Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
674
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 06:32:42 -
[1] - Quote
All quotations are taken from the /vg/eog thread.
Quote:I've watched this vid twice in the last two days, initially only because of morbid curiosity about how **** Destiny is as a game and as a product (mostly a product, very little game), but then I started to see the analogues between certain elements being described and the game of EVE and where it is headed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ5BpeHVTWY One particularly important point gets made about 18 minutes in, and another good point again at 21 minutes. If you too can see the parallels then think about what we are seeing with the PCU and the trajectory of the game design. THIS IS CALEB BTW, doing more interesting **** than blowing up free ships on sisi
Quote:>>118686525 (You)
TL;DR for that video 'they're dumbing it down'
I would hardly say EVE is being dumbed down by the way. Making something more intuitive doesn't dumb it down. Dumbing down is designing for dumbies at the expense of non-dumbies.
Quote:>>118687368 That's an over-simplified (dumbed down) analysis of the video.
Did you miss the part where he said that it could potentially be the company trying to profit greatly off their own incompetence? Leading to things like highsec aggression being overhauled, ganking reviewed over and over again and the jump changes.
I'm not saying those changes are the result of incompetence I'm saying that they're the long overdue response to incompetence. Do expect in time for CODE to get marginalised further and further as CCP wakes up to the fact that having your significant highsec population held to ransom by people exploiting poorly written internal laws of gameplay makes for people closing their wallets and leaving.
It's impossible to incentivise people to leave highsec on its own merits, the curious and courageous will explore other avenues of gameplay and the meek and simple will stay in their low reward, low risk and low responsibility areas of the game because this accurately reflects their real life personalities - these are people who work low paid, low skill jobs and possess very little managerial accountability for their own workplace performance. You'd probably see this in their personal lives as well, playing EVE AFK mining in highsec while they watch netflix and eating sausage rolls because they're too dull and unmotivated to challenge themselves in any aspect of their lives.
And CODE will be a victim of this problem some day, CODE is a symptom of the ennui that has set in across the games aging and bored PVP playerbase as they struggle to deal with having their hands tied through non-stop deployments which they derive little personal gratification and profit from so instead they turn their latent aggression on to foes that have little recourse because much like any modern neighbourhood in western civilisation the lack of community and communication makes them easy to seperate culturally, divide and conquer as they rail on about how they're being victimised by predators and make no attempt whatsoever in most cases to improve their own abilities or form any kind of cohesive defence against attack but through trying to litigate groups like CODE and marmite out of existence.
Per the above I have had this creeping feeling in my guts for months about certain things going on in EVE and the game community at large. I think in EVE specifically we've entered a long cold-war period of the game where you get flashpoints flaring up across small parts of the game but the threats of M.A.D. is long passed and the only thing keeping everyone going is a couple of artificial conflicts over abjectly nothing being instigated to keep people interested enough to not leave.
If the question of why CODE attracted so many players were ever to be asked I would say that yes it's because of the maturity of the game economy and game design and that attitudes towards warfare in EVE simply aren't as polarising as it was historically. There's people I know who don't want to commit to the battlefield because they see it as a chore rather than an opportunity to create some small slice of personal history. Then of course there is also the enduring opinion that 'null is ****** and boring' but only rarely do you see a realistic solution being offered, something that the devs can feasibly actually do with the game that won't break anything.
Personally I think that much of what we are seeing surrounding the stagnation of the PCU (rather than its decline) is coming from the long stability of the game world itself. It has been said before elsewhere that the game needs strong villains to drive it forward - but the point missed by that author is that people like the Kings of europe, the emperors of Rome he romanticises and all the other historical figures that stick in our cultural memory is that they came to prominence during times of reactionary or proactionary crisis and political downfall - which is something we are only now experiencing after about 3 years of stagnation. The collapse of large null groups isn't tragic, it's inevitable as the lack of common goals and the steel curtain of passive-aggression between major alliances and coalitions drives them to get bored and start attacking their own members.
While the CFC doesn't outwardly suffer this problem it does show the signs, goons are strong culturally and they enforce this will on to their client states inside the CFC and as such the client states are only doing what they're told and the resentment from individuals builds, except here in game you just leave and unsub/go somewhere else unlike in real life where constant oppression forces your back to a wall and with death being a very real prospect you either flee as a refugee or you become a 'terrorist' and fight for your self-determination.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
14923
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 06:43:57 -
[2] - Quote
EVE haven't been that 'hardcore' game in years now, well before CODE arrived.
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
674
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 07:20:32 -
[3] - Quote
Chribba wrote:EVE haven't been that 'hardcore' game in years now, well before CODE arrived.
/c
I use CODE as an example because they are like the summary catalogue of issues with EVE.
You're right that this game isn't so hardcore as it used to be, with the definition of hardcore being very open to debate, however I would posit that EVE had more energy and inertia when people were still 'finding their place' in the world compared to today when everything is undergoing a spiral of entropy.
Playermade stargates don't seem like a solution to me, making supers and titans consume fuel to stay active does. No fuel? Ship shuts off, capacitor goes dead and all modules offline. You sit in space and wait to die. Harassment tactics can therefore start interrupting the refueling process and the nature of this inevitable decay of usefulness for the ship itself if it isn't constantly replenished (and therefore, used) forces them in to exposure and risk.
We watched a titan die in YA0 the other week, if we said the refueling can only happen externally from a module on a station (not a POS) then you will definitely see more chances to interdict a super or titan at a point of weakness.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32382
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 07:45:55 -
[4] - Quote
Is going from /vg/ to GD up or down.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1759
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 08:46:12 -
[5] - Quote
Chribba wrote:EVE haven't been that 'hardcore' game in years now, well before CODE arrived.
/c This is correct. Development shifted years ago from making a cut-throat, PvP sandbox game about Empire building, to a more gentler sandbox where everyone can just "have fun". Highsec has been continually made much safer and more lucrative, to the point where no one's "fun", except for the most clueless freighter pilot can be actually ruined. Lose something? Just go grind enough in highsec with near perfect safety to replace it.
The current state of the game is a predictable consequence of those decisions. With easy, and safe, resources available to everyone, there is no reason to go spend the effort to carve out a space and establish an ecosystem of miners, industrialists and so forth that are vulnerable (and thus content) to others. It is much easier to just grind enough for a ship in highsec and go on a roam elsewhere, than to truly live outside of highec.
So we have entered a spiral of less and less targets outside of highsec, and the ones that are there are just the ones looking for a fight. Activity will continue to decline and nullsec stagnate, but Eve won't die. It will just continue to move to a less "hardcore" consensual spaceship PvP game, and away from the single universe PvP sandbox it was originally conceived as. Gone are the days of big player-driven wars and real battles for dominance, and we will get more small, meaningless fights just for bragging rights rather than resources.
Highsec will be a place where those that spend any effort will continue to be 100% safe, and thus only AFKers, new players, and the completely clueless will explode. But as all the former targets continue to migrate back to highsec to enjoy this safety, so will the hunters whose content and targets have been decimated by this development direction. Therefore ganking will continue to increase as it will be the only real from of non-consensual PvP left.
I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point. Certainly player-built star gates is not going to be a magic bullet to get people back to nullsec. This will only happen with new space and a land rush and/or a complete rebalancing of the risk vs. reward balance of most of the PvE in the game. Otherwise, people will continue to stay where the rewards are earned most efficiently, which in the current state of the game, is highsec by a large margin. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7182
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 09:03:38 -
[6] - Quote
Chribba wrote:EVE haven't been that 'hardcore' game in years now, well before CODE arrived.
/c
Indeed.
CODE. is a sign that the game is lacking hardcore. The very people hunting in highsec are in highsec for the same reason their prey is in highsec.
Once upon a time highsec was just a place for noobs and people lacking time to be in a corp. Everybody worth their salt moved on.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14696
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 10:26:03 -
[7] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it.
They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game.
We'll see.
"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.
|
Thorn en Distel
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 10:48:50 -
[8] - Quote
Lol. I'm just staggered by the pseudo-sociology/psychology in that third quote. People who stay in highsec are low-pay drones in RL, people without initiative (and presumably without intelligence)? My oh my...
/popcorn
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
674
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 10:52:17 -
[9] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it. They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game. We'll see.
Or make PVE more deadly so that L4's can't be farmed endlessly by 2slot tanks.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16754
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 11:23:38 -
[10] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it. They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game. We'll see. Or make PVE more deadly so that L4's can't be farmed endlessly by 2slot tanks.
No such thing as unfarmable pve but they sure can fix the only needing a two slot tank bit.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
674
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 11:41:20 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it. They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game. We'll see. Or make PVE more deadly so that L4's can't be farmed endlessly by 2slot tanks. No such thing as unfarmable pve but they sure can fix the only needing a two slot tank bit.
The idea I would have is L4's accurately reflect the difficulty you're supposed to get from them. Angel extravanganza should be HARD not a meatgrinder.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16754
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 11:53:53 -
[12] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The idea I would have is L4's accurately reflect the difficulty you're supposed to get from them. Angel extravanganza should be HARD not a meatgrinder.
I would like to see CCP expand the burner missions to include BC, and BS. They should then remove the old missions or replace the ships that spawn in them with randomized burners, same goes for belt rats, anom rats and so on.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1278
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 11:54:20 -
[13] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it. They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game. We'll see. Or make PVE more deadly so that L4's can't be farmed endlessly by 2slot tanks.
Rather than making PVE more deadly, please rework that crap.
*SAVE US, CHOSEN ONE* becomes lame really quickly. I'd give mouthhugs to the dev that leads away on missions where I have to rep 2 NPC CBCs through an onslaught of frigates, or am paid to jam out enemy logistics. Or be labeled the bait for a top sekret operation mainly involving preparing my ship for 2k incoming dps for a few minutes before my NPC navy bros show up and save me instead of the other way round.
Make me feel less special and more like an expendable capsuleer and I reconsider not touching missions ever again. |
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour Sani-Sabik
1050
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 11:55:23 -
[14] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure CCP is able or even willing to turn things around at this point.
Able? Very possibly. Willing? I highly doubt it. They'd have to find the courage to slay the sacred cows of highsec and Concord, something which they have proven unable to do in the whole history of the game. We'll see. Or make PVE more deadly so that L4's can't be farmed endlessly by 2slot tanks. No such thing as unfarmable pve but they sure can fix the only needing a two slot tank bit. The idea I would have is L4's accurately reflect the difficulty you're supposed to get from them. Angel extravanganza should be HARD not a meatgrinder.
The problem with L4 missions is this:
They are, for the most part, doable in a t1 fitted t1 battleship with skills at III or IV.
So when they're done with a t2 fitted t1 battleship with skills at V, then the isk/hour goes up quite a bit.
And when people do them in faction fit ships, with relevant implants and maybe even boosters, the isk/hour ratio goes up even further.
Making the missions tougher would have little effect on the people doing them in faction ships, and major effect on the newer players attempting them in t1 fits.
As another example, burner missions are supposed to be hard. Recently, I saw a video, in which someone did a burner mission, in which they took 0 damage. Not a tank that would withstand the NPCs, but actual zero damage. The npcs were not able to harm them, or their drones, at all. That player found the trick to the puzzle that burner missions are. If you don't know the trick, you'll lose ships, If you do know the trick, then for 15 minutes of effort, you'd get 6M in cash, and 14k in LP. In highsec.
Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1541
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:12:11 -
[15] - Quote
CODE-like non -wardec illegal aggressors in HS, are the greatest beneficiaries of HS security.
Thry can fly around, looking for targets in HS with impugnity, while protected by CONCORD from aggression. Fair enough. Everyone else flies around under that protection too.
The problem is in the repercussions of illegal aggression in HS, of which CONCORD is merely a reactionary element. When they engage a target illegally, the cost/reward is easy to anticipate. Its only substantial mitigator, is the random roll on how much loot survives. This is largely arbitrary, since its universal throughout EVE anyways. Everywhere in Eve, cargo and module destruction % is rhe same. So that too, is tabled, and not an issue.
The missing factor, is a greater security standing penalty for illegal acts in HS, so as to more proportionately reduce them to -5.0, so that they themselves have to respond to overt player aggression, as they themselves enact on others.
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16754
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:16:53 -
[16] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The missing factor, is a greater security standing penalty for illegal acts in HS, so as to more proportionately reduce them to -5.0, so that they themselves have to respond to overt player aggression, as they themselves enact on others.
I say CCP rolls back the nerfs to what we had in 2008 so you can see just how good highsec has it these days.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Salvos Rhoska
1541
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:18:09 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The missing factor, is a greater security standing penalty for illegal acts in HS, so as to more proportionately reduce them to -5.0, so that they themselves have to respond to overt player aggression, as they themselves enact on others.
I say CCP rolls back the nerfs to what we had in 2008 so you can see just how good highsec has it these days.
I wasnt around in 2008. Which nerfs are you referring to exactly?
Would you have a problem with increasing sec standing loss for HS illegal actions?
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
367
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:28:44 -
[18] - Quote
Wait, so you think CODE agents run around with positve sec status (or at least above -5) on a regular basis?
Ok, so we can safely disregard everything else you've said then as it all flows from that godawful misconception that couldn't be more wrong if it came from mayor wrong of wrongtown. All you're doing is hurting the for-profit gankers that for the most part aren't CODE with this 'proposal'. Oh and the newbie gankers, they'd be hurt to, you'd make it harder for them to learn the ropes of it before their sec status drops. I'm afraid I can't support any proposal that will harm newbies and thus decrease player retention rates.
Back to the actual topic of the thread, have no fear my friends. There has been a few recent developments that bear very good tidings for CODE., keep an eye out on the blog over the next few days to see what I mean. It's clear skies ahead for us, mwuhoohahahaha. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16754
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:28:45 -
[19] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: I wasnt around in 2008. Which nerfs are you referring to exactly?
Slower concord response times, ships had less HP, we used battleships to gank stuff, we got insurance payouts on our gank ships, concord didn't stop you from warping the second you open fire, you couldn't sell killrights. There is more I am missing from that list but you should get the idea.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Salvos Rhoska
1542
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:43:16 -
[20] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: I wasnt around in 2008. Which nerfs are you referring to exactly?
Slower concord response times, ships had less HP, we used battleships to gank stuff, we got insurance payouts on our gank ships, concord didn't stop you from warping the second you open fire, you couldn't sell killrights. There is more I am missing from that list but you should get the idea.
Ok, that list is comprehensive enough.
1) CONCORD reaction timers. What actually this boils down to, is ship balance complications. Such as in what ships, with what fits, at what cost, can destroy another, in what matter of time. I cant speak to 2008 (especialy in ship EHP was also lower), but I think its problematic to redact the reaction time. The result is very difficult to predict, especially because of ao many ship balance changes in the interim.
2) Insurance payout for ship loss in an illegal act... Ok. But not exactly rational, is it.
3) CONCORD scrambling. Makes sense to me that CONCORD should scramble.
4) Selling killrights. Why not? Opens more meta and player content.
I understand your comparison to a date when HS was even less safe than now. But I dont see how these countermand my proposal.
HS illegal aggression, at this time, is a simple mathematical quotient of what you can kill, with what ship, before CONCORD arrivesm and still make a profit. That was the case in 2008 too.
Im merely proposing an increase to the sec standing penalty, so that players perpetually involved in HS illegal aggression, also have to themselves become targets of HS aggression by those around them, unless they recoup that sec standing loss first.
This doesnt make HS safer. The risk remains the same to both aggressor and victim in an illegl act. Just means HS illegal aggressors cant systemically farm in HS, without themselves becoming targets for other players (meaning more PvP), as well as making them targets themselves when they have to recoup that sec standing (more PvP).
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
|
Zirashi
State Protectorate Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:54:26 -
[21] - Quote
Thorn en Distel wrote:Lol. I'm just staggered by the pseudo-sociology/psychology in that third quote. People who stay in highsec are low-pay drones in RL, people without initiative (and presumably without intelligence)? My oh my...
/popcorn
Ikr? It's almost as bad as the idiotic "gankers are all psychopaths/sociopaths irl" shiptoasts lol.
Why even include that? |
Salvos Rhoska
1542
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:59:32 -
[22] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:Wait, so you think CODE agents run around with positve sec status (or at least above -5) on a regular basis?
No. Ofc not. If they ran around with -5.0, theyd be free red targets.
Thats exactly my point.
Theyd be free open PvP targets, as a result of their own illegal PvP aggression.
Does that scare you? Why? Dont you want more PvP?
Whats wrong with a greater sec standing loss on illegal actions in HS? Just means you go red sooner, which leads to more PLAYER content and interaction and conflict, rather than PvE.
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16755
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:01:50 -
[23] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Would you have a problem with increasing sec standing loss for HS illegal actions? If so, why/how?
I have a problem with anything that further nerfs the single most nerfed activity in EVE. Its simply not needed especially given how easy it is to both avoid and to protect yourself from being ganked.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
367
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:02:37 -
[24] - Quote
Reading comprehension isn't trained to V yet I see.
We DO run round at -10, we take pride in out -10 statuses. That is the whole point. Go back and read it again. |
Frank Armour
EntroPraetorian Academy EntroPraetorian Aegis
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:03:11 -
[25] - Quote
I personally think that the game is stagnant because it has'nt adjusted to the lower number of "real" players. I know for a fact, like anyone else, that most people have multiple accounts. I believe that even tho Tranquility is showing 25k players at peak time. I'ts probably something closer to 17.5k in reality. There's nothing wrong with having several accounts but the issue with several accounts is that no matter how good you are at multitasking, you usually will use them each for a specific task... most people I know have like 10 toons for PI on 4 different accounts. CCP is aware of that fact, is embracing it and is even about to change the EVE launcher to accomodate it. Now to my point! If you have that many toons and even if they are all for combat you will tend to hang out in the same vicinity/area for pure convenience. I believe changes that could help goes has follow.
- Reduce the size of Null sec and High sec by something like a third to a half of it's curent size. Reason mentioned above PLUS, less useless traveling time, more people per system, create ressources fight(gold rush kinda deal) and easier to travel with the new restrictions to jump distance imposed to carrier and JF.
- Remove Skills requirements for side jobs (Scanning/Exploration & PI) . This will do two things. Lower the amounts of secondary toons needed to attend to side activities and give more time to play on your main character. For most of the veterans, this will sound like blasphemy but since I started playing this game, having a secondary character became almost mandatory and that's no good for new players perception of the game or game experience.
- Reduce the Jump Clone re-activation time to 12hrs or even less with appropriate skills. If I decide to go missionning in High-Sec in the morning and wants to participate in a fleet that has been posted before supper for the evening. Why am I not allow to jump clone back to Null? Waiting 22hrs with full skills? Jump around from HiSec to Null tru Low and loose like 15-30mins of my game time on damn travel again?
The MAIN thing that comes to mind with all those ideas I propose is MOBILITY! This game lacks MOBILITY!
Some people might enjoy the morning time they spend going tru all their PI character and then Hauling **** 23 jumps away but I don't. I like to have one or two character and still enjoy everything the game has to offer.
Just my 2cents. I'm sure you guys will let me know what y'all thinks. |
Salvos Rhoska
1542
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:04:21 -
[26] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Would you have a problem with increasing sec standing loss for HS illegal actions? If so, why/how?
I have a problem with anything that further nerfs the single most nerfed activity in EVE. Its simply not needed especially given how easy it is to both avoid and to protect yourself from being ganked.
Increased sec standing loss for an illegal act does not nerf the activity.
Same risk/rewards, ship balance, CONCORD reaction, still applies. HS is not made safer at all.
All it does, is increase player based content and PvP, as opposed to CONCORD (as PvE).
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
Salvos Rhoska
1542
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:05:31 -
[27] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:Reading comprehension isn't trained to V yet I see.
We DO run round at -10, we take pride in out -10 statuses. That is the whole point. Go back and read it again.
Fine.
Then you should have no problem my proposal.
After all, at -10, the modifier for any subsequent illegal act is irrelevant, as you have bottomed out :)
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16755
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:07:26 -
[28] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Increased sec standing loss for an illegal act does not nerf the activity.
Same risk/rewards, ship balance, CONCORD reaction, still applies. HS is not made safer at all.
All it does, is increase player based content and PvP, as opposed to CONCORD (as PvE).
They are mostly at -10 anyway so the only people to suffer are the people who accidentally get concorded. Congrats, your nerf to gankers missed the target and hit someone else, just like the freighter nerf did.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4019
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:10:08 -
[29] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tisiphone Dira wrote:Reading comprehension isn't trained to V yet I see.
We DO run round at -10, we take pride in out -10 statuses. That is the whole point. Go back and read it again. Fine. Then you should have no problem my proposal. After all, at -10, the modifier for any subsequent illegal act is irrelevant, as you have bottomed out :)
Still don't get it? Gankers don't give a damn of their sec status since it is as inconsequential as being Concordokken after a gank.
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Seven Koskanaiken
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1658
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:10:16 -
[30] - Quote
Let's just rush to the logical end and rename it to World of Spaceships. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |