| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
194
   |
Posted - 2012.05.13 15:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
AxelFuller wrote:With the new War Dec mechanics it seems like there is no consideration to players who wish to take part in PVE activity only.
It would appear the only option available to none PVP type players is to stay in an NPC corp or join a large enough Corp which is unlikely to get War Dec'ed because of the cost.
You have several choices. How many do you need?
AxelFuller wrote:What happened to Eve being a Sandbox allowing players to choose what they want to do.
You can choose what you want to do. As with all choices, as is consistent with EVE's sandbox, they come with consequences. This is where your argument falls apart. What you seem to want is a choice with no consequences, which is exactly the opposite of what a true sandbox should be.
You have 2 valid choices, NPC corp or player corp. And within those two choices you have a multitude of options.
1. NPC corp- make your own private "corp" channel in game. Play as if you are in a player corp
2. Player corp- use corp taxes to build a "merc fund" to deal with wardecs
3. Player corp- join larger alliance.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. Lots of ways to deal with the choices and their associated consequences. Sandbox working as intended. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
194
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 18:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Five Thirty wrote:Zoidberg Gahiji wrote:It's certainly a good thing to kill what made EVE what it is today, what makes EVE special and what defines EVE's core. What lets it stand out against its competition and made it successful to begin with. An omni present sense of danger is as fundamental to EVE as fantasy to WoW is and has nothing to do with griefing.
Complaining that there is PvP in a PvP game is ridiculously moronic and stupid. If you don't like PvP don't play a PvP game. End of story. And if you think EVE is not a PvP game you certainly do not even comprehend what you are actually playing.
This whole thread is nonsense. Listen to me and don't make assumptions. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT REMOVING PVP.PvP will still exist in every facet of the game, except high sec griefing of people who are not interested in PvP. The argument is that the amount of actual carebears is small, so I'm still waiting for someone to come along and explain what the detriment to PVP would be if 1000 people who actively avoid pvp were suddenly immune to it?
The problem is that what you are trying to advocate goes against the wonderful sandbox that is eve. As I said on page two (which probably got missed). The thing about the sandbox is that every choice you have has consequences. What you and the OP seem to be glossing over is this fact. You seem to want some way of avoiding pvp altogether without any consequence. The OP for example wants his 5 man corp without being prone to wardecs.
Adding some opt out without any consequence would break the sandbox. So the question would be what would you be willing to sacrifice or pay for this opt out program? |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
194
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 18:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Five Thirty wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:The problem is that what you are trying to advocate goes against the wonderful sandbox that is eve. As I said on page two (which probably got missed). The thing about the sandbox is that every choice you have has consequences. What you and the OP seem to be glossing over is this fact. You seem to want some way of avoiding pvp altogether without any consequence. The OP for example wants his 5 man corp without being prone to wardecs.
Adding some opt out without any consequence would break the sandbox. So the question would be what would you be willing to sacrifice or pay for this opt out program? The sandbox argument is complete bull. If the sandbox were true, there would be no CONCORD and no faction navy, and everyone could just mill about blowing up whatever they wanted without consequence. The game as it is now goes against that logic because CONCORD and faction navies do exist. If concord followed logic, anyone who commits a crime in the area they patrol would be prevented from entering that area permanently. Hell give them a 3 strikes rule would even be more likely than it is now. Instead concord simply blows up their ship and effectively forgets they ever did anything wrong after 15 minutes. The notion of a sandbox is not true, it's just what griefers try to use to guard their ability to grief.
Nice try but wrong. For one, concord will attack repeat offenders. If they are below a certain sec level they are attack on site and their shop can get blown up. But also, which. IMO is good, concord is not all omnipotent. They can be outrun, they are not everywhere at all times. Working as intended IMO.
Again, the issue of what you propose is that it would break the sandbox. If you cannot figure out how it would, debating this topic becomes moot. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
194
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 04:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Five Thirty wrote:Interesting choice for a personal attack. If I extend our in game personas to real life, I am a business person and you are a sociopath. Interesting parallel, eh?
Oh boy, if you want to play the real life parallel, let's go.
EVE in many ways has done a pretty good job of balancing this "real life" sort of dynamic to a game.
High security does have "police". And they will warp in to save the day pretty quick (especially compared to RL police)
Now, what you seem to want in EVE would be the real life equivalent to "I want to be 100% safe". This obviously is impossible. Any time you walk down the street you are at risk of getting mugged,robbed,abducted,killed. Sure certain areas in the world are safer than others. But it can potentially happen anywhere.
So in RL, the basic solution would be to hire a personal bodyguard.
So let's logically extend that back to the EVE sandbox (I know you like logical arguments). It costs people isk to wardec you. After the patch it will cost more. So how much do you think it should be to hire concord 23/7 to protect you from wardecs and be your "bodyguard"? That would be a way to "opt out" while maintaining the continuity of the EVE sandbox. Asking for an opt out without any consequences does not.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
195
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Arwen Tyler wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Nice try but wrong. For one, concord will attack repeat offenders. If they are below a certain sec level they are attack on site and their shop can get blown up. But also, which. IMO is good, concord is not all omnipotent. They can be outrun, they are not everywhere at all times. Working as intended IMO.
Again, the issue of what you propose is that it would break the sandbox. If you cannot figure out how it would, debating this topic becomes moot. Totally wrong, Concord kills you only when the GCC is in effect, they can't be outrun, they are omnipotent, you mixing it up with the faction police. But any issue about Concord and ganking is nothing to do with pvp, shooting someone and getting the kill before they wtfpwn you is just working out how much damage you need to put on you're target before Concord takes you out, should be called player vs e-fit, on a related note wonder how much crying there would be from gankers if getting concorded generated a loss mail......
Who cares? You missed the entire point. Regardless of it being Concord or the faction police, the point is the game has a police force, similar to real life. EVE's police force is way faster and better, but they are still not perfect. They are not everywhere at all times.
And no Concord is not omnipotent. If they were they would strike you down without needing to warp to you first.
CCP could have put some mechanicl in the game if they wanted, like an auto kill switch. You fire on someone in HS and you get instapopped. But they didn't they built this elaborate system of NPC police instead, which specifically makes HS "safer" while not being "safe". |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
199
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 23:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Five Thirty wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone is familiar with what is PvP and what is not...
The OP was specifically talking about non-consensual PvP via suicide gank, being tricked into agression, and high sec war.
So much for the gankbears trying to claim they are the smarter ones in EvE.
Actually to be accurate, the OP was specifically talking about Wardec's. The OP makes no mention of agression tricks or suicide ganks. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
199
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 01:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Five Thirty wrote:Non-consensual ship to ship combat.
Is that simple enough for you gankbears?
First off, not everyone that disagrees with your views is a gankbear. And the OP started a thread on the premise of wardecs. There is an opt out essentially from wardecs. It is npc corps.
Technically there is an opt out to ganking as well. Stay in a starter system.
I don't really like suicide ganking. Personally I will never partake in it. But I wholly respect that it is a facet of this game and will defend the right for it to remain in EVE. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
199
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 02:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Flurk Hellbron wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Five Thirty wrote:Non-consensual ship to ship combat.
Is that simple enough for you gankbears? First off, not everyone that disagrees with your views is a gankbear. And the OP started a thread on the premise of wardecs. There is an opt out essentially from wardecs. It is npc corps. Technically there is an opt out to ganking as well. Stay in a starter system. <------ not true, you cannot stay noob for weeks I don't really like suicide ganking. Personally I will never partake in it. But I wholly respect that it is a facet of this game and will defend the right for it to remain in EVE.
I think you got your quotes messed up? Anyhow. You can absolutely stay in a starter system as long as you like. I didnt say it is a great choice, or particularily fun. But it is a place where ganking is a bannable offense. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
Situation: Normal
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 01:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
I think ccp pretty much summed up their feelings on the subject in the latest dev blog video
I especially like the dev talking about in cloaking your new stealth bomber in front of an unsuspecting miner... |
| |
|