| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Leviathan9
Gallente
Royal Hiigaran Navy
    |
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:38:00 -
[241]
EVE is a sandbox game, meaning you can do what the **** you want, where and when as long as it doesn't break game mechanics. High-sec is a place where players can be safer than those in low-sec or null-sec. If you want a game where you can be 100% safe in certain places, then WoW is just your game.
----------------------------
 |
5pinDizzy
Amarr
Umpteenth Podding
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 -
[242]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 02/09/2008 17:47:56
After reading the dev responses carefully :
If wardecs are meant to be used for strategic goals against players in cooperations but are being abused as pay to grief systems by more pvp savvy corps against industrialists and newbs, then you are of course going to try and create a balance somehow.
Yet I've always read that the point of npc corps were a way to step back from the action, a choice to pull away from the pvp and risk, if things were getting too hot.
I understand your example where people will dec a new corp and kill their players for no gain or profit, but just for the sake of killing them to feel clever and to ruin their day, I've seen it.
But would you at least look at the npc corp system though if you effectively manage to stop wardecs being abused?
As if people are much safer in a player made corp anyway, then to me the npc corp system in it's current form loses much of it's purpose in my eyes.
I don't have the answers but I don't see why people should get as many benefits and choices in an npc corp.
I believe somehow people need to be possibly chucked out an npc corp or put into something else, just please not the common "one giant wardeccable npc corp" idea for all the griefers to continue their operations this way in a more acute feeding frenzy, but possibly force players out on their own after a considerable amount of time, not to feed them to the lions, not in a corp exactly, but possibly in something sort of classed as a corp but of a new solo pilot created system. Where they can always go back to the npc "sanctuary" if you like for a week or so cool off before they are kicked from it again, incase things become too hot for them and they get too many enemies. Single pilot entities would be too far below the radar to be able to effectively picked on, but they'll still be responsible for their actions, eligable for revenge, and can still temporarily pull out into the "npc sancturary corp" thing.
1 week time limit in an npc corp santuary might be an adequare allowance before being made to leave again, 1 week usually more then enough to deter griefers as they'd have gotten bored but short enough that a real grievance you've caused to someone won't be forgotton or escaped.
I am not totally anti carebear,
For example
I may think can flipping is ok, but I want it changed so that someone who gets themselves flagged by stealing ore for example, can't simply easily ride out the 15 minutes docked in station. High speed pursuits against your enemies across the galaxy are very exciting I'll have you know.
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 -
[243]
 Originally by: CCP Greyscale
....then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system....
Thanks for clearing that up, It is a tall order, we'll just have to see where that road takes us, though it clearly will upset the apple-carts of those who would wish to be able to do what they will on people who can't do anything reasonable about it (except unreasonable actions themselves).
Its typical how extreme action by some force extreme action by others, EG GoonSwarm with their Jihad, it forced CCP's hand.. thus ruining the party for everyone. Given an inch the players take several miles. That's the side effect of the sandbox, and once people have ****d the mechanic for all its worth (and CCP has the data to prove it) Down comes the nerf-bat. It's an inevitable action-reaction.
(This for Ki An.. who doesn't think my understanding of what you said as valid) So would you consider Corp- Hopping and NPC Corp Hiding some of those undedesirable elements?
----------------------------------------
Happiness is a Wet Pod
 |
Vladimir Griftin
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 -
[244]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed, it's a definitive example - and I don't see how it has any place in this game.
This statement is completely contrary to the EVE we all know and love. Being ganked repeatedly is part of the game, it may not be everyones cup of tea, but without this, it will become stagnant. Everyone will just happily farm away at their missions amassing huge ammounts of wealth. Screwing up the already saturated empire market. Get bored in very short order and leave.
If your little empire corp gets war decced by some PvPers, it may mean the end of it, but you will get angry about it. You will want some blood, maybe not today, but when your older, and stronger. This is the pull of ALL PvP games, this is what gets you hooked. The thought that one day, you can find that ganker that killed you as a newbie and kick his freaki'n ass.
By removing any way of introducing newer players to this early on your removing a big chunk of what makes EVE what it is.
Its a bit cheesey but to quote something from Babylon 5:
"Growth through pain and struggle; conflict and war! Your race came out of the last war stronger, better -- how much better?
How much stronger will they be after this war? You will rise from the ashes with a strength and power beyond your imaganation."
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:41:00 -
[245]
Quote:
the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further.
Thanks for the list. Glad to see some glimmer of what's in the works/being looked at. Particularly for smuggling and bounty hunting.
 |
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:42:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
He's not going to reply to that, Malcanis. Greyscale's posts have so far only served to further reinforce our view of what is going on with the game.
Well he's posted more than once in this thread. I'm not arguing the point with him, I'm just idly curious as to when this sea change took place.
Personally I find the implicit assertion in his posts that the principle of non-consensual PvP can be preserved while simultaneously eliminating 'unfair' wars to be beyond laughable. He starts out by saying in his first post that non-con PvP will be preserved... but only amongst those who want it. It seems we apparently have different definitions of non-consensual.
Now if non-con PvP is to be eliminated, well fair enough. it's their game. But why the denial. What tortured logic can possibly reconcile "fair fights" with "non-consensual PvP"? The very essence of EvE PvP is to induce your opponent to fight in the most unfair situation possible (while he should be attempting to do the same to you) - to maximise your opponent's losses while minimising your own. We've all heard the proverb "if you find yourself in a fair fight, then at least one of you did something wrong".
But apparently this principle is not to apply to hi-sec PvP any more, by his own admission: no more "griefing".
People will usually only willingly fight if they think they can win. Most players will not engage in "fair fights" because tactically they make poor sense. Ergo if the only fights available are "fair" there will be virtually no fights.
I'll be absolutely fascinated to see what system they come up with to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. If CCP have got a way to pull it off, then I will apologise unreservedly, and they will have my uttermost respect for their genius as game designers. If they come even close, I'll be astounded and humbly respectful.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:42:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ruze
I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'.
It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made.
Pot and kettle come to mind.
Yes, yes it did.
Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:47:00 -
[248]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 17:49:52
Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 17:48:38
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed, it's a definitive example - and I don't see how it has any place in this game. And no, the phrase "cold uncaring universe" is not shorthand for "griefer's paradise", as the latter would contain far too many elements of pure farce to qualify as the kind of serious setting that I believe was the original intent behind the phrase.
Well firstly may I offer severe kudos for coming out from behind the CCP wall of silence and actually confirming what had been obvious to those who have been watching, and indeed lobbying against, in regards to the pacification of high sec.
Your comments on wardecs are...... shockingly brutal in their honesty. And I see them as a beacon for people to refer to in any future discussion about high sec security.
It appears Might is not Right in present day EVE. Combat hardened veterans should be unable to exercise their training, their skills, their ships - in case they are deemed naughty bullies.
"Pick on someone your own size" is the cry... but what is our own size? How can you compare two corps with different people, different sp, different numbers, different ISK in the wallent, different industrial base.
How can CCP decide what is a "fair fight"?
THEY CANT
And if they cant - how can they use "its not fair" as a justification for letting "corp hopping" and other war bodges go on.
 If BOB wardec any corp in high sec. They have far more resources, far more "combat hardened veterans" far more isk. How can a corp fight that??? So according to your "grief" scenario - it shouldnt be allowed? Then whats the point in strining to be powerful? If DEVS swoop in to level the playingfield.
Just stop the wars fullstop. End the farce.
SKUNK
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:49:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Your comments on wardecs are...... shockingly brutal in their honesty. And I see them as a beacon for people to refer to in any future discussion about high sec security.
This. Apparently "Your stuffs: I want them  " is now no longer a sufficient reason to be hostile to someone.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:51:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Vladimir Griftin
This statement is completely contrary to the EVE we all know and love. Being ganked repeatedly is part of the game, it may not be everyones cup of tea, but without this, it will become stagnant. Everyone will just happily farm away at their missions amassing huge ammounts of wealth. Screwing up the already saturated empire market. Get bored in very short order and leave.
I agree with this, safest or most lucrative area of empire space. But not both.
But the dilemma is you add more reward to lo-sec and people become even wealthier and PvP becomes that much less meaningful, you take it away from hi-sec and there will be a lot of people having fits about not having that money to spend on... whatever it is such people spend their ISK on.
I don't see any solution that isn't going to annoy one group or the other and I don't see one ever being thought up.
Sometimes you just can't please everyone.
|
|
Takon Orlani
Caldari
Chaos Monkeys
Monkey Religion
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:59:00 -
[251]
Idiots deserve what they bring unto themselves. Don't give them squat.
 |
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:59:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
I too would like an answer to this. The nonconsensual nature of ≡v≡ combat was the main reason for my joining the game. I would really like my stay here to extend beyond the first year…
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:04:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 02/09/2008 18:15:00
Maybe it would be a good idea to adapt to the fact that CCP does not like the current state of War-Declarations and Suicide Ganking.
Maybe we can even help EVE to evolve, with some well thought arguments, instead of the usual whining and name-calling.
I always thought, a group of Veterans, that War-Declares a group of 1 Month old Characters, is pretty lame and more about killboard-padding then anything else. Such new characters have no stuff that is really worth the time. This is also not the only low stuff that happened. There were also cases of pure ******s that constantly harassed corps that consisted of female players, to "force them back into the kitchen".
EVE needs the PvPer/ Pirates /Gankers / Griefers
but also the Producers /Traders / Miners / Bears and one style of playing this game, is not better then the other.
 |
Tatsujin Koufu
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:05:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again.
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:07:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge.
You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to.
but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Tatsujin Koufu
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:10:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge.
You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to.
but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who?
Who...well CCP of course, you click yes to the EULA right ;)
Seriously, im not going to moan about this till hit hits sisi and valid comment can be made.
On the other hand if you dont like the general direction of the game, you can always vote with your wallet
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:10:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again.
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
3) sometimes later one of them "wins"
Wins what? Whos decides who wins? The marquess of queensbury?
SKUNK
|
Tatsujin Koufu
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:11:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again.
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
3) sometimes later one of them "wins"
Wins what? Whos decides who wins? The marquess of queensbury?
SKUNK
I would suggest that there is a surrender button somewhere involved here
|
Dire Radiant
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:19:00 -
[259]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though 
Can I use that as my reason for a wardec?
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:31:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
|
|
Kwedaras
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:32:00 -
[261]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed.
Oh, i see that with wardec rebalancing we will say another goodbye to another great profession : mercenaries. What you have described is technically what mercs do.
|
Karando
Random Goods
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:33:00 -
[262]
Edited by: Karando on 02/09/2008 18:33:53
Originally by: Dire Radiant
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though
Can I use that as my reason for a wardec?
No. Having fun is considered griefing now.
Oh and of course..
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
QFE |
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:34:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Threv Echandari on 02/09/2008 18:35:11
Originally by: Malcanis
This. Apparently "Your stuffs: I want them " is now no longer a sufficient reason to be hostile to someone.
Thats actually a Reason! And would seem to be OK by CCP. It's the "I don't care if you have Stuffs..as a matter of fact I'll blow up your stuffs once I've podded you and your noob ship"
Now this gave me an idea....concerning Wardecs and what not its "Reasonable Reasons" that CCP would prefer so people could go killing each other.
"Your stuffs: I want them " is actually the most common reason people would kill others.. However in Eve no one really dies. They will just quit in frustration if they can't get anywhere. So how about an "Indentured Servitude" mechanic for Wardecs.
Back of the napkin version..
Corp A says to Corp B "Your stuffs: I want them "
Corp B says - FU
Corp A Wardecs.
insert some fighting
Corp B loses X% of its player resources over the Week that the Wardec is active.
Corp B cannot sustain these losses and Accepts "Defeat"
Corp A may now institute a Tax on Corp B's Earnings until
A. the cost of the Wardec(s) +75% is paid. (how ever long it takes).
or
B. Corp B. Wardec's Corp A (@50% reduction in Wardec Cost) to try an regain their "Freedom".
(Note if Corp A Wins the War and extracts all the money it can out Corp B it may not Dec them again for a set period of Time.)
Yes, there are alot of holes in this and it is a fairly rough sketch. For example if Corp B Hides in Stations and does not engage at all it automagically has "lost". Corps may not have members Quit(drop to NPC Corp) until their Debt is paid though they can add members to help pay off the debt faster. (all members share in the Corp War debt). If players dont login or play to avoid paying, after a period of time then Winning Corp then assumes total control of the Corp and may close it down. (though all members will STILL have to pay their share of their war debt.)
Any way, since most everything revolves around ISK in this game, why not make wars revolve around isk and economic control? You could also make War Decs like contracts, instead of Payouts in Isk the loser may be required to produce/accquire Items like ships and modules...
In this way there will always be a rationale for Deccing someone, the Winner will gain something tangible and the losers won't be forever under the boot of a deccing corp.
POSt edit I see Someone else post altenative Wardec Scenario Wile I was typing....
|
Cyberman Mastermind
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:37:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Kwedaras
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed.
Oh, i see that with wardec rebalancing we will say another goodbye to another great profession : mercenaries. What you have described is technically what mercs do.
So, mercs fight not for money? I always thought they get paid to kill others, giving them a good reason to fight someone? |
Death4free
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:38:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again.
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
woah woah woah that sounds a lot like a......
BATTLEGROUND
oh yes its all there side a wants side b to gtfo outa alterac valley
side b says stfu and fights back
some time later 1 side wins
the losers only gain 1 badge rather than 3
why cant we keep war deccing as it is i dont wana justify having to blow stuff up to ccp
|
Nexus Kinnon
A Few Good Men.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:39:00 -
[266]
Not reading this thread but can anyone confirm/deny the following things have happened:
A. Le Skunk whining about how people in highsec have it too easy because of his bitterness at CCP ignoring lowsec
B. :walloftext: dev posts which don't actually progress the argument any further, instead they act as speed bumps because people have to pick apart every nuance of the post
C. ******ed suggestions from people who have no idea what they're talking about but want to shout it from the roofs anyway
Love & Kisses,
Nexus |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:42:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Death4free
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again.
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
woah woah woah that sounds a lot like a......
BATTLEGROUND
oh yes its all there side a wants side b to gtfo outa alterac valley
side b says stfu and fights back
some time later 1 side wins
the losers only gain 1 badge rather than 3
why cant we keep war deccing as it is i dont wana justify having to blow stuff up to ccp
Actually, FW is much more akin to battlegrounds than the above posters suggestion. Side A kicks side B's butt out of the valley (or system), and tomorrow they do it again, sometimes in reverse, but never with any real consequence. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:44:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu
All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all.
Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be
1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system
2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it
3) Sometime later, one of them wins
Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons.
Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be.
Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode?
Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge.
You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to.
but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who?
Who...well CCP of course, you click yes to the EULA right ;)
Seriously, im not going to moan about this till hit hits sisi and valid comment can be made.
On the other hand if you dont like the general direction of the game, you can always vote with your wallet
So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr
Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:50:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 02/09/2008 18:50:47
Originally by: Malcanis
So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions?
Less wardecs means less morons petitioning foul/griefing which means less cost.
|
c4 t
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:53:00 -
[270]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry)
ill write this pretending my opinion is really awesome and that i know you will read it.
firstly, i dislike the fact that you even have to cover your(and by your i dont mean you specifically) about making high-security space a safe zone. even the notion of making high sec 100% safe should be punishable by death as it would mean the death of what is the essence of eve.
i will preface my next thought by saying i have never partaken in the act of suicide ganking nor have i been suicide ganked. at the end of your post you say that the cost of suicide ganking somebody was too low. so you take away insurance, this is logical. i dont however understand why ccp felt they needed to decrease response times by concord when they already nerfed the risk/reward ratio by taking away insurance? i really would like to hear somebody tell me that with 100% certainty the isk being lost out by the gankers due to no insurance was not enough.
____________________________________________________________________
mostly harmless |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |