Yesterday, I commented that I don't see Eve as a PvP game. Some people agree. Some disagree. Some have their own definitions. I do know that when I say things like that I worry some people who are deeply involved in PvP. Have I gone crazy? Will I rise up to cast down PvP? My own inactivity in recent months may fuel such worries. I've been approached more than once in public venues and interrogated as to why I have become, 'inactive' and no longer play the game.
One of the most fascinating snide comments I have received in the last few months was being called a freedom fighter. Like napalm, I burst into flames and won't go out if I see someone making suggestions or attempting to walk across the individuality of another player. The reason I have embraced the idea of being a true neutral is because I strongly believe in personal choice and direction. This means for me and for others. If I try to force anything on people it is the ability to choose.
I don't particularly want people to PvP. I use PvP in its most basic way. To commit spaceship violence against each other. I think it is amazing that we can PvP. That is one of Eve's biggest draws to me. Knowing that people can kill me. Knowing that I can try to kill them if I want. I love that about the game. Its something I don't want to lose.
One of my wants for players is to learn how to live in dangerous space. Often there is a disagreement between those who wish for violence and those that do not. I've never been one to try to make people do and be what they are not. It often leaves them miserable. But, I very much feel that one of the greatest and most intangible hurdles is ignorance. The knowledge of living in dangerous space and the skills that come with it do not have to mean spaceship violence. It is about removing fear.
Some fear I cannot remove. Fear of loss for instance. I cannot promise someone that they will never lose. I do not try to make such a promise or promote such a possibility. I don't believe in it. I believe in the potential for loss. I believe it is one of the things that makes Eve glorious. I believe that the existence of that genitive potential is critical to what makes Eve amazing.
But much fear springs from ignorance. Not all gates are camped. Not all bubbles mean death. Not all fights will end in destruction. Not all loss is for nougat.
Eve is still not a very accessible game in the browser. There are many areas that can still be improved. There are many areas that I hope to see improved. But, some things are not browser accessible. Some things do require another to reach out a hand to help. That hand does not have to be personal. We scatter it across the game and the web. But it does tend to come from another player. I'll leave a spot for the stories of the person that learned to play without ever seeking help. I am not one such as that and I suspect many are not.
It is not that I want people to PvP. Nor is it that I do not. It is that I want people to have the confidence and skills to decide what has a value to them. I don't want those decisions to be made of ignorance or superstitions.
I am very, very fond of this movement away from low sec being the unwanted stepchild out back. I don't hear the snide comments about low sec being a place for people who fail to reach null or people who cannot hack the game in other places. I love that low sec is a place for people who like a particular type of game play. Just as null is. Just as wormholes are. And yes, even high sec is a place where many residents like the game play.
Educated choice is a dream of mine. I think a handful of education does more than a bucket of ISK to give someone 'risk free' chances to try things.
The end of knowledge is power... the scope of all speculation is the performing of some action or thing to be done. ~Thomas HobbesReplyDelete
Don't let the bastards grind you down SugarReplyDelete
Fleshing out discussions helps avoid such a thing.Delete
I agreed Sugar it’s all about choices; the shame is that others like to foist theirs on others. A lot of players choose a non-aggression style of play whilst others prefer the adrenalin rush of ship combat. I can accept the choices of others, even the uninspiring destruction of unarmed miners and haulers. What I cannot accept is that non-combat pilots want their rapine made easier.ReplyDelete
Make my game easier isn't restricted to a single group. :)Delete
With apologies Anonymous, but I can't make heads or tails out of your last sentence. 'Rapine' (the violent seizure of someone's property) doesn't seem to line up with 'non-combat pilots'. Is there a typo afoot? Given the tenor of your overall comment, perhaps you meant 'combat pilots'?Delete
Whatever the case, Sugar's response is spot on.
Sugar, nor should it be!Delete
DireNecessity, A fight between two armed vessels I consider ship combat. I do not consider an attack on an unarmed vessel as combat. So to clarify, what I cannot accept is pilots that prey on unarmed vessels wanting their rapine made easier.
Ahh, I see now. A sort of 'so called combat pilot' dig. If I may ask, are you against preying on unarmed vessels in principle or, rather, is it that you think the current difficulty level is already about right (or maybe too easy)?
All is not what it seemsDelete
Eve, the truth and bad dreams
The ganker has lost
You wonder the cost?
Sour milk when they wanted the cream!
Ah, such a deliciously one dimensional thought. It grates on me that people are so lazy at thinking.Delete
I guess PoS killing operations are also not combat, and that we maurauders and barbarians are *bad for the game*...
Would you like to toggle your PVP flag off now?
I'll be more productive:
1) Logistics is the glue that keeps a war machine functioning. Like Wex said on the initial post, "anything meaningful uses JFs" (w.r.t. Low-sec.) I have no doubt that null-sec is similar.
2) If you can interdict those logistics, the glue is weakened, the war machine damaged. Currently, JF logistics is very hard to interdict. Thus the ability of the small group to harm the big group is limited.
3) Thus any impact on those logistics has meaning greater than the sum of ISK lost .
Sure, treat me like a drooling imbecile, I don't mind. EVE is a place where "the cascades of causality that, like echoes, spread and bounce off of everything...create a million interactions." (Thanks Talv!)
My aim is this: Player Logistics can create a thousand interactions for every JF run that is completed. Killing a JF doesn't have the same level of impact. I would like it to.
The individual impact of loss of a JF is outmatched only by losing a Super or Titan. So yea killing a JF is really hard, just like killing a Super or Titan isn't an everyday occurrence either.
Basically, stop bitching and get better at killing them if it bothers you so much. Freight Club never seemed to have any issues killing them. It's not like no JF's never die; https://beta.eve-kill.net/group/902/
I think you severely underestimate the impact of a JF loss, not only is it a massive loss to the player in question (like I mentioned above) it's also a huge blow to industry & trade players in terms of finance do you have any idea how much industry you have to do just to replace a JF loss? Let alone become profitable again afterwards? It will take many months for most JF owners to make back that ship loss let alone run a profit.
You get that the bit above *deep breath* was meant as sarcasm, right? I'll admit it wasn't particularly good, but never mind.Delete
I think that you've missed a previous part of the conversation, where I was saying that killing a JF is hard, unless you have "110 bil of Titan and Titan pilot, or the JF pilot makes a colossal cock-up".
PL has the luck of having both of these things on their side. Why people move through the parts of Derelik and Devoid that they haunt, I don't know. It is the same with people who jump close to LowSechnaya Sholupen. They've made a mistake before they've even begun.
Looking at losses of JFs in high-sec, if they're not ganked (where they've failed because they've got no exit cyno), they've forgotten they're under war-decs from Marmite, which accounts for 12 of the last month's losses.
As for "individual impact of loss of a JF is outmatched only by losing a Super or Titan", I must completely and utterly disagree. Neither SC nor Titan have an efficient way of creating a return on the investment.
Some back of the envelope maths says that one single JF run with a hold full of doctrine Ishtars would gain our alliance JF pilot 1.25 billion isk, using a low 20% mark-up (to a round 300 million). That's 6 runs to have recouped all the money invested in the JF (roughly). I've seen alliance contracts with a much higher mark-up in the past, so don't doubt the suggestion that 20% is low.
For comparative example, using the 100million isk/hour suggested for SC ratting, give 200 hours to recoup just the cost of the hull. Do you think a JF takes anywhere near that time to do 6 runs?
Alternatively, I can't talk with any accuracy about the profit of BFF, but I know about how much they cost. BFF is rougly 100 million per jump, barring high collateral. That's roughly 75 jumps to regain your investment. Do you think that takes 200 hours?
So yeah, comparative rate of ROI is much higher for the JF. I also suspect that any pilot who can afford a JF has enough isk to replace it already on hand. A JF pilot who takes many months to make back their ISK probably didn't need that JF in the first place.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong :)
Sure because all JF pilots run contacts for their Alliance or BFF, no other legitimate uses of JF's exist (I can think of many because then hey I have one!).Delete
And people buy supers & titans just because they're shiny and not because they're getting something from them (likely something that results in the economical ability to construct and own such vessels...)
No true Scotsman...
Also your argument about a JF pilot that loses a JF has already made a mistake is a very weak argument, because you can argue that any pilot that loses any ship (even in consensual PvP) has already made a mistake, one resulting in their ship loss. If you make no mistakes in a regular engagement you won't lose your ship either after all when you do you made some form of judgemental error.
I don't recall saying that running contracts was the only legitimate use for JF's. I was stating two uses for a JF that fit its purpose, and enabled a return on the investment which I felt was worthwhile. Alliance contracts being the high return rate, and BFF being the low return rate.Delete
I think that using a JF for hauling is counter-productive and inefficient. Having purchased the JF, shouldn't you use it in the most productive way? Using the JF as a glorified hauler is efficient only if you're carry a small amount of stuff, in which case, why not use RFF and save yourself some time?
The super and titan pilots I've talked to have always focussed on using the ship more than having it. I feel this is reflected in the average super-cap pilot, considering the increased number of super sales we've seen recently. (Because usage has decreased.) This is all on a personal level.
The tactical advantages of having Supers and Titans is the only other reason I've heard from people buying them. Titan Bridges and SC DPS are the two major reasons.
Shininess has never really been mentioned, though I don't doubt it has happened. The people I've talked to never thought the 'Bling' was worth the risk.
Can I ask which part you were saying was a NTS fallacy?
And finally, yes, I would argue that any pilot who loses a ship has made a mistake, (unless they're suicide ganking or pursuing a deliberate aim [which requires them to lose their ship]). I don't quite follow your last sentence, but you seem to be agreeing with this too.
There are, however, many different types of mistakes. There are mistakes made by lack of preparation or scouting, piloting mistakes, personal mistakes, the list goes on!
The truth is, no-one is a perfect pilot, and people make mistakes. People who play lazily will lose their stuff, people who play intelligently won't. I know that I'm too often the former and not the latter.
My argument was just a little more nuanced than that, though :P . I was saying that lack of preparation, (or just plain KB checking), was a reason for losing their ships. Having an exit cyno is very much standard for all other jump capable capitals, and those that don't do it with JF's get their 'reward'. As for losing your JF to a war-dec, that's just plain stupid....
What I was trying to say was, those people that lose their JFs are being punished for their hubris (in high-sec particularly, and some parts of low-sec.)
Great commentary Sugar.ReplyDelete
" Not all loss is for nougat."ReplyDelete
Best spellchecker "correction" ever
Where do you think candy bars come from?Delete
Education is the one thing that can counter the depth of experience. New players won't know what ships does what, what you can or can't engage or how ECM works unless they learn it, or experience it themselves. I imagine if CCP compared retention rates of new-players that went through EVE-Uni or OUCH, to those that didn't, there'd be a significant difference.
The other problem is 'un-experience', if you will. Experience that, has some truth, but is mostly un-true."all gates are camped, every bubble means death" is an example of this. I suspect that most people who talk like that had one bad experience, and teach this incorrect lesson as they go along.
Finding a way of countering that institutional legacy will be hard, and I can't think of a good way of doing it. (Apart from banning them, and that's just amazingly counter-productive.)
(No doubt Talv will have a fancy proper would for 'un-experience', probably in German :P)
Really, Rob? Your assault on the English language makes my eyes bleed :) You couldn't have used the phrase 'bad experience', or 'one-dimensional experience'? :)ReplyDelete
I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a word for a 'true, but inaccurate' experience. Bad doesn't really make sense, at least to me. It doesn't really mean what I want it to :P.Delete
Admittedly, I've just realised that I've been thinking of bad as a solely negative emotional thing, and not as a qualitative thing. =/. Pretend I used bad, to make your eyes heal quicker :P