Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6421
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:35:17 -
[91] - Quote
Yeah, I fixed that for you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13745
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:53:20 -
[92] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sasha Nyemtsov wrote:I may have misconstrued your meaning, Lucas.
I invite you to state succinctly and without explanation or expansion exactly what it is about the current state of Highsec that disappoints you? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5911120#post5911120Oh and if you want a summary: PvP carebears crying about PvE carebears as if they are somehow not being risk averse, even though they live in the same space and operate under they same principles (minimum risk, challenge & effort, maximum gains).
Yeah, the people who fly around neg ten so the entire universe can shoot them in highsec are risk averse, right?
Pretty sure everyone here sees through your bullshit, by the way.
All you're doing is crying about the people whose presence brings risk to highsec. Without them, there would be no risk in highsec, which is exactly your goal in the first place.
And since CCP has told us outright that non consensual PvP in highsec drives immense improvements in player retention, that means that you want to kill the game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Sasha Nyemtsov
Systems Administration and Control
138
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:54:34 -
[93] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Yeah, I fixed that for you in my post above.
Thanks for that; I'm indebted to you.
However, the word I think that temporarily escapes you there (and which, incidentally is of the succinct kind), is hypocrisy?
Is that what you see in the situation, and which troubles you so?
I can certainly take one of your claims - that we are on a par with 'carebears' because we gankers also seek to maximise our gains (whatever they might be) - and expose it as a fiction.
Come to think of it, the other correlations are a tad shaky, too, no?
You have brought forth the weakest of arguments in order to justify what is essentially a new concept to me; tears on behalf of the dispossessed!
An admirable sentiment in the right context, no doubt, but likely to appear faintly ridiculous in a PvP point-and-click space-sim.
Still, you responded to my request, and I must be grateful for that.
www.minerbumping.com
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6422
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:04:12 -
[94] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Yeah, the people who fly around neg ten so the entire universe can shoot them in highsec are risk averse, right? Yes, they are. Let's see one fly a freighter. Flying a pod or a disposable ship while negative 10 doesn't make you suddenly some sort of daredevil.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:All you're doing is crying about the people whose presence brings risk to highsec. Without them, there would be no risk in highsec, which is exactly your goal in the first place. Wrong, I'm responding to a thread which itself is crying about removing awoxing from the game about my position on what highsec should be. Should it be pretty damn safe? Of course, that's what it's for. You just want somewhere to farm easy kills at minimal risk and effort, carebear.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:And since CCP has told us outright that non consensual PvP in highsec drives immense improvements in player retention, that means that you want to kill the game. Wrong! CCP has told us that player interaction drives retention. At no point did they say that player interaction has to be based around non-consensual PvP. You'll figure that out when they bring in the wardec changes though, don't you worry.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13745
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:19:49 -
[95] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Yes, they are. Let's see one fly a freighter. Flying a pod or a disposable ship while negative 10 doesn't make you suddenly some sort of daredevil.
So you're asking them to be as stupid as the average carebear? Heck, worse, you're asking them to just whelp ships to facpo?
Why would anyone do that?
If you want neg tens to fly more interesting ships instead of just disposable glass cannons, then you need to delete facpo, which makes it untenable. It's actually one of the major things wrong with all your carebear safety mechanics, they preclude actual player interaction. No neg ten will ever fly a battleship around so long as facpo exists.
And the mere fact that facpo exists at all is proof that gankers have more risk, because they are subject to such punitive mechanics that they are forced to fly a small handful of ships.
Quote:]Wrong, I'm responding to a thread which itself is crying about removing awoxing from the game
Strawman again from you.
The thread is pointing out that the ostensible reason for deleting awoxing was a lie. It did not improve retention or recruitment of new players.
Quote:Wrong! CCP has told us that player interaction drives retention.
Another obvious lie. They have outright said that non consensual PvP conflict in highsec is the highest retention driver. Players who got ganked or killed in a war were far more likely to resub.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6422
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:31:41 -
[96] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So you're asking them to be as stupid as the average carebear? Heck, worse, you're asking them to just whelp ships to facpo? No, it was simply an example of a ship you simply wouldn't fly as a -10, as are most ships. You're not any less risk averse because you chose to have a character who can't go in highsec. Hell, you call me a carebear all the time and I've got a couple of very low sec status (-9 or so) guys who can't go into any highsec systems without being chased. If anything I'm more risk averse on them than any other character. They fly around in pods and have their ships delivered to stations to gank from.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you want neg tens to fly more interesting ships instead of just disposable glass cannons I don't. That was easy.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Strawman again from you.
The thread is pointing out that the ostensible reason for deleting awoxing was a lie. It did not improve retention or recruitment of new players. Erm... no. The thread itself is a link to a strawman since the claims made in that post themselves are false. The change was put in to remove the barrier of recruiting newbie characters into corps, and that it did as far as I can see. All that's been done here is the low stats from summer and sov changes have been attributed to the awox change as if that's what's caused the drop in population. To see what effect awox changes really had, CCP would need to do analysis from their data, which we're unlikely to ever see. In all honesty though, I don;t care. Teh awox changes were a good change that removed a dumb mechanic. The fact that it made you guy shed rivers of tears is just a bonus.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Wrong! CCP has told us that player interaction drives retention. Another obvious lie. They have outright said that non consensual PvP conflict in highsec is the highest retention driver. Players who got ganked or killed in a war were far more likely to resub. Please let me know when you decide to stop misinterpreting statistics. And no, they have not outright said that. Try harder.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2846
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:40:11 -
[97] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:No it's not, and at no point have I claimed there are massive quantities of newbies being mercilessly exploded. Once again the "grr carebears" crowd has to misrepresent the opposing point of view toe be able to argue it. Simply put, highsec aggression is already far to easy and low risk and should be balanced like any other mechanic. Wardecs will be before too long, I guarantee it. The fact that highsec corps that aren't purely pvp focussed aren't feasible is ridiculous. It's a section of space designed to be safe, get over the fact that it's safe. It's not an appeal to emotion because why? Because you say so, there's exactly zero evidence supporting the position that highsec PVP is for some reason bad and should, therefore be limited. By your own admission newbies don't get exploded on a regular basis and even if they did all of the evidence indicates that them being exploded is not particularly harmful. Nevermind the fact that the entire reason highsec corporations are under continuous wardec pressure is because of the past changes to the war system that incentivized the creation of large, organized PVP alliances and allowed them to monopolize all aggression.
Your entire argument boils down to this: You don't like highsec PVP because you are an elitist, therefore you think highsec PVP should not exist (you'll no doubt argue that you think it should exist, in some limited fashion, but the reality is you want it to be functionally impossible). You're not interested in the game being good, or in helping new players or in other people enjoying the game. You are interested entirely in curtailing a types of gameplay you personally dislike because you cannot stand that other people like things that you don't like. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6422
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:50:44 -
[98] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not an appeal to emotion because why? Because you say so, there's exactly zero evidence supporting the position that highsec PVP is for some reason bad and should, therefore be limited. By your own admission newbies don't get exploded on a regular basis and even if they did all of the evidence indicates that them being exploded is not particularly harmful. Nevermind the fact that the entire reason highsec corporations are under continuous wardec pressure is because of the past changes to the war system that incentivized the creation of large, organized PVP alliances and allowed them to monopolize all aggression. It's not an appeal to emotion since it's simply my opinion of how the system should be based on the fact that ganking and wardecs in highsec are easy, low risk and highly rewarding. For some reason you seem to think that it's not OK for carebear PvE players to have that, but it's perfectly fine for you.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Your entire argument boils down to this: You don't like highsec PVP because you are an elitist, therefore you think highsec PVP should not exist (you'll no doubt argue that you think it should exist, in some limited fashion, but the reality is you want it to be functionally impossible). You're not interested in the game being good, or in helping new players or in other people enjoying the game. You are interested entirely in curtailing a types of gameplay you personally dislike because you cannot stand that other people like things that you don't like. Wrong. Once again you misrepresent me. Surely you're going to run out of straw? I don't like the current balance of highsec PvP. highsec PvP certainly should exist, and I've stated this numerous times. What it shouldn't be though is easy, low-risk and high reward. I believe the overall balance of safety in highsec as it currently standards is below the level it should be, that highsec PvE corps not being feasible is a bad thing, and that wardecs in particular need a look at.
I get that you disagree, and that's fine, but you don't need to repeatedly attack me and misrepresent everything I'm saying as if I must be somehow deficient to have a different opinion to you. Adults disagree, grow up.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Tibo Paralian
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 23:11:52 -
[99] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:...there's exactly zero evidence supporting the position that highsec PVP is for some reason bad and should, therefore be limited.
Do you really want to say that awoxing = highsec pvp?
A corp should have the right to enable/disable the option of friendly fire. It's a good change, it makes recruiting a bit easier. That was the whole point to CCP's changes, make it easier for new players to transition into player corps without the fear of the many stories of awoxing. Some people just want to kick back and shoot at red crosses.
If you feel like you really need this ability without being concorded, there are three other areas of space that allow you to do so. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2846
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 23:24:54 -
[100] - Quote
Nothing about the game mechanics has changed that makes either wardecs or ganking easier. Ganking has overall gotten more expensive, most of the ships routinely targeted for ganks have gotten more EHP, you can't warp when you go criminal and concord response times have never been faster. Wars are 2500% more expensive than they used to be, disbanding and reforming a corp with the same name has been declassified as an exploit and aggressors in wars are frankly at the mercy of the defender.
So has highsec PVP always been too easy, if so what is the one more nerf that's needed to put it in the right place. If not and highsec PVP has gotten easier, in spite of the game mechanics being objectively less supportive of it, why is this and how will nerfing it help?
I'm also really not sure what makes you qualified to talk about how hard any given type of highsec PVP is. I personally refrain from giving my two cents on how I think the sovereignty system should work because frankly I have no idea how that gameplay had ought to work because I have almost zero involvement with it except for ultra rare occasions. Why is your opinion on the state of highsec PVP valuable?
Tibo Paralian wrote:Do you really want to say that awoxing = highsec pvp? Yes, PVP that occurs in highsec is a type of highsec PVP regardless of the particulars of it. A bunch of dudes in frigates doing a corp tournament in highsec is highsec PVP, CODE. Ganking a freighter is highsec PVP, ninja salvaging a mission runner is highsec PVP. If one or more players are involved in some kind of violent action against another player in highsec what is happening is highsec PVP. I'm really not sure where people get these alternate definitions of PVP from. |
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1366
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 23:32:56 -
[101] - Quote
Hell cycling most of the ore out of a rock another miner is mining over and over to make him waste a cycle is pvp. It's actually quite amusing too
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
|
Mobadder Thworst
Noob Farmers Bad Neighbors.
500
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 01:00:22 -
[102] - Quote
Highsec is the center of the game. The vast majority of the subscription base lives in high sec.
The state of highsec is the state of the game.
If they nerf wardecs like you propose, they will have dropped the vast majority of the game's pvp structure (I would argue that they already have).
It may not matter at this point. They've already screwed up high sec so bad that new players aren't having fun.
CCP really thinks their NPC content is enough to sell noobs on the game. It's not. They need the player generated chaos that drew so many of us... But they've outlawed it.
The current trend has one ending and every one of us knows it. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13745
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 01:57:10 -
[103] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote: Do you really want to say that awoxing = highsec pvp?
Yes, it was by definition, whether you like it or not.
Quote:That was the whole point to CCP's changes, make it easier for new players to transition into player corps without the fear of the many stories of awoxing.
And since the changes have had zero positive effect on that, the entire premise was false.
Quote: Some people just want to kick back and shoot at red crosses.
Then go play Star Trek Online. EVE Online however is a PvP game, and PvP is not optional.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tibo Paralian
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 02:13:13 -
[104] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yes, it was by definition, whether you like it or not.
You are right, what I meant to say was. Is it the PVP you want so much that you're willing to quit the game over for?
Quote: And since the changes have had zero positive effect on that, the entire premise was false.
How would you know? EVE has been dying for how long now?
Quote: Then go play Star Trek Online. EVE Online however is a PvP game, and PvP is not optional.
This game is considered a sandbox right?
PvP is still not optional, it just means that now concord will kill you for awoxing. Instead of going through the trouble of joining a corp, you can do so now from step 1. Have at it.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
332
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 02:30:50 -
[105] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:...there's exactly zero evidence supporting the position that highsec PVP is for some reason bad and should, therefore be limited.
Do you really want to say that awoxing = highsec pvp? A corp should have the right to enable/disable the option of friendly fire. It's a good change, it makes recruiting a bit easier. That was the whole point to CCP's changes, make it easier for new players to transition into player corps without the fear of the many stories of awoxing. Some people just want to kick back and shoot at red crosses. If you feel like you really need this ability without being concorded, there are three other areas of space that allow you to do so. Lol dude. This thread was made to point out that ccps (and yours) thinking4/opinion wad wrong.
This didnt magically make recruiting easier This didnt get more corps to receuit This didnt get players out of npc corps This didnt increase retention This didnt save the noobs or bear
It was a failed idea
Please show data and facts and data on your opinons dude. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2851
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 02:55:23 -
[106] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:You are right, what I meant to say was. Is it the PVP you want so much that you're willing to quit the game over for?
If I had to pick between say, two guys shooting each other in t1 frigates in a FW complex and someone suicide ganking an AFK hauler and choose which was the more "important" kind of PVP I'd choose the latter every time.
The reason is simple, basically every MMO that exists has PVP where the participants are entirely willing and are engaging in that PVP willingly, it's extremely common, the outcomes matter to basically nobody except the parties involved in that specific fight and there are basically no effects beyond allowing the two competitors to see who is "best".
Suicide ganking is much more of a unique thing, it's not a contest between willing participants, it's an attack carried out for an ideological or profit motivated reason, it's entirely likely to elicit a significant emotional response from both parties regardless of whether it succeeds or fails and the effects it has on other players depending on the potential loss of goods can be huge.
The ability of someone to gank an untanked hauler or awox a mission runner is infinitely more worth quitting the game over than 1v1 gudfites. |
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1699
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 03:04:40 -
[107] - Quote
GordonO wrote:Sometimes after a killer day at work, you just want to shoot soe red crosses without the drama. Sorry, they removed that feature from the game. You can't shoot at red crosses anymore.
Who put the goat in there?
|
Tibo Paralian
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 03:31:04 -
[108] - Quote
Thread title: Awox Nerf Fails to Boost EVE Numbers
Suicide ganking is not awoxing. They haven't taken that away yet have they?
Vimsy Vortis wrote: The ability of someone to gank an untanked hauler or awox a mission runner is infinitely more worth quitting the game over than 1v1 gudfites.
And you can do this 24/7 in all the other three areas of space that do not have police/concord on it. The only difference is that the victim might shoot back and win. The Horror!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13745
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 04:34:12 -
[109] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:Is it the PVP you want so much that you're willing to quit the game over for?
Not at this point.
My counter. Why did it need to be removed? We already know that the ostensible reason is a lie, so other than making highsec more disgustingly safe than it already was, what purpose did it serve?
Quote: This game is considered a sandbox right?
If I remember my Q&A correctly, "EVE is full time PvP in a sandbox environment", or something to that effect.
Quote: PvP is still not optional, it just means that now concord will kill you for awoxing.
Then it's not awoxing, it's just ganking. We had that already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6424
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 07:02:26 -
[110] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nothing about the game mechanics has changed that makes either wardecs or ganking easier. Ganking has overall gotten more expensive, most of the ships routinely targeted for ganks have gotten more EHP Wardecs used to be limited, now they aren't. Hyperdunking now exists. Warp changes make it much easier to get ahead of large targets.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:disbanding and reforming a corp with the same name has been declassified as an exploit This has never been an exploit.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:That was the whole point to CCP's changes, make it easier for new players to transition into player corps without the fear of the many stories of awoxing. And since the changes have had zero positive effect on that, the entire premise was false. Prove it. Show me all the statistics you have on whether or not newer players are joining corporations. You don't have them, you are talking complete rubbish.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1912
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 13:50:29 -
[111] - Quote
I was excited by the prospect of Serendipity Lost actually volunteering for a Thunderdome match so I could troll her by offering up a Thanatos to the winner.
Am leaving disappointed.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1370
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 14:37:41 -
[112] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:I was excited by the prospect of Serendipity Lost actually volunteering for a Thunderdome match so I could troll her by offering up a Thanatos to the winner.
Am leaving disappointed. Leto offered her a trannytos already
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1914
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 15:29:20 -
[113] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:I was excited by the prospect of Serendipity Lost actually volunteering for a Thunderdome match so I could troll her by offering up a Thanatos to the winner.
Am leaving disappointed. Leto offered her a trannytos already If I could collect on every Thanatos I've been offered, I'd have my own capital fleet.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1246
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 18:09:55 -
[114] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I'll do a 1v1 thunderdome with you. You pick the ship class and any rules you feel you need. Then we'll work out a time and do it.
My only rule is we fleet up so there are no boosting descrepancies. Just 2 folks in fleet - me and you. Considering that you are the who is upset with me for not dying I would agree to this why? And you're stupid for proposing it, you realize I'd cheat, right? I'm neither upset nor stupid. Are you about to Holysheet1 on me? Is that what I'm feeling here? Poop just got real Vimsy... what are you going to do?
I don't see an answer to this yet Vimsy.
I have challenged you to a 1v1 thunderdome match.
Do you accept or decline.
Yes.... or Holysheet1 No?? |
Alana Charen-Teng
Vatlaa Corporation
621
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 18:13:52 -
[115] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm an adult man in his mid twenties playing EVE online with and against other adults of similar age, actually.
With regards to who you declare war on there are two general approaches you can go with. You can target people who look like they'll try and shoot back and potentially there may be an interesting fight, and you can target people who will run around like headless chickens and die in mission ships and mining barges. Both are fine, but the later is much more common.
I'm really not sure why you're so upset that I win at highsec PVP a lot. If it makes you that butthurt that i haven't lost a ship for a while you're welcome to come and try blowing me up, I live in Nourvukaiken. I somehow doubt you're up to that though.
Vimsy, I don't know how you muster the patience to have internet discussions with people like this.
"It's not real pvp unless they can shoot back."
Still, I support you for fighting the good fight. |
Freya Sertan
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
582
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:57:17 -
[116] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:Thread title: Awox Nerf Fails to Boost EVE Numbers Suicide ganking is not awoxing. They haven't taken that away yet have they? Vimsy Vortis wrote: The ability of someone to gank an untanked hauler or awox a mission runner is infinitely more worth quitting the game over than 1v1 gudfites.
And you can do this 24/7 in all the other three areas of space that do not have police/concord on it. The only difference is that the victim might shoot back and win. The Horror!
Victims are welcome to shoot back in highsec as well. In fact, they're encouraged to do so with limited engagements.
New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.
Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
|
Valkin Mordirc
1270
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 02:58:13 -
[117] - Quote
On the note of targeting easy corps to **** with,
Generally I do it as a statement. To prove that they are not protected like some of them believe and to disprove the notion that Highsec is Safesec.
Also I've met three very awesome people by wardec's.
So I'm happy I did this or I would've never met them.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1376
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 05:52:25 -
[118] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote: Also I've met three very awesome people by wardec's.
I'm pretty awesome
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
|
Valkin Mordirc
1273
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 05:59:42 -
[119] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote: Also I've met three very awesome people by wardec's.
I'm pretty awesome
Four then. XD
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1250
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:03:31 -
[120] - Quote
Sasha Nyemtsov wrote:The verdict is in.
The much-trumpeted 'Great Idea' for turning Highsec corps into thriving mini-communities has run into deep trouble. Offering CEO's the opportunity to switch-off intra-corp aggression and thereby thwart the efforts of awoxers, CCP no doubt hoped to increase the enthusiasm of new players for the Highsec-Corp experience, and thereby fill their coffers to overflowing.
O dear. Great work as always Sasha.
CCP Rise has made pretty clear that internal CCP analysis pointed to social factors and being exposed to player interactions like PvP are the major factors associated with player retention. I am not sure why CCP was fixated on this change as something that would get new players into corps as it was obvious to anyone that highsec awoxing was a negligible threat and was not the sole factor keeping new players out of corps: rather they were shunned also as potential spies, thieves or just as "noobs" who offer nothing to the bottom line.
All this change amounted to was an attempted bribe by CCP to induce highsec corps to take new players, but in true Eve fashion these risk-averse carebear corps just pocketed that safety and didn't bother to accept any. Why go to the trouble to train, engage with and help integrate new players into Eve when they could just be out maximizing their ISK/h? These fat highsec corps now get to fly even blingier ships, safe in the knowledge that it is now 100% impossible to lose them unexpectedly except to a suicide gank. Now there is even less reason for them ever to start generating content, so they will continue to just sit in highsec in near perfect safety, doing the same repetitive no-value-added activities of mining and missioning in near isolation until they bore of the game and quit.
And none of this is to mention the nefarious and incompetent highsec corps this safety enables and stabilizes that will increasingly suck-up new players and show them only their twisted, ISK-obsessed, Eve-is-a-single-player-missioning/mining-simulator world view of the game. Most of these poor souls after suffering through that for a few weeks will rightly conclude that Eve (as shown to them) is an antiquated bore-fest of a game and quit, never even getting a chance to experience the parts of the game where Eve shines.
And this removal had no effect on the good, competent highsec corps that were already accepting new players. They dealt with the minimal risk of an awoxer just fine before the nerf, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of them keep friendly fire enabled as a point of pride and to help train their new players through the intra-corp sparring it allows.
Well, CCP made a bad call on this one - they removed actual game play that generated content, conflict and player-driven stories - for no obvious benefit at all. But hopefully they learn their lesson and stop removing things from the game that make it interesting in the quest to make it more accessible. I am all for changes that help integrate and retain new players, but ones that will actually do this and do this without making the game more boring would be preferred. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |