Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Amra Ni-Yesta
Code 46 La Division Bleue
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 17:37:16 -
[211] - Quote
Well I am surprised to read what I read.
My corp was a friend begginer corps who suffered a lot of a chain wardecs from marmites, I tried to spam many corps who where like insta wardecs by marmites, by you tora. We had a chat before you did it (wardec new corps we made). What happend ? 3 of my good friends left the corps after 2 months of marmites wardecs, and stoped eve slowly.
So you are clearly a part of what you described. If it is an experience you made with your alilance, I think it was maybe a too long experience.
I got simple suggestions about wardecs, they are part of the game and we need it. What doesnt work is : A corp can't join an alliance to get protection while the corp is wardec. This system is completly broken. You can just desable a new corp. This system has to be remooved.
Like every wars, wardecs has to have a real cost if you do it in the time. For exemple : you can wardec an corp /alliance, lets keep the actual low cost, no problems, but an extra week will cost : times 4 ---->200 million for the extra week. another week ? times for again : 1 billion . and so one... Even in middle age (i know siege could be very long...) it was fukin expensiv. If you don't pursuit your wardec by paying the bill : then you can't wardec the corp/ alliance for 1 week. This is it. Fair enough for wardecs corps who like it (and trust me i can understand it) fair enough to protect small corps.
About suicide gankers I did a suggestion for making it really challenging in a post I did. Simply : when you shoot someone, you loose 2.5 of ss. If you kill : you loose 10 ss. Witch means you have to prepare your security status to do it. The actual system is way to simple and suicide gankers can almost chain what they do.
What may happen ? Less suicide gank, more poeple self confident who will transport more and more expensiv stuffs. Everybody will be happy, more noob transport without too hard problems, more challenge for suicide gankers, and more loot for them, they will have to choose their targets carefully
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
809
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 18:29:12 -
[212] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:3. It's like what, less than half a bil (edit: it's 350m)? That's pocket changes to completely reverse your sec status. Bring back the old days where it took painful manual SS grinding. Complete reversal of sec status is significantly more expensive than you are implying. Fuzzworks appears to disagree.
That's cheaper than I've ever paid.
Besides, doing it once, sure that's fine. Doing it repeatedly gets expensive fast. Unless you wash your hands and never gank again, you WILL be paying it more than once.
Sabriz for CSMX!
A vote for Tora is a Vote for a HS Theme Park.
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3171
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 11:13:54 -
[213] - Quote
Greetings Tora,
1) What do you think about completely removing Faction Police (the NPCs that chase neg sec status dudes)?
Would it bring lots more content in highsec? For example:
. Lowsec pirates (like me) freely roaming around and engaging other pirates / gankers
. Pirates & gankers spending lots more time in space, being potential targets to anti-gankers or whoever
I have no idea how this would affect ganking balance, but maybe:
2) Coupled with this, and expanding on your hideout idea, why not make highsec stations unaccessible to neg sec status players (based on current progression: 1.0 unaccessible to -2.0 and below, etc.)?
. Neg status players could base in lowsec, to roam highsec (bringing more content to lowsec, too!). Now, both sides of high/low gates could be camped!
. Organized ganking ops (such as CODE.) would probably need POS, which would be attackable --> more content here, too
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4877
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:17:19 -
[214] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:3. It's like what, less than half a bil (edit: it's 350m)? That's pocket changes to completely reverse your sec status. Bring back the old days where it took painful manual SS grinding. Complete reversal of sec status is significantly more expensive than you are implying. url=https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/sectags/]Fuzzworks[/url] appears to disagree. That's cheaper than I've ever paid. Besides, doing it once, sure that's fine. Doing it repeatedly gets expensive fast. Unless you wash your hands and never gank again, you WILL be paying it more than once. You only need to do it once. You can continue to gank at -10 as proven by a LOT of gankers. The only time you need to pay that is when you decide you want to reuse that character for something else, then it's just *click* consequences undone.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1662
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 14:06:33 -
[215] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle :
I wouldnGÇÖt be against removing the faction police, so we would see more players with -5 or lower in high-sec. Interaction between high-sec and any other part of Eve can only be good. It also shows players from high-sec that there is more then just high-sec (where most start in). There are enough players in high-sec to still shoot them, so I donGÇÖt really see the need for the police.
Making high-sec stations unaccessible is not something I would support right now, unless someone could convince me why itGÇÖs really good idea. If negative status players could only base in low-sec, wouldnGÇÖt that affect the high-sec players on the edge of high-sec more then the center ?
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1662
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:38:03 -
[216] - Quote
Brain fart : What would happen if CCP reduced the Jump Fatigue while you traveling in your own sov ?
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
3172
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:50:48 -
[217] - Quote
Thanks for reply!
Tora Bushido wrote:Interaction between high-sec and any other part of Eve can only be good. It also shows players from high-sec that there is more then just high-sec (where most start in). Yes, my thoughts exactly.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15904
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:34:44 -
[218] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Brain fart : What would happen if CCP reduced the Jump Fatigue if you're travelling in your own sov ?
Then blocs seize and maintain "island" systems to allow then to more rapidly project power over a larger area of the map.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1663
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:51:38 -
[219] - Quote
True, but then you are also taking more risk. And wouldn't it make sense, that when you move in your own sov, it should be easier to move around, then when going to enemy sov ?
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Sam Spock
The Scope Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 20:23:58 -
[220] - Quote
The way ganking is right now they pretty much just need to see the fittings, calculate the number of catalysts they need and then warp to the target. CODE. has industrialized ganking. Not sure but they may even use a spreadsheet for it!
The only change I see that would make any real sense without killing ganking or making high sec a theme park would be to add a random element to concord response times. I am thinking a random number that either adds or subtracts from the response time. You could get a 5 second response in a .5 or maybe one that takes 45 seconds. You just won't know. You may even get enough time to kill multiple targets before they show up or loose all your ships with the target barely touched.
It's become too push button and easy. They have the advantage since they know their target and exactly how many ships to bring. Having something they can't plan for would balance things out a bit.
Sure they could just bring more ships but even that would make them work harder at it.
Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!
|
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1408
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:10:13 -
[221] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:True, but then you are also taking more risk. And wouldn't it make sense, that when you move in your own sov, it should be easier to move around, then when going to enemy sov ?
Is your car faster and more maneuverable in your home town?
I'm skeptical of the idea of eliminating faction police, for two reasons:
1) It would not necessarily show people that there's more to the game than high sec, so much as it would change the nature of what high sec is. I don't necessarily think it would be a bad change, but it would probably not work the way anyone expects it to;
2) if the NPC factions can't even police their own space, what is the point in having them at all? Eliminating them homogenizes high sec, eliminates terrain (even if it's relatively featureless terrain on a huge scale), and removed one extra bit of depth and complexity from the game.
Faction police are pretty useless anyway. I had another character's corp join factional warfare on the opposite side of the faction whose space they were in, and their destroyer--PVE fit, not at all fitted or rigged for align time--undocked and made it back to friendly space with no extra effort on my part. The only thing faction police do is announce hollow threats at gates and keep hostiles from flying in anything approximately cruiser size or larger. Getting around is easy.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15910
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 12:16:12 -
[222] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:True, but then you are also taking more risk. And wouldn't it make sense, that when you move in your own sov, it should be easier to move around, then when going to enemy sov ?
Why would the laws of physics change when you're at home?
Look, the whole point of the jump fatigue mechanic is to stop large forces rapidly moving long distances without consequence; so far its working reasonably well. And if someone does want to make a large amount of instant travels very quickly, the option remains open to them, it's just that there's a cost.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Nick Actilete
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 06:37:43 -
[223] - Quote
Marmite collective? Sorry, but no vote from me. |
scandor
Hunter Killers. Forsaken Asylum
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 07:49:23 -
[224] - Quote
You have my vote :)
Please lets get the warp speed of battlecruisers back to before ccp have killed them since they were nerfed
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
669
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 08:52:47 -
[225] - Quote
Sam Spock wrote:The way ganking is right now they pretty much just need to see the fittings, calculate the number of catalysts they need and then warp to the target. CODE. has industrialized ganking. Not sure but they may even use a spreadsheet for it! That is a hell of a lot more work than our pray has to do. They AP trough Highsec or sit AFK in the belts. If they don't it gets a lot more complicated to kill them. So what you actually want is to complicate or increase the cost of an active play style to secure your AFK play style which is already ridiculously secure even more. Ganking can be countered easily by active players, like it should be in a sandbox. What you want is another buff to the automatic NPC defense of your pilot-less and untanked ship.
I would be interested what Toras opinion is on the subject.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1674
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 10:44:30 -
[226] - Quote
Nick Actilete wrote:Marmite collective? Sorry, but no vote from me. I understand Eve is about feelings, but the CSM shouldnt be. We are at war with the CFC for a year now, but I would still vote for one of them if I think they can do a good job. If you think I couldn't do that job, then you re right, don't vote for me.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Amra Ni-Yesta
Code 46 La Division Bleue
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 23:56:58 -
[227] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Nick Actilete wrote:Marmite collective? Sorry, but no vote from me. I understand Eve is about feelings, but the CSM shouldnt be. We are at war with the CFC for a year now, but I would still vote for one of them if I think they can do a good job. If you think I couldn't do that job, then you re right, don't vote for me.
Sorry but you don't seems to show any ability to practice what you say. You seems to don't be able to deal with poeple you disagree with. I really think you have a lake of capacity to listen other, and if you cut dialogue, then it really means you are not made for it. Despite of "ignore" feelings, deal with it, this is a job of a CSM.
Quote:That is a hell of a lot more work than our pray has to do. They AP trough Highsec or sit AFK in the belts. If they don't it gets a lot more complicated to kill them. So what you actually want is to complicate or increase the cost of an active play style to secure your AFK play style which is already ridiculously secure even more. Ganking can be countered easily by active players, like it should be in a sandbox. What you want is another buff to the automatic NPC defense of your pilot-less and untanked ship. Quote:I agree on this, but I still want to add something for the active anti-ganking to be able to get a fight.
You seems to have a too strong biased point of view to be objective.
Edit : The purpose of the CSM is to : to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the greatest good for the greater player base. You do the exact opposit with your marmite alliance. |
Anke Eyrou
Hades Sisters
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 07:41:39 -
[228] - Quote
[quote=Tora Bushido]Greetings
Social Corp/ NPC You shouldn't be able to stay longer then 2-3 months in a NPC corp. Players should be able to create small social corps with max 10 players in it, which canGÇÖt be war decced (can still be ganked). But they also canGÇÖt own a pos, poco or future structure and they canGÇÖt war dec someone else. This might look bad, as they can freely do anything they want, but if you look at it more closely, they can still do the same things as they could do in an NPC corp. Only this way they have the chance to build up a corp. See it as a stage between NPC and a corp.
Whilst I agree players shouldn't be in an NPC corps longer than a few months to deny them the possibility of owning a POS as a small group would deny them a part of the game where they cannot develop BPOs as you need a POS To do this, unless of course you can get CCP to reverse BPO research back to stations.
i run 3 accounts and 6 of my characters run a POS quite successfully for bpo research and manufacture in high sec, are you telling me i should no longer be able to do this as a little guy?
There are lots of individuals who are also runnig solo corps of 6 charchtes or less. I play this why as i go by the maxim in eve trust no one.
I apologise if this has already be brought up but its difficult reading 11 pages on a phone.
I expect to get this post deleted or locked. So much for freedom of expression.
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1693
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 08:36:52 -
[229] - Quote
The social corps are a choice. Just because you have less then 10 players, doesn't automatically mean you have to be in a social corp. Want more profit and options, then you've got to take more risk too. Just create a normal corp and setup a pos.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Dave Viker
Do you even Exist.
52
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 08:00:46 -
[230] - Quote
Wait, are you serious about that mining thing? A SLOT Game for Miners? What?
All other ideas are great, but I honestly can't believe the Slot Game thing is no troll. |
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1708
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 10:18:56 -
[231] - Quote
Would I ever troll anyone ?
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Dave Viker
Do you even Exist.
54
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 13:23:52 -
[232] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Would I ever troll anyone ?
Never ever. You da untrollest
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect
502
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 18:32:33 -
[233] - Quote
1. HIdeout idea seems nifty. Something along the lines of the mobile siphon unit which adds more dynamics to the game.
2a. Your AFK while in space is unfortunately terrible. As a cov ops pilot I'm often stuck in space not only for hours, but days and weeks at a time. I don't have the luxury of docking up because my station is many jumps away, especially now that I'm hitting more wormholes than before. I need to be able to go "afk while in space" because the alternative is turning the game off for me. You don't want me to do that now do you?
2b. Your ore idea hits along a similar idea I had but I don't think randomization is the best thing to do. Perhaps I just never had an interest in gambling but I think a mini game for "maximum efficiency mining" is much better. Say every 10 minutes you play the mini game and based on how well you do your mining efficiency can go up or down. An active miner will be able to mine and profit way more than a passive miner. But passive mining shouldn't be completely stopped either. Let's face it, plenty of people have kids, work, obligations but still want to play the game even if at a limited level. If the choice is between having an afk miner that has to take care of the baby vs no player at all, what would you choose?
3. NO way on the wardecs. People can just make single person corps and hide in them forever.
4. Agreed on people not being able to stay in an NPC corp forever.
5. Not sure how I feel about dreads. I'm worried this would allow a big 0.0 bloc to have more influence in Highsec. Right now Marauders sort of act like "the dreads of HS" and I think it's an interesting niche to be developed upon rather than strangled in its sleep by putting dreads in HS.
6. As far as faction police goes...that should be a joinable faction like FW where you can police HS of criminals for LP. Throw the NPC faction police out...replace with actual players.
7. Keeping pirates out of HS stations may conflict with idea 6 but it's a possibility.
Hades Effect
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1710
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 00:18:27 -
[234] - Quote
2a. I do expect you to log off or accept pressing a button. If you're afk, you are not actively playing Eve. If you are active, pressing a button wont kill you. Even if it's just once every 30 min. You want the profit of being cloaked, then work for it.
2b. That would work too. I just want less afk mining. You can do this by punishment or rewarding players. Let's try rewarding for a change.
3. They can already be in NPC corps and hide for ever. There is no difference. Might want those NPC corps to still pay tax ?
5. True, that is a risk.
6. Sounds fun too. There are many ways to get to the same destination.
7. I don't want them out of HS stations.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Seraph IX Basarab
Hades Effect
502
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 00:29:41 -
[235] - Quote
Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no?
Hades Effect
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1710
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:14:30 -
[236] - Quote
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no? No. If you're docked you do not gain anything. Afk mining, afk cloaked in enemy system, etc you do have an advantage, so you have to work for it.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4937
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:43:59 -
[237] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no? No. If you're docked you do not gain anything. Afk mining, afk cloaked in enemy system, etc you do have an advantage, so you have to work for it. And like I said before, even if you just move once every 20-30 minutes, you will not see anything popup, as you re active. You realise that an AFK miner is just AFK after 20-30 minutes, right? Being AFK doesn't mystically cause your ore hold to empty itself in a station.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1710
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:46:08 -
[238] - Quote
Its not perfect and needs work, but I am looking for something to minimize afk cloaking and mining. Any ideas are welcome.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Dave Viker
Do you even Exist.
56
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:47:31 -
[239] - Quote
Great that you pointed that out, Lucas.
But still - Tora's idea about making mining more "active" is good. You could even let those miners have their own choice - if they want to AFK mine, they'll not make as much profit as someone who plays the "Minigame".
Indie GameDev & Audiophile
Checkout my Soundcloud page.
Hitech Trance, Chillout, Acoustic Stuff.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4937
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 09:01:53 -
[240] - Quote
Dave Viker wrote:Great that you pointed that out, Lucas.
But still - Tora's idea about making mining more "active" is good. You could even let those miners have their own choice - if they want to AFK mine, they'll not make as much profit as someone who plays the "Minigame". Oh don't get me wrong, mining should be more active, but AFK timer are completely irrelevant (since if you are actually mining, you're not AFK) and minigames are generlally a bad idea (they tend to put people off). The mechanics themselves need to be more active, not just "here, play are arbitrary minigame to complete your unrelated task because we can't be bothered to improve your gameplay".
All in all though, Tora's campaign reads like: "make it painful and annoying to play most of the game, except wardecs which should be easier".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |