Imigo Montoya wrote:
So on the chance that it's naivety, I'll address some of your points:

Temba Ronin wrote:
The myth that pve players are adverse to losing ships is nonsense! What is distasteful is losing a ship to a punk thug who enjoys having the game mechanics set up to support his limited thinking style of gameplay.

Imigo Montoya wrote:
PvE, once mastered (eg, having read the missions guide on the eve-o wiki) is highly predictible and therefore easily beaten. The NPCs do the same things in the same scenarios. Even Incursions, while requiring player cooperation to beat, are still predictible. If you're regularly losing ships in PvE, you're doing it wrong.

Game mechanics don't support suicide ganking, they allow it. In fact, as I stated in my previous response to your idea (which I note you haven't addressed), the game mechanics spawn unbeatable irresistable NPCs to destroy a suicide ganker's ship, so all the gankee has to do is survive long enough.

Temba Ronin wrote:
Lets try some new ways to break the ice for players who rightly perceive that nullsec can be a fast way to lose a ship and get podded without a reasonable chance of making isk.

Imigo Montoya wrote:
Not everything is about making ISK. Sometimes it's about challenge, competition, fun, or simply beating the other guy. Making ISK is one appeal, there are so many others. If your only measure of how good something is is "how much ISK will I make", you'll miss out on some of the best content that makes EVE a unique experience.

Temba Ronin wrote:
I think trying to conquer a system held by vet players would be far more challenging then any other mission being offered to PVE players now. Sure i know i can get my friends and do it now blah blah blah, but what prevents us from trying something more attractive like bounties and claiming sov for a NPC Empire faction to get the mission runners who get shot at everyday from looking at nullsec as an opportunity instead of an obstacle?


Imigo Montoya wrote:
Sov nullsec is an opportunity, and of course it has obstacles. It wouldn't be any damn fun if it didn't. I really don't see what your point is here.

Temba Ronin wrote:
EVE needs a balance between things that favor a spoiled minority versus the things that work for the greater good of all the players.

Imigo Montoya wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding what fallacious means. It is, for example, not fallacious to use a generalisation when you don't have explicit knowledge of specific facts (eg I didn't know exactly how many new members had signed up when I posted, but a rough figure became available later). I have trouble asserting things that I have little or no knowledge of so I tend to avoid it. You seem to have no such trouble.

It is however, for example, fallacious to assert that somebody needs to have been the leader of a nullsec alliance to know anything about the game mechanics around nullsec sov.

Now where could we possibly get some definitive and unbiased (ie not rumors or propaganda) information about how many people are in a particular Alliance (Goonswarm Federation) or corporation (GoonWaffe), and how that has changed over time, since say the last month or so? If only there was some place that took the information from EVE's API regarding such matters and displayed them in an easy to use manner. I pray to Wollari to deliver us from this perilous void of data!