Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:27:03 -
[31] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored.
Could you expand on how the wardec mechanic is broken?
Well, I can try (but please remember I am a carebear).
I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, a 1 man corps can avoid a declaration of war.
I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, the corporations of an alliance have an easier time, avoiding a war.
I find it absurd, that wardeccing corps can cause new/inexperienced players to not log in... simply by declaring war on them.
Black Pedro wrote:I agree with you for the record, but I would like your view on what can be done to make wardecs more fun and meaningful for all participants.
Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up.
Black Pedro wrote:Do you agree that central to this problem of wardecs is the fact that there is not much difference between NPC and players corps, so there is little to motivate players to stay and fight?
Motivation of players to stay and fight is a big theme. Why would players stay and fight in High Sec?
One possible answer is to improve the New Player Experience, so that new players can not start playing the game with their WOW sense of entitlement (or at least without knowing that EVE is different).
I agree that there is no motivation for players to fight for their own "corporation". As an NPC corporation member I can safely say that I have not had any problems with War Decs.
Why can one not Wardec an NPC corporation?
Black Pedro wrote: If so, which concrete changes would you support to improve the desirability of joining, and fighting for, a player corporation? Do you think nerfing NPC corps, or buffing the income of player corps is a solution to this problem?
This is again a very good question. I would like to remind you, and the audience, that I am a carebear. I see the main roll of the CSM in checking what CCP is doing... and trying to let them know when it sucks. I don't consider myself savvy enough to tell them that "IF Q=1 THEN......" is worse than "IF Q+1=1 THEN...."
Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....
But:
NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....
If one assumes that the model above is set in place, then anyone in a wardecced corp gets a "flag=wardec". This flag remains for the duration of the war (so no running away).
Any shareholding member of a corporation can call for a vote to surrender..
Any war-declaring corporation gets the wardec fees refunded equal to maximal 1/10th the "killed" enemy.
Aggressors can recruit "allies" just like Defenders.
It is a complicated subject. I would be the first to admit, that I am a Carebear, and am not happy when I get wardecced.
But.... and I would like to emphasise "BUT":
Declarations of war have a place in EVE, and should stay. I think it is important to enable these players. If there is a mechanic in place, that allows High Sec players to "opt out" of such things (at the expense of not having anything from their corps other than a "chat channel") then I am all for it. (of course, that then needs to be balanced with High Sec resource production (ICE/ORE etc)).
I would like to say that the CSM is NOT there to present fully finished solutions to all the problems that have developed in the last years in this game.... but are rather elected to represent "interest" groups of players.
Erm sorry, I seem to have got distracted. I hope that you have managed to get an idea of what I am thinking... and if you have any more specific questions... I will be happy to try and answer them!!
The most important thing: People should VOTE for the CSM. Only in voting are we sure that the CSM represents US.
:) |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:29:02 -
[32] - Quote
Bam Stroker wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Unfortunately for me, the campaigning season is opening at the same time as my job is getting busy (run-up to Christmas). Are... are you Santa?
Oh. Thank you for the interest in my CSM Campaign.
Unfortunately, after much research, I can report that SANTA has actually a lot of free time at this time of year. There are enough "Elves" and "Little Helpers" that spend the time caring about the minutiae.
Even his wife, Mary, has more to do than he has.
Any further questions, please let me know! |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
211
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:02:25 -
[33] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I can try (but please remember I am a carebear).
I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, a 1 man corps can avoid a declaration of war.
I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, the corporations of an alliance have an easier time, avoiding a war.
I find it absurd, that wardeccing corps can cause new/inexperienced players to not log in... simply by declaring war on them.
I agree. The question is how to fix it.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up.
I also agree. The corporation-that-is-really-an-NPC-corp idea is fine with me as long as it has (almost) all the restrictions of an NPC corp and (almost) none of the benefits of a player corp. Then really nothing has changed in terms of gameplay except that players now have a shared identity and corp channel.
This would help player retention, but does nothing to solve wardecs though.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Motivation of players to stay and fight is a big theme. Why would players stay and fight in High Sec?
One possible answer is to improve the New Player Experience, so that new players can not start playing the game with their WOW sense of entitlement (or at least without knowing that EVE is different).
I agree that there is no motivation for players to fight for their own "corporation". As an NPC corporation member I can safely say that I have not had any problems with War Decs.
Why can one not Wardec an NPC corporation?
Ok let me ask you, what would it take to get you out of your NPC corp and into a player corp? And further, what would it take to get you to stay in that player corp and try some PvP, even if that isn't your main "play-style", to defend it?
Would raising the tax rate of the NPC corp to 50% do it?
Would being valid targets to players of the opposing faction militia do it?
Would a player-corp only buff to your income, say missions pay you and increasing amount up to 100% more but only if you as a corp put effort into building a structure and defending it?
Would a player-corp only buff to your mining yield, that requires an moderately expensive and destroyable deployable structure do it?
I agree that players should always be able to take refuge in an NPC corp to rebuild in case everything they have is lost, but I also think we need some ideas to help encourage people out of these corps eventually. One way to do this is to make living in a NPC less profitable than living in a player corp, and attach some persistent bonuses for staying and defending those player corps.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Declarations of war have a place in EVE, and should stay. I think it is important to enable these players. If there is a mechanic in place, that allows High Sec players to "opt out" of such things (at the expense of not having anything from their corps other than a "chat channel") then I am all for it. (of course, that then needs to be balanced with High Sec resource production (ICE/ORE etc)).
I agree. Eve is about risk vs. reward. To fix wardecs, there just needs to be a way to make living in player corps more lucrative than NPC corps, and some incentives to stay with a particular corporation. If players are totally risk-adverse and want to spend their life in a wardec-free corp lite or NPC corp - fine - but they should earn significantly less than players who take responsibility for creating, maintaining and defending a player corporation and its assets.
Best of luck on your CSM campaign.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:45:31 -
[34] - Quote
Please remember I am a carebear!
Black Pedro wrote: I agree. The question is how to fix it.
That is why CCP get their big bucks! I would say, as a member of a voluntary player organisation (eg CSM) that it is more my job to tell them that their solution is **** and to point our flaws etc.
Black Pedro wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up.
I also agree. The corporation-that-is-really-an-NPC-corp idea is fine with me as long as it has (almost) all the restrictions of an NPC corp and (almost) none of the benefits of a player corp. Then really nothing has changed in terms of gameplay except that players now have a shared identity and corp channel. This would help player retention, but does nothing to solve wardecs though.
On the contrary... to solve the problem of wardecs, you have to solve the problem of corporations... and new players. Any mechanic that enables a war dec to carry on and maybe shoot something.... well that is a good mechanic.
Without addressing NPE and potential corporations changes, it is impossible to talk about serious, relevant wardec changes/nerfs.
Black Pedro wrote: Ok let me ask you, what would it take to get you out of your NPC corp and into a player corp? And further, what would it take to get you to stay in that player corp and try some PvP, even if that isn't your main "play-style", to defend it?
]Would raising the tax rate of the NPC corp to 50% do it?
Would being valid targets to players of the opposing faction militia do it?
Would a player-corp only buff to your income, say missions pay you and increasing amount up to 100% more but only if you as a corp put effort into building a structure and defending it?[/quote]
1) raising taxes does not help new players. New players don't know any better...
2) letting militia target people that declare war on an npc corps.... would be a good thing. But the NPC corps must be deccable...... (see an earlier post).
Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
213
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 10:53:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: On the contrary... to solve the problem of wardecs, you have to solve the problem of corporations... and new players. Any mechanic that enables a war dec to carry on and maybe shoot something.... well that is a good mechanic.
Without addressing NPE and potential corporations changes, it is impossible to talk about serious, relevant wardec changes/nerfs.
I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp.
There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging.
I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely.
We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does.
Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
1913
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:24:40 -
[36] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....
But:
NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....
Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | Sabriz for CSM
New Order diplomat
"no one hates you, none of us care enough for that
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
162
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:16:02 -
[37] - Quote
How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances.
I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc.
How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are? |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
162
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:21:42 -
[38] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....
But:
NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....
Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff?
The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social.
I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
1914
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 23:39:39 -
[39] - Quote
I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel *\o/*), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game.
However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | Sabriz for CSM
New Order diplomat
"no one hates you, none of us care enough for that
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
165
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:57:02 -
[40] - Quote
admiral root wrote:I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel *\o/*), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game.
However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it.
I am in the minerbumping channel too, so I understand what you mean.
It solves the problem of "corps are one size fits all". Once you have a corp for social people who aren't interested in the risks or rewards, you can change mechanics for real corps to give real benefits and risks. |
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:45:36 -
[41] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp.
Yes. There is no difference in terms of game mechanics... but in terms of social player mechanics.... and social players are happy players!
Black Pedro wrote: There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging.
I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely.
The most extreme of my carebear cousins will simply go and play the Hello Kitty browser game, whilst waiting for a wardec to expire....
Black Pedro wrote:We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in.
You will find, that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink (except if you use the camel-brick strategy... but that violates the human rights of the camel....).
I think that there is simply no way to make a player take part in a war dec if he doesn't want to.... But if he is in a corp with a POCO or a POS then... losing his stuff is punishment enough... and if he doesn't want to fight.... then spending a week or two just docked up is punishment enough... and damages his "mining/farming for plex". Then it is up to the player what he does. |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:51:12 -
[42] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does.
Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this. [/quote]
I guess it works like this....
I think that some of my carebear cousins will take the path of least resistance....
But CCP Statistics shows that they are more likely to keep playing if there is some kind of social connection. NPC Corps are poison for the soul of EVE... |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 19:53:31 -
[43] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:admiral root wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....
But:
NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....
Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff? The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social. I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations
Trust me... before your average "care bear" gets informed enough to join a "chat channel" he has already given up and gone back to WOW!
Being a part of a "corporation in name only" is something that gives CareBears a chance to feel as big as the members of the CFC, or CODE. or Nulli Secunda.... etc. (Remember "Feeling" is as important as "being"...) |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:04:23 -
[44] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances.
I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc.
How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are?
Good question.
At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo. I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank....
I have some ideas.... but once again I present the theory that CSM should control the CCP plans... and not present their own ideas too strongly (especially when they have no idea about how hard or impractical something should be to code!).
One of my ideas (especially for Freighter Pilots):
The Caldari Navy Intelligence Self Destruct Device:
This device was developed for Caldari Navy Intelligence... once activated it guarantees (99.5%) the complete destruction of the Ship AND the Cargo............
So when it is fitted... the pilot simply has to be not AFK.... and he can deny potential Gankers any loot whatsoever... |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1589
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:07:44 -
[45] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:08:40 -
[46] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm.
Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1589
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:14:03 -
[47] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights!
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:28:45 -
[48] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights!
Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1589
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:44:30 -
[49] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Zappity wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights! Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today? Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:33:39 -
[50] - Quote
Zappity wrote: Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.
And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here?
*I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1590
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:52:47 -
[51] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Zappity wrote: Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.
And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here? *I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans. I think the game is in a better state than ever. Most of my concerns about specific issues were canvassed during the summer summit - I think the current CSM is doing an excellent job. Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on). I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really.
Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 22:22:11 -
[52] - Quote
Zappity wrote: I think the game is in a better state than ever.
Why?
Zappity wrote: Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on).
And in what direction do you care about it?
I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back.
What do you think?
Zappity wrote:I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really.
I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them.
Of course this makes a horrible disadvantage for the New Players that are just starting... but then well... maybe they/we should have started playing earlier!
Zappity wrote:Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic.
Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific?
Please explain more! |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1590
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:56:31 -
[53] - Quote
Why do I think the game is better than ever? So many fixes since Crucible and now starting on the fun big stuff.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back.
What do you think?
I didn't say tags4sec, I said Tags4Standings. As in faction standings. My views are on record - I think the current grind is awful. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=383006
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them. Yes, that's the point. At the moment Jita dominates everything because it is too easy to region trade for arbitrage. I routinely use public courier contracts with the reward set at 0.1% of collateral. It is too easy atm and separation would provide risk vs reward as well as many new opportunities.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific?
Please explain more! Yes, as in the security status of a system would change according to events within that system. There are plenty of threads about the idea, e.g. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5218416 , especially page 2.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
170
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:02:05 -
[54] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo. I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank....
..
They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly.
It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
The Conference Elite CODE.
1139
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 16:03:30 -
[55] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:[b]Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart? Yes there is, and that candidate is Sabriz. Good luck with your run though.
New player resources:
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information
http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP
http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:58:49 -
[56] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:
They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly.
Flying an Orca is probably really boring, and with the changes coming to ISboxer, I am not thinking about multi-boxing any time soon.
Tear Jar wrote: It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears.
We carebears need all the help we can get, including a voice on the CSM. That is my opinion.
Hello, world!
Lorelei for CSM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1590
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:09:18 -
[57] - Quote
Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate.
Good luck with that.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 22:25:36 -
[58] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate.
Good luck with that.
Nope. Not in the slightest, but Im not about to start trying being a one-man mining fleet now.
And I am looking forward to seeing Mike starting a campaign thread!
Hello, world!
Lorelei for CSM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
335
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 19:01:37 -
[59] - Quote
Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck!
As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken. Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.) |
Lorelei Ierendi
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 19:15:40 -
[60] - Quote
Dear Mr Belvar,
Thank you for taking an interest in my campaign. I hope that you will use your votes correctly come voting day... I had a conversation including someone on my corps that seemed to think that NOT VOTING was also sending a message.
Veers Belvar wrote:Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck!
As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken.
Might I ask what you use your 1 man corps for? Does being in a 1 man corps bring any advantages for you, as a player, over being in an NPC corps (other than taxes)?
This also comes to what people have been saying about looking that the corporation system as a whole? You know that stuff about "social" corporations with no gameplay relevance... vs. corporations that want to build structures, do things and have gameplay relevance.
If your 1 man corporation is an entity that excerpts some direct influence on the game (eg dropping secure containers with messages) then there has to be a mechanism for someone to attack/stop you. This is EVE after all. But if this one man corporations exists solely so that all your alts fly under the same banner... then that is a different matter, I think.
But why would someone want to stay in a one man corporation? Wouldn't joining a group of others enable more interaction and involvement? Maybe once the AWOX removal hits, that will reduce the one men corporations..?
Veers Belvar wrote: Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.)
War is not necessarily always about having a "fair fight", but I agree that the mechanism as it is, is hopelessly broken. Almost as bad as the bounty system.
Tora Bushido is also running for the CSM, and if you read his thread... and the linked interview... well you will see that he-who-is-probably-High-Secs-prime-War-Deccer has some ideas on making things more balanced. I read his interview, and I find some of his ideas good... but I will give him time to write his long post and present them before I steal them.
Hello, world!
Lorelei for CSM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |