Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:36:00 -
[1111] - Quote
20% INCREASE TO T1 & T2 SHIPS! Come on guys just say that you want from us to buy PLEX for IRL money! |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1154
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:46:00 -
[1112] - Quote
I will just leave this here... ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Simili
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:50:00 -
[1113] - Quote
I am ready to keep an open mind as far as the BPOs needs to be where the build is happening (hense no more POS builds). That would mean that for those of of having 60+ concurent builds, we will probably be splitting our builds on multiple stations instead of 1 location. This means a lot more hauling, a lot more materials splitting too, which can become very annoying. Might I suggest some kind of magical button that could split your materials from current station (or a station) and then drop them in a selected container and/or ship and/or container in a ship and/or to a transport contract?
I would really like to know what' the average number of concurent builds per person (yes, person, not character) for people that are builders (not just someone building once in a while). From what I see of those new game mechanics, it will make it very difficult to have a good income over quantity because oh how much time you'll have to invest on each build which will end up, maybe, starving the market. You'll tell me that if market starve, more people will get into manufacturing and/or more profit per build will show up, true, but then prices will also jump and people will need to grind for isk to buy their stuff which would have a negative effect on subscriber base.
Thanks a lot, Sim |
Jen Takhesis
The Scope Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:54:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Canine Fiend wrote:I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.
When they stop paying taxes, Concord/crimewatch sets the POS suspect until it starts paying taxes again. Alternatively, you can use your POS salvage deployable to slowly extract all of the materials used in the construction. |
Saraki Ishikela
Deep Space Adventure Time
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:57:00 -
[1115] - Quote
I'm sure it's been said, but I'm really not thrilled with new UI. Sure on the surface it looks very appealing but it is also not very intuitive. Pictures should also have labels. I should be able to read the item names and memorize the icons. |
Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 21:59:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts! Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL! |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:04:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Weaselior wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY. the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc like seriously people use some brains here Have fuel use scale with active slots.
They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare. |
Bellasarius Baxter
Zilog Enterprises
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:24:00 -
[1118] - Quote
My two cents worth on this dev blog: I approve of every change mentioned EXCEPT the BPO "safety" changes.
Why ?
1) It already costs a lot of ISK, and requires a lot of work to keep a POS running, even in high sec.
2) It makes Supply Chain Management, and Scientific Networking skills useless.
3) It makes the Station Manager role too powerful, as it would enable that pilot to simply offline, and unanchor a lab with valuable bpos in it, and make off with it in a couple minutes.
4) If I understood the dev blog correctly, research slots will still be avaliable only in the same stations as they are available now, so that will create congestion in those solar systems, automatically driving the slot prices up at the same time.
5) It is impossible to share the use of bpos between multiple pilots, and keeping them even a little bit safe at the same time.
6) The idea to use copies might work if you had only a couple things you build, but if you build 50 or so things, you would spend a major part of your time making copies, instead of doing something useful, like researching other bpos.
7) If everybody had to have a corp office where research/manufacturing is done, the limited flexibility of the corp/role management system makes it very hard to set up correctly, if you have more than two offices.
8) Any POS lab, or assembly array, found after the change would be almost sure to contain valuables, and as such be a magnet for Wardecs, and theft. Any POS without labs or arrays are pretty useless in high sec, so what would be the point of having one in the first place.
9) Bpos for the above POS modules will become almost useless to high sec indy pilots.
10) The number of bpcs that the servers have to cope with, and keep track of will increase dramatically.
Enough points made, for now, though I am sure there are more.
I cannot stress this enough, although I will refrain from typing the entire sentence in capital letters: "Please,* do not make changes to bpo safety in this way".
*) Insert as many "Please," in the above, as needed to make CCP understand the chaos, frustration, and extra work this will impose on industrialists.
Any comments, thoughts, and feedback to this post is welcome, as always.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
112
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:27:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency. Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... (snip from my previous post.) Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Wrong. One of the dev's, I can't remember now, likely one of the ones let go, said quite explicitly that Eve was NEVER about enshrining a system where one area of the game was completely independent of another. ... the only thing null sec will lack is the critical mass of players to actually build decent trade hubs... "Wrong?" I did not say that having better resources across all categories, meant null was so good it didn't need highsec, that is your fear. I just pointed out that you seemed to be stating the obvious as if it were a problem: that Null had better resources. Thats the way the game has always been.
How much better is it, really? Game designers are applying scaling factors to everything... does 40% (hypothetical) better resources and production ability (lower costs, etc), in sov-null, make highsec redundant? I think I will still find players in highsec. And if that is the reason I someday stop finding them, game designers can re-adjust the scaling factors. Does a net exodus from highsec and influx to the "loving arms of the null sec cartels" mean players quit EVE, or just moved? Players can grumble that null has it 40% better, and keep on doing what they do with the game time they have available. Or they can network with other grumblers, negotiate, conquer, or rent.
You admit that complete independence isn't true atm, due to established trade hubs creating a need for highsec at some level. I think the ease of "projection" (a topic of debate for CSM 9) and the efficiency of the FedEx hub-and-spoke distribution system centered on Jita, is one of the reasons highsec is and will continue to be enhanced by sov-null.
Highsec buyers benefit from centralized competition. (ok, everyone benefits.) Highsec freight movers and traders profit by moving and selling items from Jita out to other trade and mission hubs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5371
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:37:00 -
[1120] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I will just leave this here...
I only know 1 player who writes like this: do I mean I now know who you are in game? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5372
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:48:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec.
Yes but this is atrocious game design.
Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem.
Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems.
But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game.
Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space.
This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.
Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.
That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 22:59:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way. Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec. Yes but this is atrocious game design. Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem. Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems. But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game. Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space. This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game. Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game. That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out. Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec? |
Marsha Mallow
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:06:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable. I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter. By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.
That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out.
You need to have a bit more faith Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.
Jingo Aulmais wrote:Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts! Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL! And when you deleting this you just proofing this! Sorry, but you have to earn thrust in Eve When he comes back I'm throwing you out front and legging it - |
Macker Momo
The Big Moe Eternal Pretorian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:11:00 -
[1124] - Quote
From the dev blog...
Quote: In turn, this allows us to change several points:
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).
Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
400
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:13:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Macker Momo wrote:From the dev blog... Quote: In turn, this allows us to change several points:
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course). Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons. It means "at moons only." That part is not changing. The statement means that POS are no longer restricted from 0.8 GÇô 1.0 security systems. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6982
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:19:00 -
[1126] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I will just leave this here... im just going to make a small suggestion that actually editing and hiding ccp dev posts may be flying a bit too close to the sun Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:23:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.
...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game.
The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk.
If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with.
I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.)
* Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5373
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:28:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec?
Back at the time I have posted a very long proposal on suggestion forums. It involved a structure similar to other PvP games, with smooth "security status gradients", player driven Concord (that is a sort of embryo of null sec sov organization with elements taken from a pre-made organization, so new players actually learn how it works) and much more.
I also covered a lot of other things and consequences but that's now part of history, it's useless to repeat it here.
Marsha Mallow wrote:You need to have a bit more faith Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.
I have already had various contacts of multiple kinds (!) with CCP, most very appreciated. However I am so busy with my RL that I can't really contribute to EvE in a meaningful way. It's actually years since I had to leave my beloved PvP corp because I thought my limited playtime would hurt them.
Also - talking about employment - their wages are famous for not being exactly stellar, the place is kinda cold and far away. I currently live on a tropical island where I enjoy the fruits of my RL trading (and other activities) efforts, the idea of going to work under some project manager and related hierarchy does not even compare to how I am living now
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Darkopus
Upde Harris Industries
86
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:30:00 -
[1129] - Quote
To balance things out CCp shopuld now remove JF and make moving freight around need proper logistics and support convoys. This will mean that the newbie indy's inm Hi sec can still make a living (albeit a shoddy one) without getting forced out by null sec cartles moving massive stock into hisec and flooding the markets with goods at a price the small time new indy's can't ever hope to match.
Null sec talk about risk v reqard all the time so lets ee where your money is. Remove JF and make hauling out of deep null an actual proper risk that requires the freighters to have proper escort / protection rather than they current method that allows market flooding with impunity and relatively little risk.
I have no problems with cutting the balls off hisec but at least make it viable for the small timers to make a small living in their corner of hisec.
Another point is that once this all goes through it will become actually next to impossible to over throw any of the established cartels in sov. They have cemented their positions off the back of moon goo and now they wuill effectively become fully self contained resulting in shortened supply lines. Thus for a new army to arise to take them on fighting against full vertically integrated self contained industry with short supply lines will mean blue donut central within 6 months tops post summer expansion with the scraps left for any insignificant day trippers to stop CCP from shaking it up for the confortable cartels.
Industry needs a massive overhaul yes, but I am not entirely sure this is it or if this will even be healthy for the longevity of the game. Sure it will create a lot of content for hisec gankers / POS muggers.
I guess we need to see the rst of the blogs to formulate a more educated assesment, but so far this is not a solution to some of the more deep seated issues with new eden's industry. |
Aeonidis
Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:39:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Cassandra Kazan wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match. ...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game. The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk. If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with. I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.) The reason that these players support risk is that risk creates content. If you take a risk, it means that someone else can come shoot at you and that is the draw for these players. CCP's goal isn't to create a progression from highsec to nullsec necessarily -- it is to motivate players willing to take risks to do so and thereby create more content as people fight over nullsec's resources. * Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons.
the point of this expansion is, quite obviously, not risk. its to create an ISK sink in high sec industry and to frustrate large Industrialist using many alts accounts thereby making room for smaller (perhaps one account) industrialist to get a foothold into that part of the game with a bonus effect, at the same time, of pushing the major indy players with massive capital into lower security space. I would have thought that was completely obvious. |
|
Elmoira Dreszka
Delta Academy
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:42:00 -
[1131] - Quote
I read about the impossibility to launch jobs in POS from BPO locked in station. The reason should be to make the BPO vulnerable to pvp players. The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
400
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:43:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
108
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:51:00 -
[1133] - Quote
I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why.
What do you think the consequences for this change will be? Cause I think this will just allow established power blocs to choke up and comers more easily. (You want new players to have a chance to get settled in and form new groups right?)
Do you think there should be mechanics in place that help make Highsec a unique area of space? Should Highsec be the area of space for new players to have some advantages compared to older established groups?
Do you honestly believe that removing standings requirements makes for more interesting landscape in eve? or do have metrics that show social groups that first form in highsec never make it to low, null, wh so there is no reason to give them advantages anyway?
I personally think you should add standings to POCO use, and add taxes based on standing in lots of highsec interaction. While at the same time I do think the most profit and function should be in Null, WH, then Low then High. Nullsec should be able to out compete highsec but they just shouldn't be able to live there easily. If the CFC as a whole wants to work on standings to live in high more power to them but their should be some choice involved instead. Take all the best things in all sectors of space with no variation not so interesting to me.
I see a lot of people without standings and null sec groups praising this change but I see a lot of Highsec industrialists saying they don't like this. If you don't like this set of questions CCP other people have asked in a different way. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3462
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:58:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:I'll ask again in a different way.
Why are you removing Standings as a requirement? The blog says you are but isn't clear on the why. In my opinion, it is an un-fun mechanic that adds nothing to gameplay. It also hinders players from becoming industrialists.
Plus, a POS will (probably) no longer be essential for industry.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:05:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Hopefully a POS will be beneficial although with it's risks and additional effort to run.
On a side note I do make them should any new industrialist want one post summer release :) |
Rollo Brinalle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:10:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Querns wrote:Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.
So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3462
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:30:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Rollo Brinalle wrote:So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions.
You are confusing a development goal vs. a game-play paradigm (for lack of a better word) that lacks goals. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1108
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:34:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Rollo Brinalle wrote:Querns wrote:Elmoira Dreszka wrote: The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?
"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content. So then when CCP said in the blog. "Our goal in making the changes to invention are to ...." by your definition this is not a sanbox game? Just trying to get clarity here so we are all on the same plane for further discussions. That quote is kinds meaningless for the statement being addressed, not to mention I can't find it to even see what it is alluding to. I assumed it was from this dev blog, but if not, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction. As it stands I'm not even sure what you are getting at.
That said it's clear from the POS change section that CCP expects conflict around POS's based upon these changes and anticipates both fight and flee responses. So what you must ask yourself is this. If changes are made to promote conflict within a sandbox, would that not mean that conflict is part of the sandbox?
|
Macker Momo
The Big Moe Eternal Pretorian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:42:00 -
[1139] - Quote
I remember when my young corp decided to move the POS from one side of Eve to the other, requiring that we all work together to grind standings. My months old character joined the crusade to earn at least 7.0 Gallente standings and help anchor the POS. It was fun working together as a team towards a common goal. We helped each other fight the evil Angel Cartel and marveled at the difficulty of those level IV missions. I feel that altering the standing requirements is a mistake. CCP you're removing a primary reason to mission, and robbing new corps of one way to grow together.
As an older player, I now understand that my CEO could have chosen to buy standings or eject everyone from the corp except the one player who had 7.0 towards Gallente, but he chose to show us the value of teamwork using a well-designed game mechanic. We appreciated our new home because we had to work for it.
There is no right or wrong here. This is solely my opinion based on some fond memories of my early time in Eve. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
62
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:55:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Quote:This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.
People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and "optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |