Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:03:00 -
[61] - Quote
You want an Arena, go claim a system in null-sec, set up a POS, place 6 GSCs out there as boundary markers, have a security contingent set up and BAM, instant Arena.
Other than that, quit whining about how game mechanics are unfair to you. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
88
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 16:33:00 -
[62] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Eve is hard and I don't want people getting involved with my Arena
So to summarize, your biggest problems with current mechanics are that there is potential for people to mess with your player established Arena and the creation of an Arena is a lot of effort you are not willing to put forth.
Nowhere in your list of reasons did you mention actual game mechanics that are preventing you from doing this, only game mechanics that make it difficult.
|
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 16:47:00 -
[63] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Eve is hard and I don't want people getting involved with my Arena So to summarize, your biggest problems with current mechanics are that there is potential for people to mess with your player established Arena and the creation of an Arena is a lot of effort you are not willing to put forth. Nowhere in your list of reasons did you mention actual game mechanics that are preventing you from doing this, only game mechanics that make it difficult.
In reality, game mechanics would make his little Arena idea quite simple. i.e. a Red v. Blue type of scenario, or just an Arena Corp, as there is no CONCORD intervention when Corp mates shoot each other, and even pod each other.
It just wants attention. Ignore it and it will go away. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 02:06:00 -
[64] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Eve is hard and I don't want people getting involved with my Arena So to summarize, your biggest problems with current mechanics are that there is potential for people to mess with your player established Arena and the creation of an Arena is a lot of effort you are not willing to put forth. Nowhere in your list of reasons did you mention actual game mechanics that are preventing you from doing this, only game mechanics that make it difficult.
That is not a quote of what I said, so thanks for that.
Anyway,
I would say that outside intereference is a huge game mechanic that prevents this.
As well, doing it in high sec with a security forces is complicated, again, because you have to trust your security, they have to be willing to suicide gank, and they have to be willing to lose sec status for destroying people that break the rules.
Trusting other players isn't a game mechanic, but game mechanics allow others to take advantage of this trust.
The fact that the security force would have to suicide someone because the arenas would be in high sec is a game mechanic preventing it.
Loss of sec status for the security force is a game mechanic.
Jack Carrigan wrote: In reality, game mechanics would make his little Arena idea quite simple. i.e. a Red v. Blue type of scenario, or just an Arena Corp, as there is no CONCORD intervention when Corp mates shoot each other, and even pod each other.
It just wants attention. Ignore it and it will go away.
No one should listen to this man.
He is 100% a troll on the forums and does nothing but bust other people's chops.
Jack.........Seriously man........ GO AWAY |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
89
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 12:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
That is not a quote of what I said, so thanks for that.
I'd say its an adequate summary.
Quote:
I would say that outside intereference is a huge game mechanic that prevents this.
Correction: outside interference is a game mechanic that potentially prevents this, AS IT SHOULD BE. Anything else would be akin to instancing and not welcome in Eve.
Quote:As well, doing it in high sec with a security forces is complicated, again, because you have to trust your security, they have to be willing to suicide gank, and they have to be willing to lose sec status for destroying people that break the rules.
Trusting other players isn't a game mechanic, but game mechanics allow others to take advantage of this trust.
The fact that the security force would have to suicide someone because the arenas would be in high sec is a game mechanic preventing it.
Loss of sec status for the security force is a game mechanic.
You are simply proving my point here. Will game mechanics potentially get in the way of you creating this Arena? Absolutely. Is there more than one way around it? Absolutely. Be creative. Be innovative. Use the sandbox. Put your mind to actually doing this instead of asking CCP to hold your hand and create it for you. Make yourself efamous. Create this Arena. You have the tools at hand already. Use them.
Jack Carrigan wrote:Quote: In reality, game mechanics would make his little Arena idea quite simple. i.e. a Red v. Blue type of scenario, or just an Arena Corp, as there is no CONCORD intervention when Corp mates shoot each other, and even pod each other.
It just wants attention. Ignore it and it will go away.
No one should listen to this man. He is 100% a troll on the forums and does nothing but bust other people's chops. Jack.........Seriously man........ GO AWAY
I actually kind of like him. He has made some good points, including in the post you just quotes. Red v. Blue is doing something creative in order to have constant PvP. Use them as an example. Extrapolate from their idea. Create this Arena yourself.
Or is that too much work for you? |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
33
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 14:52:00 -
[66] - Quote
I'm a constant troll that contributes nothing and makes no valid points? News to me.
I'm pretty sure I'm just pointing out obvious fallacies in flawed ideas, while at the same time have suggested numerous ideas for improvement of the "user-friendliness" of people such as the following:
- Alliance Decorations - Alliance Grantable Roles (Thus allowing an alliance to function even if the Executor has RL crap going on) - Racial Ship Haulers - Improvements that could be made to low security space - Ways a Corp/Alliance Hangar could be implemented - Ways of creating more "career paths" through a retooling of low security space - Utilizing the CQ display for playback of recorded battles so that FCs could go over what went right/wrong while in game - Means of making the NeX Store not a piece of crap (by selling things that people actually want for fair prices)
Furthermore, I have also shown support for a plethora of ideas:
- Right Click wrap for transport - Alliance Wallet/Hangar/Roles - Means of attracting more people to low sec - Means of expanding low sec - Dedicated Gas Harvesting Ships/T3 Mining Ships/T2 Capital Industrials - T3 Frigates/Battleships (after above listed idea is implemented) - Built in battle recorder
With the above said, yet another point invalidated. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
92
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 15:30:00 -
[67] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:I'm a constant troll that contributes nothing and makes no valid points? News to me.
I'm pretty sure I'm just pointing out obvious fallacies in flawed ideas, while at the same time have suggested numerous ideas for improvement of the "user-friendliness" of people such as the following:
- Alliance Decorations - Alliance Grantable Roles (Thus allowing an alliance to function even if the Executor has RL crap going on) - Racial Ship Haulers - Improvements that could be made to low security space - Ways a Corp/Alliance Hangar could be implemented - Ways of creating more "career paths" through a retooling of low security space - Utilizing the CQ display for playback of recorded battles so that FCs could go over what went right/wrong while in game - Means of making the NeX Store not a piece of crap (by selling things that people actually want for fair prices)
Furthermore, I have also shown support for a plethora of ideas:
- Right Click wrap for transport - Alliance Wallet/Hangar/Roles - Means of attracting more people to low sec - Means of expanding low sec - Dedicated Gas Harvesting Ships/T3 Mining Ships/T2 Capital Industrials - T3 Frigates/Battleships (after above listed idea is implemented) - Built in battle recorder
With the above said, yet another point invalidated.
If you disagree with OP, you are a troll.
We are trolls my friend.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
I don't consider people trolls for disagreeing. I only consider them a troll for disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Or if it can't disagree without knocking on the person who made the comment. A simple no is better than no and you're and you're dumb for the suggestion. However, even if you're being polite in your disagreement, I have the right to defend my posts.
There are many people in Eve that would enjoy this scenario, most of them just don't come on the forums.
I'm not going to let this idea die just because a few people disagree.
If everyone that had posted was disagreeing, then sure, its a dead subject, but as you've seen, there are people that like the idea so its worth looking at. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:51:00 -
[69] - Quote
Let me explain something. I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
I disagree because there are already game mechanics in place that would allow for this:
- No CONCORD Response for PvP between Corp Mates - Perpetual War Decs (Red v. Blue Scenario) - WHS (Find unoccupied WH, give bookmarks to interested parties and move your combat site around from time to time) - Null (Find low activity nullsec system, establish POS, anchor GSCs as boundary bouys)
Furthermore, there are so many broken game mechanics right now that adding yet another one would only hamper operations in fixing existing problems. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Jaari Val'Dara
Deep Space Nomads Corp
53
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:56:00 -
[70] - Quote
No.
Fair fighting sucks, EVE isn't a game where you should get fair fights. |
|
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
96
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
I disagree and have valid reasons and want you to know that I think you're an idiot for posting this idea.
CCP controlled Arenas are not for Eve. Your system is nothing more than an elaborate dueling system, which time and time again has been rejected by the general Eve populace as it does not conform to the sandbox nature of Eve.
All of the points you have made as to why you can't set up an Arena like this now can be summarized as "Its a lot of work" and "people will just interfere."
Guess what? Those are parts of Eve you have to live with. Or just leave. I'm not partial to either option but you need to pick one. |
Baaldor
Black Sail Anarchists Yarr Collective
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:26:00 -
[72] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:
Guess what? Those are parts of Eve you have to live with. Or just leave. I'm not partial to either option but you need to pick one.
^^this
Bort Bort
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:19:00 -
[73] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:I disagree and have valid reasons and want you to know that I think you're an idiot for posting this idea.
CCP controlled Arenas are not for Eve. Your system is nothing more than an elaborate dueling system, which time and time again has been rejected by the general Eve populace as it does not conform to the sandbox nature of Eve.
All of the points you have made as to why you can't set up an Arena like this now can be summarized as "Its a lot of work" and "people will just interfere."
Guess what? Those are parts of Eve you have to live with. Or just leave. I'm not partial to either option but you need to pick one.
That's cool. I guess instead of Eve being a game that all players can enjoy in their own manner, we'll just Coform to what u think Eve should be.
Hell, we can make it all low/null sec and see how long it takes Eve to die.
Forget invation and options, we can all just come let you bank us, camp us, blob us, and whatever other things In Eve that you would like us to bend to your will on.
Just know that if you are unwilling to take suggestions on things that other players want because you wont benefit from them, then don't expect us to support the changes u want to make your life better.
So
No to ice only in low/null. Not gonna say yes to alliances controlling the formation of new alliances.
No to revamping low sec cause its low reward. U wanna be there, suck it up and enjoy.
And no to whatever the hell else you think will make your life better. In your own words
Its game mechanics so such it up and quit crying about all the crap that hurts you. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
36
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:23:00 -
[74] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:I disagree and have valid reasons and want you to know that I think you're an idiot for posting this idea.
CCP controlled Arenas are not for Eve. Your system is nothing more than an elaborate dueling system, which time and time again has been rejected by the general Eve populace as it does not conform to the sandbox nature of Eve.
All of the points you have made as to why you can't set up an Arena like this now can be summarized as "Its a lot of work" and "people will just interfere."
Guess what? Those are parts of Eve you have to live with. Or just leave. I'm not partial to either option but you need to pick one. That's cool. I guess instead of Eve being a game that all players can enjoy in their own manner, we'll just Coform to what u think Eve should be. Hell, we can make it all low/null sec and see how long it takes Eve to die. Forget invation and options, we can all just come let you bank us, camp us, blob us, and whatever other things In Eve that you would like us to bend to your will on. Just know that if you are unwilling to take suggestions on things that other players want because you wont benefit from them, then don't expect us to support the changes u want to make your life better. So No to ice only in low/null. Not gonna say yes to alliances controlling the formation of new alliances. No to revamping low sec cause its low reward. U wanna be there, suck it up and enjoy. And no to whatever the hell else you think will make your life better. In your own words Its game mechanics so such it up and quit crying about all the crap that hurts you.
The butthurt is strong with this one. Want some Preparation H? "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:32:00 -
[75] - Quote
Please, explain me
Situation 1: two guys docked in a station. That's all. Situation 2: two guys dueling in an instance (ohnoes, I said the I-word) , you can't touch them while they are still there. And by dueling I mean dueling - not ratting, mining, trading, watching, chatting, trolling, nothing else.
How Sit.1 is ok in a ~sandbox~ game and how Sit.2 violates the principles of a ~sandbox~ game?
|
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
100
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:38:00 -
[76] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
That's cool. I guess instead of Eve being a game that all players can enjoy in their own manner, we'll just Coform to what u think Eve should be.
With this logic, missions should be instanced, exploration sites should be locked when someone finds them, and we should get rid of high/low/null sec in favor of "pvp flags" that we can toggle on and off. Sounds like some great stuff wouldn't you say?
Quote:Forget invation and options, we can all just come let you bank us, camp us, blob us, and whatever other things In Eve that you would like us to bend to your will on.
What?
Quote:Just know that if you are unwilling to take suggestions on things that other players want because you wont benefit from them, then don't expect us to support the changes u want to make your life better.
When did I say I wouldn't benefit from this? Stop trying to make this into something personal, its just making you sound like a moron who is e-mad.
Quote:No to ice only in low/null. Not gonna say yes to alliances controlling the formation of new alliances.
No to revamping low sec cause its low reward. U wanna be there, suck it up and enjoy.
And no to whatever the hell else you think will make your life better. In your own words
Actually, I'm fairly certain none of these things would affect me. Once again, stop trying to make this personal. I disagree with your idea because it undermines a fundamental nature of Eve, a concept that seems to be entirely alien to you.
Step back for a second, take the high sec entitlement hat off and try to view your idea without any particular bias. View it in such a way that you see how it would intertwine with the basic logic of Eve: we play in a single shard world with no instancing and we have the ability to make all sorts of things happen, albeit with a bit of effort. Your idea simply does not fit into that. At least not in such a way that CCP should be creating it.
You can create it. Put some effort into it, stop wasting your time on the forums and make this crap happen. I'm sure people would line up to get in on a player run Arena.
Make it happen.
|
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
100
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:40:00 -
[77] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Please, explain me
Situation 1: two guys docked in a station. That's all. Situation 2: two guys dueling in an instance (ohnoes, I said the I-word) , you can't touch them while they are still there. And by dueling I mean dueling - not ratting, mining, trading, watching, chatting, trolling, nothing else.
How Sit.1 is ok in a ~sandbox~ game and how Sit.2 violates the principles of a ~sandbox~ game?
Stations are the one area CCP has allocated for us to use as "instancing," i.e. the one safe zone. The moment you undock, you are in the sandbox and the gloves are off. Other players should have the potential to intervene at this point. Simple as that. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:53:00 -
[78] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Please, explain me
Situation 1: two guys docked in a station. That's all. Situation 2: two guys dueling in an instance (ohnoes, I said the I-word) , you can't touch them while they are still there. And by dueling I mean dueling - not ratting, mining, trading, watching, chatting, trolling, nothing else.
How Sit.1 is ok in a ~sandbox~ game and how Sit.2 violates the principles of a ~sandbox~ game?
Stations are the one area CCP has allocated for us to use as "instancing," i.e. the one safe zone. The moment you undock, you are in the sandbox and the gloves are off. Other players should have the potential to intervene at this point. Simple as that.
Dude, you didn't answer my question and you don't understand what "sandbox" means. Hint: a game may be a sandbox game and not include any PvP or even be a single player.
I asked how the situation is different and you just kept repeating your "trolololol sandbox" slogan.
So,
Situation 1: you undock, players can interfere, you dock, players can't interfere. Situation 2: you undock, players can interfere, you enter instance, players can't interfere.
What's the difference?
Mind you, you can only die or kill someone like you in the instance, you can't do anything else that you can do either in space or docked. Ships are ~real~, ammo is ~real~.
For all intents and purposes, for anyone else other the two hypothetical dueling players, the instance is yet another NPC station.
|
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
100
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 18:57:00 -
[79] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:
I asked how the situation is different and you just kept repeating your "trolololol sandbox" slogan.
So,
Situation 1: you undock, players can interfere, you dock, players can't interfere. Situation 2: you undock, players can interfere, you enter instance, players can't interfere.
What's the difference?
Mind you, you can only die or kill someone like you in the instance, you can't do anything else that you can do either in space or docked. Ships are ~real~, ammo is ~real~.
For all intents and purposes, for anyone else other the two hypothetical dueling players, the instance is yet another NPC station.
Are you trying to sound stupid or is that just happening naturally?
The point is everything in Eve should have an impact on something else. Instanced fights would mean less "real" fights and thus less global impact.
You still confused? If so, use the test server. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 19:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote: Are you trying to sound stupid or is that just happening naturally?
For you there's no doubt.
Quote: The point is everything in Eve should have an impact on something else. Instanced fights would mean less "real" fights and thus less global impact.
How instanced fights mean less "real" fights compared to sitting in station? How instanced fights do not have impact on something else if ships and ammo are lost?
See, these are simple questions that you should be able to answer in concrete terms instead of throwing around words that you don't understand the meaning of.
Quote:You still confused? If so, use the test server.
Oh, the test server? Wouldn't that mean less "real" fights, according to your logic? Also, how come that losing real ships and ammo on TQ has less impact than losing 100 ISK ships on SISI ?
Now, that you've made a complete ass of youself, STFU and let someone intelligent speak. |
|
XXSketchxx
Remote Soviet Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 19:32:00 -
[81] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote: Internet tough guy words.
The point is, if your fight becomes "instanced" you are no longer in the single shard that is Eve. No one can potentially interfere. That simply does not follow the fundamental nature of Eve.
But you know, keep on posting like the internet tough guy you are, lol at quoting "biomass your character." That was cute.
wait wait I got it
u mad bro?
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 19:45:00 -
[82] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Karim alRashid wrote: Internet tough guy words. The point is, if your fight becomes "instanced" you are no longer in the single shard that is Eve. No one can potentially interfere.
Yea, I agree. That's why I'm asking what the difference to other scenarios where others also can't interfere.
Quote: But you know, keep on posting like the internet tough guy you are, lol at quoting "biomass your character." That was cute.
Indeed it's cute, isn't it ?
Quote: wait wait I got it
u mad bro?
Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 20:54:00 -
[83] - Quote
Sorry for derailing the topic a bit, indeed it was clear from the very first post that you don't mean instancing.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 21:06:00 -
[84] - Quote
P.S.
This is also why I had stated earlier that this was more of a low sec pocket inside a high sec system rather than an arena |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |