle of CCP's ability to bring the fantastic world of spaceships to life:


I told you this was going to be real talk. The way I see it, if we're going to be real, let's be real. Look at that picture. What is that? It's a battleship, obviously. Or, actually, that could be a marauder or black ops. Come to think of it, it could be a carrier or supercarrier or titan. And you know, I just realized that if you squint, it looks a little bit like a destroyer or interdictor or cruiser or heavy assault ship or strategic cruiser or logistics or heavy interdictor or frigate or shuttle or rookie ship or interceptor or assault ship or electronic attack frigate or stealth bomber or covert ops or battlecruiser or recon ship or command ship.

Seriously, a white-on-black square? Seriously? Is this a joke? Are you kidding me? After ten years, this is what you come up with for your ships--for nearly all of your ships? Again, are you kidding me? Right now, at this very moment, am I being joked with and kidded, is what I want to know. Look at me. Look me in the eye. I'm serious. Here, let me make it easier for you:


I want you to look me in the eye and tell me how you're going to turn that square of yours into a billion dollar theme park. Tell me how looking at that white-on-black square for hours on end is going to be so inviting a prospect that people leave World of Warcraft and all the other MMOs on the market to come sign up for EVE. Don't wait until I'm elected to the CSM and go to Iceland. Look at the portrait of me, look at my face, and tell me without laughing how millions of people are going to shell out a subscription fee every month once you remove non-consensual PvP from highsec, because your theme park is filled with gorgeous squares. Do it.

DO IT.

* James 315 drops microphone, walks off the stage.

103 comments:

  1. 315 4 CSM 8!
    315 4 CSM 8!
    315 4 CSM 8!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you James 315 and rest of eve need to meet someplace in the middle ground, but respect what you bring to the sandbox. Hence why a care bear here who plays at keybord puts isk towards you style of play. And i know theres many in the game that have cursed me for it. They forget that eves about having fun

    ReplyDelete
  3. *SAnonymous miner stands and joins in rapturous applause while stomping foot.

    315 4 CSM 8!
    315 4 CSM 8!
    315 4 CSM 8!

    James, you 'get it.' You've always 'got it.' Right from the days of Currin Trading and the EIB fiasco, through BoB's demise, you've understood this game and what makes it tick. You understand this game better than the people who made it. I hope they - and the players - will eventually appreciate that.

    + Nine votes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Holy Shit!

    315
    315
    315

    + Four votes

    ReplyDelete
  5. Translation:

    I want everyone to play my way, and if they don't, they can quit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Translation: I accidentally started playing EVE when I meant to play Minecraft instead.

      Delete
    2. I think that's what James is arguing the carebear stance is. His stance is more along the lines of "Low-null sec should be more profitable than high-sec. If you want to stay in hi-sec, feel free. But the real isk needs to lie in the unexplored, unsafe areas of EVE."

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous, February 12, 2013 at 12:47 AM
      Translation:

      I want everyone to play my way, and if they don't, they can quit."

      Translation: "I want everyone to play my way, and if they don't, I will quit."

      In the words of James 315, "DO IT!"

      Delete
    4. Nah. The game has so far, drifted in favor of players like me.

      I don't think one anus-licking bumping pirate is going to change that drift.

      Delete
    5. By "players like me" you mean players who write vulgarities?

      Delete
    6. Yep! And since it's not in Local, no New Order lacky is gonna tell me to be polite and shit.

      Delete
    7. And yet you sound like a 12 year old who has just learned to swear. What you say is just about that relevant.

      Delete
    8. Extortion is not ok, and justifying it as "honorable" while bumping and ganking is laughable. Anyone can write an essay to justify anything. I see a lot of purple prose, and very little in reality to justify it.

      Delete
    9. "Extortion is not OK" by whom? Extortion within Eve is perfectly permissible by the EULA, therefore perfectly OK.

      I sense you're drawing a parallel between RL and in-game crime. If so, please unsub at your earliest opportunity: what part of "Eve is a cold, dark and harsh place" do you not understand?

      But what's more we never extort. We *ask* miners if they'd like to buy a permit. They're perfectly within their rights to refuse. We accept that. Hence this is not extortion, it's a liberating education.

      Delete
  6. Fantastic. I'm very interested in seeing more of your views, although I already think you are needed on the CSM as a force of reform for the game.

    It's been sad to watch this carebear drift. Worse, as highsec gets safer, I find myself becoming less likely to leave...

    Save Highsec, James.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with James on everything except the removal of probable sites. You don't catch explorers in the the sites themselves, but on gates. People tend to fly shiny tech 3 ships when they do these sites solo, so there is great reward for catching one. You could also ambush them by waiting in the site cloaked up with some recons, like the Curse. What should be changed, however, is the presence of warp scramblers in these sites. Currently, it's just a few frigates that do the scramming. If the rats have the target tackled for you, then it would only be a matter of combat probing them before they killed the scramming rats. Maybe adding scramming towers would be nice. This is coming from an avid exploration pilot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it is the explorable sites and explorers that James is taking about, it is the anomoly sites in null sec that are causing the problem.

      Before their addition to the game isk earning in null sec was mainly done by ratting in the belts, which meant keeping a close eye on int channels and local, waiting for the usual roaming gangs to tip up. As soon as a gang was reported close by, or local went up by one it was time to warp.

      This meant, if you were attentive, you usally got away with it, but the roaming gangs also had a chance to bounce you before you had time to warp, adding some exitment to the PVE and some targets for the roaming gangs.

      Since the addition of the anomolies this has all gone, there is no time to jump into system, deploy probes and try and probe down the anom runner in his shiny T3, 10 seconds? He's long gone, sat at a safe and cloaked, or laughing in his POS.

      Catch people with gate camps? Gate camps were what we used to do whilst waiting for enough guys to come online for a roam, before going out to try and bag our 'Daily Raven'. Try putting up a gate camp in someone elses space nowadays and see how long it takes before you are blobbed to death.

      My old FC always said you only get blobbed if you stand still, which meant the fast, small, roaming gang avoided the blobs, had some fun and still inflicted damage to the big alliances; forcing a reaction. On the outskirts of the alliance held null sec there were dozens of these small corps, living in NPC null and null/low border systems, whose very existence was based around this style of game play, feeding the whole PVP chain from the bottom.

      None of this exists anymore, which, I belive can be traced to the inclusion of anomolies in null sec. James is spot on when he advocates moving the PVE activity back into the belts.

      Delete
    2. I see what you mean, I mostly have experience in lowsec and wormholes and don't go to null much because it's kinda boring. Still, adding more tackle elements to those sites should mitigate the problem a little. Also, fixing the "local problem" would help. No local chat intel is what makes wormholing so much more interesting.

      Delete
  8. I agree with much of the sentiment of the OP, but this is just incorrect:

    "If money-makers need to be probed, they'll have ample time to cloak up in a safe no matter what, essentially making that source of income as invulnerable to attack as moongoo."

    A competent D-scanner/prober can have a barge or group of barges pinpointed and bookmarked with probes visible on scan for only about 10 seconds factoring in the scan probe warp-in, scan, and recall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see my response above to Ryan, which is kind of a response to you both :)

      Delete
  9. Still being overly simplistic I see James.

    1/. Pilots follow the isk. Wormholes. Incursions. Faction Warfare. You cannot fault "carebears" for doing exactly what null and low sec pilots also do. Remind me again who saw and manipulated the then isk faucet of FW? Oh yes, Goons wasn't it?

    2/. The above are designs implemented by CCP as were the barge changes. How is that the fault of the "carebear"? CCP saw there was an issue and made some changes. Carebears could yell and scream all they like, but if they weren't unsubscribing in numbers, I doubt CCP would have jumped or at least nowhere near as hard.

    3/. You conveniently ignore the fact that the loot tables for drops were heavily nerfed by CCP putting one class of ship (noctis) pretty much immediately back into mothballs.

    Arguably affected high sec mission runners more than anyone else. CCP saw that also as an issue (minerals from refining) and made changes to the game design. Again, CCP not the carebear.

    4/. The point of botting is to gain sufficient iskies to buy what you need. The first thing you would buy is a plex to fund your botting activity so you're not paying out of your own pocket. Anything else is gravy.

    CCP likely did not lose much in the way of income, while simultaneously curbing a distortion in the online economy AND nobbling the isk sellers.

    5/. People other than carebears unsubscribing. Again not the fault of the carebear. Why should they go into lawless space and be shot for someone else's gain or fun. Just so there is player retention in low and null? Yeah, right.

    Suggest the current null sec love-fest is WAY more of an issue.

    Make EVERYTHING in null sec destructible. Stations included. Reduce the ability to force project massive supercap fleets. Place an upkeep on supers. Bet you'd see a lot more traffic about the place, including through low.

    Stop laying every issue at the feet of the carebear. Suggest you have a good hard look at what is making null and (by extension) low sec moribund instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He'd just rather blame players that don't play like him, that's all.

      Delete
    2. You didn't get it. He blames CCP. He says CCP should change the game to make it more fun for everyone, and if in the process some carebears quit because all they want is a safe and AFK space-money printer, then let them quit, they added nothing to the game anyway...in fact, they make harm, like bots. And bots get banned. Not a single word was spent to say that it's "carebears' fault". It's CCP's fault, and it's very clearly what James' wrote.

      Delete
    3. Just to make it clear the botters sure do buy plex, but what they add is increased plex prices, which means increased plex demand from players that pay real cash for them. And the mechanics of plex is you can only buy plex from other players that actually bought it with cash, so at the end of the day banning those bots was a significant short term monetary loss for CCP.

      And do you seriously think taht most of the high sec carebears don't plex?? That is one of their main arguments for afking, "I'm just trying to buy a plex to continue playing".

      But play for what? you got to admit how pathetic the faulty logic of that is. I stay in highsec to make iskies so I can buy plex and more efficient ships to make more risk-free isk, but to what purpose? Why are you grinding? Why are you doing these boring mind numbing activities? So you can relax after a long way day of work? there are many single players games that can do that why play a massively online one? you want to play with friends? Fine go play farmville I hear it is extremely mind numbing and "relaxing".

      Eve is a cold harsh universe, Accept it or leave it.

      Delete
    4. Let me provide a direct quotation from the article "I don't believe the carebears should all quit, though. I think many of them can be reformed".

      Reformed - well, here's a definition: cause (someone) to relinquish an immoral, criminal, or self-destructive lifestyle the state has a duty to reform criminals.

      James' attitude is clearly negative towards that segment of the player base. That I supposedly didn't "get it", or that it's CCP's fault does not change things one iota.

      Delete
    5. "James' attitude is clearly negative towards that segment of the player base. That I supposedly didn't "get it", or that it's CCP's fault does not change things one iota."

      In fact it does change things, many iotas. Thousands of iotas.

      James's attitude is actually clearly not negative towards that segment of the player base. He is their greatest friend--as he attempts to raise them up from their current state to a higher state of gameplay. You are failing to understand nearly every facet of this situation. Unless you can shift gears and try to learn instead of teach, this situation will never change.

      Delete
    6. "The first thing you would buy is a plex to fund your botting activity [...] CCP likely did not lose much in the way of income."

      You do understand that those PLEX on the market were bought by other players for real money right? And because a PLEX is more expensive than a month's subscription, a player who uses PLEX to fund an account actually makes CCP *more* money than a subscriber.

      Delete
    7. James' attitude is negative towards carebears who want to change the game in a way that suits their AFK money printing at the expense of the game for everyone else. By carebears he means players who don't want to adapt, who whine to CCP, who provide no content, who reject risk but want reward. Carebears are not PVE players. PVE players would play in low and null if the reward was worth it and they would be happy about it. It is clear in James' words that the fault for the current stale situation is CCP's. Why should PVE players go in mass to low and null if CCP makes highsec the safest and highest reward sec at the same time? James aknowledges that, and blames CCP.

      He doesn't blame PVErs in general, but he despises leeches who provide no content and print ISK AFK devaluing the game for anyone else with no risk involved. And who wouldn't? What he says is that CCP should fix the game to make it what it should be, and if those bot-aspirants quit let them cause it will be good for every good player.

      Delete
    8. "..he despises leeches who provide no content..." And there goes that 'tude again.

      If I was to draw a comparison with that attitude and aim it squarely at the "leet pvper", I could suggest that they are all basement dwelling, adult diaper wearing twitch monkeys with a 2.5L coke to their right and a pizza to their left. Who don't dare leave their chair in case they miss gate fire and a chance to open up with their triple sensor boosted gank-mobile.

      Fair? Hardly. Neither is James attitude or anyone's defense of it. Nor do you or James get to decide what the game should be.

      It would be utterly farcical to have someone on the CSM that openly advocates the destruction of a successful business model for their own selfish reasons.

      I'll ask you to consider this: 60%+ of the player base resides in high sec. You "nerf high sec into oblivion" and lose 30% of that player base.

      Null sec and low sec alts also go. Gud feights become even harder to find. The in game economy does a huge wobble and prices spike 500% across the board making the remaining players even more risk adverse.

      Given that most companies have a profit margin of 10% or less, you're now also losing serious amounts of money. CCP makes drastic staff cuts to try and save the business.

      Development cycles get blown out. New content is put on the back burner. It takes 6 weeks for a petition to get looked at let alone anything else. After 6 months of desperate measures, the creditors call it and CCP goes into receivership.

      That is an entirely possible scenario.

      And all because it seems that James wants it to be easier to have a carebear (preferably as a defenseless one as possible) providing him content (melting under his guns).

      Delete
    9. So only carebears can quit? Making the game more exciting for people who like risk and meaningful playstyle (not AFK mining for sure), you cater to that people. People who subscribe and pay. You make the wrong assumption that only carebears can pay subscriptions and quit. In fact, I quit because i couldn't have enough fun in low sec. You also make another wrong assumption, that all players in high sec are happy to be there. Many go there to make money because it's where money is, but they would be happier if they could make more money in a more engaging environment, like low sec. Currently there's no real reason to go there. We want to provide that fun.

      Your comparison about basements and coke has no meaning at all. People who play the game provide content. People who "AFK" in total safety provide nothing. EVE is a sandbox, a game based on what content players can create. We need content makers, not AFK leeches. So we want to cater more to content makers and less to carebears. It's that easy.

      Delete
    10. It's a sandbox anon. If you quit the game, how is that the fault of someone else? Why didn't you go find something more meaningful to do. Join the Tuskers for heaven's sake if you're actually looking for low sec PvP.

      There are plenty of opportunities out there. That is entirely of your own doing.

      As for the content - even afk carebears contribute. By providing a target in space. By providing someone to "bump" as it were. They sell things for the market warriors to fight their iskwars over.

      They probably turn raw product into other items, sometimes buying items, sometimes selling. They provide content as soon as they log on. It's just not in the way you or James would like it.

      Trying to force a harcore bear into doing something they don't want to do is like demanding a football player who has spent years of their life training to play the beautiful game to suddenly play rugby union instead.

      It's wrong headed at best, and detrimental to the game as well. EvE is a sandbox. An ecology if you will (as is being called in the blogosphere). You seriously unbalance the foodchain and all sorts of unexpected things will result. And not to the good of the PvPer either.

      Delete
    11. Are you seriously suggesting that low sec and foodchain are fine as they are? They're like an ocean full of sharks, where predators eat each others and roaming gangs roam hoping to find other roaming gangs. A pirate look for booty. Booty is in merchant ships, not other pirates. I want to kill or ransom "merchant ships" (PVErs), I want to be defeated by bounty hunters or PVErs sympathizers, I want to defend with guns mining operations or other forms of PVE...because that would be meaningful conflict. A conflict that is born from a good foodchain, a foodchain that is not actually there at the moment, especially in low sec.

      Tell me how we can have that without preys. Even I would be a prey...when I'm not pirating and I need money I can rat, mine, explore...and if the rewards are worth the risk, I will take that risk and be a prey. Sometimes I will be killed, no big deal. Other times I will be the killer. Give something worthy and me and all the other non carebears will be preys at times. That is a good foodchain. Do we have that now? No. Low sec is nothing like it should be.

      Delete
    12. I don't believe I've mentioned low sec at all up to this point. Could it do with some love? Yes imho. It really could.

      It will be interesting to see what sort of proposals CCP comes up with when they start putting down thematic updates or expansions. Hopefully low sec will be high on the list.

      The trick with low sec is to up the rewards sure, but not to do it such that the big alliances decide it's worthwhile capturing that market.

      Do you really want to see an equivalent to the technetium cartels setting up in low? It would kill the little guy even more than now.

      Up the reward versus risk by all means. But frankly if you overfish an area, the fish will go and not return. High to low sec gate camps killing new players, as an example, will put someone off trying their hand for a very long time.

      So then I ask you, if we take emergent game play and the sandbox into account, who is actually to blame for driving people out of low? Most especially when you consider some of the borderline psychopathic behaviors during efforts to milk some tears after a podding.

      There are some honorable people out there. I've met a few of them. There are also some utter wastes of space. Guess which ones cause people to decide to stay away...?

      Blaming the carebear for not going back to low sec to provide someone else with "content" once they've had an experience like that is shortsighted to say the least.

      Delete
    13. Right on target H. The biggest AFK ISK-making game economy screwing thing in EVE is not in Hisec - it is the moon-goo monopoly out in 0.0 by the big alliances. Over time, they have made so much ISK that their huge fleets made it impossible for anyone else to move out to 0.0 and survive unless you want to pay huge rent or otherwise become a pet.
      How can I prove this? Easy - just look at what happened when WH space arrived. Just about every decent wormhole was quickly inhabited by corps, large and small, that went there looking to make a profit without getting their heads bashed in by a supercap fleet. Funny how those 0.0 WH systems all seemed to fill up quite nicely, and stay full of action to this day.
      You [Goons] [Gewns] or whatever you call yourselves today [New Order] talk a good game, but if anything is slowly bleeding EVE to death, it is guys like you.

      Delete
    14. Except that the [Gewns] are the foremost proponent of nerfing tech moon income. Oops.

      Delete
    15. H: you mentioned low sec "go to low sec with Tuskers"...and that's shark vs shark.

      About psychopathics...the only psyco I ever so was the miners with their rage reactions and real life violence threats.
      You talk about "terrible experiences"..please don't forget we're talking about a GAME where we BLOW SPACESHIPS UP. A game. Is it really that bad to get blown up? I have fun when i fight, even if I lose...come on... let's get real.

      In CCP words: HTFU. If you can't stand to lose pixels what are you doing in EVE?

      Delete
    16. Oh, Anon. You really have no idea. There is an expression: hoisted by your own petard. Go look it up.

      @grr goons - links please. I'd love a read.

      Btw will they hand back all of the profits they've made during the last year and a half of tech ownership in their morale crusade to right this imbalance...?

      Delete
    17. "@grr goons - links please. I'd love a read. " Here's a link to the Mittani criticizing the creation of the technetium bottleneck in 2009 right after the change was released--he's been criticizing it ever since:
      http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/78658

      "Btw will they hand back all of the profits they've made during the last year and a half of tech ownership in their morale crusade to right this imbalance...?"

      year and a half? 2009-2013 is not a year and a half.

      To answer your question, I would imagine they spent most of that money, so that scenario is unlikely. If you really want to ask them for a handout, you should ask them, not me; I'm not a goon, I'm just not completely ignorant of EVE current events like some here.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  10. All that was said is a valid argument. Remember, it is better to have a CSM with many conflicting views. That way CCP will hear the whole story. I believe in the current CSM, this viewpoint is missing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zechrabah, you are an island of sanity in a sea of trolling and stupidity. While I dissagre with some of his views (think probbing) James will have my vote, simply because there needs to be someone to balence out the carebears on csm.

      Nevin Dread

      Delete
  11. I quit EVE a long time ago because I was a bored low-sec players who couldn't bare the stale state of the game. I still follow EVE because I like the community and the idea behind the game, but I just can't get to play it again if something doesnt's change. You know what kind of EVE I'd love to play? James 315's EVE. The EVE we read about in gaming news articles, or on the CCP site.

    James 315 for CCP EVE Lead Designer...until then, for CSM.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James 315 you have all of my votes, awesome article! Please, can I have your babies?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good post, James. Much better than the rather uninspiring platform post a few days ago.

    Tanks for the good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What if hiSec was limited to 1.0 and maybe 0.9? And some midSec was created that offered a lot less protection than hisec, but more protection that lowsec?
    I've only been playing for five months, but I can already agree that you raise a lot of valid issues and changes that need to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This talk was so god damn REAL I had to re-read all the Lord of the Rings books to cancel out all the REALNESS with the fiction. There was no other way...

    This is the kind of post that brings people to this site. Well done.

    315 for CSM8!

    ReplyDelete
  16. James's has some good ideas but he is just far to extreme with them, there is a place for all styles of play in eve. The new order is proving there is sufficient risk in high sec, how much ISK in destroyed ships now. You argue that high sec is to safe and the risk/reward is out of place, but is that the carebears fault or the other players fault for not making what the carebears do more dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You got my 7 account votes, James. After reading first manifesto, I wrote you down, because I thought it was just some arrogant talk of killing carebears, but now I see that it's more to it than that.

    As someone who lives in low sec, the rewards are greater than HS, however it's only provided you live in blue safe environment, that you can do your activities undisturbed for longer time. Otherwise it's not worth the time. I am explorer my self and LS drops from sites are note worth the time invested if you compare with blitzing tengus in HS. Only advantage is less competition, but if there would be more people, Risk outweighs reward greatly.

    What I would like to see is not to nerf HS so much up to lvl2 as you suggested, but rather moderately or leave it as it is. What I would like to see is much more isk added to low and null sec. Revise mission rewards, plex drop rates, rats and etc.

    I would also not leave out revising null, because it is protected and feels like HS for the corps. There should be a window of opportunity for small gangs without running into brick fleet wall of defending alliance. Perhaps delayed locals for people coming from WH connection? Bubbles are major killer of small gang pvp as they take out mobility by far and you are bound to get raped sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Null sec may feel like 'hi-sec for the corps', but you have to remember the masses of effort both in and out of game, that goes into taking the space and keeping it, as opposed to hi-sec, where all these benefits are gained for doing nothing at all.

      It would be nice to see the alliances being made to make a little more effort to make their space safer, especially on a smaller scale and I have written my opinions on that above. Suffice to say I don't think it is bubbles that are causing small gangs an issue, as a competent FC can see most gate camps from the map and plan a route accordingly; any bubble 'ambushes' would be detected by the fleet scout and avoided, providing some fun and game content for the persuers and persued.

      Delete
  18. For the first time in my whole life, I puked due to reading such a pile of crap. And I gave up after the third paragraph, due to the shit you've written. You don't want to fix EVE, you want to force High-sec players into Low/Null by simply making mission-running, mining and everything else that makes High-sec lucrative go away. You want all PVE to take place in belts, as you wrote in your first CSM-post, solely because you, not everyone else, YOU hate scanning. You simply want a lot of easy kills served on a silver platter.

    And you realize that not everyone in EVE seeks easy kills, right? I, for one, don't attack a PvE-ship, even in null-sec or Wormholes. So why should I be provided with dozens of PvE-ships to shoot at? I would rather have 1 well-fitted PvP-ship a week to shoot at, than 200 PvE-fitted ships a week. Why? Because it's just more fun to shoot at stuff that actually stands a fighting chance, not other carebears.

    When the elections begin, I'll make sure none of my many votes are on you. Hell, if you get elected and you actually get any of your shit done, I'll file a petition to have you banned for griefing, because you're ruining the game-experience for lots of high-sec players. And that's just the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The smell of butthurt is strong in this one

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, February 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM said:
      "...that makes High-sec lucrative..."

      Translation: "...that provides a low-risk environment for high reward..."

      Thank you for succinctly describing the cancer that plagues EVE.

      Delete
  19. "For the first time in my whole life, I puked due to reading such a pile of crap. And I gave up after the third paragraph, due to the shit you've written."

    So you didn't read it then.

    "And you realize that not everyone in EVE seeks easy kills, right? I, for one, don't attack a PvE-ship, even in null-sec or Wormholes. So why should I be provided with dozens of PvE-ships to shoot at? I would rather have 1 well-fitted PvP-ship a week to shoot at, than 200 PvE-fitted ships a week. Why? Because it's just more fun to shoot at stuff that actually stands a fighting chance, not other carebears."

    If there's no prey (pve ships), where will you find predators (pvp ships) to attack? There will be none or almost none, like now. You should have read the whole thing before judging and especially commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nice Ishtar fit fag
    http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=16463796

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone clearly hasn't read Manifesto II. I'd suggest you do, it's very good.

      - Benny Ohu, at 2am and a little tired

      Delete
    2. I heard calling someone a "fag" makes you a very smart person. Therefore I'm sure you are very smart.

      Delete
  21. Right on the money James. The CSM we deserve, the CSM we need.

    + 7 votes for you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. im going to propose two concepts to you, the first one will probably make you say yay, the second one will probably get some boo's
    1st of all, if we stop people from mining ice the price of ice goes up (this is a given) but as the price fo ice goes up, the ammount of money injected into the enconemy goes down, and inflation comes in to do its thing, but rather than acting as normal it goes in reverse, the isk gains value (since thier are less of them) and prices go down, those with a big wallet can now purchase more, and newbies dont have to work as hard to get a cruiser. if you are sucsesfull this is what would happen in the long run, unless cpp somehow intervenes.
    m second point. why did you james, go to low sec. because someone told you it was profitable, someone who had been thier maybe, someone who was realy someones alt. The problem is that when new players join the game, the people they make friends with now are people who have lived all tier life in null, they hear how dangerous low is, and how it is not worth it from those who got burned, not those who sucsedded (they never came back). we need to influence the noobs to get them out to low and null, this can be acomplished in two ways, 1. move the origionl spawning point to a high sec system surrounded by null, Buff concord in that system so that the noobs are safe, but limit the money drastically, when they are done tel them that they can go -> to high sec, where it is safe, and where they are less likely to get blown up, but the money they make thier will be limited, or they can go <- into an almost lawless world, where thier is big rick and big reward. by establishing this right away, the noob can get the idea in his mind without the brainwashing of carebears. the second way (this is what you wont liek) is to make it so people from low or null have to go to the highsec spawning places. Put some comodity thier and force them to go up thier. then you will have a source of players who might bump ino the noobs that are counteracting the care bears.
    Some of you might say, we try to recruit the noobs, my first day i got a message from Tribal saing join us, and what some of the perks were, meanwhile, a carebare assisted me and i ended up joining hsi corp for a while, until i found out the truth about null and low, (you can make more than 10 mil a day Gasp) we need to stop this from happening

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Let's say you're a can-flipper. Can you coexist with carebears? No, because they virtually eliminated can-flipping."

    I laughed so hard reading that, I think I may have actually pulled a muscle. The hypocrisy in that sentence alone should be enough to sound the troll alarm. If it's a serious sentence, then James 315 should go and hide and never come out again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Care to explain why?

      Delete
    2. Sure.

      1) People here need carebears to be able to can flip (co-exist).
      2) You can still can flip just as much as you could pre-Retribution (virtually eliminated? wtf!)
      3) People here are constantly telling carebears to htfu and deal with the situation
      4) People here clearly can't htfu and deal with the consequences of can flipping post-Retribution (i.e. potentially being shot at by a combat ship)

      So yeah, hypocrisy, lies and a non sequitur all in the space of 15 words. Why wouldn't I assume James 315 is just a troll? He can't be serious, can he?

      Delete
    3. Do you know about the new safety crimewatch button? The stupid can no longer be tricked into PVP. Can flipping was about deception, and is now essentially dead.

      Delete
    4. No it isn't dead and it's easy to game if you know what you're doing. The big difference now is that you're going to have people in PVP ships come and shoot you, rather than being able to gank noob (they aren't necessarily stupid btw) miners without consequence.

      Can flipping is alive and well and has been taken up by more serious PVPers, usually just to get that lovely suspect flag and maybe goad someone into having a go. Most of those who used to can flip pre-Retribution for the sole purpose of "PVPing" against ships with no guns no longer bother. Maybe because they are scared of being shot at, though I obviously can't be sure about that.

      Delete
    5. Can flipping = trick someone into taking back "their" stuff, so they unknowingly steal from you.

      Now you can't steal without deactivating a safety button that tell you what will happen. You are free to think that it is a good change (I do not, I don't think that button fits the cold and harsh concept), but you have to aknowledge that you can no longer deceive miners that way.

      Delete
    6. Jake, I agree with you. For those who think you can no longer trick carebears, read "A most honerable duel" in which a t3 crusier gets WTFPWND by a badger, due to its piolots stupiditty. No matter what you do, you can not save the stupid.

      Nevin Dread

      Delete
  24. I can't help but think James 315 whole campaign is built upon a giant straw man.

    "...shell out a subscription fee every month once you remove non-consensual PvP from highsec"

    Seriously, where are these thousands of players who are screaming for the removal of non-consensual PvP from highsec? Where? You're just making it all up aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suggest you read James' 3 part series on high-sec, found on themittani.com. Not only is it a spectacularly insightful look at hi-sec iteration over the last couple years, it also directly answers your question.

      Or you could, you know, look at the HUNDREDS of examples of whining, frivolous petitioning and absurd carebear arguments found right here on this website.

      James is so right in his analysis that it's making all the risk averse carebears squirm as they realize what we agents have been saying all along: James 315 isn't trolling. He isn't scamming. He has come to try and save Eve from the horrors of carebear creep. He IS the real deal.

      PROUD supporter of James 315. Loyal Agent of the New Order.

      Winchester Steele.

      315 4 CSM!

      Delete
    2. I have read the articles you mention. IIRC, they start off with the assumption (or a VERY weak hypothesis) that there are many people calling for non-consensual PVP to be removed from high-sec and that CCP are doing exactly what these (imaginary?) people say.

      I asked "Seriously, where are these thousands of players who are screaming for the removal of non-consensual PvP from highsec?" and you've not provided me with a single instance. On this site I may find one or 2 anon comments from some crying carebear stating they want it removed. Anon comments whining about various things does not equal a vast swathe of players calling for it to be removed.

      Delete
    3. Winchester, Please just point me in the direction of a CSM candidate who wants a "perfectly safe high-sec" (James 315's words). Would love to hear an argument from that side, but I can't find any reputable person or candidate putting this idea forward.

      Delete
    4. According to James, the most insidious part about it is that we dont KNOW where these candidates stand. They don't explicitly offer a stance on this hot button topic for a couple of reasons:

      1. They aren't concerned about overall game balance, instead campaigning on a specific lobby. Like the "wormhole" candidates who advocate on an exclusive wormhole platform.

      2. They are appealing to the masses and don't want to take a strong stance on such a polarizing issue for fear of alienating potential voters.

      3. They are protecting their own risk-free isk generating interests.

      This obsfucation is how we end up with a guy like Trebor who looks like a pro-PvP rep on the surface but ends up spewing detrimental nonsense about removing non-consensual wardecs from Hi-Sec. I think a better question might be: What candidates are taking ANY stance on this issue at all? If you follow the EvE-O forums at all, then you know that this is one of the most intense and emotional debates across the entire community as a whole. Why are so many of the CSM potentials utterly silent about it?

      As to your other remark about crying carebears. How can you read the local chat logs that James shows us here and not see the carebear cry for perfect safety? Have you not read the insane tear soaked threadnoughts carebears have generated on EvE-O? You're just being willful at this point. I can off hand count 50+ comments about supposed "EULA violations" stemming from non-consensual player interactions (this is all pvp whether you like it or not). The opinion that unconsensual spaceship shooting is not only illegal, but immoral and indicative of RL psychological issues is prevalent throughout Hi-Sec. This can be seen here at minerbumping, on the Eve-O forums and in game if you "take to the streets" yourself.

      In point of fact, one could argue it is what James 315's entire New Order experiment is designed to demonstrate. This is what makes James 315 such a good candidate; he doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk.

      Winchester Steele.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for your reply Winchester.

      So if I can summarize what you said - There are no CSM candidates who are "officially" asking for a perfectly safe high-sec, but most of them have some sort of covert operation to make high-sec perfectly safe in order to protect their interests / garner votes.

      This doesn't make sense to me. If the policy of a high-sec theme park would be a big vote winner, surely candidates would be very vocal about it and gain a lot of votes? Avoiding mentioning it does not make sense in this regard, ergo it's definitely not a vote winner.

      You mention Trebor / wardecks (Wardecks are a cluster fuck - not going to go discuss specifics here) as an indicator of a candidate wanting a high-sec theme park. As far as I can tell, Trebor was advocating a way for tiny corps to avoid being incapacitated by much larger high-sec griefer corps. This does not in any way mean he wants to remove all non-consensual PVP form high-sec.

      CSM candidates sitting on the fence about stuff. Umm, yeah, politics. This does not indicate any make EVE a theme park movement. Side note: Candidates stating very specific game design ideas does not make much sense in the context of the CSM. The way it works (according to CSM minutes / current members) is that CCP propose a game design idea / concept and the CSM are asked if this is going to be a problem & give feedback. The CSM do not generate the game design. So are candidates "sitting on the fence" or are they "realising the limits of their remit"? Either way, none of this even hints at an impending "EVE: The High-sec Theme Park Expansion". It's pure hysteria / paranoia to believe so.

      Miners & carebears crying & whining etc. Yes I know they do. But they've just had their ship blown up / have been hassled and are upset about it. This does not mean EVE is going to become a theme park. It's a logical fallacy to assume this. I've blown up plenty of ships in low-sec causing tears to flow in local. To assume that they are therefore advocating that low-sec become a theme park too is incredibly fallacious. Tears does not mean "want theme park game, lobby CCP to make theme park game"

      Even if there were official (or clandestine) creditable campaigns advocating a perfectly safe high-sec, to say with certainty that CCP are then going to make it happen and to then base your CSM candidacy on it is pretty crazy. Take CCP's recent ruling on the action this site is named after - miner bumping. Many miners got annoyed or upset from being bumped. CCP review it and say (paraphrasing from memory here) "Bumping is fine, just don't stalk people". Witness that all of the crying and petitioning clearly had very little sway over CCPs vision of EVE and high-sec.

      So I remain wholly unconvinced. Evidence that EVE will become a theme park is close to non-existent. Nothing so far has shown that a perfectly safe high-sec is either a) desired by a large proportion of EvE players, b) is being seriously campaigned for, c) is being or is likely to be considered by CCP or d) actually ever come anywhere near to fruition. So at this juncture, I'm still of the opinion I stated in my opening line to this discussion:

      I can't help but think James 315 whole campaign is built upon a giant straw man.

      Wall of text. Sorry.

      Delete
    6. TL;DR for the above is the last paragraph of

      So I remain wholly unconvinced. Evidence that EVE will become a theme park is close to non-existent. Nothing so far has shown that a perfectly safe high-sec is either a) desired by a large proportion of EvE players, b) is being seriously campaigned for, c) is being or is likely to be considered by CCP or d) actually ever come anywhere near to fruition.

      For details, read the above.

      Delete
    7. *refutes Jake using his own methods, but using 1% of the words*

      Sorry, Jake, but your 10,000 words leave me wholly unconvinced. for details, read the above piece by James315.

      *pumps fist violently in the air, having soundly refuted Jake using his own methods*

      Delete
    8. Audrik, are 10,000 [sic] words too much for you? The adults were having an adult discussion. Until the children woke up...

      As you haven't made a single valid point in this discussion, is it fair to assume you don't have one? Audrik, either make valid points refuting my reasoning or leave the adults to it. btw, James' post doesn't even touch on this discussion so you even failed on that front.

      Is there is any proponent of James 315 who can properly refute or justify the basis of what has been discussed here? (for those with attention issues, it starts with post above at 4:14 PM). Winchester has made a great attempt and it's been interesting - thanks Winchester. Unfortunately it's looking like Audrik is too busy struggling with his first steps, so can't add anything of value to this debate. I could be wrong about that. Time will tell.

      Delete
    9. Start a debate worth having, and I'll add something of value. One can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So far we have a debate about your feelings, and about unoriginal insults. All you're going to get with that debate is people dropping in to make fun of you from time to time.

      *back to fist pumping*

      Delete
    10. Audrik,

      If you come into what was a sensible adult discussion with a childish post, don't be surprised if you are dispatched like a child. Acting all insulted about it is pretty childish too.

      "So far we have a debate about your feelings, and about unoriginal insults."
      This is poor Audrik. Really poor. All the evidence to dispel this is in this discussion. If you read it you'll see I've put forward some purely logical responses to some logical fallacies coming from the James 315 camp. Why resort to blatant lies that can be dispelled by reading just a few posts up? Really lame Audrik.

      Any "feelings and insults" only arrived when you did along with your childish post. Food for thought maybe. Let's get onto the real reason behind your quips...

      "Start a debate worth having, and I'll add something of value."
      This is one of the oldest avoidance tactics in the book and going by your wording, it can only mean 1 of 2 things;

      a) You are squirming under your inability to answer my queries so and are avoiding them by the oldest trick in around. Or

      b) You are deluded as to believe that questioning the whole premise behind James 315's candidacy isn't "a debate worth having".

      If it's not a) it has to be b). Which is it Audrik?

      "All you're going to get with that debate is people dropping in to make fun of you from time to time."
      Surely questioning the validity of James 315's premise of his candidacy (i.e. the threat of EvE becoming a theme park, perfectly safe high-sec etc.), is as important as it gets here? But you think it's only to be made fun of?

      What you said though is yet again demonstrably false. Winchester and I were clearly having an adult discussion devoid of childish discourse until you posted. Again, why lie Audrik? All you have to do is give a well thought out response to my queries that is demonstrably true and logically valid.

      Maybe go have a think about stuff...

      Delete
    11. So your retort to being accused of using insults and emotional rather than logical language, is another long post filled with insults and emotionality.

      At this point, if you were actually interested in having a substantive logical discussion, you'd be better off starting a new discussion under a new name. You've poisoned this well. Why would anyone want to discuss anything of value with someone who argues using your tactics?

      Go have a think about that.

      *fist pumps while spinning in circles*

      Delete
    12. Audrik,

      I've clearly stated questions to you which you have ignored / are incapable of answering. You've ignored every single one of them. Simple to understand, relevant questions that most 5 year olds could comprehend. From your responses, it's clear that you aren't mature enough to answer them.

      Anyone who's interested can read back through this discussion. They'll see mature polite debate is occurring between Winchester and myself. They'll see individual points being addressed both ways and in a polite and adult manner.

      And then they'll see the post where Audrik Villalona enters the room with irrelevant, childish taunts. It's all here Audrik, for everyone to see. You can keep pretending and making stuff up about me and everything else, but the truth is here right above this post.

      I finished my last post with "All you have to do is give a well thought out response to my queries that is demonstrably true and logically valid." That is clearly way above your ability seeing as you've just replied again with yet more vitriolic nonsense.

      Anyway, you are continuing to act in a very childish manner and there is clearly no point in trying to engage you in any mature debate. It is obviously way above your abilities. I had no idea how accurate my first reply to you was. I finished that rely with "Time will tell". And it surely has.

      Delete
    13. Since you've asked me so many times to answer your questions, I suppose I will. First, though, I'm going to need you to apologize for each insult in these comments. I wouldn't want to reward rudeness, after all. As you have continually trumpeted that you're the mature adult in this conversation, I'm sure you'll agree and comply.

      Delete
    14. Audrik, Some undeniable facts for you:

      * You've now made 4 responses to this discussion.
      * 100% of them ignore 100% of points being discussed.
      * You are a proven liar (detailed above).
      * Your mental capacity to address the discussion is unknown.

      Here's where the discussion was left before you came in...

      Nothing so far has shown that a perfectly safe high-sec is either:
      a) desired by a large proportion of EvE players,
      b) is being seriously campaigned for,
      c) is being or is likely to be considered by CCP or
      d) actually ever come anywhere near to fruition.

      You'll need to address a couple of those to prove that you are:
      * capable of intelligent mature discourse
      * have the capacity to at least vaguely address them
      * not lying yet again

      Otherwise ALL the evidence points to your post being an empty promise from a childish person incapable of truthful mature discourse. Content of your posts that fail to address any of this discussion is being and will be ignored.

      Delete
  25. Well that's just the thing isn't it? They don't scream it out, they whine and beg for one inch at a time, all the while insisting that just one more nerf to PVP will achieve the proper "balance".

    First they came for the can-flippers!...

    Galaxy Pig
    Former can-flipper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Psst. You can still can flip in EvE.

      Oh what's that? People in ships with guns can shoot you if you do?

      Ah boo hoo hoo. Typical of a can flipper to run away as soon as someone can shoot him back. So pathetic and typical of James 315 supporters. All you lot want is to be able to shoot people who can't shoot back. That is the REAL threat to EVE.

      Delete
    2. By the tone of your post, I guess you're a carebear. Irony at its worst: a carebear - who by definition refuses to engage under any circumstances - accusing someone of engaging on their own terms. And then sanctimoniously accuses same of threatening Eve itself.

      You are the kind of individual who lowers the reputation of all gamers.

      And by the way: they always could shoot can flippers, hence why flipping is so popular. Do get your facts right before you quit.

      Delete
    3. Making stuff up (me a carebear, lmfao - I'm loving being constantly suspect flagged) so you can attack me is pathetic, so your first & second paragraph is irrelevant and only shows how weak your argument is.

      As for your 3rd paragraph... Again, will please stop making stuff up? I never said can flippers could not be shot did I? No I didn't. I said People (plural) in combat ships (i.e. not the miners you go after) can now shoot can flippers. You must've skipped school from the age of 5.

      It is evident my facts are straight, and you are a liar. You should probably be quiet if you can't stop lying about everything.

      Delete
    4. If you're going to troll, do it with authenticity.

      To quote you: "I said People (plural) in combat ships (i.e. not the miners you go after) can now shoot can flippers"

      And as I originally stated: "they always could shoot can flippers"

      Fact: miners have had drones and 15 minutes to reship and attack for years. By definition, they have been able to shoot back. Look it up. Ask friends, if you have any.

      The rest - 0/10.

      For someone who claims to be constantly suspect flagged - well, I would hazard a guess you're rarely criminally flagged. Criminally stupid though, would be closer to the mark.

      Get yourself back to school kiddo. English comprehension isn't your strongpoint is it?

      Delete
    5. Oh dear. Now you are now quote mining (go look it up) and continuing to pretend I said stuff I clearly haven't. Never mind. Anyone with a shred of intelligence can read it for themselves and see your silly and childish efforts and dishonesty. Your argument is non-existent and sadly, reflects badly on supporters of James 315.

      Delete
    6. Galaxy Pig > You on general principles. But aside from that fact go find a can to flip. Oh wait, you can't because all the ore is now stored in the cavernous ore bay of the afkinaw. Doesn't matter who can shoot who. Can flipping as a profession died the day CCP buffed the barges.

      Delete
    7. dunno what you're talking about. there's plenty of miners in fleets that drop ore to freighters these days. just look for macks flying solo in fields while boosted.

      Delete
  26. Give Low-sec access to Bistot (not Arkonor, as Null-Sec has plenty of that shit) and Low-sec might actually start to see miners. Just stuff the Bistot into Gravimetric Sites and voila, you give miners a reason to bother with going into Low-sec. I've seen a few miners in emptied Unknown Sites and Gravimetric Sites, and they didn't even start to react as I scanned them down and destroyed their Barges, but at the same time, I've managed to avoid more than 10 gank-attempts while mining or ratting in Low-sec. What made the difference? I paid attention. I got away with my ore, while my victims suffered great losses (and I grabbed their ore).

    If you just say "Low-Sec needs to be more rewarding", you need to do something to make it that much more rewarding. Give the miners who dare to go down there an opportunity to mine Megacyte. This might even make Low-sec corps more self-sufficient, while still requiring Megacyte from null-sec to be able to quickly build lots of big ships. And while we're at it, make the +5% and +10% variants of ores exclusive to Low/NPC-Null. Why? Because it would give a reason to venture into Low-sec or leave the Alliance-held Null-sec systems in the quest for better ore. And if they can't do that, well, some brave semi-carebear-corp (myself included) will venture down there in the new ORE Mining Frigates to mine greater ore (although I already reside in Low, and don't intend to leave, unless it's to mine Arkonor in WH-space).

    Now, that's enough for enticing miners to go into Low-sec for now. How about PvE'ers? Simply increase the bounties and spread a reputation around about Low-sec being safer than they think.

    And now that we're at it, remove PI from High-sec. CCP has already nerfed it into oblivion during the Crucible or Inferno update, so it serves no purpose anymore. Remove it and you might get more Industrialists into Low/Null. And hey! Why not make "School Stations" in Low-sec too? They're quite spread out throughout High-sec, why not build some in Low-Sec too? I know some people who live in Low-Sec who don't want to leave just to pick up skill-books. Maybe even have those Low-sec "School Stations" sell the skills at 10-15% lower prices than in High-Sec (Note, the School Stations I'm talking about are like "University of Caille" or "Science and Trade Institute").

    Would all this do anything? Not aside from bringing more activity to Low-Sec and possibly making a few High-sec folks take the leap into Low-Sec, in pursuit of greater profit. Even if they start by bringing their small ships, like T1 Frigates or Destroyers, they'll still be contributing with targets for pirates, who in turn will be contributing with targets for the bounty-hunters, as will the miners who just bring their small, agile Ventures because they want to see how much more money there is to be had in Low-sec before risking their Barges and Exhumers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You have my 2 votes, sir. I cannot wait to see the changes you will bring to this glorious game.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've completely failed to log in to null eve due to needing to look at square boxes regardless of qhat I'm doing. Lots of flashy red boxes look exactly like pvp and pve.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This 'Real Talk' series is marked by an unfortunate tendency toward false dichotomies and overblown heaven-and-hell comparisons. Eve does not stand at the crossroads between salvation and damnation. CCP is not going to remove all nonconsensual PVP from Eve and turn it into a theme park. They're also not going to move all level 3 missions to lowsec. Eve will remain pretty much as it is. This stuff is rhetorically effective and makes for good theater, but it's also eyeroll-inducing to anyone thinking seriously about the subject.

    At some point in the series, you should address the question of how you'll behave on the CSM when reality sets in and you realise no one will give you the authority to massively rewrite the rules of the game. We're still waiting to hear that. Or is your entire campaign going to be built on promises you can't keep?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What promisesdo you refer to?

      None of the other candidates have stated what they'll do when they realize they won't get the authority to massively rewrite the rules of the game, why should James be held to a different standard?

      I pity you, fool.

      Delete
    2. it's bizarre that you manage to focus on the ONE WORD that has the least to do with anon's point.

      Delete
    3. Mr. T. ignored all of Anon's pansy predictions about what CCP will do in the future. If Mr. T. wants to see the future, Mr. T will get his own damn crystal ball, then he'll break it and destroy the future. The only other thing that useless Anon had said was a bunch of jibber-jabber about promises and authority, just a bunch of jibber-jabber!

      I pity the fool!

      Delete
  30. i don't see how station walking is a theme park element... the SOE mission arc is about a themepark as EVE gets. station walking has nothing to do with either EVE or themepark mmos. seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is probably the most nonsensical and logic-free argument I've seen in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In this edition of pointless banter, James 315 argues that the problem with a sociopath is society. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

    Just tell us stories about how you bump into afk miners to show your skill with clicking approach and making them mad. Stick to what you're good at instead of trying to form any kind of constructive discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. really, go see a shrink james ...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ok.. this post was actually entertaining xD

    ReplyDelete
  35. I dont have any problem with James 315 and his New Order cultists. I think hes playing the game mechanics well and I think he has some very interesting insights to the game of EVE and to the carebear mindset.

    I have a problem with the extortion. (Albeit its fracking genius and in EVE if you can get away with it.... well.. its EVE) ie: Pay me 10 million to leave you alone and let me have my banner in YOUR PERSONAL BIO. Thats where I draw the line. I believe James loves EVE but I believe he must love his ego more.

    Why the ten million? Why hijack a bio but to feed your oversized ego? (Again, its genius. Im very impressed with the way he has become famous) I will NEVER support another mans ego however. Its MY bio. Not your personal ego banner.

    James 315= The right reasons. But the wrong way.

    Ill quit EVE before I ever put your face up in lights on my toon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The irony of someone so ultra-concerned with matters of the Ego, posting anonymously, is delicious.

      I hardly need to point out that anyone so concerned with Ego is clearly living in null or low, so that this issue doesn't actually affect you at all, and you're just raising irrelevant points to satisfy your Ego. No one this concerned with Ego would ever suffer themselves to live in highsec, mining while protected by Concord. I wish you luck in your mining ops in low or null, but ask you not to waste everyone's time by making this attempt at a humorous joke again. It didn't work.

      Delete

Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.