open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked EVE Online, with no Concord
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Nahira Fade
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:16:00 - [61]
 

The 'unsocial' people and the 'not so social' small groups of people would be hard pressed to join the blobs, some of them would do it, others not.

Single players would cease to exist, then small corps would follow since the only targets available are blobs, which they can't fight unless they join a bigger blob. It would be much more difficult for a small corp (ex: group of friends) to find targets that give them a 'fair fight', that give them fun.

Eventually, everything would turn out into a giant 'blob warfare'. Industry would get back in it's feet very fast (like a previous poster wrote), the universe would adapt really fast if CCP did it well, but there is no room for the 'single player' in that Universe of yours, and as consequence, the room for the small corp would be reduced also (I know this is an MMO, spare me that lecture).

A single player or a small corp would have to be part of an alliance, or pay to one for the right to play the game, not everyone is interested in being part of a gigantic group of people with their attitudes, politics, ideias and playstyles.

I doubt the impact of such a change would be so small as you make it. There are lot's of people not interested in sharing the same chat tab with hundreds of people they don't like, trust or respect, and it's not only the 'unsocial single player'.

That change have more social ramifications than I imagine. I know it would make the game better for a lot of people... but not for everyone.

At the end, the success of such a change it's only math, how many are the solo players, how many small corps not willing to join bigger groups to have fun, how many corps who don't like blobs or alliance warfare and their politics, how many are them all?

Of course, for what I've read I'm assuming that everyone would have to be part of a blob in that universe of yours, I can be wrong :-P
The game at the moment catters to all types of players (at least the ones who like sci-fi).
Why ruin that?

Epic DaSoto
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:19:00 - [62]
 

It would mean intense, crazy PvP with all 5K players on the server.

CCP would freak out and start a new server called "Eve Trammel" that would basically be a whole universe of high sec space.

Then CCP's name would go down next to SOE on the great MMORPG wall of shame.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:23:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 19:29:33
People still dont unerstand that other players will take on the task of providing security, establishing and maintaining sort of NRDS zones in and around the starting systems. The reason is the demand from players, but corporations also have incentive themselves to keep peace around these systems in order to not scare the new people away. A new player is a potential new member, which gives you that much more of an advantage against your rivals.

With Incarna coming, i will draw the line of safe-zone at the station, where as other people still suggest there to be entire regions that need to be safe.
With Incarna the tutorials can be done in-station, with full simulations and everything. The basic lesson tought is that nothing is certain once you undock, which also means no-one is obliged to protect you. Its ones own buisness as to where he or she ventures, what he/she does and how she/he establishes safety around him. This will be the butterfly effect in all its glory which CCP proudly advertises, the sandbox we are all longing for.



On a side note, and this is just a quick idea i havent given much thought; Ships would perhaps best come with some sort of distress beacon, players could activate at will, which submits warp co-ords in local for anyone to warp to. This will further help the player run security corps in swift assistance. You just have to put your mind in the right place, to understand this player-driven security, and see the possibilities.
Its an experiment that deserves a chance. Perhaps not on the main eve cluster for fear of upsetting too many customers. But let it be ideas for EVE Online 2 at least.

David Grogan
Gallente
The Motley Crew Reborn
Warped Aggression
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:32:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Serpents smile

wow.



please dont use swear words Wink

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:32:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Epic DaSoto
It would mean intense, crazy PvP with all 5K players on the server.

CCP would freak out and start a new server called "Eve Trammel" that would basically be a whole universe of high sec space.

Then CCP's name would go down next to SOE on the great MMORPG wall of shame.

Crying or Very sad

Xauxau
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:54:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
But whats the problem? You can be all safe and sound producing your stuff, wether concord delivers the security or other players.


Other players WON'T deliver security.

This is not theory, it's a fact borne out by long experience. I've been playing these sorts of games on and off since the early days of 'da interwebs', i.e. back when nobody had dreamed up the web browser, when BITNET was Mankind's greatest networking achievement, and MUDs played on terminals in university basements were a bleeding edge entertainment concept. Back in my old college days, decades ago, I even implemented a couple PvP focused MUDs myself. I have listened to PvP-anytime-anywhere purists pose the same sort of rosy scenario described by the OP repeatedly over the last quarter century, and they have proven wrong in _every_ _single_ _case_ where this idea has been tried. Not most of the time, not almost all the time, but _every_ _single_ _time_.

PVP-anywhere worlds fail to attract subsribers for LOTS of reasons. But the biggest reason is that the pool of people willing to give a serious try to a massively complicated timewaster like an MMO is pretty small (relatively speaking) to begin with. The pool of such people willing to put any serious effort in once they realize they are completely at the mercy of a highly politicized guild of established players during the first few months of their playtime is about a couple orders of magnitude smaller. The combination of nerdy obsessiveness, excellent social skills, will-to-power stubbornness and available free time is vanishingly rare. There isn't much point in trying to earn goodwill with newbs by providing security if the newbs arrive in small numbers and mostly quit when their free trial is up.


Aarin Wrath
Caldari
East Khanid Trading
Khanid Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2010.02.01 20:00:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Aarin Wrath on 01/02/2010 20:20:27
The real life result of this change: (IMHO)

  1. Eve would loose a huge amount of subs in a short amount of time (3-6 months).

  2. Company revenue would drop dramatically.

  3. Shareholders would get angry.

  4. Company heads would roll, poop would hit the fan.

  5. CCP would either do: a DB roll back, make a seperate PVE server, or layoff allot of employees to save costs resulting in little to no new content.

  6. Eve would die a slow death.

  7. Eve servers get shut down.

  8. CCP moves on to other projects or company folds.



A little reminder from the old days:

  • Subscriber base was small in the beginning. Making seeing anyone anywhere a rare thing which made mining or doing anything with no concord relatively a safe thing. 5k subs total. 1 on 1 pvp was apparently common and also awesome!

  • Eve also used to have NO CONCORD. The idea was the Rosy "Players will provide security" model. The result was the complete opposite: anarchy. It was a pirate paradise.YARRRR!!

  • It was cool ... but really it sucked. Players whined, CCP implemented Concord.

  • Eve subscriber based went up. What are we at now anyways? ... last I heard we had 50k online at the same time last Sunday.

  • You can see upwards of 70 ppl in several systems these days.



It's a dumb idea and would kill Eve. Seriously Rolling Eyes

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2010.02.01 20:08:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Xauxau
Originally by: Wesfahrn
But whats the problem? You can be all safe and sound producing your stuff, wether concord delivers the security or other players.


Other players WON'T deliver security.

This is not theory, it's a fact borne out by long experience. I've been playing these sorts of games on and off since the early days of 'da interwebs', i.e. back when nobody had dreamed up the web browser, when BITNET was Mankind's greatest networking achievement, and MUDs played on terminals in university basements were a bleeding edge entertainment concept. Back in my old college days, decades ago, I even implemented a couple PvP focused MUDs myself. I have listened to PvP-anytime-anywhere purists pose the same sort of rosy scenario described by the OP repeatedly over the last quarter century, and they have proven wrong in _every_ _single_ _case_ where this idea has been tried. Not most of the time, not almost all the time, but _every_ _single_ _time_.

PVP-anywhere worlds fail to attract subsribers for LOTS of reasons. But the biggest reason is that the pool of people willing to give a serious try to a massively complicated timewaster like an MMO is pretty small (relatively speaking) to begin with. The pool of such people willing to put any serious effort in once they realize they are completely at the mercy of a highly politicized guild of established players during the first few months of their playtime is about a couple orders of magnitude smaller. The combination of nerdy obsessiveness, excellent social skills, will-to-power stubbornness and available free time is vanishingly rare. There isn't much point in trying to earn goodwill with newbs by providing security if the newbs arrive in small numbers and mostly quit when their free trial is up.




I think the economy would be interesting too. With a lot more players having to do security the time alloted to make isk will be severly lowered. At the same time obviously more ships would be destroyed. These two factors together mean that ships (and pretty much everything else too) will get extremely expensive as there is a high demand and very low supply.

The blobs will rain supreme as single ships get too valuable to risk flying solo. Mission running and mining will be even harder to survive which will lower the amount of isk even more in a negative spiral.

I think it's an interesting idea, but it just won't work.

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.01 20:29:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Xauxau
Not most of the time, not almost all the time, but _every_ _single_ _time_.


Having cut my teeth in the land of MUD/MURPE, this matches my experience too.
I think 'player operated security' is one of those holy grails that aspiring (and idealistic) game designers really want to implement, but no one has worked out a way to actually do it in such a way that keeps a variety of players and it stable.

There is probably a pile of cash and at least a couple research papers out there if someone DOES figure out a away... but MMO psychology is so disconnected from meatspace psychology that all the lessons classical psych have learned tend not to apply.


Tason Hyena
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.01 20:42:00 - [70]
 

I'd say do it for a few weeks just as an experiment. Similar to Hulkageddon. Give people fair warning, let them know it will end in so much time, and let er rip.

Chances are though you'd see what would happen with that WoW event-as it wore on, people just stayed offline because they couldn't counter the zombies. It was fun for a little bit, but then players started to deny other players the use of essential services, or doing anything else but dodging zombie players.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2010.02.01 20:44:00 - [71]
 

If you want to know what life would be like without CONCORD, take a look at empire wars:

1) LOTS of station and gate hugging.
2) People would only undock/engage if they had the clear advantage
3) Lots of carebear tears


Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.02.01 21:18:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 01/02/2010 21:24:18
Originally by: Nekopyat
Originally by: Xauxau
Not most of the time, not almost all the time, but _every_ _single_ _time_.


Having cut my teeth in the land of MUD/MURPE, this matches my experience too.
I think 'player operated security' is one of those holy grails that aspiring (and idealistic) game designers really want to implement, but no one has worked out a way to actually do it in such a way that keeps a variety of players and it stable.

There is probably a pile of cash and at least a couple research papers out there if someone DOES figure out a away... but MMO psychology is so disconnected from meatspace psychology that all the lessons classical psych have learned tend not to apply.




I might agree with you except for one thing. Some of the most secure space to be found in EVE (except during times of invasion) is the space at the heart of a major 0.0 alliance. There players easily provide all the security their industrialists and manufacturers need.

Players in 0.0 EVE are far more organized than those in most any MMO you would care to name, both in terms of the number of people cooperating with each other and the way they interact with the various game mechanics involved.

If they found value in "securing" area's of high sec, particularly the starter systems, they could easily do so. It is already a part of their daily routine in their home territories.

As I said before, it would require a change to the new player experience so that interested player corps could make themselves available to be chosen at character creation by new players.

Again, this will never happen. But if it did, the EVE universe would stumble briefly but then recover and continue to flourish.

As a side note, you might also consider that a very, very large percentage of high sec industry is currently done by alts of 0.0 characters. I do not think the economy would suffer nearly as much as has been predicted here by most.



Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.02.01 22:09:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1

I might agree with you except for one thing. Some of the most secure space to be found in EVE (except during times of invasion) is the space at the heart of a major 0.0 alliance. There players easily provide all the security their industrialists and manufacturers need.


*nods* an UO also had pockets of relative security held by powerful groups. However, once these blocks are established, the barrier to enter the game gets higher and higher till eventually you have nothing but negative growth. The stability that most players need in order to play (esp casual players) become less accessible and thus not only do you have the regular atrophy of players, but fewer and fewer new ones coming in as replacements.

Pesky LaRue
Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2010.02.01 22:26:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 11:22:09
Players would leave, alts would be cancelled. Because there would so much more to do with just one character. Oh and who said only carebears build things? I see carebear pvp'ers also. They tend to amass in huge blobs, and usually fail engagements where numbers are even. Things get built in 0.0 too you knows :)

I want this, i want concord to disappear, it will definitely bring people more together.


Yup, it would bring all the kiddies who like nothing better than to grief/gank together and, it would bring almost everyone else together at the cancellation page.

terrible idea.

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.02.01 22:50:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1

I might agree with you except for one thing. Some of the most secure space to be found in EVE (except during times of invasion) is the space at the heart of a major 0.0 alliance. There players easily provide all the security their industrialists and manufacturers need.



Unless you're in Goonswarm.
I hear the rent is a *****. Laughing

Xauxau
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.02 00:49:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1


I might agree with you except for one thing. Some of the most secure space to be found in EVE (except during times of invasion) is the space at the heart of a major 0.0 alliance. There players easily provide all the security their industrialists and manufacturers need.

Players in 0.0 EVE are far more organized than those in most any MMO you would care to name, both in terms of the number of people cooperating with each other and the way they interact with the various game mechanics involved.

If they found value in "securing" area's of high sec, particularly the starter systems, they could easily do so. It is already a part of their daily routine in their home territories.

As I said before, it would require a change to the new player experience so that interested player corps could make themselves available to be chosen at character creation by new players.



As I said before, the pool of people willing to put any serious effort into a complicated new hobby once they realize their first few months of in-game experience is pretty much at the mercy of a highly politicized guild of established players is tiny. A great many of the people in those highly organized 0.0 alliances are people who spent weeks or months learning the ropes, and developing confidence and enthusiasm for the game and its various aspects, before heading to 0.0. If they had been forced to join an established PvP alliance within their first few hours of playtime to make a go of it, they would have just canceled at the end of their trial.

Look, years ago I would have agreed with the OP. But I've learned from experience, pure-PVP MUDs fail, every single time, to attract enough subscribers to make for an interesting community, even when they are free to play. They definitely do not attract enough players to make for a successful subscriber-based game on the scale CCP has going.














Platoon Sergeant
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:06:00 - [77]
 

Massive quantities of carebears ragequit because they're forced to accept that EVE was never a PVE game (no matter how ****ing many of them there are).

Those that remain fight and squabble until highsec alliances and compacts form, and we see borders form similar to 0.0 current. Mission hubs and school systems become the assets that organizations fight for. Would probably be more or less 0.0 lite. Maybe like NRDS 0.0?

Would be 1000% more interesting than EVE is currently at any rate. The economy would tank until players band together or 0.0 alliances stake their claims, but would stabilize once pockets of "safe" space emerge. New players would be immediately immersed in the meta-element of eve which, imo, is the most interesting and engaging thing about this game. I can just imagine complete eve virgins getting drafted into a militia belonging not to NPCs, but whichever alliances space they happened to spawn within. Brings a tear to my eye. Too bad it will never happen.

Lekegolo Khanid
Arbeitaholics Anonymous
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:18:00 - [78]
 

One way you sort of balance a concord removal would be to have agression/killing = standing loss with the local empire, then link the standing losses to system sec status. Higher sec, greater loss.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:32:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 19:29:33
People still dont unerstand that other players will take on the task of providing security , establishing and maintaining sort of NRDS zones in and around the starting systems.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMSjd6HNQdY&feature=related

About 1:20 into the video, watch the exciting world of mining from a a dirt grubbers point of view.

Then imagine how exciting it is for the pilots of small fleet of ships guarding that miner.

About as exciting as waiting on 3 week skills with 3 level 5 requirements for the ship and another equal number of skills for the guns along with several months of support skills just to fly it, poding and loss of implants/skill points along with the time invest. EVE would need a complete revamp of skill training (I know I won't pay a sub for 6 months just to train support skills before I get really good at it), ships will need to be buffed so that a lone cruiser isn't instant ganked undocking (I wouldn't pay a sub just to spin a ship for six months because I can't leave), and corps alone will need a more carebear security revamp, who completely trusts their corp mates already? If you want to shoot people without repercussions (cause you will be cussing how boring it is for lack of targets), there is always counterstrike or HALO online.

IbanezLaney
Caldari
Dingo took my corp name
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:57:00 - [80]
 

I think we need concord but concord are overpowered - they should have a large but killable force that isn't re-enforced for at least 30min or more.

That way high sec systems could fall into complete chaos for very short periods of time if a large enough group wanted it to.

Or - maybe concord should slow their response as players time in the game progresses.
If a player is attacked who is under 1 month of old - concord are instant and uber - add 1min response time per month of play. So after a year, 12 min before help arrives.
This also helps stop baits/ganks against noobs and possibly encourages noobs to do it back.
Allowing beginners a chance to attack experienced players with a reversed timer on concord would add fun. So the noob attacks they would get a message like - 'you have 2 min to disengage or concord will shoot you'. Afk mining will end instantly.

This would also make long term players think twice about jumping in a shuttle to go collect things fast and would make courier contracts pick up big time. 3 noobs in ibis would become scary to older players in certain situations.

This would make it more fun everyone - many mission runners do like shooting at people - it's just that the sec status loss penalties are too harsh - If you attack someone in .4 and under - there should not be any sec status penalty. Just stations and gates shooting is enough.



Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2010.02.02 02:01:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Edited by: Wesfahrn on 01/02/2010 19:29:33
People still don't understand that other players will take on the task of providing security, establishing and maintaining sort of NRDS zones in and around the starting systems.



Originally by: Xauxau
Other players WON'T deliver security.
I have listened to PvP-anytime-anywhere purists pose the same sort of rosy scenario described by the OP repeatedly over the last quarter century, and they have proven wrong in _every_ _single_ _case_ where this idea has been tried. Not most of the time, not almost all the time, but _every_ _single_ _time_.


I too have been playing since the early '80's... Xauxau's observation pretty much matches my experience.

By the way, you do know that what you propose was EXACTLY the way Eve used to be?

No hi-sec, no low-sec, no system security status, no player security status, no wardecs, none of that.

Eve topped out at 30K subs, and from 6 to 9K people on. From CCP (a devblog/interview from long ago) Eve became financially viable at 50K subs.

Your idea has been tried, and failed already.

Rpeg
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2010.02.02 02:01:00 - [82]
 

CONCORD presence should be relative to ship loss, podding and piracy in region. So that more "violent" areas will have an increase of Concord while other "safer" areas in high-sec will have less. Thus you add the variability of surprise griefing in areas that would normally be safe. Much the same way police will increase patrol in neighborhoods when there is an spike in activity.

Evan Batarr
Posted - 2010.02.02 02:12:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
Some not very intelligent idea brought up too often on this forum


You never played UO (before and after Trammel), did you? Rolling Eyes

idodido
Posted - 2010.02.02 03:02:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Platoon Sergeant
Massive quantities of carebears ragequit because they're forced to accept that EVE was never a PVE game (no matter how ****ing many of them there are).

Those that remain fight and squabble until highsec alliances and compacts form, and we see borders form similar to 0.0 current. Mission hubs and school systems become the assets that organizations fight for. Would probably be more or less 0.0 lite. Maybe like NRDS 0.0?

Would be 1000% more interesting than EVE is currently at any rate. The economy would tank until players band together or 0.0 alliances stake their claims, but would stabilize once pockets of "safe" space emerge. New players would be immediately immersed in the meta-element of eve which, imo, is the most interesting and engaging thing about this game. I can just imagine complete eve virgins getting drafted into a militia belonging not to NPCs, but whichever alliances space they happened to spawn within. Brings a tear to my eye. Too bad it will never happen.


New players join, realise theres nothing for them and leave. Thats an excellent business strategy!

They should also triple subscription costs to triple revenue while their at it, god I love griefer logic :D

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2010.02.02 03:25:00 - [85]
 

EVE Online, with no Concord = EVE Alone, the worlds best MSO game.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.02.02 03:28:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: My Postman
This must be a fail attempt of a low sec griefer, too lazy to search for targets. I tell you what will happen:

1)CONCORD disabled.
2)ALL highsec dwellers stay docked shocked. 1000īs of pirates (formally known as suicide gankers) invading highsec, searching for targets.
3) No targets there, pirates start shooting each other in highsec.
4) Remaining pirates endlessly camping highsec stations. Even noone there in jita to get "discoed".
5) No one mines, building industy is going down, markets dying.
6) 1000īs of carebares emo-ragequitting.
7) Pirates emo-ragequitting because lack of targets, too scared to go to nullsec where the last targets are, but they CAN shoot back.
8) Last player "Westfahrn" gets last Evemail from CCP saying that this game canīt be funded with one single player.
9) End of story. End of EVE.

Hope this helps!


So wrong. Clearly a carebear's perspective on things.

Mining as it is now will cease to exist. Mineral prices will skyrocket. Mining now becomes an important and lucrative profession, surpassing Level 4 missions in ISK/hour.

Mission runners that are currently successful in 0.0/lowsec will continue to be so. All the highsec carebear idiots will die repeatedly unless they can adapt. If they can't, good riddance.

Players adapt to high sec travel just like they have lowsec and 0.0: they use insta undocks at stations, nobody AFKs anymore. Jump Freighters become the standard for hauling large amounts of material. All production continues as normal, just like it does currently in lowsec and 0.0.

Big trade hubs spring up in lowsec instead of highsec because JFs are able to cyno directly to stations in lowsec, but not in highsec. Massive numbers of players migrate to 0.0 due to highsec not offering any advantage over 0.0 in terms of safety.

The Eve population explodes once the initial exodus of WoW players is complete as gaming magazines and critics across the internet hail Eve Online as the first truly player driven sandbox game to ever hit the internet.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.02.02 03:36:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Wesfahrn
People still dont unerstand that other players will take on the task of providing security, establishing and maintaining sort of NRDS zones in and around the starting systems. The reason is the demand from players, but corporations also have incentive themselves to keep peace around these systems in order to not scare the new people away. A new player is a potential new member, which gives you that much more of an advantage against your rivals.. ...

You must be new here.

New players are first fresh, uneducated and easy targets. Or why do you think ccp needed to implement the ban-rule if you bait people in starter systems?

On a 2nd note you're an dumb person. The 10% or maybe 15% people interested in that kind of pure-godness-game are already playing it.. it's called nullsec and coexists and nourishes from the other 85% playing their game.

So to break it to you: STFU and let your brainfarts out at your rear.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.02.02 04:33:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
All the highsec carebear idiots will die repeatedly unless they can adapt. If they can't, good riddance. [...] Massive numbers of players migrate to 0.0 due to highsec not offering any advantage over 0.0 in terms of safety.

I wonder what massive numbers will be left to go to null-sec? Rolling Eyes

idodido
Posted - 2010.02.02 05:04:00 - [89]
 

Oh it'll be that massive population that currently sits in empire non-protected space. aka the barren wastelands of lowsec.

People play the game because they like a certain type of playstyle.

Imagine for a minute they removed PVP from EVE? by the pvp'ers logic in this thread all the pvpers would happily take up mining lasers and get busy. smart bunch.

Platoon Sergeant
Posted - 2010.02.02 05:05:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: idodido
Originally by: Platoon Sergeant
Massive quantities of carebears ragequit because they're forced to accept that EVE was never a PVE game (no matter how ****ing many of them there are).

Those that remain fight and squabble until highsec alliances and compacts form, and we see borders form similar to 0.0 current. Mission hubs and school systems become the assets that organizations fight for. Would probably be more or less 0.0 lite. Maybe like NRDS 0.0?

Would be 1000% more interesting than EVE is currently at any rate. The economy would tank until players band together or 0.0 alliances stake their claims, but would stabilize once pockets of "safe" space emerge. New players would be immediately immersed in the meta-element of eve which, imo, is the most interesting and engaging thing about this game. I can just imagine complete eve virgins getting drafted into a militia belonging not to NPCs, but whichever alliances space they happened to spawn within. Brings a tear to my eye. Too bad it will never happen.


New players join, realise theres nothing for them and leave. Thats an excellent business strategy!

They should also triple subscription costs to triple revenue while their at it, god I love griefer logic :D


[email protected] logic comment

Suggesting that the only positive experience for new players is found under concord guns; that new players have to spend months as the low man on the totem pole, running level 2s or mining in an osprey so that they can do more missions or mine in a bigger ship, THAT is griefing. You want to get players hooked, you get their adrenaline pumping. For better or worse, I remember my first pvp encounters 6 years ago with much greater candour than I can however the **** I managed to make isk at the time.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only