Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:06:11 -
[1] - Quote
I've been reading another thread recently about changes to lowsec and it has got me thinking about the roles of each area of space, and the kinds of players who go there. I believe it could be helpful to think of both player groups, and areas of space in this way when attempting to make improvements.
EvE's four areas are separated from each other by one distinction, that is security level, although wormholes bring extra differences.
High-sec: The safest area of space, this represents land in this analogy. On the land you are able to run, walk, stand, or even lay down; the amount of effort you put in is entirely up to you. Certain people look for this type of environment in their games, these would be the people who never leave highsec in years of playing EvE. Many players would mock them for this decision, but how a player chooses to spend his time is entirely up to that player. Due to the fact that the effort level can be as low as you like, it is entirely possible for certain players to spend many hours logged in. There are carnivores and herbivores on the land, and plenty who eat both; the carnivores feed on other players, while the herbivores feed on what grows (PvE).
Low-sec: Next down in terms of safety, this area is the shallow sea surrounding the land. The dangerous areas of space are all waters, as you must swim at all times to survive, unless docked. If you stop swimming, if you stop expending effort, you will die. Inherently a person only has a certain capacity to expend effort, so play sessions will not last as long as those of highsec players. In these waters are mostly predators, feeding on each other due to a lack of prey. As a result, there are plenty of parts of lowsec which are empty, and others that are near certain death. The shallow waters allow plenty of room for individuality or small group play, though large groups can exist here.
Null-sec: Completely lawless. Null is the deep ocean. Here you move in a shoal to prevent being singled out by predators. You also have the opportunity to see threats from a distance, even further with friends, and hence can create large defended bases. The expanse of the ocean brings a form of safety, but it also provides no limit on the size of a potential threat. In a way, the effort to survive is shifted from the individual to the group. This brings its own type of player, one who is willing to put in effort while logged in, for the good of the group.
Wormholes: Probably the toughest to come up with an analogy for, the closest I've got is rivers. Constantly moving, putting you near different places each day. The turbulence makes it more difficult to swim than in other areas, and so the effort to live here is even higher. Probably the most fun in my experience but most wormholers can tell you it can get tiring. Here there is room for groups of all sizes in the different classes. This attracts the type of player who likes to put in a lot of effort for the potential high rewards of wormhole space.
Improvements: When thinking about improvements it is worth thinking of these differing player groups who live in each of the sec status areas. If EvE is to grow as a game, each area needs to appeal to the types of people who would naturally call these places home. For highsec this means accessible content of varying degrees of effort. For lowsec this means creating reasons for traffic through, to provide food for the predators there. I would suggest splitting up the empires with lowsec, creating islands. For null, there needs to be more conflict between groups, but with the cooperative mindset of most of the players there that is unlikely. I'd suggest there need to be more colossal fights that cause earthquakes in the political landscape, few groups currently hold too much power in their supercap fleets so they are practically unassailable without supercap support.
I don't propose to have all the answers, but hopefully this analogy helps when attempting to think about how the game could be changed to grow the playerbase of the various sectors.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
896
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:29:29 -
[2] - Quote
While risk tolerance will influence the path people follow in Eve, there are different kinds of risk. Some players are quite comfortable risking billions of ISK in market speculation but wouldn't consider visiting the lower security regions of space.
You also need to sub-divide sovereign and NPC nullsec. If you are a member of a strong alliance, sovereign nullsec can be safer than highsec. After all, CONCORD doesn't prevent crime, they simply punish it.
I have characters in both highsec and sovereign nullsec - I don't think that is uncommon. Most of us like a bit of variety in life. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:50:52 -
[3] - Quote
Market speculation is in a way consensual pvp though, nobody forces you to make buy or well orders except your own desire to see a return. I'll give you that NPC null is different enough from sovereign null to be it's own entry, but I don't know enough to comment on those players. I'd wager it's the same types who would live in lowsec, only they prey on the sov dwellers instead, hot drops, roams etc. They have plenty of targets in a way.
It's right enough that everyone likes variety, but people have different limits. It makes sense to maintain the current distinctions between sectors, but keep in mind the player groups when designing improvements. I also don't doubt you have characters in null and high, I'm sure many do. They offer a lot of similarities even if protection in null is provided by the group.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
20655
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:59:55 -
[4] - Quote
You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right?
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
Lords.Of.Midnight currently recruiting
|
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
1110
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:16:55 -
[5] - Quote
Your analogy is about as much good as a frog with a guitar playing stairway to heaven.
There once was a ganker named tisi
A stunningly beautiful missy
To gank a gross miner
There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1140
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:42:10 -
[6] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right? Meta is what makes it dangerous. Otherwise means of aggression there are objectively the most limited compared to any other type of space.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Salvos Rhoska
2432
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 13:19:25 -
[7] - Quote
In terms of ecological systems, I agree completely with comparing EVE to aquatic biospheres.
Ive used the same analogy many times myself.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
452
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:04:06 -
[8] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right?
Of course and I'm sure you also realise that is a source of constant arguments between those wanting more safety and those wanting to increase the risk in highsec. What it boils down to is how much effort does that person want (or is able) to dedicate to eve. What reducing safety in highsec in fact does is chop out the lower tiers of gamer, and most here will see that as a good thing when it is anything but for a company. There is no middle ground here between 'carebears' and 'gankers' they want different things from the game. If we want a living universe full of people then there needs to be an easy mode (with low low reward) in the form of highsec. Equally we need dangerous environments for those looking for that type of game.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
20664
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:22:08 -
[9] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right? Of course and I'm sure you also realise that is a source of constant arguments between those wanting more safety and those wanting to increase the risk in highsec. What it boils down to is how much effort does that person want (or is able) to dedicate to eve. What reducing safety in highsec in fact does is chop out the lower tiers of gamer, and most here will see that as a good thing when it is anything but for a company. There is no middle ground here between 'carebears' and 'gankers' they want different things from the game. If we want a living universe full of people then there needs to be an easy mode (with low low reward) in the form of highsec. Equally we need dangerous environments for those looking for that type of game. And we have that, highsec is safer relative to the others as barrogh pointed out, However it's far from safe and the misconception that it is leads to some truly stupid losses resulting from complacency.
Nowhere here are you supposed to be safe, it's one of the defining things about eve that sets it apart from everything else on the market.
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
Lords.Of.Midnight currently recruiting
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
452
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 17:17:29 -
[10] - Quote
Right, in eve you are truly safe nowhere. Is this decision actually good for anyone? I believe what truly sets eve apart is the lack of NPC interaction, there is no great story except the ones we make.
Explain to me please why a player who wants something lower effort can't find that in this game. I get that eve is dangerous, destruction needs to happen, etc. That avoids the question of why doesn't a sandbox game try to appeal to as broad a church of gamers as possible.
If I want to sit on my ass and eat fruits from a bush, why can't I in eve? Why should I have to swim each moment I'm logged in if I'm not looking for that.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
|
Sere O'Asis
Summer Evenings and Autumn Skies
145
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 02:15:29 -
[11] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:If I want to sit on my ass and eat fruits from a bush, why can't I in eve? Why should I have to swim each moment I'm logged in if I'm not looking for that.
My initial reaction to your question is: if you want to eat fruit from a bush untroubled.....you are actually looking to play a different game, something other than EVE.
EVE is about conflict, competition, survival of the fittest.
In your context, EVE is about swimming, so you either sink or you swim. |
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 03:44:29 -
[12] - Quote
From the solo player's perspective:
High-sec is bringing a slinky to a gunfight. Low-sec is bringing a knife to a gunfight. Wormhole space is bringing a cardboard box to a gunfight. Null-sec is finally bringing a gun to a gunfight... only to get nuked.
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
453
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 07:02:51 -
[13] - Quote
Sere O'Asis wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:If I want to sit on my ass and eat fruits from a bush, why can't I in eve? Why should I have to swim each moment I'm logged in if I'm not looking for that. My initial reaction to your question is: if you want to eat fruit from a bush untroubled.....you are actually looking to play a different game, something other than EVE. EVE is about conflict, competition, survival of the fittest. In your context, EVE is about swimming, so you either sink or you swim.
So basically, you're telling me to go play something else. This mindset can only lower player numbers. I don't see that as a good business move.
Yes eve is about conflict, competition, etc. Eve is also about creating, and was about being a universe you could live in. Why can't eve have some land for those who like to be able to relax while still playing eve.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 08:43:59 -
[14] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Sere O'Asis wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:If I want to sit on my ass and eat fruits from a bush, why can't I in eve? Why should I have to swim each moment I'm logged in if I'm not looking for that. My initial reaction to your question is: if you want to eat fruit from a bush untroubled.....you are actually looking to play a different game, something other than EVE. EVE is about conflict, competition, survival of the fittest. In your context, EVE is about swimming, so you either sink or you swim. So basically, you're telling me to go play something else. This mindset can only lower player numbers. I don't see that as a good business move. Yes eve is about conflict, competition, etc. Eve is also about creating, and was about being a universe you could live in. Why can't eve have some land for those who like to be able to relax while still playing eve.
My guess is because everything in Eve is interconnected. If a perfect safety area existed in eve, it could then be exploited in such a way as to have a detrimental effect on the rest of the game. Even if this was not the intent of those residing in the area. Every action they took in "perfect" safety would have a knock-on effect.
The only way to avoid that would be to have a separate server that does not interact with the main server in any way. CCP could do this if they wanted, a server that had no low sec, no null sec and no wormhole space.....don't know what that game would be like, but it wouldn't be Eve. The in-game economy would suck, that's for sure.
|
Juss Karbuss
Holy Hunters Penguin Mafia.
11
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 08:51:46 -
[15] - Quote
This article describes well, how all is interconnected in EVE.
https://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/the-cycle-of-fear/ |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
29338
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 10:40:20 -
[16] - Quote
In Minmatar space we have slavehounds but we make slavehound cutlettes from them.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Chopper Rollins
Far Beyond Triggered
1801
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 10:48:20 -
[17] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:... So basically, you're telling me to go play something else. This mindset can only lower player numbers. I don't see that as a good business move.
Yes eve is about conflict, competition, etc. Eve is also about creating, and was about being a universe you could live in. Why can't eve have some land for those who like to be able to relax while still playing eve.
Higher numbers of people who are unhappy with eve and want to change it to wow would be a very bad business move. I relax playing eve all the time, despite being in a non-stop combat environment, not because of that.
The idea that everything is interconnected is from boring old discredited systems thinking. What people insist on calling 'everything' is actually one thing.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Otago Dogwalker
The Scope Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 11:09:28 -
[18] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:Your analogy is about as much good as a frog with a guitar playing stairway to heaven.
Yeah, point proven!
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
481
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 11:47:56 -
[19] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:High-sec: The safest area of space
At this point in the post, you realize the OP is either a noob or is trolling. :)
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
481
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 12:32:01 -
[20] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right? Meta is what makes it dangerous. Otherwise means of aggression there are objectively the most limited compared to any other type of space.
Highsec is the most dangerous space, and it's not because of meta. It's because most carebears think highsec is nearly 100% safe, think they can go AFK or fail-fit, and get asploded all day long.
Danger increases as the gap between an area's hazard and your underestimation of the hazard increases. If an area is hazardous but you estimate the hazard correctly and act and fit appropriately, you are actually far more safe than in that other situation.
The "limited" means of aggression in highsec actually serve far more to cause carebears to underestimate the hazard and be easy gank targets than they do to limit gankers.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
|
Graelyn
Akagi Initiative Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
907
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 12:35:32 -
[21] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:Your analogy is about as much good as a frog with a guitar playing stairway to heaven.
Rainbow Connection is pretty solid though.
Cardinal Graelyn
Imperial Liaison, I-RED
Amarr Loyalist of the Year - YC113
|
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
643
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:02:41 -
[22] - Quote
The IDEA that highsec is safe leads players to do unwise things that they would never do if they felt there was a risk.
The TRUTH that highsec is NOT safe means that those unwise actions are punished, severely and without remorse.
Truth, of course, both in Eve and outside it, is that which aligns with reality.
The conflict between the carebear's ideas and reality is what we in the New Order like to call "content".
And without content, Eve truly is dead.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
453
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 23:25:17 -
[23] - Quote
Truth is what aligns with reality, but eve is a game. That means the reality of the game is open to change. Aside from economics, and I'd also push for nerfs to rewards in line, I haven't seen a good argument for why eve should push away 'carebears' when it is trying to grow.
I don't care if HS players can't afford anything better than T1 battlecruisers, but why can't eve have a place which actually is safe?
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
47
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 23:59:18 -
[24] - Quote
We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
453
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 06:41:17 -
[25] - Quote
Drake Aihaken wrote:We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock.
Sounds like enjoyable gameplay.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 08:05:13 -
[26] - Quote
this whole game is about carebears farming isk anymore people dont wanna farm isk there is nothing left to do suicide ganking in cats so cool corp of 3 guys pvp in t1 frigs even want api wtf in case they get rifter awox trying fw seems pretty dead atm |
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
483
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 03:13:02 -
[27] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Drake Aihaken wrote:We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock. Sounds like enjoyable gameplay.
As enjoyable as a 100% safe themepark area, which is what you are calling for.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
454
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:56:44 -
[28] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Drake Aihaken wrote:We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock. Sounds like enjoyable gameplay. As enjoyable as a 100% safe themepark area, which is what you are calling for.
Difference is some people, in fact many people, do find themepark content enjoyable. I get it, youre worried that people start playing, and that the eve community changes. That more and more players will complain about being 'interacted with', and the reason you like eve could fade. By the way, safe =/= themepark.
If eve never changes only those who love it as it is will remain, and they will hold the game back from making any progress.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
253
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 10:40:03 -
[29] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I don't care if HS players can't afford anything better than T1 battlecruisers, but why can't eve have a place which actually is safe?
Because that's not what EVE is. EVE is a cold, dark universe in which the strong survive and the weak are slaughtered for their enjoyment. Highsec is a grudging acknowledgement of the fact that new players need a place to get started, so the rules of engagement make it undesirable to attack them in most cases. Their ships don't drop enough loot to be worth suicide ganking for economic reasons, and nobody is likely to hate them enough to do it for personal reasons. But that's the closest EVE comes to safety. If you fly an expensive ship or make enemies you can be killed even in highsec.
This design principle is what makes EVE, unlike most games, interesting. Other players are always a factor in your life, there is no opportunity to play it like a single-player game. Violating this core principle would be like proposing a spaceships expansion for WoW. At some point you just have to say "this is not what our game is about, if you don't like it play one of the games that is more to your taste" instead of sacrificing the integrity of your product in a desperate attempt to please every potential customer. And I don't think it's a coincidence that EVE has survived for the past 13+ years while game after game that lacked a consistent and unique identity died. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
253
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 10:45:45 -
[30] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:If we want a living universe full of people then there needs to be an easy mode (with low low reward) in the form of highsec.
There really doesn't need to be this. People playing EVE as a single-player game with no risk add nothing to the game. They "level their Raven" without interacting with anyone else, and then stop playing. Maybe CCP makes some extra money before they get bored and quit, but from the point of view of other players they might as well not exist at all. |
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
459
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 10:59:28 -
[31] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:If we want a living universe full of people then there needs to be an easy mode (with low low reward) in the form of highsec. There really doesn't need to be this. People playing EVE as a single-player game with no risk add nothing to the game. They "level their Raven" without interacting with anyone else, and then stop playing. Maybe CCP makes some extra money before they get bored and quit, but from the point of view of other players they might as well not exist at all.
So if those players might as well not exist from your point of view, and they give CCP money, why not have them around? I get you don't want eve to lose its identity, me neither, but eve is a big game and surely there's room for all types?
In your last post you're telling me all over what EvE is, what highsec is. EvE is a game, if it was a cold dark universe, I wouldn't be sat in my pyjamas writing this. You say you need to make enemies or fly an expensive ship to die in highsec, this is untrue. Gank groups gank whoever they like because they have fun doing it. In the past a solo ganker would(might?) have wanted to make a profit on their ganks, but now the corp provides you ships why bother? If highsec really is nothing more than a newbie zone, lets rip out all of the well-paying content. Right now eve is just confused as to what it wants to be, it has been since incarna, the buzzword is sandbox and to me that means, do what you like.
What really makes eve interesting is the unpredictability of player interactions, but sometimes people just want a taste of the familiar. Why chase them off somewhere else?
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Kaybella Hakaari
State War Academy Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:06:17 -
[32] - Quote
There's plenty of reason to move stuff through between hisec and nullsec.
With jump freighters, from citadel docking ring to citadel docking ring. |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
29529
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:30:14 -
[33] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:If we want a living universe full of people then there needs to be an easy mode (with low low reward) in the form of highsec. There really doesn't need to be this. People playing EVE as a single-player game with no risk add nothing to the game. They "level their Raven" without interacting with anyone else, and then stop playing. Maybe CCP makes some extra money before they get bored and quit, but from the point of view of other players they might as well not exist at all. The thing that makes EVE a living universe is the fact that it's a PvP game in which everyone is (potentially) a participant in PvP whether they like it or not. There is no separate "shard" where you can go play by yourself, you have to be aware of the other players and accounting for them in your decisions. So, where other games can turn into single players and small groups playing their own separate games on the same server, EVE is all one big world where everyone interacts with each other.
First you write about those PvE players are not interacting with anyone else, stopping playing (PvP players dont stop playing the games?), then you write they might not exist at all.
Then you write that everyone interacts with everyone in EVE and you cant play by yourself.
So what of it is fallacy and what is not? One excludes the other. Did CCP ever wanted to make PvE server?
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
631
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 14:07:06 -
[34] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Drake Aihaken wrote:We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock. Sounds like enjoyable gameplay. As enjoyable as a 100% safe themepark area, which is what you are calling for. Difference is some people, in fact many people, do find themepark content enjoyable. I get it, youre worried that people start playing, and that the eve community changes. That more and more players will complain about being 'interacted with', and the reason you like eve could fade. By the way, safe =/= themepark. If eve never changes only those who love it as it is will remain, and they will hold the game back from making any progress.
EvE is NOT a themepark game. When are you thickheads going to understand that EvE doesn't have a thempark and should NEVER have one! Go play something else. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 14:17:46 -
[35] - Quote
Kaybella Hakaari wrote:There's plenty of reason to move stuff through between hisec and nullsec.
With jump freighters, from citadel docking ring to citadel docking ring.
This is a cancer that must be removed.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
162
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 14:38:55 -
[36] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Drake Aihaken wrote:We do. It's called an NPC station. Never undock. Sounds like enjoyable gameplay. As enjoyable as a 100% safe themepark area, which is what you are calling for. Difference is some people, in fact many people, do find themepark content enjoyable. I get it, youre worried that people start playing, and that the eve community changes. That more and more players will complain about being 'interacted with', and the reason you like eve could fade. By the way, safe =/= themepark. If eve never changes only those who love it as it is will remain, and they will hold the game back from making any progress.
Then those people should play those games. That does not mean you have to stop playing EVE too. Just play something else if you want that style at the time.. Guild Wars, TESO, WoW are all still running. The way you state this is funny. The more people the better, but more people with no understanding of or trying to change the core concepts of EVE is not. |
Ptraci
3 R Corporation The Irukandji.
2099
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 00:16:34 -
[37] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I've been reading another thread recently about changes to lowsec and it has got me thinking about the roles of each area of space, and the kinds of players who go there.
Some would say you have it exactly backwards. Nullsec is highly organized. You only think of it as disorganized because you don't belong there. There are very clearly defined power blocks and they dictate every single aspect of your existence. Sure, you get stragglers and opportunists wandering through once in a while, but if they're a threat then they are dealt with.
High sec is the most disorganized - the most chaotic. Sure, there's CONCORD, but that's all there is. It's made up of thousands of tiny entities all pulling in different directions, and some larger groups like CODE or war-deccers/gankers like Marmite or Orphanage gobbling up targets of opportunity, but there is no order. There are just the rules - the mechanics of who can shoot who when, and the certainty that if you attack someone without a valid reason it will cost you your ship - a price many are willing to pay.
Wormholes are like gypsy camps or travelling cruise ships. The people live inside, and they go out and visit strange new people every day and kill them. Then they roll the static and rinse/repeat. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1062
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 00:22:20 -
[38] - Quote
In terms of danger it's this:
High sec is the safest. Sov Null is nearly as safe as HS today. LS is more dangerous, and WHs are the most. Anyone watching local and/or intel channels in HS or 0.0 will never get in a fight they aren't ready for.
Basically: http://i.imgur.com/BifkJsx.jpg |
Kapricani
Tharumec Gespenster Kompanie
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 03:07:33 -
[39] - Quote
Ok. As a ex-miner and ex-ratter that never touched pvp expect for being ganked while mining or hauling i must disagree with people saying high sec should be safe. More safety in high sec means more afk-farmers and that is what is driving this games economy to the ground. It is what made me quit the game 6 years back. I cheered the Hulkageddon guys for what they were doing. Highsec, lowsec nullsec. I don't care what you are doing as long as you are actually PLAYING the game. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6253
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 20:55:25 -
[40] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Truth is what aligns with reality, but eve is a game. That means the reality of the game is open to change. Aside from economics, and I'd also push for nerfs to rewards in line, I haven't seen a good argument for why eve should push away 'carebears' when it is trying to grow.
I don't care if HS players can't afford anything better than T1 battlecruisers, but why can't eve have a place which actually is safe?
It isn't pushing them away, it is just a hostile environment for them. It is like expecting a horse to live in the ocean. It can be done for a bit, but after awhile the horse gets tired and drowns (bored) or it gets eaten by ocean predator (the PvP turns of the carebear so he leaves).
What you appear to asking for is a fundamental change to the environment. And in doing that how many current customers might be lost?
Everyone making a push for more carebears assume the game environment can be changed to accommodate these new customers but that such a change would not induce current customers to leave.
I would suggest that some consideration, at least, be given to the notion that there are fewer players because this has already happened to some extent.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6253
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 21:05:24 -
[41] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Right now eve is just confused as to what it wants to be, it has been since incarna, the buzzword is sandbox and to me that means, do what you like.
Yes, do what you like...but you cannot completely insulate yourself from some degree of interacting with others. You are playing in an MMO, a competitive MMO so some how other players are going to have an effect on you even if it is via the price system in game. What you are talking about is mechanically preventing or limiting interactions and that is not this game. If you want that, there are plenty of games, I'm sure, that will give you that....just not this one.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
485
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 00:09:18 -
[42] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:In terms of danger it's this:
High sec is the safest. Sov Null is nearly as safe as HS today. LS is more dangerous, and WHs are the most.
Negative.
Highsec is the most dangerous space. It's because most carebears think highsec is nearly 100% safe, think they can go AFK or fail-fit, and get asploded all day long.
Danger increases as the gap between an area's hazard and your underestimation of the hazard increases. If an area is hazardous but you estimate the hazard correctly and act and fit appropriately, you are actually far more safe than in that other situation.
This is why highsec is most dangerous. A target rich environment where the targets have the most gap between how safe they think they are, and how safe they really are. Boom, headshot all day long. Unless you have a permit and are following the Code. Then you really are completely safe in highsec.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1065
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 00:52:22 -
[43] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Negative.
Highsec is the most dangerous space. It's because most carebears think highsec is nearly 100% safe, think they can go AFK or fail-fit, and get asploded all day long.
Danger increases as the gap between an area's hazard and your underestimation of the hazard increases. If an area is hazardous but you estimate the hazard correctly and act and fit appropriately, you are actually far more safe than in that other situation.
This is why highsec is most dangerous. A target rich environment where the targets have the most gap between how safe they think they are, and how safe they really are. Boom, headshot all day long. Unless you have a permit and are following the Code. Then you really are completely safe in highsec.
lol, you are always good for a joke. Your killboard shows you to be a pretty massive carebear. I know you're roleplaying right now and I shouldn't feed you with a response like this, but you are very funny. |
Agent 5B
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:58:22 -
[44] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:Your analogy is about as much good as a frog with a guitar playing stairway to heaven.
I think it is fair analogy if over detailed there is always a bigger fish out there that is looking for the predator that is hunting you but as for ecology the similarities of the analogy will not hold much water.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:You realise highsec is actually quite dangerous right?
No
The only times I have had any major loses in high sec was as a direct result of something I do in low sec and I mean several different occasions and several different things but never any comeback from purely high sec activity. |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15382
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:17:25 -
[45] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote: So basically, you're telling me to go play something else. This mindset can only lower player numbers. I don't see that as a good business move.
And yet EVE survives when many a hand holding MMO dies.
You are complaining about EVE treating you like an adult who is responsible for his own well being every moment he is in public. This is exactly what I and many others like about EVE. It keeps you on your toes.
It's what EVE has been about since day one, and yea, sorry to say (not really sorry) but if you don't like a core aspect of a thing, you should go and find something you like rather than ask people (CCP) to ruin something thousands of other people do like. |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15382
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:29:45 -
[46] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Right now eve is just confused as to what it wants to be, it has been since incarna, the buzzword is sandbox and to me that means, do what you like. Yes, do what you like...but you cannot completely insulate yourself from some degree of interacting with others. You are playing in an MMO, a competitive MMO so some how other players are going to have an effect on you even if it is via the price system in game. What you are talking about is mechanically preventing or limiting interactions and that is not this game. If you want that, there are plenty of games, I'm sure, that will give you that....just not this one.
Well said.
I've seen a bunch of people on the forums (though few in game, I guess the forums attract folk like this) who have asked the same question. I always use the Vegan analogy:
"it's perfectly fine that you don't eat meat and don't like the consumption of or use of meat and others animal products. Totally valid way to be, it's really ok...
What's not OK is the fact that you vouluntarily came with me to this Steakhouse style restaurant then decided to act all surprised that meat was being served.....at a mother ******* steakhouse! And no, the fact that they have a single salad on the menu does not make it less of a STEAKHOUSE". |
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
488
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:36:57 -
[47] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:grrr code Do you want to respond to the substance of what I wrote?
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2683
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:07:01 -
[48] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:So basically, you're telling me to go play something else. This mindset can only lower player numbers. I don't see that as a good business move.
Yes eve is about conflict, competition, etc. Eve is also about creating, and was about being a universe you could live in. Why can't eve have some land for those who like to be able to relax while still playing eve. carebear paradise games are dime a dozen and well, they typically don't stick around long.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1065
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:38:31 -
[49] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Do you want to respond to the substance of what I wrote?
Do you want to respond to the substance of what I wrote? Read what I said again and try one more time.... |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
477
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 01:54:14 -
[50] - Quote
I have to laugh every time someone talks about ruining their game. I have never suggested any huge difference to the game, I am saying "look, certain people want to be able to relax in their games. Why cant eve have a space (keyword: A, singular) for those type of player?
If adding such a space would 'ruin your game' please tell me how.
Edit: eve survives Jenn sure, but in the same way a familiar, yet old and feeble dog survives.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6259
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 04:39:06 -
[51] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I have to laugh every time someone talks about ruining their game. I have never suggested any huge difference to the game, I am saying "look, certain people want to be able to relax in their games. Why cant eve have a space (keyword: A, singular) for those type of player?
If adding such a space would 'ruin your game' please tell me how.
Edit: eve survives Jenn sure, but in the same way a familiar, yet old and feeble dog survives.
Starter systems and the test server.
There you go.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite CODE.
488
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 12:44:43 -
[52] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:"look, certain people want to be able to relax in their games
If by "relax" you mean "not be engaged in PvP", then Eve simply isn't the game for those "certain people". There are hundreds of other games they can choose. In a couple of years those games will be replaced by a hundred others. And so on.
Eve may not appeal to the largest number of gamers, but it certainly is among the very few games that has lasted so long. Among the reasons, not least is it's form of 100% PvP.
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:13:18 -
[53] - Quote
What is the reason it is impossible for you guys to imagine having a space that is not full time pvp? Yes eve currently is 100% pvp everywhere, and eve is about conflict to make your goals become reality. Removing conflict from the game would be bad for near every player here currently, so let's not remove anything. Let's just add something, something that might have no effect whatsoever on your gameplay, but that might open up this game to people not interested in full time pvp.
I'll say again, encouraging players to go find what they want somewhere else is not good business for CCP.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15405
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 15:21:35 -
[54] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:What is the reason it is impossible for you guys to imagine having a space that is not full time pvp? Yes eve currently is 100% pvp everywhere, and eve is about conflict to make your goals become reality. Removing conflict from the game would be bad for near every player here currently, so let's not remove anything. Let's just add something, something that might have no effect whatsoever on your gameplay, but that might open up this game to people not interested in full time pvp.
I'll say again, encouraging players to go find what they want somewhere else is not good business for CCP.
CCP's business is not your business, it's theirs. You are one customer, you do not speak for others.
For 13 years we've had people trying to "appeal to CCP's wallet" like you are, and for 13 years people have been seeing right through it. Your concern isn't for others, it's that YOU want to be left alone. Sorry, but no, EVE has universal non-consensual pvp as a core feature. A core feature that has defined EVE since day one. If you don't like that feature it's fine, but your dislike is no reason to change something.
We like EVE's unforgiving nature, and anyone who wants to partake in EVE has to at least be able to tolerate that unforgiving nature, or go somewhere else. The most annoying thing in the world (in game or out) is someone who goes to a new place and expects that place to modify itself to suit them, rather than that person either adapting to that place (or finding another place they actually like).
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 15:42:46 -
[55] - Quote
Im sorry but that post is flat out wrong.
I personally would not regularly use a fully safe area, though I could see myself killing time there instead of in other games. I speak for myself sure but the ideas I have put down could well be shared by others and if I am being told 'go play another game' it leads me to think, and I have seen it happen, that others will be told the same. This 'strategy' can only shrink the game, and can not possibly lead to any improvements.
If you didn't know, everyone is motivated by what is in their benefit. You made that post because you like eve as it is and don't want it to change, and that's perfectly understandable. I am motivated by wanting to be able to spend some down time in eve and not have to constantly worry, I enjoy all of eves mechanics but sometimes would like to not need to worry. CCP are motivated by wanting to be a successful company.
I continue to fail to see how adding a space alongside what exists now could do any harm, if properly limited in the impact it can have on the rest of eve.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3272
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:13:39 -
[56] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I have to laugh every time someone talks about ruining their game. I have never suggested any huge difference to the game, I am saying "look, certain people want to be able to relax in their games. Why cant eve have a space (keyword: A, singular) for those type of player?
If adding such a space would 'ruin your game' please tell me how.
Edit: eve survives Jenn sure, but in the same way a familiar, yet old and feeble dog survives. Isn't hisec pretty much what you are asking for? You can AFK off a gate in a tanked Skiff from downtime to downtime and have next to zero chance of being exploded by the other players. There is an ever-vigilant NPC police force which will provide 100% guaranteed retribution for any attack on you, successful or not, that provides a very strong disincentive for anyone to mess with you and allows you to 'relax'. Missions generally take place behind a gate giving you plenty of time to warp away if a non-NPC shows up. You can also fly over-tanked ships and laugh at anyone who sacrifices their ships to CONCORD in a vain attempt to explode you. Yes, there is theoretically some risk and a non-zero chance something unexpected will occur and disturb your comfort and relaxation, but I think the numbers show your pretty damn safe if you play hyper-defensively like this and any rare losses you have will easily be offset by the months and months of uninterrupted income you will have.
If you want a space with absolutely no risk - let's call it 'maximum relaxation space' - but one where someone can still grind resources into our shared economy, I am afraid that isn't possible. It isn't compatible with the core idea and design of the game. You cannot allow veteran players to make, gather or build things in complete safety. Such an infinitely small risk-to-reward ratio would be exploited by the players to gather power and influence in our shared Thunderdome without being vulnerable to the other combatants. That ain't gonna work.
Now CCP could build the 'maximum relaxation space' and fill it with content that doesn't affect the greater economy. Things like Project Discovery, or some new PvE content that rewards only SKINs and hats or whatever. However, unlike you, I don't think anyone would actually use it. I don't think there are very many people who play only to 'relax' with no thought given to their progression in our competitive universe. Part of the major attraction of this game, say over a game like Elite: Dangerous, is that your actions have meaning and the resources and items you gather and build have value to the other players. Whether these carebears will admit it or not, the fact that items can be destroyed or taken from you against your will, and the presences of wars and competition in free-for-all arena that is New Eden, is a major source of their sense of accomplishment in this game. People will actually part with real-world money to pay for these carebears' game time in exchange for their imaginary items. CCP is correct in not subverting this player-driven economy by making a safe space where you and your stuff is completely safe.
If you want to play Eve without risk, your subscription also buys you access to the test server. You can relax there in any ship and do any activity you want. However, if you are want to actually play Eve, CCP has still made it possible to do so in a pretty lazy and relaxed fashion and not lose your ship. Sure, you aren't going to be mining in yield-fit Hulks that way, but a brick-tanked hauler (with appropriate cargo), mission runner or miner can be flown in pretty relaxed fashion in highsec.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6263
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:19:50 -
[57] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:What is the reason it is impossible for you guys to imagine having a space that is not full time pvp? Yes eve currently is 100% pvp everywhere, and eve is about conflict to make your goals become reality. Removing conflict from the game would be bad for near every player here currently, so let's not remove anything. Let's just add something, something that might have no effect whatsoever on your gameplay, but that might open up this game to people not interested in full time pvp.
I'll say again, encouraging players to go find what they want somewhere else is not good business for CCP.
Malcanis' Law, or to be exact his more broader principle...which, before the usual gang, starts rubbishing it is similar to principles expressed by Adam Smith, Nobel prizing winning economists Frederick Hayek and James Buchanan, along with the philosopher John Rawls. Smith's principle was the impartial spectator, Rawls called it the veil of ignorance, and Buchanan the veil of uncertainty, and Hayek the generality principle. The implication is that as soon as you start discriminating people are going to start trying to take advantage of it. This will clearly discriminate against or in favor of a subset of players.
And your instance of what is good for business for CCP is naive.
Ask yourself, if we were to do this how would the current customers react? Well or badly? If the latter then maybe it is good for business. Here a simple numerical example, please not it is a farking example to highlight my point not stating facts.
You have 200 customers. You have a potential for 50 new customers if you change your product. You change your product and gain 50 new customers, but lose 100 of your existing customers, new level of customers: 150.
Clearly a bad business strategy.
You have an implicit assumption that none of the existing players would quit over this, and lets be honest people do quit over changes CCP has made.
Now, before everyone goes straight to stupid: No, I am not saying CCP should never change anything. If you write that you are quite clearly a mouth breathing moron. Please don't write that. What I am saying is that you need to check your assumptions, even the implicit ones. Are they reasonable? I cannot say if the assumption "none of the current customers will leave over change X" is reasonable or not. Nobody on the forums can either. CCP may have better insight into that, but even their information on this maybe limited. After all, if businesses made only good business decisions we'd have far less businesses failing.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6263
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:29:02 -
[58] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:What is the reason it is impossible for you guys to imagine having a space that is not full time pvp? Yes eve currently is 100% pvp everywhere, and eve is about conflict to make your goals become reality. Removing conflict from the game would be bad for near every player here currently, so let's not remove anything. Let's just add something, something that might have no effect whatsoever on your gameplay, but that might open up this game to people not interested in full time pvp.
I'll say again, encouraging players to go find what they want somewhere else is not good business for CCP. CCP's business is not your business, it's theirs. You are one customer, you do not speak for others. For 13 years we've had people trying to "appeal to CCP's wallet" like you are, and for 13 years people have been seeing right through it. Your concern isn't for others, it's that YOU want to be left alone. Sorry, but no, EVE has universal non-consensual pvp as a core feature. A core feature that has defined EVE since day one. If you don't like that feature it's fine, but your dislike is no reason to change something. We like EVE's unforgiving nature, and anyone who wants to partake in EVE has to at least be able to tolerate that unforgiving nature, or go somewhere else. The most annoying thing in the world (in game or out) is someone who goes to a new place and expects that place to modify itself to suit them, rather than that person either adapting to that place (or finding another place they actually like).
I see many of the suggestions to "improve" the game on the forums as EVE's version of rent seeking.
Quote:In economics and in public-choice theory, rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth
As such my first reaction is almost surely going to be, "No."
And again this goes back the Malcanis' Principle. And Adam Smith's, F. A. Hayek's, James Buchanan and John Rawls, with the general conclusion of: don't discriminate. Once you start doing that you set in motion perverse incentives.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6263
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:33:01 -
[59] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:I have to laugh every time someone talks about ruining their game. I have never suggested any huge difference to the game, I am saying "look, certain people want to be able to relax in their games. Why cant eve have a space (keyword: A, singular) for those type of player?
If adding such a space would 'ruin your game' please tell me how.
Edit: eve survives Jenn sure, but in the same way a familiar, yet old and feeble dog survives. Isn't hisec pretty much what you are asking for? You can AFK off a gate in a tanked Skiff from downtime to downtime and have next to zero chance of being exploded by the other players.
It wasn't quite from downtime-to-downtime, but I once went AFK with my skiff in a HS belt and forgot it was there and fell asleep. When I logged in the next day, my alt warped back to the belt from where he had e-warped at downtime. I always mine in a tanked skiff. Point being, yes, this is totally true. If you are prudent and reasonable in HS, the level of danger you face is minimal.
Or to put it differently, the level of danger one faces in HS is largely based on the decisions of the player.
Why are so many busybodies on the forums interested in protecting players from being foolish and imprudent? They can't learn that way.
I know, I know...good for CCP's business.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:57:50 -
[60] - Quote
You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3274
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 18:45:36 -
[61] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you. Of course they would, wouldn't you? That is the very reason why it cannot be allowed. Every rational Eve player will gravitate towards where the best risk vs. reward is, and a safe and even moderately lucrative space would be such a strong black hole it would suck in large amounts of activity and smother the rest of the game. Arguably our current highsec is doing this already.
If you are arguing that you could have a safe space if you made the rewards low enough I agree with you. I just think the rewards would have to be so low to prevent multiboxing no-life veterans from abusing it, that no one would bother living in that space and therefore CCP's time would be better spent elsewhere. As much as some carebears say they just play Eve for 'fun' or to 'relax', they really are doing it largely for the ISK and the satisfaction accumulating space pixels brings. They aren't going to stick around the safe space long if you pay them 0.1M/h or 1M/h or whatever it would have to be to keep the game balanced.
Actually I'd love if CCP implemented your safe but poor space. Its emptiness would be definitive proof of the greed and lies that are in the heart of your average carebear and the basis of their constant agitation to have the competitive game that is Eve Online tilted in their favour. They aren't looking for a place to have fun - there are plenty of places to just have fun both in New Eden and beyond. They are just looking for the game to declare them winners without actually competing or putting them at risk of losing to another player.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Jason OPhee
Astartes' Guardians R O G U E
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 19:15:21 -
[62] - Quote
Burn Jita |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6263
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 06:07:27 -
[63] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Actually I'd love if CCP implemented your safe but poor space. Its emptiness would be definitive proof of the greed and lies that are in the heart of your average carebear and the basis of their constant agitation to have the competitive game that is Eve Online tilted in their favour. They aren't looking for a place to have fun - there are plenty of places to just have fun both in New Eden and beyond. They are just looking for the game to declare them winners without actually competing or putting them at risk of losing to another player.
Indeed. Nobody wants risk with their income streams. That is if a player has a choice between income stream X and some degree of risk and income stream X and no risk only a complete dumb **** would pick the risky option. If you want a zone with little or no risk it should have little or no income.
And that of course will likely to lead to an incessant influx of whine threads to buff the rewards for this safe zone. But the rewards should be commensurate with what you see in a starter system or the test server.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15410
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 12:27:14 -
[64] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you.
This is the problem with selfishness, it makes wrong things look "ok" to people who want unreasonable things.
No, you do not and should not get to affect the EVE Economy from safety. Every mission one runs, every bit of Ore someone mines, every npcs they kill, every market order they place, these things affect every.single.other player. Every ISK or Loyalty Point you generate lowers the relative value of every isk or LP that I and everyone else holds.
EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too". What you (again, selfishly) want is for CCP to give you a safe space so you can have an impact on others (by generating income) but they can't have an impact on you.
The forum rules prevent me from really and truly telling you exactly which personal physical orifice your wants should be firmly and forcefully shoved into.
|
Alexander Bor
Polaris Global
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 18:14:39 -
[65] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:EvE's four areas are separated from each other by one distinction, that is security level, although wormholes bring extra differences.
Nice material. Your try is appreciated.
But what if we look on current system of space division only with terms "safe" / "dangerous" just because the current level of the in-game society development is low? Really - EVE society now is kind a one that been in the Stone Ages.
What if highs-lows-nulls (+Anoikis) can be considered from the degree of freedom? With possibilities increase on the direction from highs to nulls. Not the chaos by the way but potential development people can run.
This is how I see this.
|
Jubilum
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 10:51:17 -
[66] - Quote
I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.
The only way this could work if is the economies were separate. I would even make the in game currency different let's call it "Kredits In Space" or (KIS) to discourage RMT. Or at least it will have no effect on the main game. You could bring nothing with you from the "lite" just as when you jump clone now. But you could have your fully fit PVP ship sitting in a hanger ready for those times when you want to pew pew. This would allow those you wish to mindlessly mine or mission to do so, without worrying about getting ganked.
The only time you could not jump clone to the "lite" is to avoid a war dec. If you are in a corp currently at war you would have to drop corp (just as you can now) to jump to the "lite" server. You could also not jump with a negative sec. status don't want those criminals hiding out on the lite server.
Tranquility would not change at all. Or you could make it more attractive who play for the pvp.
There can't be anybody against an idea like this. Except myaybe gankers who would loose potential targets. But they are the same ones telling everybody who doesn't like it to find a new game to play, so what should they care.
I would at least like to see this done for a 1 year trial just to see how many players the "lite" server would attract and ccp could decide at the end of the trail whether it is worth it or not.
Of course this is just a basic overview of my thoughts. I actually have many more ideas for this "lite" server but wont bore you with it all.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2557
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 14:55:42 -
[67] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too".
I wish this was true, but it isnt,
Not because there is another more equal game, which I agree there isnt.
But because EVE itself perpetuates various inequalities internally.
Its heuristically, logically, clear that larger/experienced entities can affect others far more negatively than they can back.
The concurrent thread on LS mechanics regarding cynos/caps demonstrates this.
Established corps can lol-cyno through LS, and drop caps, whereas new ones cant, and must use gates at risk and cannot deal with cap drops.
You have been so focused on your own benefit from Malcanis' Law, that you have forgotten and overlooked its inverse (which is, and must be, equally true).
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6273
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 19:25:44 -
[68] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too". I wish this was true, but it isnt, Not because there is another more equal game (of this scope and context), which I agree there isnt. But because EVE itself perpetuates various inequalities internally. Its heuristically, logically, clear that larger/experienced entities can affect smaller others far more negatively than they can back. This is the basis of Malcanis' Law. The concurrent thread on LS mechanics regarding cynos/caps demonstrates this. Established corps can lol-cyno through LS, and drop caps, whereas new ones cant, and must use gates at risk and cannot deal with cap drops. This is an inversion of Malcanis' Law, and equally dysfunctional as a violation of that law. Greater/established entities have capacity in LS, far beyond that of smaller ones there. Not only can they lol-cyno past/through LS, they can drop cap fleets in LS.
Jenn said nothing about the magnitude of the effects, but merely that there is equality in that players can affect each other. And while Jenn used the word negatively, there is also considerably room for cooperative game play and positive effects too.
As for your inverse of Malcanis' Law, I don't agree. Much of the game is like an evolutionary process, and as such even the small entities can have a disproportionate impact at various times.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
649
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 21:46:23 -
[69] - Quote
Jubilum wrote:I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.
Trammel killed Ultima.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47366
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 21:52:40 -
[70] - Quote
Jubilum wrote:I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.
The only way this could work if is the economies were separate. I would even make the in game currency different let's call it "Kredits In Space" or (KIS) to discourage RMT. Or at least it will have no effect on the main game. You could bring nothing with you from the "lite" just as when you jump clone now. But you could have your fully fit PVP ship sitting in a hanger ready for those times when you want to pew pew. This would allow those you wish to mindlessly mine or mission to do so, without worrying about getting ganked.
The only time you could not jump clone to the "lite" is to avoid a war dec. If you are in a corp currently at war you would have to drop corp (just as you can now) to jump to the "lite" server. You could also not jump with a negative sec. status don't want those criminals hiding out on the lite server.
Tranquility would not change at all. Or you could make it more attractive who play for the pvp.
There can't be anybody against an idea like this. Except myaybe gankers who would loose potential targets. But they are the same ones telling everybody who doesn't like it to find a new game to play, so what should they care.
I would at least like to see this done for a 1 year trial just to see how many players the "lite" server would attract and ccp could decide at the end of the trail whether it is worth it or not.
Of course this is just a basic overview of my thoughts. I actually have many more ideas for this "lite" server but wont bore you with it all. What's wrong with SiSi?
The extra server already exists. Non-consensual pvp is banned in all systems except 2 (6-CZ49 and PVH8-0, with no capitals in PVH). Every other system is free to play in and plays just like TQ.
With / commands players can be setup almost exactly on SiSi as they are on TQ. Yet SiSi hardly attracts large crowds of players. Why would yet another server?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |