|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2848
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 18:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Reuben Johnson wrote:A lot of threads of late on nerfing NPC Corps. Why? Well, after all the arguemnts for it are dismissed I've yet to hear any valid justification for NPC corps beyond "carebears leaving will kill EVE" (not true on either count), or justification for not simply removing them.
Quote:They make claims that NPC players have all the rewards with no risk, but they want CCP to give them just that. Give frieght gankers all the reward from attacking freighters in Hi-Sec with none of the risk of being Concorded. The number of hauler alts in NPC Corps is infinently small, but they wish to punish the whole lot over a very small number of players. 1) Being CONCORDed isn't a risk - it's a cost. 2) Being suicide ganked in a freighter isn't a risk either unless you exceed a specific formula of value of cargo vs (EHP/ [ISK per DPS of enemy ships ratio]), then it's a deliberate risk taken by the freighter pilot. 3) Hauling things through alts isn't a right. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2848
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 18:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vexen Lyre wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:While I've heard great things about them, I admit, I can see where there'd be a problem with an untouchable hauling group being paid to help keep a wardecced corp supplied. With their methods they are completely invincible as a logistics group. since everyone shares this advantage it isn't really an issue though, is it? This is like saying being able to CTRL-Q out of the game instantly while in the middle of PVP to save your ship is "balanced" because 'everyone can do it'. You shouldn't be able to 'CTRL-Q' out of the consequences and content of playing in a sandbox PvP-driven game, nor should you be able to 'NPC corp' your way out of it either. This is basic common sense. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2848
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Not playing EVE alt-tabbed while watching youtube because actual gameplay might happen = second job |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2849
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Not playing EVE alt-tabbed while watching youtube because actual gameplay might happen = second job You are just seeing ghosts around every corner. Get real and maybe we can eventually be convinced of your silly 'arguments' You are characterizing anything other then wardec evasion or immunity as "EVE as a 2nd job". Why should I take you seriously? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2849
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Reading this nonsense, one would think war targets are an endangered species or something.
Again, get real. This argument has always fallen flat on its face. Generally these arguments end with posters like you crying and ISDs rushing to save the thread. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2849
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Fey Ivory wrote:Eve is a alive universe, its set up with a high secutiry space, low security space, and null security... where each of these areas have rules that aply to them, high security space is soosed to be safer... looking at the rules that is in place, i can either yoin a player corp, or make my own corp, and be open to wardecs, considering the costs for wardecs, wich is a joke, i CHOOSE to be employed by the gallente corp CAS, all acording to the rules and how the Eve universe is set up... i want the high sec to be high security, if i want danger ill go to low sec and null... Right, highsec was intended to be safer, not "safe". It was never intended to be based around a "PVP/danger optional" design. This is why corphopping and wardec evasion were for the majority of EVE history considered an exploit, before relatively recently being declared 'no longer an exploit' by GM Homonoia. Homonoia did this presumably because wardec evasion was the only way for PvErs in highsec to stay competitive against each other in the pursuit of ISK (danger and loss being unneccessary overhead), and its use was spiralling out of control and no longer enforceable by the GMs. It was never an intended 'feature' of highsec. Now players such as yourself have been raised on the status quo and believe that this is what it was meant to be. I'd say highsec's original design was best where players still had recourse to compete directly as well as indirectly through the market, and that allowing such to happen (by puttin in place corphop timers and making NPC corps individually deccable) would result in better gameplay for everyone. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2850
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Part of the problem is that wardecs themselves are too expensive, wide-encompassing and don't actually resolve the ostensible reason for their existence - resource/access contention.
I mean it's not like under the current system if you're in a mining corp that grew claws and camped the small ganker corp into a station that you're going to disband half your fleet and go back to belt mining or whatever. And at the end of the day if the defender or aggressor chooses not to engage and really forfeit the war, there's no negative consequences for not doing so.
1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways. 2) There should be some sort of tracking system to see who is winning a war, either through a FW-style control point system or isk ratio or whatever 3) There should be consequences for coming out of a war as a loser over small-scale objectives, such as generating a criminal flag for entering a 'lost' belt, or being unable to use the station services (but still dock) over a 'lost' contested station. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2853
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 20:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2854
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 20:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
But it doesn't resolve a 'winner' in the case of a war where 0 combat was had because one side didn't undock, which is what I was looking to address.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2854
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 20:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote: Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?
Any ship is profitable to gank if it has expensive modules in it and no tank modules of any kind fitted. And yes that's how it is designed - otherwise loot wouldn't drop on kills. What you and your kind seem to have done is taken that system and expanded it to some sort of interpretation of EVE as a PvP-optional game where you are entitled to failfit your ships.
Quote:There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp. The problem is gankers dont want this because those people might shoot back and they could die to somone besides concord. I've heard of it. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2854
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 20:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: 1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.
OK, this is honestly the point where I just say no. You don't own anything in high sec. You hold no claim to anything in high sec beyond what's in your hangars, and your high sec structures and PIs. Now perhaps you could argue for kill rights on trespassers into the territory of your POS regardless of their corp status, or against those who are impeding on PI resources you claimed first in a way to "encourage" them to back off and as part of the DUST system where you and others could be fighting someone in an effort to claim the skies to help your dustbunny mercs, but beyond that? Yeah, no, there are places to hold those kind of claims. High sec isn't it. It's funny because your alliance leader Kelduum advocated a very similar system, except in his system someone would anchor a "0.0 bubble" in highsec where wardecs would be fought out. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2862
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:Just quoting the DEV be glad to dig it out for you and post the link if you want so you can argue with them over design. Please do so. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2864
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Indeed it is |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2866
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
this already exists its called battleclinic |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2871
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 23:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
yeah stop being irrational holly and help make highsec safer |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2872
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 01:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
wrong thread, one second |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2880
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 03:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Balthisus Filtch wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Ah the "carebear dollar" myth, where the baseless assertion that people who are absolutely PVP-intolerant form a significant part of the CCP's bottom line is pushed forward.
Have to point out how wrong you are. Seek out CCP's fanfest presentations from last year. Hi-sec dwellers are a very significant proportion of the game. People who mission a very heathly proportion of people that play the game. CCP would be absolutely mad to change the balance. And of course these are the very casual players who do pay for subscriptions money not ISK for plex. "Highsec dweller" and "mission runner" is not synonymous was "will unsub when confronted with PvP". I'd even assert that most players who join EVE are aware that nonconsensual PvP might happen, and started paying for subs anyway. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2880
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 04:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Apparently suicide ganking is too hard for some people, since they want the ability to wardec individual characters in an NPC corp, thus removing the expense of a suicide gank fleet. Perhaps they think the individual might undock in an expensive loot pi+Ķata while wardecced? I don't understand the reasoning. Apparently defending themselves or non-AFK gameplay in EVE is too hard for some people. So they make bizarre self-contradicting quips about how suicide ganking (an act of pilot error) is valid and common but someone undocking during a wardec (an act of pilot error) is absurd and futile, making wardec evasion reform pointless. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2880
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 04:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:The only thing about adjusting null sec that'd be a problem is if its done wrong, it'd just solidify existing alliances further, and just continue the status quo, except they'd be able to exert even more influence outside of it than they already do and be even harder to stop as they could afford to put more towards their own protection... so yeah, I can see why they aren't in a rush to do that. One appeal of the "farms and fields" idea for revamping nullsec is that if done along the same lines as FW with class-restricted sites, along with revamped POS industry, there would be ample opportunity for guerrilla warfare. Being able to spend an evening with a bunch of folks in frigates and cruisers, actually having some kind of impact on the big bad guys in nullsec in ways that they can't address by simply hot dropping a fleet on top of you: wouldn't that be awesome? Forget mission running, let's go plunder some gated sites in nullsec which produce valuable thing X. Or perhaps with ring mining it becomes in feasible to defend or attack with capital or supercapital ships, so ninja ring mining becomes "a thing"? If you wanted to have an effect on big nullsec alliances, why not attack their supply freighters autopiloting past you every day? Let's not delude ourselves into thinking there's titan bridges on standby to deal with the "Mara Rinn frigate roam threat". |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2883
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:If you wanted to have an effect on big nullsec alliances, why not attack their supply freighters autopiloting past you every day? Let's not delude ourselves into thinking there's titan bridges on standby to deal with the "Mara Rinn frigate roam threat". How do I know which freighters are part of the logistics chain for the alliance I wish to weaken? Eveskunk alliance standings, or a spy. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2885
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:If someone in an NPC corp undocks, they can be ganked. There is no need for a wardec. In most cases a suicide gank is the only way you will catch them because a wardec will send them turtling or corp hopping. Why are you obsessed with ganking as the solution to everything? Because anyone capable of basic math can make themselves immune to being ganked for profit, and Mara wants to pretend it as a compromise to his real goal which is purely consensual PvP in highsec. Oh, don't want to pay 600m to shoot at a freighter in highsec? I guess ganking is too hard. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2885
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Suicide ganking works. Wardecs do not work as a means of interdicting supply routes: they are trivially bypassed. Due to wardec evasion. Even the most trivial effort in intel gathering could find logistics alt corps to shoot at. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2886
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:What if I resupply by simply posting buy orders in station?
Your fanciful idea of wardecing every freighter pilot in the game will get you a world of frustration, before it will starve me of resources. There is always a workaround, of course, but why should it be cheap or easy for either side? As I said, it would not be cheap to wardec the npc corp to commit to this interdiction, and it would not be cheap to get your corp stocked via buy orders... to get someone to haul it all promptly would mean those buy orders would have to be way over market. So you wardec the NPC corp. This buys you lots of targets, but the freighter pilot shifts to a 2-person corp. You then wardec that corp, the player moves to a new corp. Ban NPC corps, make individuals decable, institute exponential corp cooldown timers to prevent corphop abuse. Simple stuff really. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2888
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 06:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:This is precisely why wardec evasion needs to be fixed and NPC corps need to go away. This sort of **** provides nearly complete safety in high-sec except from suicide ganking, which is quite avoidable unless you're a complete idiot. We almost have Trammel here in EVE for ****'s sake. My opinion differs. Your opinion is that the inclusion of wardecs (nonconsensual PVP) in EVE online is some sort of fluke and that evasion and subversion of the wardec mechanic is a legitimate and intended part of the game's design (despite being for the majority of EVE's existence deemed an exploit). That correcting these admitted errors in game design is 'futile' because players will find "new ways to circumvent it", despite when the most basic of fixes are applied, wardec evasion quickly becomes extremely costly if not outright unviable. Frankly, they aren't "opinions", they're unbacked claims. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Ah the "carebear dollar" myth, where the baseless assertion that people who are absolutely PVP-intolerant form a significant part of the CCP's bottom line is pushed forward, despite riskfree PvE expansions that catered to these people correlating with little growth and being considered failures.
I don't recall "PvE expansions" Tyrannis, Incursion
didn't really read past that point since I figured it was more of what I just quoted hth |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
"Banning NPC corps won't work because they'll corphop - fixing NPC corps is futile :smug:" "So just put an exponentially growing cooldown timer for corphops" *sputter* "b-b-but all the carebears will leave a-and eve will die" |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Your opinion is that the inclusion of wardecs (nonconsensual PVP) in EVE online is some sort of fluke and that evasion and subversion of the wardec mechanic is a legitimate and intended part of the game's design Hello Mr. Fairground Fortune Teller. Don't give up your daytime job .... My opinion is that wardecs provide a useful means for engaging in PvP in hisec. Evasion of wardecs is human nature: attempting to force people to fight is counter productive. Sounds like I was right on the money. Where I play, people "force fights" regularly upon one another. The difference is there's consequences for declining. And surprisingly, EVE there isn't dead. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:36:00 -
[28] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Like the above, your "solution" is NEVER going to be implemented. What fool would produce a MMO and suggest people to go play something else?
CCP Wrangler wrote:EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I'll post here what I just posted in another thread:
Repeat after me people: There is more to PvP than pew pew. Right and I'm the only one here (except for an enlightened few) who is capable of acknowledging that. I am trying to educate people here that EVE is at heart a sandbox based on a PvP-driven and centric economy, and that players who are "declining PvP" are doing anything but, their input and impact effecting all other players. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Ah the "carebear dollar" myth, where the baseless assertion that people who are absolutely PVP-intolerant form a significant part of the CCP's bottom line is pushed forward, despite riskfree PvE expansions that catered to these people correlating with little growth and being considered failures.
I don't recall "PvE expansions" Tyrannis, Incursion didn't really read past that point since I figured it was more of what I just quoted hth Tyrannis a PvE expansion? Then let's call implementing moons in nullsec PvE too. Every PI item I sell is money I take and compete for with someone else The market was an EVE feature that existed before Tyrannis. The EVE release that introduced the market was a PvP feature, Tyrannis was not.
Quote: Outside hi sec it's possible to shoot the PI structure, to make people pay "rental" and so on. Actually those structures are "PVP enablers" like gates and stations so I can't really see what you are trying to say.
POCOs were not introduced with Tyrannis. That was put in the Crucible expansion. That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$
hth |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:53:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Like the above, your "solution" is NEVER going to be implemented. What fool would produce a MMO and suggest people to go play something else?
CCP Wrangler wrote:EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for. Hey if you want I can also quote politic propaganda, advertisments, pyramidal schemes samples and so on. Words are nothing, money talks. Call me back once CCP actually follow up their words, ok? After carebear catering nearly killed EVE by alienating its decidedly non-"PvE only" playerbase, each and every EVE expansion has been focused towards enhancing PvP/emergent content content and mechanics, with things like POCOs (as you pointed out) and datacores being moved to FW so resources are geared towards those with risks. I'll keep pushing the removal of NPC corps and you're right, we'll see. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Those fights that you are talking about are easily evaded with "didn't want that sov anyway." The "consequence" is that you lose territory, which you can then claim back the next week when the invader has spent their energy and is busy carebearing it up.
Hm yes, you merely lose billions and infrastructure in assets and station access for not fighting, other then that consequence free.
Mara Rinn wrote:But please, continue telling me how hisec wardecs are like nullsec sovereignty warfare. They aren't, never said they were. You were claiming that if players couldn't 'NPC corp' out of PVP it would be some sort of gamekiller, despite nearly 100k EVE players thriving in such a scenario. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2889
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:08:00 -
[33] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You miss my point - they are not declining PvP - they are declining PewPew. There is a difference.
Take a mission bear, what do they do? They convert LP to isk - that applied ratio is PvP. They buy ammo - those orders are PvP. You see where I'm going.
Correct, they're competing against other players who do take risks (and NPC corps make engaging socially and cooperating in an MMO as 'needless risk') and lower the competitive bar towards ISK making in EVE to a level where not evading wardecs or engaging in any nonconsensual PvP becomes a competitive disadvantage. This is bad economically for many reasons, mainly because the rampant devaluation of ISk and commodities harms casuals and newbies as cumulative risk-free wealth is endlessly cycled into generating more wealth, creating increasing barriers between rich and poor - the ability to predate on wealthy targets, or the wealthy having to purchase protection no longer a constraint on this. It is also bad gamewise as mindless asocial isk farming is not a good recipe fun gameplay. And it's bad economically as CCP's NPE research is overwhelmingly pushing highsec player corporations like EVE UNI and RvB in order to retain newbies, something that wasn't happening with the boring but mechanically overwhelmingly advantageous NPC corp model.
You claim it is fine because of 'suicide ganking', but suicide ganking is not a risk so much as a calculation- anyone capable of basic math is able to avoid exceeding the ratio where ganking a ship becomes profitable. So "suicide ganking" is not an acceptable 'all the PvP needed in highsec". |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2891
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: The market was an EVE feature that existed before Tyrannis. The EVE release that introduced the market was a PvP feature, Tyrannis was not.
Tyrannis added products to the markets. And? Markets are PvP, Tyrannis did not 'the market' to EVE online, it added the Planetary Interface - a particularly boring piece of PvE.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: POCOs were not introduced with Tyrannis. That was put in the Crucible expansion. That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$
hth
Tyrannis was a sheet expansion like WiS but it was not "PvE" and lol at crucible being succesful "because of POCOs". Crucible improved TiDi, frigates, changed timers, changed sky backgrounds, introduced T3 BCs just to say a subset of stuff. That's a bit "more" than POCOs. I don't see "PvE" anywhere in that list. That's what I mean by 'that's why Crucible was successful', because it looked at PvE expansions like Tyrannis and Incursion, and concluded that the "silent carebear majority" that would threaten to leave if riskfree PvE was nerfed in anyway, didn't actually exist and wisely ignored the cries of their self-appointed champions. Incursions were nerfed, POCOs were added, lowsec and nullsec were given greater PI yields, etc. Competition and emergent content were recognized as the only future for EVE Online. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2891
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$ The only "care bear dollar" story that I'm aware of is the idea that if you take away too much PvE, players will drop their PvE alts. I'm sure that if decent PvE was introduced to the game, there would be new players subscribing for the new PvE experience. Quantum Rise and Incursion caused a decent increase in active players. Result: Incursion: Failure
nice source |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:28:00 -
[36] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Those in player corps can get to less tax, that's up to an 11% advantage right there, they can also get better refining/etc for dealing with the mission loots.
Doesn't effect mining yield or hauling cargo or manufacuring or research or logistics or any of the other countless things NPC corps confer advantages to other then charging a mighty 1% over the average player corp tax rate on shooting red crosses (ooo).
Quote:Besides, what happens if you dec a mission bear corp? Typically one of two things:
1) The one man corp reforms: no PewPew. 2) They do not undock: No PewPew. Net effect on market? Less than a suicide gank, most likely. 1) Institute exponential corphop cooldown timers. 2) Less cost on the part of the aggressor and increased system control.
Quote:Sometimes someone will screw up and get popped, but it's not that common Getting suicide ganked is a much larger and easier prevented screwup, and you say it happens all the time.
Quote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: You claim it is fine because of 'suicide ganking', but suicide ganking is not a risk so much as a calculation- anyone capable of basic math is able to avoid exceeding the ratio where ganking a ship becomes profitable. So "suicide ganking" is not an acceptable 'all the PvP needed in highsec". I never said it was - I said it is an acceptable answer to forcing PewPew onto people who don't want it. Wardecs are also an acceptable answer to people who don't want it. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Rico Minali wrote:Just put NPC corp tax up to 25%, that way if you want the safety of NPC corps you get it but at the price of isk. That way it is a valid choice rather than a default safety net.
Wouldnt really affect pure haulers but tbh who care about haulers. I don't think it would satisfy those with this particular axe to grind. They want to shoot people who dont want to fight and they want to pay as little as possible for the privilege. The privilege of PvP in a PvP-driven game. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Look at the +60D numbers.
Look at the overall "failure" conclusion Mara. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: It's you who mentioned POCOs addition like it was ~Crucible~. Not me.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Tyrannis a PvE expansion?...
Outside hi sec it's possible to shoot the PI structure, to make people pay "rental" and so on. Actually those structures are "PVP enablers" like gates and stations so I can't really see what you are trying to say.
Oh so you were just arguing that Tyrannis "wasn't a PvE expansion" because of features put in place with Crucible becauuuse.... |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Getting suicide ganked is a much larger and easier prevented screwup, and you say it happens all the time. I would suggest you frequent more mission hubs. Why?
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Wardecs are also an acceptable answer to people who don't want it. So you want a way to force your gameplay on other people and give them no recourse to object/evade the mechanic? They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:46:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored. I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:53:00 -
[42] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Where did you see me saying "they implemented POCOs in Tyrannis"?
I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored. I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart. The PvE exclusive lifecycle is unrelated to the "nerf the crap out of my hisec mission running ISK farming alt" argument. No it isn't. But at least unlike the other guy you're able to admit Incursion and Tyrannis were PvE-centric expansions. Maybe it's because you actually know what was in them, unlike Vaeras, or something else crazy. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord. Or, you could suck it up and pay the price to kill those you cannot kill legally. Why is that concept so abhorrent to you?. No problem with it at all - it's called a wardec. It should just work properly. What's so abhorrent about someone paying the price to kill those they cannot kill legally?
Morrigan LeSante wrote:How else would you term inescapable wardecs people don't want? It might be an over-dramatic turn of phrase, but what about it was inaccurate? I would describe it as nonconsensual PvP, something you say you have no problem with (because you support suicide ganking), and I have no problem with either. Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:09:00 -
[45] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Incursions, is the ONE enforced-social feature in the whole hi sec and you classify it like it's the evil? Social = content = interactions and even pew pew. Seriously, you have some very very odd views about game features. It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Quote:Quote:
I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible. I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to compete on planets resources. I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to get a freighter with 2B worth of PI popped. I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to sell PI at Jita. I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to find the structure camped in low and null. You should have gone back to pretending POCOs were released in Tyrannis, these are somehow even worse attempts to claim that Tyrannis was a "PvP expansion". |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that. There is still an active incursion community. They engage in PvP too, with various groups shutting down Incursions as a means of disrupting other people's game play. Your argument about "noone" continuing to play Incursions is easily falsified. oh okay I'll edit my post to say "except for 10 guys" or whatever, good point |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:31:00 -
[48] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest. Any time you buy a sell order....you're paying prices other have set. Or have you NEVER done that? Be able to 'opt out of the player driven market'? You already can. You do know manufacturing exists right? And that, if you were suitably motivated you could be completely self sufficient. You know defending yourself exists right? And that if you were suitably motivated you could win wars. Likewise, I feel I should give the manufacturers what I feel is a fair price for their wares for my catalysts, which I will use to shoot them, because I want to opt out of the player driven market without opting out of playerd driven combat. As I see it, this position is just as valid as your "opt out of PvP" stance.
Quote:I get it, I do: You want to shoot bears for the minimum possible cost to yourself- wrongQuote:and that's fine - but that is absolutely not a reason to screw with the NPC corps, imo. It absolutely is. Suicide ganking is not intended to be the only form of nonconsensual PvP in highsec, sorry. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:33:00 -
[49] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:oh okay I'll edit my post to say "except for 10 guys" or whatever, good point Just like nullsec is entirely Alex Gianturco and his thousand alts, right? Nullsec has more PvP ship losses then the rest of EVE combined. The "incusion community" has dropped off the face of the earth since 140m ticks were no longer available. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2894
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
^lol |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2901
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
So RFF's secret is that it actually works as a team and is at the keyboard when they haul? Removing NPC corps - no harm done. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2919
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 02:29:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tesal wrote:The list of things that some people want to do to hi-sec carebears keeps getting longer and longer. Mine can be summed in two. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2922
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 06:49:00 -
[53] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
No, what does and will happen is that those "open" corporations would be infested by griefers using every possible opportunity to plunder, pillage and burn. Thus we have layers of suspicion: I will recruit you into our quarantine corp. in that corp there are no assets of value apart from other player's ships. Some people can accept this, others find the lack of trust constrictive.
The EVE-born corps are at a disadvantage because they have no way of providing out-of-game consequences for in-game idiocy.
Or more importantly, in-game consequences because of wardec evasion. Another example of how NPC corps hurt newbies and disincentive working together in an MMO. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2923
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:06:00 -
[54] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: To be fair, by that logic, either way someone's will is getting imposed... honestly the guy mentioning expanding on a FW style system might be on to something... something to give wardecs more purpose rather than simply being about, "I want to kill this guy" and often "I want to kill this guy because he's an easy target"... heck, something maybe to make even New Order happy, but perhaps more exposed? A lot of stuff they could do really that'd encourage sticking with corps, getting out of the stations, etc rather than making high sec virtually pointless because a few people don't like it.
I proposed this back on page 2, where consequences for failing a wardec might be denial of access to a belt, or use of a station's services (not its ability to dock), but you were rampantly against the idea a because "highsec is for everyone". How could 'negative consequences' be had for failing a war but not impact their ability to generate ISK or hinder their mobility or options in any way is something of a mystery. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2924
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
The only futility I see is taking a pro-NPC corp, pro-wardec evasion stance. Shutting down someone's operation + their alts would have cost, which would balance it from being placed on every newbie seen. Players that can afford protection and worth the wardec fee will have to adapt instead of expect free wardec immunity and riskfree, contentless grinding in a competitve player-driven MMO.
You ask "I question if anyone would have that kind of money", then point to a 'suicide gank' system that costs 600m-1b minimum to shoot at a lone freighter as an example of a 'balanced' highsec system. Aren Madigan wrote:I'm against your suggested style of it... I'm for adding new things that encourage war decs and corps and not slap the faces of individuals however. Corporations are collections of individuals. Players who play solo make a decided cost/benefit analysis if the smaller footprint and independence of being a lone wolf is worth the tradeoff being isolated when someone has violence in mind. As opposed to now where every benefit and advantage (except for a 11% bounty tax that effects a small minority of PvE activities) is geared towards advanced an asocial gameplay setting. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2925
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:29:00 -
[56] - Quote
Attacking truly casual individuals who only log in a few times a week isn't cost-effective, so less people would waste a wardec fee on them, instead picking on the solo mission grinder in a 4bil pimp ratting ship. Either the optimized isk farmer would have to start taking on overhead of some kind to keep his playstyle safe against wardecs, economically evening the field with said casuals and newbies, or he takes the risk of becoming a loot pinata. Replacing NPC corps with wardecs against individuals is the furthest thing from 'anti-casual' or 'anti-newbie'. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2928
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:01:00 -
[57] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:The only futility I see is taking a pro-NPC corp, pro-wardec evasion stance. Shutting down someone's operation + their alts would have cost, which would balance it from being placed on every newbie seen. Players that can afford protection and worth the wardec fee will have to adapt instead of expect free wardec immunity and riskfree, contentless grinding in a competitve player-driven MMO.
You ask "I question if anyone would have that kind of money", then point to a 'suicide gank' system that costs 600m-1b minimum to shoot at a lone freighter as an example of a 'balanced' highsec system. Never pointed to suicide ganks at any point myself, but I will point out its an example of high sec ganking not being meant to be all that profitable by design. All I see from your thoughts is asking to be able to bribe to game to gank whoever you feel like at the time, which isn't a viable gameplay mechanic, its being a ****. How is suicide ganking not profitable? the 'profit' is solely determined by the value the pilot has willingly put in the ship vs. EHP. Reworded, you're saying a mechanic where a T1 thrasher can take out a noobship filled with dozens of PLEX "isn't profitable". I'm sure the thrasher pilot would disagree.
All I see from your thoughts is someone who thinks highsec = consensual PvP. Which makes as much sense as supporting a "consensual market" where I pay what I feel what is a fair price for others' work. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2928
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:05:00 -
[58] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:
Notice the wardecs are against corps, not whoever looks at you wrong. Notice how wardecs are against player corps. Notice how those things are group vs group in theory and not a group picking on this lone individual.
These examples fail because nothing's stopping individuals from wardeccing large groups, which at present is the majority of wardecs of a PvP main (with his PvE assets carefully protected) declaring war on something with lots of targets because large groups find it more difficult to enjoy instant NPC corp protection. This distinction is also entirely irrelevant because 'individuals' take part in the EVE player-driven economy just as much as an individual with a corp ticker. The presence of a corp ticker doesn't change any of that. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2928
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:09:00 -
[59] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: Oh hey, guess what, its that individuals choice if he wants to do something crazy like that. His choice, crazy, huh? Plus corps give access to a lot of cool benefits. In fact, I'd dare say they have a lot more of an effect on the economic state of things than individuals do on their own. Individuals can do a lot of the same things, sure, but not nearly as efficiently. You just won't be happy unless you can blast people back down to their rookie ships and then quit.
Right, as it is his choice to defend himself if he was on the receiving end of the wardec, or do any number of available options and choices given to him after the goto corphop and NPC corp options were removed. Crazy, huh? As El Digin established, the best benefit a player corp could possible offer is wardec immunity, if one's goal is to grind isk risk free, the definition of 'efficiency'. You just won't be happy until forcing newbies and casuals to try and outgrind 100-man multibox fleets with no content, and emergent content is dead in the name of Trammel-ized EVE. This assigning attributes thing is fun. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2937
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:El Digin wrote: This is what this game is all about. You have described this game to a T. But you know what, there's ways you can play the big boys against eachother. Or start your own exclusive club of people who hate the big boys.
Really, because I was more under the impression that was more what low sec and null sec was about. High sec being some protection from those attitudes. Key word obviously being some. As in not total. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2942
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 03:02:00 -
[61] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:I hardly see the point of high sec though if you're pretty much going to remove part of its purpose, and given the nature of the game, if you want new people to enjoy it? If you want people who may not the best to learn, they need room to do so, not be forced to either hide, making them playing pointless, or die and die and die until they are stuck in a rookie ship. If you want people in player corps, they need to be good fits, otherwise all you get is discontent. Not something you want in any game. NPC corps don't help newbies and aren't relevant to their discussion - if anyone wanted to gank a newbie out of the game or into rookie ships, they could easily do so without wardecs - just a handful of catalysts. Cheaper then a wardec, most likely. For a character who can't access ships with high HP that require lots of SP, armor plates and a DCU are better 'pro newbie' features then an NPC corp. It's quite advantageous for the veterans multibox fleet though who crush the newbies economically with their cumulative wealth as well.
I almost forgot, NPC corps assure though that the griefed newbie will never have any sort of recourse beyond auctioning the kill right.
Quote:EDIT: And hell, I'd be up for making calling CONCORD a manual thing... no more AFK protection. Can do other things while you mine and such, but gotta be alert enough to call CONCORD before or soon after you blow... or just be auto on podding. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2947
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 03:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: OK, I'm just going to come out and say this, how does not being in a player corp automatically mean they only play solo? They could work with various other people from various corps, NPC and player. Being in an NPC corp does not automatically mean solo play, it just means they don't have a specific group. And why should they be forced to?
Welcome to page 1 of this thread - NPC corps are used by large entities to gain competitive advantage over those who don't, while pressuring solo players to do likewise to adopt an asocial, low-risk, low emergent content "playstyle" in order to remain economically competitive. They should be forced to do so because it is bad for the game, disincentivising bonds and socialization in an MMO where those qualities are crucial for player retention.
Quote:And also, Nicolo, note that specifically note that targeting a person to that extent does fall under griefing pretty distinctly, as it should. Funny how mechanics are also built to largely prevent that from happening with any efficiency, isn't it? Right, NPC corps don't protect newbies. GM intervention protects newbies. So NPC corps and their wardec immunity can be removed since the mechanic that actually protects newbies (GMs) is still there. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2952
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 05:55:00 -
[63] - Quote
all hail Goon Swarm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2975
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 01:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:EI Digin wrote:It doesn't take 2 to 3 weeks to get into a decent corp. Quite often in the decent large corps I've noticed you need a friend in that corp, or essentially gotta go through a waiting list, or whatever. I'm not sure how true this is for TEST or Goons, but I'm preeeetty sure there's a reason that EVE has this reputation: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20120625Just saying. The possibility of betrayal is what gives trust meaning. Likewise, the risk and the potential of loss is what gives ships and goods meaning. |
|
|
|