EVE Search - NPC corps are too safe. Risk/Reward hurfdurf

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

NPC corps are too safe. Risk/Reward hurfdurf

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
Author	Topic
Durzel Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:23:00 - [151] Originally by: Ruze PvP is incorrectly associated to many newcomers as nothing but griefers and gankers. This is NOT the founding principle of EvE. The problem is players in EvE don't PvP on fair terms for the most part. When faced with the choice between flying solo in low-sec, and flying in a group, or camping a gate - which is the more desirable option? Which presents the least amount of risk to the pirate? Pirates don't want to lose their ships any more than their targets do - so people will always gravitate towards scenarios that minimise their risk and maximise their reward. Currently that means gatecamps, copy-and-paste nano fits, blobbing, and so on. I used to play a game called Planetarion - a game that was designed to be an all-vs-all, every man for himself game. Even though there weren't actual corps or alliances to speak of, unofficial alliances came into effect to ensure that the status quo of the most powerful players remained in effect. Said alliances formed "no attack" pacts with other groups of people until eventually the dominant unofficial alliance was unassailable, with nearly a hundred players all flying under one banner. Anyone who attacked a member got obliterated, and every member lived with almost total immunity from attack simply because no non-alliance member dared to attack someone known to be in said alliance, or friend of said alliance, or whatever. My point is - so far as Eve is concerned - is that most pirates are not dissimilar from carebears, although they would never be prepared to admit it. They want to fly about with the least amount of risk to their uber ships & implant clones. They will choose the path of least resistance and maximum safety simply because it is human nature to do so. Your average players experience of PvP in Eve therefore (i.e. not the epic 0.0 alliance warfare) is players looking to kill others by means that limit their risk whilst guaranteeing almost certain victory. Blobbing, gatecamping, Loftying (until recently), nano'ing, canflipping - all examples of PvP where the fight isn't "fair" but instead designed to ensure that the protagonist wins with little/no risk to themselves. Even wardecs where one PvP-centric corp wages war on a corp they already know to be no match for them is another example of PvP "carebearism". Food for thought maybe?
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:35:00 - [152] Edited by: Ruze on 07/08/2008 19:36:48 Your point of view, Cassandra, seems to focus on the fact that people use the term 'PvP' to talk about combat between player vs. player. Our point is that there is more to PvP than just what the one use of the term defines. Here's some other assumptions about 'PvP': - All PvPers are griefers and bullies, not wanting a fair fight but just an easy kill. - War decs are just so griefers can target carebears, and have no real purpose. - Suicide attacks are nothing but griefer alts destroying ships that they don't care about to cause someone to cry. - FW is a perfect example of PvP. It's consensual, it's organized, and it has a point. - All pirates are nothing but griefers. But when we argue that EvE is a player vs. player game, we are showing that there is a very BASIC NPC structure laid down, and everything on top of that is provided by players. Interaction. Modules and ships. Markets. Minerals. Blueprints. Piracy (as in, actually killing another player for profit). Corporation wars (where one corp is invading territory claimed by another, including asteroid belts, market resources, sell points or anti-pirate vs. pirate squabbles). Then you get into Faction Warfare, which is much like battlegrounds from PvE games like WoW. And then there's 0.0, which includes issues of soverienty and security. Every 'profession' in EvE takes part in PvP, from miniscule ammounts to major battles. If your mining, your buying mining ships, or selling minerals, or selling reprocessed goods. If you producing, you buying minerals, or selling products, or using factory slots that other players also need. Even if your missioning, your probably selling all that loot you get to someone, and buying things from others. So what I'm discussing, is that missioning should have more conflict between players working for an agent, so that they don't FORGET that EvE is about competition. You can dismiss our arguments, that's fine. Hopefully others won't. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:39:00 - [153] Originally by: Durzel The problem is players in EvE don't PvP on fair terms for the most part. When faced with the choice between flying solo in low-sec, and flying in a group, or camping a gate - which is the more desirable option? Which presents the least amount of risk to the pirate? Pirates don't want to lose their ships any more than their targets do - so people will always gravitate towards scenarios that minimise their risk and maximise their reward. Currently that means gatecamps, copy-and-paste nano fits, blobbing, and so on. I used to play a game called Planetarion - a game that was designed to be an all-vs-all, every man for himself game. Even though there weren't actual corps or alliances to speak of, unofficial alliances came into effect to ensure that the status quo of the most powerful players remained in effect. Said alliances formed "no attack" pacts with other groups of people until eventually the dominant unofficial alliance was unassailable, with nearly a hundred players all flying under one banner. Anyone who attacked a member got obliterated, and every member lived with almost total immunity from attack simply because no non-alliance member dared to attack someone known to be in said alliance, or friend of said alliance, or whatever. My point is - so far as Eve is concerned - is that most pirates are not dissimilar from carebears, although they would never be prepared to admit it. They want to fly about with the least amount of risk to their uber ships & implant clones. They will choose the path of least resistance and maximum safety simply because it is human nature to do so. Your average players experience of PvP in Eve therefore (i.e. not the epic 0.0 alliance warfare) is players looking to kill others by means that limit their risk whilst guaranteeing almost certain victory. Blobbing, gatecamping, Loftying (until recently), nano'ing, canflipping - all examples of PvP where the fight isn't "fair" but instead designed to ensure that the protagonist wins with little/no risk to themselves. Even wardecs where one PvP-centric corp wages war on a corp they already know to be no match for them is another example of PvP "carebearism". Food for thought maybe? Very eloquently put. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:45:00 - [154] Originally by: Durzel Your average players experience of PvP in Eve therefore (i.e. not the epic 0.0 alliance warfare) is players looking to kill others by means that limit their risk whilst guaranteeing almost certain victory. Blobbing, gatecamping, Loftying (until recently), nano'ing, canflipping - all examples of PvP where the fight isn't "fair" but instead designed to ensure that the protagonist wins with little/no risk to themselves. Even wardecs where one PvP-centric corp wages war on a corp they already know to be no match for them is another example of PvP "carebearism". Brings to mind the basic proverbs of ≡v≡: "If you're in a fair fight, the other guy's backup just hasn't arrived yet." "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong."
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:55:00 - [155] Yeah, EvE has a very cutthroat nature about it. The way I was raised, your supposed to fight fair. But my generation doesn't care about fairness, it's all about winning. I've spent most of my short life, so far, trying to figure out why everyone was so mean. Truth is, people are cruel. They'll do anything to protect themselves, and those that they associate with. If there is no law, they will even go so far as to rob, ****, and kill to ensure their success in life. I think that's human nature. EvE represents that. Other games water it down, and convince you that there's always someone upstairs to protect you. Oh, some cop will come along when gunshots are fired. Some policeman will keep the badguys away. I'm not doing anything, why would anyone attack me?!? That's naivety, right there, and it's proliferated by so many other MMO's. Life is worse than that. The legal system doesn't care whether your really good or innocent, as long as it protects it's reputation and keeps the 'guilty' verdicts up high. Your neighbor doesn't care a damn cent if something goes on in your house, unless it affects him. And when they DO care, it's usually some old woman who spends all her time judging you for your weird behavior. I don't pirate, but I'm no longer surprised by it. EvE makes sense to me now, because I'm no longer trying to figure out why SOME people are cruel. Do what you can, survive how you survive, but if you always expecting someone to make the world safe for you, your asking to get hurt. Sad theology, ain't it? God helps those who helps themselves, as many a preacher will quote you. Well, in game as it is in life, if you want to be really secure, you need to take it upon yourself, no? So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:20:00 - [156] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/08/2008 20:22:11 Originally by: Malcanis I'd support this. If hi-sec is to be the kindegarten of EvE, then so be it. People should be limited to kindegarten earnings. This. Anyway, about the whole "PvP is unfair, bah" discussion, it's utterly pointless. Industry, trading, preety much damn everything pits you against other players, and it's a form of PvP as well. Selling the loots/etc out of your L4s is, too. It's also riskless and highly profitable, which is what makes it broken. Minimizing risk (while maximizing profits) is what all smart players will do in all situations (also, the reason why excessive blobbing is generally stupid for the pirate inolved - you only want as many people as to kill the target (and possible support) without losses, as you have a set amount of loot to split, btw). Allowing very high profits/hour at next to 0 risk is definitely a bad thing. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:53:00 - [157] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/08/2008 20:22:11 Originally by: Malcanis I'd support this. If hi-sec is to be the kindegarten of EvE, then so be it. People should be limited to kindegarten earnings. This. Anyway, about the whole "PvP is unfair, bah" discussion, it's utterly pointless. Industry, trading, preety much damn everything pits you against other players, and it's a form of PvP as well. Selling the loots/etc out of your L4s is, too. It's also riskless and highly profitable, which is what makes it broken. Minimizing risk (while maximizing profits) is what all smart players will do in all situations (also, the reason why excessive blobbing is generally stupid for the pirate inolved - you only want as many people as to kill the target (and possible support) without losses, as you have a set amount of loot to split, btw). Allowing very high profits/hour at next to 0 risk is definitely a bad thing. Highsec is already Kindergarden earnings. Missions make 25mil/hour in t2 fit. Miners make 10-15mil/hour. 0.0 Corps that mine moons make billions a month. Thats the whole point of 0.0 right? Thats why people fight POS wars, just so they can pickup another 10billion isk/month worth of reactions from a rare moon. Risk/reward is in 0.0 already, thats why you get alliances with dozens of titans and 400 capitals ploghing though. The only thing CCP need to do is boost lowsec. High Sec = Kindergarden Low sec = Lol 0.0 = Corporate Businessman Earnings.
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:23:00 - [158] Originally by: McDonALTs Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/08/2008 20:22:11 Originally by: Malcanis I'd support this. If hi-sec is to be the kindegarten of EvE, then so be it. People should be limited to kindegarten earnings. This. Anyway, about the whole "PvP is unfair, bah" discussion, it's utterly pointless. Industry, trading, preety much damn everything pits you against other players, and it's a form of PvP as well. Selling the loots/etc out of your L4s is, too. It's also riskless and highly profitable, which is what makes it broken. Minimizing risk (while maximizing profits) is what all smart players will do in all situations (also, the reason why excessive blobbing is generally stupid for the pirate inolved - you only want as many people as to kill the target (and possible support) without losses, as you have a set amount of loot to split, btw). Allowing very high profits/hour at next to 0 risk is definitely a bad thing. Highsec is already Kindergarden earnings. Missions make 25mil/hour in t2 fit. Miners make 10-15mil/hour. 0.0 Corps that mine moons make billions a month. Thats the whole point of 0.0 right? Thats why people fight POS wars, just so they can pickup another 10billion isk/month worth of reactions from a rare moon. Risk/reward is in 0.0 already, thats why you get alliances with dozens of titans and 400 capitals ploghing though. The only thing CCP need to do is boost lowsec. High Sec = Kindergarden Low sec = Lol 0.0 = Corporate Businessman Earnings. If I didn't already know you were a troll, this post would prove it. One single hi-sec L4 agent can serve more players than there are Dys/Prom moons in existence. And each and every one of those players can make as much as that moon provides. No player sov system has a resource remotely equalling the value of such an agent. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.08 09:05:00 - [159] Edited by: McDonALTs on 08/08/2008 09:07:15 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: McDonALTs Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/08/2008 20:22:11 Originally by: Malcanis I'd support this. If hi-sec is to be the kindegarten of EvE, then so be it. People should be limited to kindegarten earnings. This. Anyway, about the whole "PvP is unfair, bah" discussion, it's utterly pointless. Industry, trading, preety much damn everything pits you against other players, and it's a form of PvP as well. Selling the loots/etc out of your L4s is, too. It's also riskless and highly profitable, which is what makes it broken. Minimizing risk (while maximizing profits) is what all smart players will do in all situations (also, the reason why excessive blobbing is generally stupid for the pirate inolved - you only want as many people as to kill the target (and possible support) without losses, as you have a set amount of loot to split, btw). Allowing very high profits/hour at next to 0 risk is definitely a bad thing. Highsec is already Kindergarden earnings. Missions make 25mil/hour in t2 fit. Miners make 10-15mil/hour. 0.0 Corps that mine moons make billions a month. Thats the whole point of 0.0 right? Thats why people fight POS wars, just so they can pickup another 10billion isk/month worth of reactions from a rare moon. Risk/reward is in 0.0 already, thats why you get alliances with dozens of titans and 400 capitals ploghing though. The only thing CCP need to do is boost lowsec. High Sec = Kindergarden Low sec = Lol 0.0 = Corporate Businessman Earnings. If I didn't already know you were a troll, this post would prove it. One single hi-sec L4 agent can serve more players than there are Dys/Prom moons in existence. And each and every one of those players can make as much as that moon provides. No player sov system has a resource remotely equalling the value of such an agent. So a single veldspar asteroid can "Serve" thosands of players and thus a single roid can serve more players than Dys/Prom in existance??? Dude, think. Dude, we are talking about income here. Agents are kindergarden income, barely enough for a pvper to live on. Rare moons is what this game is about. Scamers who run carebear corps and keep all the moon isk to themselves (sometimes getting corpmembers to run POS's as slave labour) are the only reasion why people think agents kindergarder wages are high - its because their CEO is robbing them. The only rich in high sec are traders. People with a couple of bil they made in mission running are not rich at all. Noware near. People in 0.0 running moon mining ops have tens of billions and they are middle class. There was a COAD story of a titan player who gave 80bil away as he left eve. So get this straight. High sec never was, other than for traders, a rich place. Its reletive perception that maks you think it was a rich place. The Begger thinks the toilet cleaner is rich. But neither of them are, since none of them can afford the ferrari's the CEO's can.
Kano Sekor Amarr The Movement	Posted - 2008.08.08 09:19:00 - [160] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn I'll be honest, I didn't read all of the suggestions, but here's mine: There are a limited number of NPC Corporations out there, so how about having them limit the number of Members who can run Missions on behalf of that Corporation or Group? That way, if there was some type of 'queue' where NPC Corp Members had to wait in line to run Missions they wanted, or else, jump into a Player Corp to do the same thing instantly, they would likely jump to a Player Corp. (I don't run Missions, and I never will, so if I'm missing some key information here, let me know.) Another idea I had was to have a mandatory 'kick out' period, after which, an NPC Corporation would say, "you're on your own - fly safe!" and eject the Player into a random "Second Tier" NPC Corporation (wait for it) which could be Wardecced. Limit the number of people in said Corp to 100, let's say, and voila. You have a rush of Second Tier NPC Players rushing to get into a better protected Player Corporation. Both ideas need work, but hey, that's what you get from me on the spur of the moment. Even though it sounds harsh i kind of like the kick out idea, limiting the missions i dont know but i gess there is a reason why there is a "Do you have a job for me?" question at each agent maybe they should start saying "no" alot more often. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.08 09:40:00 - [161] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 08/08/2008 09:50:30 Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale I can play this Massively Multiplayer Game without interacting with anyone else ever. That's kind of like breathing without oxygenating your blood. Maybe you should try that? In other news, anti-NPC corp whines are fast becoming my favourite, due to the sheer quantity of people who don't understand what the problem is, and also due to how pertinent their lack of understanding is to the problem. - DesuSigs
Vasili vonHolst Minmatar Gargamel's Lair	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:07:00 - [162] Yar. This is not a bump. --->Movie: + Trillion damage to CareBear community--->LOL Pic: Mitnal R4pes!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.