Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:38:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Drakarin I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
This is EVE. The meaning of, and penalty/reward forà wellà anything is what you make it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:40:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Drakarin I guess you folks simply don't want a truly harsh universe. That's fine, but it'd be nice if it was not spouted out to be difficult dangerous cruel and brutal, because there are so many features that if used properly will keep you safe 99% of the time and even if you die, you're covered to a degree.
That's just not what pops into my mind when I think of a space MMO. I want pvp, I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
Its not easy to create a good pvp mmo ... there are trades and balances.. ... most 1 vs 1 fighting ends up rock paper scissors or is all about twitch response time ... if you like more of that sort of "fair fight" thing there are all sorts of online console games doing and excellent job at that sort of fighting and avoid the rock paper scissors a little bit. ... most of thes games let you just dust your self off and get back in the fight with all your same equipment on you. ... eve is among the very few that allow a true loss for one side and some loot for the other.
I could go on... i'm not saying things are pefect compar things to your next best alternative look for parts of the game that due work for you.. wormhole corps, faction war, piracy, red vs blue ..if you don't like 0.0 blob warfare.
keep sugesting changes to improve the parts you do sorta like... no sense screwing with the parts you're not interested in...you do't need to play those.
|
Drakarin
Gallente Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:40:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Drakarin on 08/12/2010 21:42:23
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Originally by: Drakarin I guess you folks simply don't want a truly harsh universe. That's fine, but it'd be nice if it was not spouted out to be difficult dangerous cruel and brutal, because there are so many features that if used properly will keep you safe 99% of the time and even if you die, you're covered to a degree.
That's just not what pops into my mind when I think of a space MMO. I want pvp, I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
I don't know what kind of crappy fits you're flying but in general the hull is but fraction of the cost of most the ships I fly. Most the isk is in modules which are not insured. My Rifters cost about 6 mil my punishers 16mil which is a hell of a lot more than the couple hundred K that is provided by platinum insurance. my cruisers and BC and BS's follow the same pattern. In fact the rigs alone cost more than the entire hulls for all but BC's. And T2 insurance is a joke.
The fact is the more you type the more you demonstrate your stupidity.
I never said the majority of a ships value was in its hull. Where did I ever say that? And for that matter, when did I insult anyone here? Leave childish remarks like that at home...
My Raven is T2 fitted, the modules barely cost anything at all, the rigs on the other hand are quite expensive. I wouldn't pvp using anything but T2, because they have a very good cost to efficiency ratio. So when I lose a Raven that's insured, I certainly don't get all the isk I invested back, but I do get a fair bit. Enough that I see it as a problem because it reduces my fear of death by a bit more. I want to feel that fear. I want to be scared to die and yet risk it all anyways. That's fun.
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Drakarin I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
This is EVE. The meaning of, and penalty/reward forà wellà anything is what you make it.
I've heard that before, and to a degree it applies. I realize this is a sandbox, but the quality of the sand makes a huge difference. It's a sandbox but it's not completely empty. CCP have added in features, content, etc so we can have fun in it, and I believe insurance works against the idea of a true sandbox. CCP shouldn't be coddling us. It's supposed to be an unforgiving world.
I think you're all a little too spoonfed and don't want to lose your fix.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:51:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Drakarin Enough that I see it as a problem because it reduces my fear of death by a bit more. I want to feel that fear. I want to be scared to die and yet risk it all anyways. That's fun.
So don't insure it, if that's what you're going for. A lot of people aren't like you, but they still need to get blown up to make the economy go around. Insurance makes this happen.
Quote: I believe insurance works against the idea of a true sandbox. CCP shouldn't be coddling us. It's supposed to be an unforgiving world.
Then you'll hear something else you've heard before: in true sandbox fashion, you can choose not to be coddledà
More to the point, though, if you removed insurance, all that would happen is that ships prices hit a new equilibrium where they cost just as much to lose as they do todayà perhaps with the difference that a couple of manufacturers give up because their margins have become too thin.
Insurance gives people the comfort to get blown up the way a good EVE citizen should be (for the greater good of the game and all that]à but a large part of that is pure psychology. By getting something back, you don't feel the loss as much. The way the economy works, chances are that you'd lose just as much in terms of pure ISK even if there was no insurance, but without that "pat on the back" reward, people wouldn't do it ù the loss may be the same in pure numbers, but much harsher on your nerves. And (again) people need to explode in large numbers ù a mechanic that makes them more well-disposed to that outcome is a good thing. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:53:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Drakarin
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Drakarin I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
This is EVE. The meaning of, and penalty/reward forà wellà anything is what you make it.
I've heard that before, and to a degree it applies. I realize this is a sandbox, but the quality of the sand makes a huge difference. It's a sandbox but it's not completely empty. CCP have added in features, content, etc so we can have fun in it, and I believe insurance works against the idea of a true sandbox. CCP shouldn't be coddling us. It's supposed to be an unforgiving world.
I think you're all a little too spoonfed and don't want to lose your fix.
The Sandbox dynmic that creates the most "cost" really is the player-created kill-boards.
You can look at your record. Other players can look at your record.
You might not agree what is and isn't worth looking at.. but there is a record of the ships you've lost and people are going to strut about it.
That sandbox dynamic creates a "cost" for each loss for me.. the cost of the ships are inconsequetial to me in terms of affordablity.. but a shuttle loss is another tick on my lifetime loss record..as is a t1 frigate...losing hacs effects the sorta stupid but efficiency metric. Whether or not you'd agree on what it creates an incentive for, it is a challenge to keep it at whatever level you feel is acceptable to yourself while still chalkign up kills..
... valuing it makes the "hunt" portion of the game more fun in gambling sort of way.
|
Generals4
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:53:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Generals4 on 08/12/2010 21:54:17
Originally by: Drakarin I guess you folks simply don't want a truly harsh universe. That's fine, but it'd be nice if it was not spouted out to be difficult dangerous cruel and brutal, because there are so many features that if used properly will keep you safe 99% of the time and even if you die, you're covered to a degree.
That's just not what pops into my mind when I think of a space MMO. I want pvp, I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
Eve is harsh to a degree. You are not safe anywhere and while a rich player might not consider his potential losses as too bad not everyone swims in isks. Add to that not everyone flies T1 ships and uses non-faction/officer modules and suddenly the risk of big losses shows up. Why don't you fly a CNR with Caldari navy BCU's and Cruise missile launchers instead of a raven with T2 mods? Suddenly losing your ship, regardless of the insurance , will seem bad.
I personally follow the rule not to fly something i can't afford to lose pretty much to the letter and therefor my main fear is to get podded . Because idd losing fancy (tho not too fancy for me) implants can hurt your wallet.
If you want a harsh universe go live in Nullsec or Lowsec using fancy ships/modules/implants.
In eve it is you who choses how harsh the universe is (to a certain degree). And yes if you limit yourself to T1 ships with T2 modules it won't look that bad but that's your choice. The fancy items are there , want to fear the loss of your ships go use them.
|
Shiptoaster
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:03:00 -
[37]
if u want no local go to wh's local is for community and sharing and getting to know eachother
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Industrial Exploits
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:18:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Drakarin Local chat has to go.
It's always the same... "Oh no!!! Something doesn't suit my playstyle! I demand ccp removes it immediatly!!!!!!11ELEVENTY!!!"
I think rather U have to go if u don't like it... ________________________________________________
|
Syn Callibri
Minmatar 21st Eridani Lighthorse
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:21:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Drakarin Local chat has to go.
Your stuffz...givez to me now!
Commander Tac-Ops |
Rykuss
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:42:00 -
[40]
Yeah, ganking miners who are at the keyboard and actually pay attention should be easier. Try making a thread with genuine ideas that might be helpful to the community instead of proposing game changes that cater to your style of play. Seriously, everytime I read one of these threads, the impression I get is that another "carebears should die everytime to mah laz0rz!!11" mentality types got mad because his gank attempt failed.
If the thrill of the chase isn't your thing, as suggested, there are plenty of FPS titles out there that offer mindless entertainment for hours on end. You won't lose much except for that "uber r1fl3 of n00b pwnage!!11" you had to walk ten steps to pick up before camping the other teams respawn point.
|
|
Drakarin
Gallente Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 00:02:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Rykuss Yeah, ganking miners who are at the keyboard and actually pay attention should be easier. Try making a thread with genuine ideas that might be helpful to the community instead of proposing game changes that cater to your style of play. Seriously, everytime I read one of these threads, the impression I get is that another "carebears should die everytime to mah laz0rz!!11" mentality types got mad because his gank attempt failed.
If the thrill of the chase isn't your thing, as suggested, there are plenty of FPS titles out there that offer mindless entertainment for hours on end. You won't lose much except for that "uber r1fl3 of n00b pwnage!!11" you had to walk ten steps to pick up before camping the other teams respawn point.
No no, that is my pedestal. Get your own. I am advocating for the thrill of the chase. I'm the one who wants this to be more than mindless pvp. It is so now when things are so safe and secure and upon death you're actually helped out by the system. Say no to the welfare galaxy.
I want a system that encourages you to hunt your prey. If local is removed or my compromise implemented, you'd still be able to find out if someone is in the system, using the directional scanner or a combat probe. The difference is the hunted would be unaware unless they too are paying very close attention. This means real danger unless you're very alert all the time.
All I have to do now is check local every now and then and see if there are any new faces about, that coupled with the directional scanner and Show Info, and I can almost guarantee my safety.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 00:56:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Drakarin Local chat has to go.
I bet you liked the blindfold match at Wrestlemania VII too.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:29:00 -
[43]
This is an interesting arguing position the OP has chosen really. By calling out to the RISK in very opening lines, he's creating the perception that those of us (including me) who do not support his position are risk adverse, even if our ideas are for the better of the game over all.
And we all know what risk adverse folks are called in this game.
Maybe this should be a new logical fallacy - argumentum ad carebearism. --Vel
I'm more of a care-badger. |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:32:00 -
[44]
the no local position isn't clearly defined as more or less risk. The amount of risk depends on your playstyle.
No local position is about wanting more complex game. Some people like things being kept simple, others want more out of the game.
|
Phosphorus Palladium
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:37:00 -
[45]
Eve has stopped being a cruel universe since the introduction of plex.
Lost something? Need something? Give CCP some RL cash and you got it.
The bigger your RL purse, the less cruel EVE is.
|
Drakarin
Gallente Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:53:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Eve has stopped being a cruel universe since the introduction of plex.
Lost something? Need something? Give CCP some RL cash and you got it.
The bigger your RL purse, the less cruel EVE is.
It was always like this before, as CCP has encouraged additional accounts since the start as far as I here it.
|
Solenopsis
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:57:00 -
[47]
This game is about choices. People should be allowed to DECIDE if they want to choose to participate in local and enjoy all the great "community" aspects.
Myself, all I see local as is a meta-gaming aspect that allows lazy people to have free intel with zero effort. Some lazy arsed miners or ratters wanna chat up others in the system ? Fine, grab your Hello Kitty purses and have some local chat room you can all go into and compare lipstick colors and your new nail polish. Meanwhile the looters and shooters will be out here waiting for you.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 03:21:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Drakarin
I want a system that encourages you to hunt your prey. If local is removed or my compromise implemented, you'd still be able to find out if someone is in the system, using the directional scanner or a combat probe. The difference is the hunted would be unaware unless they too are paying very close attention. This means real danger unless you're very alert all the time.
Risk/Reward fails if effort/fun is not considered as well. Few people find fun in mashing the scan button every two seconds. Recently, in F&I, there was a thread that used an ecosystem as an analogy, hunters and prey. This works well for Eve in some ways. In the analogy, prey animals all have big ears and big eyes, so they can be aware at all times while they munch plants. Local, as it is now, is big eyes and big ears.
If local is removed, something as effective needs to be created, or hunter efficiency needs to be reduced. An ideal solution would do a bit of both. Look at W-space, it works pretty well not only because local is different, but also because there are few static elements, mainly the entry and exit locations.
Removing local fails on its own, fixing the DS fails on its own, removing gates fails on its own. They all need a redo, change or removal if we really want deep dark space full of hunt and chase that not only enables non-consent PVP, but provides enough cover, or knowledge, for prey animal activities.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Drakarin
Gallente Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 04:07:00 -
[49]
Hence the compromise, for now. Remove Show info on low sec local. Only show how many people are in the system, not who they are. That way, you still have your senses about you.. you can know if there's prey to be hunted in a system, you just can't get almost full intel on them in 5 seconds anymore. I don't think that's unreasonable.
|
Zenn'on
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 04:17:00 -
[50]
To OP. Nothing is stopping you from minimizing your local and not putting insurance on your ship. That would add all the danger you want to add for your own game play and make it scary for you i guess.
|
|
Mr Jebidea
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:15:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Drakarin I guess you folks simply don't want a truly harsh universe. That's fine, but it'd be nice if it was not spouted out to be difficult dangerous cruel and brutal, because there are so many features that if used properly will keep you safe 99% of the time and even if you die, you're covered to a degree.
That's just not what pops into my mind when I think of a space MMO. I want pvp, I just don't want meaningless pvp that results in more isk in the game, and less penalty for failing // less reward for succeeding.
What do you think of cloaks? They will keep you safe 100% of the time, so should they be removed or nerfed in some way so that a player using on can be killed?
All I hear from you is that you want a "truly cruel and brutal" galaxy, which is all well and good. But this is a game, you can't trade the fun of it for it to live up to marketing hype. removing insurance would destroy PVP, mining, ship sales, almost everything. Getting rid of local would obliterate roaming and on the fly PVP.
Removing insurance would not create more of a penalty if you lost, it would just keep people that are poor from going into low/null sec, and let the rich, fat cat vets play to their hearts content with any ship they want.
If you want a truly cruel universe stop playing EVE and go live life for real, maybe you will find what you are looking for "out there."
|
Draconyx
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:42:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Drakarin Let me begin with a simple word, one that defines the EvE universe, or so we all pretend. That word is called risk. I am making this thread for one reason, to point how that this game is not so scary, not so cruel, it's not even dangerous.
The first issue is beyond beating the dead horse, but I'll say it anyways. Local chat has to go. It is a means to gather a near unlimited amount of data for literally zero effort of ability. Anyone can use it freely without any penatly. Not only do you know how many players there are in a system, but you can even look them up and find out if they have a bounty, what their security status is and how long they have been playing for.
Granted local has been around @ least sense 2006 but all you got was the persons name. No blue , no red, the only way you knew who was hostile was by keeping a printed out standings list by your keyboard. Sorry but I don't think you will find too many people that want to go back to that.
Originally by: Drakarin
This is simply illogical in a game spouting a "cruel and harsh" universe. No freebies here, please. Lets bring back in some element of fear because as it stands, the only thing risky about low security space are gate camps. They can be avoided using either an alt or the honorable way, using the star map (another free source of near unlimited intel).
Star maps I agree are bad. Compromise would be you can only see systems your alliance has sov in or high-sec and perhaps lowsec as concord is providing that info. For the rest no info would make things interesting .
Insurance being dynamic would be great and I believe CCP took a crack @ it but had issues. So sorry but insurance has to stay so people can continue to PVP. And lets face it the only people removing insurance would hurt would be newer characters as most vets are flying T2 or T3 and nobody bothers to insure them. So why change it.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:45:00 -
[53]
Insurance is the kind of thing that never should have been implemented to begin with, but given the way it works now its not worth paying for, so there is still a loss.
As for Local, there is zero reason to keep it. Make Region the default channel for socializing.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Meinermeiner
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:51:00 -
[54]
I don't understand why there is insurance anyway. Get rid of it, make the game even harder and more risky.
|
|
CCP Spitfire
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:37:00 -
[55]
Moved from 'EVE General Discussion'.
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 16:19:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Meinermeiner I don't understand why there is insurance anyway. Get rid of it, make the game even harder and more risky.
Removing insurance will not make either of those two things happen. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Drakarin
Gallente Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 18:13:00 -
[57]
It won't matter much for large corporations with branches and subdivisions in every kind of industry and well, just giant alliances such as that. However on an individual level it will absolutely make a difference.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 18:36:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Drakarin It won't matter much for large corporations with branches and subdivisions in every kind of industry and well, just giant alliances such as that. However on an individual level it will absolutely make a difference.
Oh it [removing insurance] will certainly make a difference - just not the one you're expecting. Welcome to "No One Undocks Online." --Vel
I'm more of a care-badger. |
Solena Rain
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:38:00 -
[59]
your idea is already implemented it's called WH, go and stay in one for good you RAT!
|
Aidan Patrick
Zero Point Group
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:16:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Aidan Patrick on 09/12/2010 21:21:16
Originally by: Ephemeron the no local position isn't clearly defined as more or less risk. The amount of risk depends on your playstyle.
No local position is about wanting more complex game. Some people like things being kept simple, others want more out of the game.
I really could not have put it better. Removal of local works both ways. Though I will say that for high security space it should stay as is purely due to social gameplay reasons. Low-sec and nullsec need it to go to delayed mode. I did however like the compromise of showing the numbers of players while in lowsec while still keeping the player names hidden until they speak. That way low sec you still get a free alert, but unless you know whose coming you treat it just like you would anyways.
While I'm on the topic of low sec, I think players with negative security status should be able to be engaged in low sec without penalty.
Anyways, I can argue til I'm blue in the face and ead about how the modified local works both ways for the carebear and the pvper. Hell, I'll even admit that the only reason I haven't gone into "Null security" or space is just based on one pure fact: Why put myself at risk at all times when I can't even use stealth and subterfuge to find my way around? No, I don't mean cloaking. Just strategic manuvering and positioning within systems to hide my presence. Local prevents that and turns it into a position where if I go out in to nullsec I get blobbed by whatever force the local alliances can muster up just because I'm a neutral. Local is a security measure. Null security space.. isn't supposed to be secure; and thats why I don't go out there. I'd rather stay in high security space where I can control every factor about my engagements.
--- Hell, one of my favorite engagements in EVE was in a wormhole system trying to escape after collapsing a wormhole on a target. Killed the target and was stranded in a battleship with no intel on who lived there, how many there were or even how active they were. My goal? Simply to escape. A lack of local made this FUN and interesting. I had no intel on the inhabitants, didn't know if they were hostile, friendly or if they were just crazy people who like to fornicate with sleepers.
I had to be very careful while trying to find my way out of the system. I eventually got blown up and podded. Why? Because I was having so much fun with the exhiliration of them hunting me that I prefered to lose my ship in a valiant escape attempt while trying to get through the wormhole over logging out and coming back on when they were inactive. That is why I am a such a supporter of delayed local.
Now normal space encounters with delayed local will be different, you still have that portion of the game that changes dramatically... Who is there? how many? am I safe to try and warp to that gate or should I stick to orbiting this moon for now?
That's just an example where me, the *HUNTER* became the prey of a local industrial corporation defending their turf. *THAT* makes the game interesting, *THAT* is the rush that we PVP'ers are looking for.
Anyways.. I'll stop now because as I said I could go all day until I'm blue in the face.. or fingers in this case.
---
And no, leaving it in just wormhole space is not a solution in my eyes. A good amount of players dont want to deal with the logistics of wormholes for one, ontop of that they don't want to deal with the inconsistant and non guaranteed travel routes. That, and some people just don't like sleeper sites.
A change with local would bring that rush to normal space that you can only really get in wormhole space. - Aidan Patrick |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |