EVE Search - I Have Done It All: One Pilot's Thoughts And An Eve Career

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I Have Done It All: One Pilot's Thoughts And An Eve Career

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts	Posted - 2011.03.03 05:12:00 - [31] The problem with EVE is that it is not about evenly matched honor battles, it is about taking and keeping what you can by any means necessary. Unfortunately this tends to lead people toward those necessary means, which usually means people wont fight unless they have a gross advantage. Thems the breaks, if you can't 'get with that', then maybe the model that eve is based around is not right for your idea of a good game, sorry. I think a lot of people get the impression that CCP is trying to make a game which everyone can play and enjoy, unfortunately this is not true. CCP is trying to make a game which some people will play and enjoy, as many people as they can possibly get to play it while keeping the game within the original vision of eve, that of a player driven free sandbox where just about anything goes. Unfortunately if you start interfering with player interaction in a manner in which forces 'fair' fights, then you are removing a huge portion the freedom aspect which is integral to the sandbox, and it would change the game into something that would not be eve any longer. IMO RvB is one valid option if you enjoy engaging in relatively fair fights. Yes occasionally shenannegans occur, but from my experience the majority of the time things go rather well and fun is had by all involved. The other option is to arrange duels amongs friends and such, or you can go to SISI and fight with unlimited free ships in FDZ. The players have many ways of arranging 'fair' fights, leave that out of the mechanics please. TL;DR: Fair fights are an option better left up to the individual parties involved, not the 'devgods'. -------------------------------------------- Quote: EVE-Online... Too rough for ya? Don't like it? GTFO...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.03 05:36:00 - [32] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian There is no mechanism in the game that rewards combat. There is no reason for a fleet to stay at a modest 7-10 size and not get any bigger short of not having enough people online. "Its what I find fun." Is that not reason or mechanism enough? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2011.03.03 06:00:00 - [33] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Fist person shooters seem to take care of this issue by setting up matches with even numbers of players. Imagine how much fun call of duty would be if the match was set up 11 vs 3? Who would want to play FPS like that? Even with even numbers and only slightly different skills, people refuse to play in some games. I play L4D2 versus a lot and you'd be amazed at how often enemies ragequit because they got 20% fewer points in a single round/stage. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 06:25:00 - [34] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 03/03/2011 06:32:51 Well flame me but the solution are obviously arenas. It never ceases to surprise me that everyone's drooling over alliance tournaments and even stay home for them because finally they see how player skill and tactics determine the outcome of a fight and even re-watch them on youtube countless times - but if people want them in EVE it's the most horrible idea since non-sliced bread. Doesn't it suit the EVE universe? I find this nonsense, if there's a desire for it why not make it so. If you don't like it, don't do them. Humans always had controlled ways to test their skill, be it cold and harsh roman gladiator arenas, cruel medieval knights' tournaments or your everyday football game. So why not in EVE? I see no reason why for instance CONCORD couldn't host 4 vs 4 frigate fight arenas. Again: if you don't like it, don't do it. The advantages are obvious: it will boost the economy because people will lose a lot of ships, people will have more fun things to do and the step to get into real PvP will be a lot smaller as they get more confidence after training their PvP skills in a balanced environment.
Corozan Aspinall Party Time Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.03 06:39:00 - [35] This 'they didn't attack me the puftas!' thing is hillarious. Presuming someone is a coward and/or stupid because they don't want to risk losing assets is not only derogratory its dense. If you accept that most 'blobbers' have no real pvp skills and rely on intel channels, strength in numbers and clear instructions - in most cases right down to 'shoot' or 'don't shoot', then you begin to appreciate why it sucks. Can't blame people for being stupid (as in lacking the brains to think independantly and learn how to pvp 'properly') and opting to become sheeple in alliances. Blame CCP for not anticipating this phenomenon (lol) and figuring out a way to make it less of an issue for those who don't want to do it. I didn't give a toss before I started seeing them in low sec. Now there's bloody filthy reds all over my lawn and they've banned me from playing with the sprinklers.
Tejal Charu	Posted - 2011.03.03 07:49:00 - [36] The sandbox is working perfectly... all according to keikaku. (translator's note: keikaku means plan)
Dr Sheepbringer Gallente Halinallen veroparatiisi Inglorious Carebears	Posted - 2011.03.03 08:13:00 - [37] I think CCP should make the "WANTED" elements more active. Basically meaning that if you have a bounty on you...you would be chased. Yes I know alts would cause mayhem and such, but I think many people would take on the bountyhunter role if hunting down some person would actually get them rewards that actually have a meaning. I think to many the bounty is just a bonus they noticed after, not the thing they were there for the first place. Basically at the moment the most profitable (ok, let's say the only profitable worth the effort) pvp is ganking someone in highsec and getting teh luutz. Some officer loot is a actual reason to pvp, but then you have this situation where ganking is highsec is "bad" thing and thus causes other problems. I think CCP should somehow force mission runners into lowsec/null where you have to go there. Perhaps the storylines or something. I don't want every mission to be a potential killmail, but still forcing people to "step out". Then going into pvp-areas wouldn't need a actual reason, one would HAVE TO go there in a "mission running" ship. Also I don't mean every hauler and a courier mission should do it. It's like a death sentence to "hey, haul this 80 000m3 to null" with something that alligns ten minutes". The idea would be that one would have to some more serious hardware into the unknown, but also make it profitable. Perhaps the only way to gain faction standing? Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
Cannibal Kane	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:02:00 - [38] Being a new player in EvE my opinion might be zilch compared to others here. With regards to pvp i have found it depends on the corp your with. I have had more battles with war targets on my own in my own 1 man corp than I did running with a corp of 14 or more people. Right now the only reward for PVP in my case is that it is FUN. If there was sort of ISK/SEC/Faction gain from killing your war targets or aggressors I bet you would see alot more people willing to PVP.
Signal11th	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:03:00 - [39] Originally by: Dr Sheepbringer I think CCP should make the "WANTED" elements more active. Basically meaning that if you have a bounty on you...you would be chased. Yes I know alts would cause mayhem and such, but I think many people would take on the bountyhunter role if hunting down some person would actually get them rewards that actually have a meaning. I think to many the bounty is just a bonus they noticed after, not the thing they were there for the first place. Basically at the moment the most profitable (ok, let's say the only profitable worth the effort) pvp is ganking someone in highsec and getting teh luutz. Some officer loot is a actual reason to pvp, but then you have this situation where ganking is highsec is "bad" thing and thus causes other problems. I think CCP should somehow force mission runners into lowsec/null where you have to go there. Perhaps the storylines or something. I don't want every mission to be a potential killmail, but still forcing people to "step out". Then going into pvp-areas wouldn't need a actual reason, one would HAVE TO go there in a "mission running" ship. Also I don't mean every hauler and a courier mission should do it. It's like a death sentence to "hey, haul this 80 000m3 to null" with something that alligns ten minutes". The idea would be that one would have to some more serious hardware into the unknown, but also make it profitable. Perhaps the only way to gain faction standing? Like the idea but all that will happen as you know will the low sec gates that the mission running will invaribly have to go through will be camped 24/7. As for the OP I don't particulary like the Orphanage as a corp but it was probably one of the most intelligent post's I have seen on here for a while.So props .
Kwashi Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:17:00 - [40] Two counterarguments from the devil's advocate: 1. One thing that makes EVE distinct from other games that involve PVP is the relative importance of intel, logistics, psyops, and such - a layer of metagame added on to the actual combat, where the outcome of a battle can be decided before the enemy is even on grid. This I feel is one of the big selling points of EVE - you can beat people with your brain instead of how fast you click the buttons. Changes that would reduce this factor would be bad IMO, unless they were confined to some sort of restricted arena, but then, see point #2. 2. Games that feature arena-style evenly-matched combat also usually feature meaningless combat: fight the other guy, die, respawn with nothing lost but a bruised ego, go at it again. Another big selling point of EVE is that in every battle, SOMEthing of value is at stake. As far as the problem of folks not wanting to fight when they are not assured of victory: this happens in any game. Few people like playing for its own sake more than they dislike losing. Even in combat as meaningless as e.g. a world of warcraft battleground, the losing side will more often than not log out or go afk rather than continue to fight once they fall behind - even though logging out or going afk actually nets them less ingame reward than simply sticking around to lose the battle. Lots of people say they want good fights, but what they really want is one sided slaughters. If you can design a game mechanic that overcomes this bit of human nature, you'll make a fortune, I think Good luck!
Dr Sheepbringer Gallente Halinallen veroparatiisi Inglorious Carebears	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:20:00 - [41] Originally by: Signal11th Like the idea but all that will happen as you know will the low sec gates that the mission running will invaribly have to go through will be camped 24/7. As for the OP I don't particulary like the Orphanage as a corp but it was probably one of the most intelligent post's I have seen on here for a while.So props . Perhaps there could wormwhole access etc. Perhaps a concord escort :D I don't know!!! Something... Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
Stan Jens Gallente KaaiiNet Holding Executor Corp	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:23:00 - [42] CCP, what ever happened to the low sec Viceroy, thing? Where your alliance / corp could build and administer stations in low sec.....? Dropped?
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:39:00 - [43] Originally by: Kwashi Two counterarguments from the devil's advocate: 1. One thing that makes EVE distinct from other games that involve PVP is the relative importance of intel, logistics, psyops, and such - a layer of metagame added on to the actual combat, where the outcome of a battle can be decided before the enemy is even on grid. 2. Games that feature arena-style evenly-matched combat also usually feature meaningless combat: fight the other guy, die, respawn with nothing lost but a bruised ego, go at it again. Another big selling point of EVE is that in every battle, SOMEthing of value is at stake. Lots of people say they want good fights, but what they really want is one sided slaughters. If you can design a game mechanic that overcomes this bit of human nature, you'll make a fortune, I think Good luck! Practice arenas and world PvP for dominion or FW LP or whatever don't have to exclude one another, why not have both? And with arenas you can still lose your ship, arena's doesn't necessarily equal no loss. And yes, there's people who do want good fights, no matter if they win or lose. Walkovers are never exciting, I played a lot of arena style PvP and the best fights are usually those that last long and where coopreation and individual skill determines the otcome after an hour.
Kwashi Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.03.03 09:52:00 - [44] Originally by: Jennifer Starling And yes, there's people who do want good fights, no matter if they win or lose. Walkovers are never exciting, I played a lot of arena style PvP and the best fights are usually those that last long and where coopreation and individual skill determines the otcome after an hour. You'd be in the tiny minority, though. Another example from WoW - people (myself included) argued on their forums for years that the type of characters that were built to be as powerful as possible without progressing in level should be allowed to fight each other in tests of ultimate skill in battles separate from everyone else, since steamrolling the regular characters was never fun. Then the devs actually implemented this. Never could get a game after that. It seems the majority of those people who had them, shelved their powerful mini-toons once they couldn't steamroll people. And barring a select few cases, those remaining who actually were interested in good fights were not numerous enough in any given timezone to get the game to spawn a battle. We'd gotten exactly what we asked for but the situation was worse - it went from easy fights to no fights at all :(
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.03 10:23:00 - [45] If you can not find a reason to fight, you are not trying hard enough. EVE by default is not actually a game of tf2 were you have two teams slugging it off for no reason other then to slug it off. If players want that kind of thing, they mkae it themself, e.g. RvB. Thats what a "sandbox" is supposed to be about.
captain skinback	Posted - 2011.03.03 10:34:00 - [46] Originally by: Kwashi it went from easy fights to no fights at all :( thats the opposite of where eve is at. you could spend hours looking for targets after you hit x for a fleet. pvp on tq is not very time efficient. one of the games biggest problems is that its boring. on sisi all you need to do to get into a fight is fit a ship and undock. its because everything costs 100isk, every ship is worthless so people dont mind fighting and loosing. The test server can give some instant gratification which is something tq doesnt have at all. it takes a lot of time to do almost anything. unfortunately i dont think theres a way to make everything worthless on tranquillity and keep economy as awesome as it it is. so as far as bringing instant gratification to tq.... im all out of ideas.
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.03.03 10:47:00 - [47] OP: Apparently you haven't tried quitting EVE yet. Could be food for thought. -- Mr. Science & Trade Institute - EVE Lorebook - Mysteries of W-space
chaosyourgod	Posted - 2011.03.03 10:53:00 - [48] o.k so it seems like the problem here is that the only way to counter a blobb is with another blobb, but i say what if ccp added a ship that, kamikaze'd into the enemy blobb, with enough force that can kill bc' and heavly hurts bs' but you die and you have to go get another inorder to deal with another fleet. overpowered you say ? maybe, but so is getting ganked by 20+
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 10:54:00 - [49] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 03/03/2011 10:54:47 Originally by: chaosyourgod o.k so it seems like the problem here is that the only way to counter a blobb is with another blobb, but i say what if ccp added a ship that, kamikaze'd into the enemy blobb, with enough force that can kill bc' and heavly hurts bs' but you die and you have to go get another inorder to deal with another fleet. overpowered you say ? maybe, but so is getting ganked by 20+ What about more kinds of AoE weapons/ammo - like bombers use?
Chitsa Jason Caldari Bite me inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:04:00 - [50] Well you havent tried Wspace then :)
chaosyourgod Minmatar Virtual Warriors IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:18:00 - [51] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 03/03/2011 10:54:47 What about more kinds of AoE weapons/ammo - like bombers use? sure as long as a blobb goes "OMFG THEY GOT'A (insert overpowered one shot not titain thing here) LEG IT" the truth is but a lie
Acac Sunflyier Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:30:00 - [52] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 02/03/2011 22:56:57 Epic fleet fights, PVP Instructor, Professional Recruiter, Carebear, NRDS, NBSI -10 pirate, Corp Leader, + 1,000 Man Alliance Leader, Mercenary, Asshat, Griefer and at present I perform asset denial along side the corporations that fly under the banner of The Orphanage. . . . Lately, real life has kept me so busy that I have had almost no time to play EVE for nearly a month. This forced break has caused me to reflect on where I have been, where I am and where I might be going. To summarize this and prevent this post from becoming just another incoherent ramble from a jaded vet, I will instead just summarize my thoughts as clearly and simply as possible. No matter where I was, what I was doing or what I was trying to accomplish in game, there was one constant . . . people just don't want to fight unless they have a gross advantage. There is no mechanism in the game that rewards combat. There is no reason for a fleet to stay at a modest 7-10 size and not get any bigger short of not having enough people online. There is no reason not to stay docked and wait for sheer, mind numbing boredom to deter your aggressor There are subtle checks and balances all over this game--Time sinks (in Travel, Market, Manufacturing) ever balancing game mechanics (in Weapons, Ship Speed, Resists), risk vs reward opportunities (sanctums, Sleepers, Plexes), but for the small group of close friends there is NO ACTUAL reason to PVP... This "sand box" environment that is marketed as "Make Our Own Destiny In A Dark Universe" has missed something very important in their attempts to fashion one of the greatest Sci-Fi simulators of our time. You CAN'T make your own destiny if everyone else refuses to play with you. . . . Now, I am not talking about picking on noobs, carebears or whatever else the mindless flamers on these forums may imagine in their tired, tiny and semi-delusional little minds--I am in fact talking about the exact opposite. I am talking about game play as a whole inside of a PVP based sci-fi simulator. 1.) There is no benefit to not staying docked and there is simply no reason to fight. If you simply refuse to play it costs you nothing, your corp nothing and your alliance nothing (unless you're interested in Blob warfare and fleets numbering in the hundreds. Half the people who play this game are not.) 2.) Because there are no in game mechanics supporting PVP in this game, PVP tends to be more about looking for people who are making a mistake (jumping through a gate alone, flying a hauler, running a mission during war, not looking at local) then it is actually PVP'ing other people who want to PVP with you. Reasonably equal numbers. Reasonably equal ship types. An environment where skill can meet skill and it ACTUALLY matters who wins. ^^^^^ I have had sooooo few fights like that, it's sad and TBH It gets frustrating CCP added incursions in order to generate an in game reason for people to work together... Well, what about the heart and soul of this game? A reason for people to go out there and actually face each other (as in the random player) and have some fun in the process? Have you ever flown a super carrier?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:39:00 - [53] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs If you can not find a reason to fight, you are not trying hard enough. EVE by default is not actually a game of tf2 were you have two teams slugging it off for no reason other then to slug it off. If players want that kind of thing, they mkae it themself, e.g. RvB. Thats what a "sandbox" is supposed to be about. My thoughts exactly. While I like in principle the idea of there being a good reason to fight 'fair', it has to come second to the game being a sandbox, and such a goal is therefore likely impossible without fundamentally changing the game. This game is about the meta-level play - it's not about blowing up spaceships, it's about why you blow up spaceships. Having some motivation is what makes the game worth playing, not the actual gameplay (imagine EVE as a single player game - it would be the worst game ever). And as pointed out above, being a sandbox, if you get enough people who do just want fair fighting for the sake of fair fighting, things like RvB appear. (Although I have no idea how successful RvB actually is, as I have not taken part, the point stands). - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Dopesick Dominion Gaming Growth Disorders	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:50:00 - [54] I think the game mechanics are fine to a certain extent. Are there areas that need improvement? Yes. That will always be the case because you can't please all of the people all of the time. My personal opinion is that the players are hurting the game. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. There are more players that want to be a corp CEO or in a leadership role within their corporation than not, making for the thousands of small corps that really contribute nothing to overall gameplay in the "sandbox". Personally, I think that every player corp that isn't in an alliance should be put into an NPC Alliance based on their corp standings, effecting their ability to live "anywhere" in high sec space, restricting them to friendly regions. Furthermore, restricting their ability to recruit members with low standings to their npc alliance. If the corp doesn't like these restrictions, then they will need to move to a player alliance to allow more freedoms. I also feel that alliances should maximize their numbers by brining in every corp they can to make the "sandbox" more interesting. I already hear the groans of spies, etc. That's part of the sandbox. Alliance leaders, take some educated risks and get this game moving forward. ...my 2 ISK
Neamus	Posted - 2011.03.03 11:58:00 - [55] Sun Tzu agrees... Don't move unless you see an advantage. Don't use your troops unless there is something to be gained. Don't fight unless the position is critical. -- Sun Tzu, AoW, Chapter 12
Malovich Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.03 12:19:00 - [56] Originally by: Neamus Sun Tzu agrees... Don't move unless you see an advantage. Don't use your troops unless there is something to be gained. Don't fight unless the position is critical. -- Sun Tzu, AoW, Chapter 12 This really. Or my favorite phrasing of that: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something horribly wrong" While ginormous blobs where you really are just a cog in the machine are boring to a great many people, the simple fact is that human nature is going to make them more effective. There's a reason nations use massive military forces when they go somewhere rather than sending in the minimum possible just to give their opponents a sporting chance. In the scope of a game, does it suck? Arguably, depending on what corner of the sandbox you want to be playing in. For someone who wants a massive fleet and to feel like an admiral in battle, the game is probably doing quite well. Instanced PvP is not really the answer, since as pointed out it's wallpaper over the hole in the wall. It's apparent that the risk/reward of PvP is moving ever further out of a sphere that people feel comfortable with, hence why they mass in numbers at all times. Even then, it's typically in a great many BC hulls, which deliver the best performance vs. cost in many posted opinions. I think that's the underlying problem; that people don't feel the possible rewards of PvP (which are notoriously streaky as anyone who got the nanofiber structures to drop while the officer module didn't can attest) are worth the constant and heavy risk that it entails. Fixing that is not as simple as throwing up an acceleration gate somewhere and calling it a day, but it's also an area where things can go horribly wrong as well. I'm not sure making T2 ships insurable is the way forward there, but it's probably going to be something along those lines. Reduce the risk, and more people will probably be willing to participate.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 13:24:00 - [57] Originally by: Neamus Sun Tzu agrees... Don't move unless you see an advantage. Don't use your troops unless there is something to be gained. Don't fight unless the position is critical. -- Sun Tzu, AoW, Chapter 12 Got to love these imbeciles who think that they understand The Art Of War (and war in general) because they read the English translated version of a book they bought off Ebay. Respect... you get none.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.03 13:29:00 - [58] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Got to love these imbeciles who think that they understand The Art Of War (and war in general) because they read the English translated version of a book they bought off Ebay. Argumentum Ad Hominem executed to absolute perfection. I salute you o7 - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.03 13:32:00 - [59] It would be nice to see some way for small gangs to disrupt larger entities more than just playing the boredom game. A target that could be downed relatively quickly by a small group that would be inconvenient enough to provoke an immediate response. Having said that there are still opportunities for small gangs to have some fun if you have guts. Despite people saying the Nano age is gone you can still pick targets off larger gangs and kill them.
ZenSun Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.03 13:58:00 - [60] WoW ---> What you are asking is unrealistic and not practical at all, it will always be human nature to out-blob the opponent, no game mechanic can change this in a sandbox game without it becoming your regular MMO (in some respects).

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.