Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
812
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 14:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:I like what i read, but will note something about Lvl5: I earn, averaged, some 600-700 million per month. An optimal fit for a Lvl4 runner (T2/Faction BS with Complex/Faction tank & Faction/T2 gank) costs above 2 billion ISK, and easily 2.5 billion. So in case I lost my ship, it would take me up to 4 months of playing to get back on my feet. FOUR MONTHS. I kind of wonder what mentally handicapped person thought that someone like me would either: - dismiss earning 600 million per month by running lvl5 in ships I can afford to lose or bring in mates & share rewards - risk to being out of game for 4 months due to a single PvP encounter. - spend some 100 euros buying GTC to rebuild instantly my lost ship ...just in order to "run Lvl5 the way CCP thought we should". No way. If I as much as smell a hint of a possibility that there may be a chance of being camped/ninjaed, i will say f**k you to any "reward" that comes to such ginormous risk.
You might want to consider that your earning potential will be significantly higher if you are doing level 5s. You might also want to consider that if having such an expensive ship so limits your earning potential, then you might actually be better off using a cheaper one. Or maybe have a cheaper ship for the riskier options. You can have more than one ship....
But in any case - it doesn't matter. If you don't enjoy the prospect of taking a risk, that's fine. Carry on as you were. The Manifesto is about offering hi-sec dwellers the choice to engage in risky-but-lucrative gameply at their convenience. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Reislier
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 15:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Introduction: So given that only a small fraction of hi-sec players are the kind of player that hi-sec was designed for, what needs to change and for whom?
Maybe what needs to change, is the perception of high sec from what it started out to be, to what it actually is.. or has evolved into. Your assessment of high sec today seems very accurate.
It is what it is and what it is attracts the majority of players today.
It seems to me that the real question is in determining how to alter the universe without sending people screaming into the street.
Changes in null, like modifying sov mechanics, would alter the basis for opportunity there but simply discussing the possibility would be met with huge resistance. . and potential street screaming.. people in a niche do hang on tightly.
Likewise in high sec, people have found their niche and will not easily be dislodged.
IGÇÖm inclined to view it this way. Eve is suffering from entrenchment of play styles and it is too far down that road to change now. Eve customers will most certainly run screaming into the street.. like this summer.
Incentives and disincentives rarely affect a personGÇÖs preference in how they play a game. CCP can change whatever they please, but If I donGÇÖt like it.. I have a horny wife that hates Eve anyway. Refine what is.. in incremental steps, mitigate nerfs to niches.
Introduce new space with natural laws that create new improved niches for the Eve niche seekers. Do some balancing there and build the rules around this space based on lessons learned from high, low, null, and wormhole space.
What would it take to attract players from all niches into closer interaction? If a new gate popped up on the edge of high sec, what kind of environment would attract everyone? If there is no answer to that question, then niches are here to stay and the status quo will just have to do.
|
Mal Darkrunner
Zero Tau Research Institute
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 16:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts in this thread yet, but one point really grabbed my attention ...
It could be really interesting to see a smoother "gradient" between (and within) hi-sec and low-sec, so rather than have a big jump in relative safety between a 0.5 and a 0.4 system (but not much variation between 0.1 and 0.4 or between 0.5 and 1.0), the difference would be more continuous.
For example (very roughly):
- In a 0.1 system there might not be any station/gate guns, but bubbles would not be anchorable.
- In a 0.2 system there would be station guns but no gate guns.
- In a 0.3 system there would be both station guns and gate guns, but they would not be as powerful as those in a 0.4
- In a 0.4 system there would be more powerful station guns and gate guns, and there would be a small chance of faction navy or pirate navy NPCs spawning when a criminal act takes place
- In a 0.5 system the faction navy (rather than Concord) would respond in force to criminal acts - sufficiently prepared ships could tank or avoid them for a short period, but would eventually be overwhelmed (the navy might call in Concord reinforcements if they were unable to handle the situation). All hi-sec systems would have powerful gate and station guns.
- In a 0.6 system Concord would respond to criminal acts, but their response time would be slower than in higher security systems.
- In a 0.7 system the Concord response time would be quicker, and there would be a very small chance of faction navy patrols appearing at gates and stations (tankable/avoidable if prepared).
- In a 0.8 system the Concord response time would be quicker and in greater numbers, and there would be a small to medium chance of faction navy patrols at gates and stations (still tankable/avoidable).
- In a 0.9 system the Concord response time would be quicker still, and there would be a medium to high chance of faction navy patrolling gates and stations, and a small chance of them patrolling asteroid belts.
- In a 1.0 system the Concord response would be almost instant, there would be constant faction navy patrols at stations and gates, and there would be a good chance of the navy patrolling the belts too.
Moving from a 1.0 system to a 0.5 system (or a 0.4 system to a 0.1 system) would involve a noticable drop in security, and would be accompanied by a comparable increase in potential reward for those willing to deal with the increased risk.
The faction navy patrols in hi-sec systems should not be permanent, but should move around the system periodically (and perhaps unpredictably), and should respond to events that occur on-grid with them (but not off-grid). A can flipper in a 0.9 system might then need to dodge the patrols (so might a suicide ganker), whereas a can-flipper or ganker in a 0.7 system would not. A smuggler could travel relatively safely in a 0.5 system, and could get through 0.8 and 0.9 systems provided they dodged the navy. A 1.0 system would be difficult for them to navigate successfully due to the frequency of navy patrols.
I could add a whole host of other ideas to this, but rather than talk specifics I would prefer to use the above list as an example of the type of change that could be made to make hi-sec and low-sec more interesting.
Discuss. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
820
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 16:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
That's exactly the kind of gradiated difference I had in mind, but lacked the space and time to spell out (I wrote the OP while in fleet) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Kinguard
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 17:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
Another great post from Malcanis.
Basicly, in my opinion, lowering more secured system earnings and rising lower seciurty system earning in all aspects bounties (i.e killing bounty pays %100 in 0.0 and %95 in 0.1 etc) , missions etc may draw players to lower sec systems.
And after all do not fly what you can not afford. People visited RvB know well about this core idea |
Miraqu
Marquie-X Corp
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 18:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
+1 for this from me.
If you are going to tie the risks to the actual security level, why should one not ditch the current low-sec/high sec system entirely?
Which System is highly secure should be seen from the security level. The current distinction is rather between high-sec and (almost) no sec with no real distinctive meaning why 0.5 should be very safe but 0.4 very unsafe.
Most previous posters had very good ideas in that direction. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
826
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 19:02:00 -
[37] - Quote
Miraqu wrote:+1 for this from me.
If you are going to tie the risks to the actual security level, why should one not ditch the current low-sec/high sec system entirely?
Which System is highly secure should be seen from the security level. The current distinction is rather between high-sec and (almost) no sec with no real distinctive meaning why 0.5 should be very safe but 0.4 very unsafe.
Most previous posters had very good ideas in that direction.
Interesting proposal... it's more radical than I wanted to be in my OP, but long term, I think you might have something there. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Mai Khumm
Unseen Technologies Permanent Mental Syndrome
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 20:04:00 -
[38] - Quote
+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...
You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
833
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 20:06:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...
You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM...
Clark's Other Law: Anyone seeking office is axiomatically unsuitable for it.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Feligast
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 21:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Mai Khumm wrote:+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...
You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM... Clark's Other Law: Anyone seeking office is axiomatically unsuitable for it.
Quoted for absolute truth.
And +1s to your ideas, seems to be very well thought out, everyone gets attention.. well done, good sir. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
104
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 23:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
+ 1
Wish stuff like this came around more often. Nice and well rounded... it's about time that someone put it together like this. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 23:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
Wonderful thread!
If I may nitpick . . .
Malcanis said: GÇ£Well for genuinely new players, not that much. Actual new players are acceptably well catered for IMO. Personally, I'd be in favour of reforming the 1.0 systems to be one per faction, with one station per starting NPC corp within that faction in each system, much stronger protective rules, but with the major change being that once you leave a 1.0, you can't come back in.GÇ¥
1) Sorta busts CCPs single shard approach 2) WhoGÇÖd service the noob markets? For the early part of my EvE career I specialized in selling to the never ending supply of noobs. They could build and experiment with their little ships. I made decent ISK and felt much warm fuzzy that I was doing my market based part to nurse them along.
DireNecessity |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
197
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 01:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
One issue I see with the gradient security idea that would need a lot of tweaking to get right:
As it is right now, there's a distinct line between high, low, and null. You're warned when you cross that line and you know what to expect in each region. Creating more subtle variance between them would make that "wall" much less defined and result in newer players wandering into regions they aren't prepared for simply because they the gradual transition lulls them into not seeing the drop in security.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do it right so that Eve doesn't become less accommodating to the needs of new players. |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 02:30:00 -
[44] - Quote
Apologies for jumping in again but I discover I have more to say.
As a full time Hi-Sec dwelling criminal, l let me expound on my major preference for the location: I get to turn heightened awareness on and off at off at will. If IGÇÖm in the mood to pay close attention I start engaging in criminal activity and see what develops. If IGÇÖm not in the mood I mind my PDQs and am comparatively free to blithely ignore my surroundings. I get to dabble in the very intense and the very relaxing.
Eve has its gentle pleasures. One of those is getting really efficient at something. If you happen to be a Hi-Sec miner you can train and work your way into pleasing expertise. If you happen to be a Hi-Sec mission runner the long train and much work into a blinged out Marauder yields a stunningly proficient LvL 4 experience. I went the mission runner route and eventually faced the malaise inducing problem of topping out. Reaching the end of that long ladder and moving on to something else can be a wrenching gaming experience because it means abandoning much of what oneGÇÖs become really good at.
I thought Facton Warfare was going to be the next step for me. There are faction missions, IGÇÖm a mission expert, letGÇÖs do this thing. Turned out the missions were cake easy and the hard part was running the gate camps to get to them. In a terrible case of perverse incentive, Faction Warfare mostly taught me how to avoid PvP.
One of the complexities of Hi-Sec PvP is that in busy systems you have no way of knowing how many of the occupants in the 50+ count local are not neutral but rather NPC corp based RR wielding combatants itching to jump in on the fight. Solo/small scale gang fighting is discouraged; especially for the casual player who isnGÇÖt in a position to organize sneaky cross corp fleets.
A mechanic that in certain very specific situations enabled a player to know who they were really facing could greatly enhance Hi-Sec small scale PvP appealing to casual players. Perhaps PvP missions that: 1) Carts the combatants off to a dead space pocket for relatively isolated combat 2) Slaps the combatants into a fleet together so they know exactly who theyGÇÖre facing 3) Enables you to fit for PvP. Any experienced mission runner worth their salt wonGÇÖt engage in PvP with their PvE ship as they know theyGÇÖre almost certain to lose 4) Like all missions, these could scale up: Frigate missions, Cruiser missions, BB missions, etc. . . 5) Given that youGÇÖre now missioning against other players youGÇÖll never top out since players, unlike NPCs, are a crafty, crafty lot
This reeks of GÇ£arenaGÇ¥ and I'm sure it's been suggested before but I proffer it just the same.
DireNecessity
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
845
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 13:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
DireNecessity wrote:
One of the complexities of Hi-Sec PvP is that in busy systems you have no way of knowing how many of the occupants in the 50+ count local are not neutral but rather NPC corp based RR wielding combatants itching to jump in on the fight.
This applies to gankers as well as mission runners.... Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
krakshar
New Eclipse Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 18:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
Malcanis President..Malcanis President !! CSm first..but after..president !! Nice post |
Tamir Lenk
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 20:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skunk Gracklaw wrote:Malcanis wrote:Andski wrote:I'd vote for you with a cyno account, v0v There could be no higher compliment. I'd vote for you with my spy character in initiativeDOT I've always assumed that I'm the only member of initiativeDOT who isn't a spy. The fig-leaf of legitimacy, as it were.
Let me know if you change your mind on that one.
|
Bryson McRock
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 23:00:00 -
[48] - Quote
MaiLina KaTar wrote:Malcanis wrote:The risk side of the equation is complex; the high sec system will have more people in it, but fewer of them will be actively looking to attack you. It's also worth noting that anyone aggressing someone in a lo-sec deadspace is stuck inside that deadspace until their GCC clears. That might lead to some extremely interesting gameplay possibilities, with pirates hunting mission runners being stuck inside a fixed area for 15 minutes.
It would also answer the long-standing desire by mission runners to be able to shoot savlagers taking "their" salvage. The way I see it pan out is much rather PvE ships shot down or driven out instantly because they're being attacked by NPCs and PvP fitted raiders simultaneously. Unless you gimp your profits severely via suboptimal fits and / or escort, you will not stand a chance against someone entering your mission and attacking you in a pvp rig. Agression timers won't make much of a difference. The opportunity to retaliate will be answered by the attacker selecting his targets carefully, just blobbing up on them or suicide ganking. Hence, the decks are stacked heavily against the PvE player because his projected profit is axed by the high risk of various pvp encounters in a high pop density environment. In low-/nullsec it only takes a glance at local chat and a judgement call to mitigate that risk. That alone changes the equation drastically. True.
I haven't read all until now, but I want answer / have a suggestion about this, because else i will forget my thoughts until i am at the End :)
What if we would change the mechanics of the Rats that if someone is being attacked they change their aggression to the attacker and bring in some more webber/scrambler against him?
I mean if I would be a Rat and some dude tries to kill my Target I would get much more aggressed against him than against my well tanked Target which i am already shooting at for long time (yeah I know a little bit RP sorry about that ;)).
It just have to be made carefully not that the Logistics getting aggro which are i guess nescessary in L5 missions.
|
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 00:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
**** this forum I was writing The Bible it ate it all are you replete
|
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 03:42:00 -
[50] - Quote
Trying to concoct PvP likely missions appealing to dedicated Hi-Sec mission runners is rather difficult.
Assumption: I presume weGÇÖre talking about relatively solo mission runners. I presume this because many Hi-Sec mission runners often/usually run solo.
Assumption 2: I presume we want to promote Hi-Sec mission runner PvP as it would be an exciting alternative for them in their cozy Hi-Sec home.
1st difficulty: If itGÇÖs a challenging mission, the player will have to bring a dedicated PvE boat or get stomped by rats. Sadly, PvE boats are far from ideal when thrust into PvP.
2nd difficulty: If you reduce the difficulty of the mission to enable PvP fits the mission probably ought not pay very well. If thatGÇÖs the case it loses appeal to the dedicated mission runner. Ask a dedicated mission runner whoGÇÖs blitzing through Hi-Sec Lvl 4 missions how often they do level 1s in a throw away frigate GÇô probably not very often.
3rd difficulty: The relatively solo mission runner has no way to judge or control the scale of the PvP engagement. When an interloper wanders into his mission the interloper probably isnGÇÖt alone. To engage the interloper is likely suicide. This is especially frightening if your mission isnGÇÖt located in Hi-Sec as the interloper and his buddies can just up and shoot at you. One can get around this difficulty by controlling who can get into the mission dead space but it smacks of GÇ£arena,GÇ¥ and doesnGÇÖt feel much like EvE.
4th difficulty: This is important but a little difficult to explain. Missions provide gentle but instant action. The minute you warp through that jump gate you know itGÇÖs going to be rat central and itGÇÖs time to get to work. PvP occasionally includes a lot of sitting around waiting for things to develop. Patience may not be appealing to the dedicated mission runner.
>>><<<
All that being said, hereGÇÖs an idea for PvP likely missions that may navigate these problems. TheyGÇÖd go something like this:
Agent: Convoy XXX has vitally crucial materials. I need you to escort it through safely. Be warned, the enemy knows how crucial this convoy is and may even send in a fellow capsuleer to destroy it.
The Mechanics: Similar to Faction Warfare, missions have specific ship size/type limitations as well as access to the mission dead space limitations -- it's been a long time but as I recall only two players could squeeze into a faction mission at any one time.
When the mission runner jumps into the dead space a timer starts GÇô keep the convoy alive for 5 minutes and complete the mission.
If an opposing player takes a Kill Convoy XXX mission around the same time heGÇÖs sent to that mission dead space to stop the convoy. As the now two opposing players are the greatest danger to each otherGÇÖs mission objective theyGÇÖll be highly motivated to engage each other GÇô automatic aggression to each other allows this.
Instant action is provided to the save the convoy missioner by having convoy killing rats spawn in if no opposing player is immediately available. The save the convoy player will be highly motivated to attack the rats since they can destroy his objective all by themselves. Rats stop spawning in if an opposing player shows up. Rats only attack the convoy. Rats donGÇÖt attack the save the convoy player so heGÇÖs pristine if an opposing player shows up.
At the 4 minute mark an opposing player will not be sent to the mission GÇô this allows the kill the convoy player a chance to actually kill the convoy. The save the convoy player, who also knows heGÇÖs now opposing player free begins facing escalating super rats that spawn in for the remainder of the mission to keep it interesting.
Kill the opposing player bounty ought to be big money.
This is probably nothing original, may be a sideshow for this much broader thread and may be a difficult set of mechanics for CCP to assemble and still feels a lot like "arena" but I present it just the same.
DireNecessity
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
863
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 06:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
DireNecessity wrote:Excellent stuff
Honestly I wasn't thinking of anything more than the fun of racing to complete a mission before the "bad guys" can notice me, probe me and catch me. I've long said that PvE in EVE needs a radical reform to become more 'PvP-like' (fewer, smarter rats, realistic tactics that require points, webs, ECM, etc rather than simply MOAR DEEPEES etc etc).
But that's for another Manifesto...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Incursion rats treat the original PvEers and any interloping PvPers a lot more equally? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 13:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Re: Rats I canGÇÖt speak to Incursion rats but as a player who makes it her business to poke around in other playerGÇÖs missions I can say that IGÇÖve seen no particular evidence that rats tend to attack one player or the other. Rather, once a rat aggresses a particular player they stay aggressed to that particular player through thick and thin. Changing this substantially would create great anguish for players who utilize the inflexibility of rat aggression. Example: Mission Runner brings in a big tanking boat to draw and withstand withering rat aggression. Friendly buddies are now free to move about the mission in their speedy little rat ganking boats and/or even start salvaging in the midst of withering rat fire not directed at them. Mission runners adore this since itGÇÖs terribly efficient.
But we digress. This kind of detail belongs in your upcoming Mission Manifesto.
Malcanis Wrote: GÇ£As an example of quantative differences, suppose that all industrial, research and refining had a sec-based modifer applied after all other bonuses had been taken into account. Say -1% per sec level. This would mean for instance that refining ore in a 0.9 would have a maximum possible efficiency of 91%, but in a 0.5 you could get 95%. Likewise ship/module building production and material efficiency would be similarly reduced, so there would be an incentive to conduct these activities in lower sec systems where one can build faster and more efficiently at the cost of higher risk. (Alert students will note that this would also make quiet lo-sec systems more attractive for some industrial activities).GÇ¥
As a game mechanic this makes great sense. Might be a hard sell though since it 1) feels punitive and 2) is hard to support in game lore GÇô thereGÇÖs no particular reason a reprocessing facility in .8 should be less efficient than one in .4.
An alternate approach can achieve much the same thing. Dynamic taxes that vary with system security (low in Lo-sec, higher in Hi-sec, nill in 0.0). One might even incorporate the change as a completely new tax that applies to all transactions GÇô call it the Concord Surcharge. If you want more Concord protection, you gotta pay for it. TGÇÖwould also generate delicious mixed feelings about the space police.
DireNecessity
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
865
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 13:19:00 -
[53] - Quote
DireNecessity wrote: Re: Rats I canGÇÖt speak to Incursion rats but as a player who makes it her business to poke around in other playerGÇÖs missions I can say that IGÇÖve seen no particular evidence that rats tend to attack one player or the other. Rather, once a rat aggresses a particular player they stay aggressed to that particular player through thick and thin. Changing this substantially would create great anguish for players who utilize the inflexibility of rat aggression.
I feel I could endure a substatial amount of such anguish, and I say that as someone who makes his ISK doing missions
(you're more than welcome to my salvage, by the way)
DireNecessity wrote: Malcanis Wrote: GÇ£As an example of quantative differences, suppose that all industrial, research and refining had a sec-based modifer applied after all other bonuses had been taken into account. Say -1% per sec level. This would mean for instance that refining ore in a 0.9 would have a maximum possible efficiency of 91%, but in a 0.5 you could get 95%. Likewise ship/module building production and material efficiency would be similarly reduced, so there would be an incentive to conduct these activities in lower sec systems where one can build faster and more efficiently at the cost of higher risk. (Alert students will note that this would also make quiet lo-sec systems more attractive for some industrial activities).GÇ¥
As a game mechanic this makes great sense. Might be a hard sell though since it 1) feels punitive and 2) is hard to support in game lore GÇô thereGÇÖs no particular reason a reprocessing facility in .8 should be less efficient than one in .4.
An alternate approach can achieve much the same thing. Dynamic taxes that vary with system security (low in Lo-sec, higher in Hi-sec, nill in 0.0). One might even incorporate the change as a completely new tax that applies to all transactions GÇô call it the Concord Surcharge. If you want more Concord protection, you gotta pay for it. TGÇÖwould also generate delicious mixed feelings about the space police.
DireNecessity
Yes I was thinking of it on a tax basis, but you could also very easily give it a perfectly good RP basis with considerations such as pesky health and safety laws, child labor restrctions, and so forth that will be more strictly applied in higher sec areas.
If you imagine a station in 0.1 sec as being like a Chinese sweatshop vs a station in 1.0 as being Scandinavian engineering outfit, then a mere 10% modifier actually seems rather small.
EDIT: I do like calling it the CONCORD surcharge though. Especially in a regime where the CONORD response is more... gradiated than it is now. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 21:45:00 -
[54] - Quote
I fear we may becoming a mere echo chamber to each other but itGÇÖs a pleasing sound so I continue.
Malcanis wrote: Yes I was thinking of it on a tax basis, but you could also very easily give it a perfectly good RP basis with considerations such as pesky health and safety laws, child labor restrctions, and so forth that will be more strictly applied in higher sec areas.
If you imagine a station in 0.1 sec as being like a Chinese sweatshop vs a station in 1.0 as being Scandinavian engineering outfit, then a mere 10% modifier actually seems rather small.
EDIT: I do like calling it the CONCORD surcharge though. Especially in a regime where the CONORD response is more... gradiated than it is now.
Well put GÇô a powerful argument for both dynamic efficiency and dynamic taxes. On to dynamic Concord response . . .
When it comes to Concord response, EvE seems to be split into three broad spaces: 1) Hi-Sec where up and ganking a player generates a sudden brutal response and delivers security status hits to the ganker. 2) So called Lo-Sec where, in practice, Concord delivers no response to ganking beyond pesky security status hits. 3) Lawless other places where Concord has no sway.
The cautious Hi-Sec player is happy to face the Hi-Sec suicide gank risk since it can be mitigated by not being a tempting target. Step out of Hi-Sec however and thereGÇÖs no way to mitigate target status since the attacker mustnGÇÖt factor in suicide costs. Let me take a crack at this GÇ£EverythingGÇÖs AOK/Uh uh, ainGÇÖt gonna do itGÇ¥ distinction with a shout out to the upcoming changes in pod kill mails.
1) Hi-Sec: Up and ganking a playerGÇÖs ship or pod generates a sudden and brutal Concord response as well as security status hits. GÇ£Concord has your back son.GÇ¥
2) Medium-Sec: Up and ganking a player ship generates no Concord response but delivers a security status hit. Up and ganking a pod generates a sudden and brutal Concord response as well as a security status hit. GÇ£WeGÇÖd love to do more but havenGÇÖt the resources to respond to anything beyond egregious pod ganking.GÇ¥
3) Lo-Sec: Up and ganking a playerGÇÖs boat or pod delivers no Concord response beyond a security status hit. GÇ£YouGÇÖre out on the frontier now son. We keep an eye on things but havenGÇÖt the resources to do anything about it.GÇ¥
4) Completely lawless other places.
The hope is that for players willing to treat ships as expendable, Medium-Sec is an enticing option. In practice the difference is probably only psychological since one can hop into a cheap jump clone making being podded relatively painless but the merely psychological might be enough.
Such an approach isnGÇÖt intended as the only changes GÇô incorporating other gradations (many excellent suggestions already mentioned) would be appropriate.
DireNecessity
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
870
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 22:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
I think there should be a CONCORD response to the forum design team who let the "forum ate my big long detailed post" bug go through.
And when I say "CONCORD response" I am talking about my size 10 para boots Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 07:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
Malcanis it took you a lot of words to say "i don't want anyone in EVE to make it unless they do what i did". You have drank the kool-aid of risk vs reward that is a total fabrication in the EVE universe. EVE is structured as a time = rewards game pure and simple.
If you want to serve up never ending batches of noobs to be devoured in low and null sec your plan is brilliant! If you want to ruin the gameplay for high sec industrialists aka carebears because they don't want to be your targets your ideas are nifty!
Lets' talk straight here for a moment and cut the crap you veteran "PVP ELITISTS" constantly peddle. There is no risk vs reward when a Vagabond shoots a webbed/ scrambled/ neuted Catalyst his gate camp gang has snagged. Real risk vs reward would mean the single ship regardless of class would have a weapon option unseeable on scans that would destroy or disable numerous ships within tackling range. A one shot burst that overheats and damages the ship using it perhaps even fatally more times then not. Then his friends could jump in and finish off the gate campers who were out of range or just disabled. Now that is a real mutual risk vs possible reward scenario.
Why is it there are no weapons a single ship can deliver that disables or off lines a TCU, seems like EVE has no real PVP pirates that can destabilize the big self serving Alliances that own Null, now slipping into an Alliance sov system to offline their TCU that would be risk but oh the rewards would be huge! Sabotage as a precursor to invasion or robbery.
If you want more high sec players in low and null level the playing field and give some risk to the fat cat pvp elitists who can't even understand that a carebear does not want to lose his hard earned long trained for mining ship to a bunch of sadistic griefers who fly around in ships with a billion isk worth of deadspace mods that make them all but invulnerable in their Sov Alliance systems.
Change the herd dynamic of ganking, right now if you are mining and another player in the belt , perhaps a friend, gets ganked, all you can do is warp out like a scared herd animal. Why not give us the option to attack anyone in system that is aggressing another player if we choose, in another corp or in a NPC noob corp shouldn't matter a player should be given the chance to help instead of fleeing without being Concorded. Additionally you should be able to attack anyone who comes afterwards to try and salvage your friends ganked ship if it did not survive or the ganking ship wreck. Suicide ganking won't pay as well for the gankers if the herd fights back but will make a nice supplemental income for the good samaritan that wants to help.
I didn't join EVE to be part of the herd ..... sadly my options seem quite limited ..... an in a game that has such enormous possibility it is truly a waste. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
872
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 07:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:. Why not give us the option to attack anyone in system that is aggressing another player if we choose, in another corp or in a NPC noob corp shouldn't matter a player should be given the chance to help.
Listen most of your post is breathless ranting against a complete misconception of what I'm about here, but this part really stood out as typical of the kind of person that gives hi-sec a bad name. As soon as someone triggers a GCC, they're fair game for anybody to shoot without penalty. This means that if you like you can sit in an icebelt with a remote sensor boosted arty ship and instagib anyone who tries to start DPS ganking. Seriously. Sit about 25Km off the Macks, make sure that they guys you're protecting have at least a vestige of a tank so that you have time to lock, and wait for the Brutixes. You can be your own personal CONCORD. (I advise fitting some tank to make sure that they can't gank you) Since you're a Ronin, I imagine this will be exactly what you'd like to do.
So: what you're asking for has already been in game since the beginning. The mechanics support it, it's just that nobody does it. This nicely illustrates the problem of changing game mechanics further in favour of "PvEers" like yourself; you don't really want the option to protect yourself, because if you did, you'd be applying the options you already have; you just want to be protected. Automatically. For free.
Lastly: Anyone trying to make their point by labelling me a "ELITE PVPER" is going to look rather foolish, because I'm pretty bad at PvP. However, bad at combat PvP as I am, I have taken the trouble to learn a few things about how the game works, and I make the effort to apply them. Thereby I have managed to keep my loss rate acceptably low. Please don't try and tell me that it's impossible for a PvEer in an expensive ship to make ISK in a PvP environment, because I know from personal experience that it can be done - and very lucratively tyvm. In fact I'm going to go do some missions in a nullsec system infested with hostile players right now. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 07:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
I am never ashamed to learn something new. Thanks for the pointers. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
872
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 07:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:.
If you want more high sec players in low and null level the playing field and give some risk to the fat cat pvp elitists...
This makes me think that you didn't even read my Manifesto past the first paragraph.
I mean what the hell man? I take a lot of effort to write a long and thorough piece about how we should STOP trying to push people into low sec and null, and add hi-end gameplay to hi-sec, and you post this. It's really disheartening.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 07:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
I read the whole thing.... being long winded myself i feel it is a duty to take the time to follow someones thought to completion. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |