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

Check My IP Information

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)
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.02 22:56:00 - [1] 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?
Internetz Spaceship	Posted - 2011.03.02 23:03:00 - [2] You made some good points here.
Hecatonis Amarr	Posted - 2011.03.02 23:17:00 - [3] join red vs blue, they try to keep things balanced so skill shines through. baring that you might want to continue the brake until you really want to come back. but if not i am taking donations ;) you are correct, people dont like to fight unless they know they are going to win. its just how we work. and changing the game so mass numbers become ineffective lies somewhere in the realm of not happening. tis the game :( __________________________________________________ stop acting like tw*ts and use your brain
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.03.02 23:17:00 - [4] Edited by: Ephemeron on 02/03/2011 23:21:11 Quote: 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. Over the years, I found that the best way to resolve that problem is to invest heavily into implants and faction mods for your ship. I have often flown battleships that were actually equivalent to power of 2 battleships. When you achieve that, your enemy underestimates your power, brings superior force, and you still have a fair fight cause your ship is more powerful than any one of theirs. Alternatively, in the age of Nano, it wasn't too hard to use speed tactics to play around with larger force, warp around to try separate their fast and slow people, or use the stargate aggro to separate them. Quickly kill a weak target before the superior blob descends on you. Nowadays it is more difficult to deceive the enemy with regards to your strength - unless you have a cyno and some carrier friends - which is also very popular tactic these days. The bottom line is, you will never convince people to fight "fair". But a good game should provide many ways for you to deceive the enemy into attacking foolishly - when you are stronger (even when that window of superiority is just 30 seconds as others warping in) Quote: There is no mechanism in the game that rewards combat. There is a reward mechanism - the loot drops. And if people use faction mods on their ships, that reward is really great. Quote: 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. That reason has to be a matter of personal choice. For example, I always found large gangs boring, so I don't join them. Quote: There is no reason not to stay docked and wait for sheer, mind numbing boredom to deter your aggressor That reason is also a personal choice. Some people just find it boring to sit around docked and try to do something, like escape and go look for other fights. Unless the station camp is really strong, escape is usually possible within 5-10 minutes of trying
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.02 23:24:00 - [5] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 02/03/2011 23:27:24 No that is not how everyone works, plenty of people I know prefer otherwise. Regarding RvB, the last fleet I was in was a group of 23 sitting on top of Blue Federation's home station. They had 19 in local and refused to undock, even though we were only in Battlecruisers. I learned all I needed to know about RvB that night, it is a half finished addition to the game much like Faction Warfare. @ Ephemeron: I am talking about in game mechanics intended to level and better the game as a whole. You don't manufacture items or trade via personal choice, just as you don't willingly travel 20-30 jumps to get to your destination. It is in the game for you.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.02 23:48:00 - [6] You forgot to put "crying little girl" on there, because that's what my interactions with you in-game have seen you do. I assure you, you aren't hot ****.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2011.03.03 00:44:00 - [7] As someone who loves to PvP solo and in small gangs, I agree that there is a lack of mechanic to encourage "fair" PvP. But there is quite a bit of personal reward when you take your small gang and fight overwhelming odds and win the day, or bloody some noses when they underestimated your strength. Last Summer/Fall, the Provi-fight club had a plethora of mid-size fairly balanced gang fights, but sadly Provi was usurped by Evoke.... Another fight club region may one day appear again, but they typically lack the regional unity to thwart large alliance invasions. Realistically, what type of game mechanic would reward the semi-balanced fighting you desire? The only thing I can think of is if km's (or battle reports) started to have a value beyond bragging rights. Things to keep in mind with these mechanics... Why do people in eve pvp? -- for the rush, to defend their turf, to watch the world burn, to defend themselves, revenge, profit, .... And which of these many possible motives are conducive to your desired PvP setup? What type of mechanic would encourage this setup?
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:09:00 - [8] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 01:13:44 Originally by: mkmin You forgot to put "crying little girl" on there, because that's what my interactions with you in-game have seen you do. I assure you, you aren't hot ****. Never claimed to be. Also, posting with a forum alt with no BC history may be even more pathetic then station spinning. But since you seem butthurt, I digress. I must have played my "Griefing" role well enough when I encountered your main in game.
Lain Umi	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:12:00 - [9] Edited by: Lain Umi on 03/03/2011 01:12:43 i have also been playing the game since its release on and off. i agree with everything youre saying. i think T2 ships should be fully insurable, and leave T3 for the min-maxers who mind losing. in addition, one shouldnt be able to dock so soon after aggressing and gates shouldnt let people back through for at least a minute, aggressed or not. basically, the fear of losing a ship and needing to grind to earn it back needs to be taken away. and if one chooses to start a battle, they should not be allowed back into stations or through gates for a long time. these are all bad ideas probably, but i feel something needs to be done to encourage pvp.
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:12:00 - [10] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I learned all I needed to know about RvB that night, it is a half finished addition to the game much like Faction Warfare. You are aware that RvB is 100% player organized and run and CCP had absolutely nothing to do with it, thus invalidating the use of the term 'addition' and any comparison to faction warfare, right? Just sayin... -------------------------------------------- Quote: EVE-Online... Too rough for ya? Don't like it? GTFO...

Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:20:00 - [11] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 01:19:56 Originally by: Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I learned all I needed to know about RvB that night, it is a half finished addition to the game much like Faction Warfare. You are aware that RvB is 100% player organized and run and CCP had absolutely nothing to do with it, thus invalidating the use of the term 'addition' and any comparison to faction warfare, right? Just sayin... Nope, I did not. Linkage But now I do and I'm sure it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Forever Alone	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:20:00 - [12] Edited by: Forever Alone on 03/03/2011 01:20:38
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:22:00 - [13] Originally by: Lain Umi Edited by: Lain Umi on 03/03/2011 01:12:43 i have also been playing the game since its release on and off. i agree with everything youre saying. i think T2 ships should be fully insurable, and leave T3 for the min-maxers who mind losing. in addition, one shouldnt be able to dock so soon after aggressing and gates shouldnt let people back through for at least a minute, aggressed or not. basically, the fear of losing a ship and needing to grind to earn it back needs to be taken away. and if one chooses to start a battle, they should not be allowed back into stations or through gates for a long time. these are all bad ideas probably, but i feel something needs to be done to encourage pvp. Oh yea, lets make PvP meaningless by having fully insurable t2 and no isk grinds. Free ships for everybody! Lets PvP all day knowing that killing your enemy does not hurt him and watch him jump into another ship 1 minute later. Utterly meaningless, like Counter Strike in space. And lets make it harder for people to jump thru the gates so the gate campers have more time to kill people. God forbid some smart guy tries to use the gate aggro to split camper blob in 2 systems.
Surreptitious Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:27:00 - [14] Look no further than my in-game bio. "I play WoW while I wait for PVP in EVE." Thats the truth. Syrup
Sader Rykane Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:34:00 - [15] Add arena pvp where you can only field ships / mods that you purchase yourself. Use alliance tournament rules and automate it. Seriously, I don't know why they haven't added this..
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:45:00 - [16] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 01:48:02 Originally by: Gizznitt Malikite Realistically, what type of game mechanic would reward the semi-balanced fighting you desire? The only thing I can think of is if km's (or battle reports) started to have a value beyond bragging rights. And which of these many possible motives are conducive to your desired PvP setup? What type of mechanic would encourage this setup? I don't know... (puts on thinking cap) 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? The only way you could achieve "Match" grade PVP in eve would be to modify the Fleet system considerably. For a moment let us disregard null sec blobs and large fleets. In order to achieve an even match you would need the following. 1. A limited possible number of DPS fleet members (lets say a squad 9 pilots minus the command position ). 2. A maximum amount of logistics spots for each gang (lets say 3) 3. One slot for command bonuses So now we would be looking at a maximum of 9 pilots, 3 logistics and one command. Something like this only works if the benefits of actually being in a fleet of 13 out weighs 20 unfleeted random shooting at you. The easiest fix is to tie remote repair to the 3 fleet positions just like gang links on a commandship. No fleet, no RR (or limited RR in terms of cycle time, mods or rep rate) . . . But then ofc you can have two fleets come at your one fleet amiright? Sure, but you have divided up the remote repair considerably. each set of nine DPS ships have 3 possible logistics ships repairing them divided up between two fleets (instead of 6). How might you discourage 2 vs 1 fleet blob love? I don't know I am just thinking off the hip. I do not expect to come up with some fool proof idea off the top of my head. Game modifications need months of consideration, balancing and and testing before implementation. All I am saying is that PVP mechanics built into the game, designed specifically to encourage "Match Grade PVP" would be something almost everyone would enjoy. To the point, dare I say it, expanding CCP's potential client base considerably.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:46:00 - [17] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 01:13:44 Originally by: mkmin You forgot to put "crying little girl" on there, because that's what my interactions with you in-game have seen you do. I assure you, you aren't hot ****. Never claimed to be. Also, posting with a forum alt with no BC history may be even more pathetic then station spinning. But since you seem butthurt, I digress. I must have played my "Griefing" role well enough when I encountered your main in game. Actually, if you were griefing, you sucked at it. We counter-griefed you. It was more a "i'm a big bad villun and I gunna hurt u... waahh, you scared me, we're not frends any more." Seriously, if you're looking for something to do in EVE, you could try not sucking. But yeah, this is a forum alt because my forum identity, and my identities and personalities on all my characters are drastically different from eachother, and all speak differently, and I'm not ashamed of that. Right now I'm playing a game called Forums. Maybe later I'll play a game called EVE.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.03.03 01:49:00 - [18] If you want a perfectly balanced combat system, you have to get rid of economics AND skill training in EVE. Basically what SiSi can offer - free ships, consensual fighting only. It's already available to anyone who wants it. Go at it.
Corozan Aspinall Party Time Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:03:00 - [19] Yup. There's really sod all to do in Eve except make endless isk (which is ridiculously easy) and this bizarro game of musical ass-hats everyone likes to play with bait the blob nonsense. CCP need to a) fix it so sov is worth taking and make it so they can actually facilitate fleet fights - right now Eve is broken and has been for over a year. b) Find a way to make blobbing less of a 'I win' tactic. Maybe fix low sec (there's dozens of great suggestions for that here and on SHC etc) and/or introduce some kind of mechanic that rewards you for pvp that can't be exploited by alts. TBH CCP's desire for everyone to have 50 accounts killed the potential awesomeness of Eve Online a long time ago. The blob is really just the end result of a lot of bored alliance dudes with nobody to fight and no incentive to even try thanks to imminent node death. Because of which they're all now infecting low sec with their horde of mindless tards tactics and killing the brosphere there too. Wut. TL;DR: CCP fix lag. Fix sov. Fix low sec. Else this game is, really, nothing but a hugely complicated chat program.
Apollo Gabriel Brotherhood Of Fallen Angels Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:07:00 - [20] I know this sounds crazy, but if warp scramblers and disruptors were removed from eve, I think more people would pvp, why? because they'd think there was a chance to get away. In addition you'd need a way to follow someone who warped off ( a perfect ability for frigates), and no I don't mean scanning, I mean heart pounding, right click on space and track! The you win or lose, period in pvp due to warp disruptors and scramblers really discourages pvp, don't get me wrong, I love them, but they do contribute strongly to the current state of pvp. *** Signature may appear without warning! *** Please do not feed the trolls, it builds dependency.

Sillas Cov Red Federation	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:18:00 - [21] Edited by: Sillas Cov on 03/03/2011 02:19:09 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I learned all I needed to know about RvB that night, it is a half finished addition to the game much like Faction Warfare. Eve has Huge potential for semi balanced Pvp... RvB Rocks when it is supported by its pilots! As an Fc for Red Federation, in the 4 months that the two corporations where really active with members back in early 2010, we had HUNDREDS of semi fair fights.... (Note perfect fleet balance is very hard to achieve as I found out). I have, with 2 toons, 1400 kills as an Fc in Rvb and of that very very few where bloby ganks... Granted it was controlled Pvp, but it still was intensely challenging, and pilots in both corporations really expected each other too commit our ships for the sake of Pvp.... and we did and we had a blast. You sir do not speak for my amazing pvp experiences, nor what RvB can be from your noted time with RvB. Rvb Works when there are willing skilled Fcs, and pilots. Sillas
Corozan Aspinall Party Time Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Sillas Cov Rvb Works when there are willing skilled Fcs, and pilots. Sillas I'm saving RvB and faction warfare for when I've really had enough .. Until then I choose to believe it really is amazing and 'pure' and whatever else you said.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:39:00 - [23] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 02:46:06 Originally by: Sillas Cov stuff That's fine. Undock next time then. 23 vs 19 is not that big of a difference when the enemy is in BC's inside of your own home system. Edit: Give vaseline to mkmin and says U mad bout somtin bra?
Nishachara Special Operations Corp Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:40:00 - [24] Edited by: Nishachara on 03/03/2011 02:41:06 I somewhat agree with the Op... But i think limiting fleet sizes..or forcing players to fly in smaller fleets in any of that "heavy" ways is counter-sandbox oriented... And as for arenas... its a sandbox... maybe some more known players (because some "unknowns nobody would trust :P) should organize "public" arenas (Chribba...Akita T ...Helcity Boson ...etc.. ) if they want to bother with taht..that is..._D hmmm... Thinking about blobs and ideas to somehow limiting them i just now got an idea (maybe its crap..maybe it has some merit...its just off the top of my head ) Anyway... Maybe it would work if more ships are locking the same target the locking time for all of them gets longer ( sensor resolution harmonics interference...duuuh :P ) and why stop at that... If a greater number of ships (idk.. 5/10/50/100 i am just theroy-crafting here)have target lock some of them can get their locks dropped at random coz of...you guessed it.. "sensor resolution harmonics interference" imho its not as "hard" solution as all i saw proposed in various threads..etc... But it could be a push in a right direction...
Alotta Baggage Amarr Imperial Manufactorum Armada Assail	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:40:00 - [25] You're lying about your experience, there is no griefing in Eve so there is no way you could've been a griefer. Originally by: Magnus Andronicus ur character looks like a f***ing clown dude.
Ghoest	Posted - 2011.03.03 02:56:00 - [26] I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Yantai Jomeku	Posted - 2011.03.03 03:28:00 - [27] "For in the technically proper space battle there is no hand-to-hand fighting, no purely personal heroism, no individual deeds of valor. It is a thing of logic and mathematics and of science, the massing of superior fire-power against a well-chosen succession of weaker opponents. When the screens of a space-ship go down that ship is down, her personnel only memories." E E "Doc" Smith Second Stage Lensmen ~1942 Space Combat, and all MMO combat is about ganking opponents, I've both ganked and been ganked, neither is particularly fun, neither make for a good game. Even the FPS genre, where they try to force balance is full of glitcher and cheaters, people think they're good because they can defeat an outmatched opponent. Unfortunately Fair Fights are not in human nature, it's how we survived as a species, not by playing the hero in a Hollywood movie. You say you can't "Make Our Own Destiny In A Dark Universe", but that is the point, YOU have to make it, not expect it to be given to you. Others don't want to play your way, you will have to forge the path, find others who want the thrill of the challenge start a fight club, play the game your way, do something about it.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Sigma Special Tactics Group Fleet Coordination Coalition	Posted - 2011.03.03 03:40:00 - [28] Quote: 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. Get used to this. It's how they do it in the real world too. The "game" you play here can give you a little idea how people will go about trying to kill you in RL. I knew a soldier once who said "ambushes are murder and murder is good". As far as this GAME goes, yeah if the goal is to shoot and be shot at, there's a lot of cat and mouse going on. I once got tied up in a session change jumping into a bubble camped WH and was in a BC outnumbered 5 to 1 by 3 cruisers and 2 frigates and they all warped off. In that time they could have destroyed my ship. Another time I was warping in 100 KM off a WH when what appeared to be a standard consignment of "small gank gang" had already came in and caught a glimpse of my ship before it cloaked. There was one camping the WH and 4 on D-scan. All 4 came back in seconds and they all jumped out. There is a very thick line between EvE PVP and FPS PVP where you get popped and respawn in a few seconds. I don't think it's so much an aversion to losing or getting griefed as many have described in anti-carebear rantings. It's the time it takes to set up a ship to replace what you lost. I supposed if a corp had a clone vat and everybody in it had dozens of the same ship geared up and ready to go they can play Eve "FPS-style", but even setting that up in the first place is still going to take a lot of time. Eventually you run out of ships. When play time is limited, the time spent replacing a ship can take up a whole session - get popped one day, spend the next day getting a new one and going all over town getting modules. It's just a bore really.
Tarasina	Posted - 2011.03.03 04:46:00 - [29] Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Quote: 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. Get used to this. It's how they do it in the real world too. The "game" you play here can give you a little idea how people will go about trying to kill you in RL. I knew a soldier once who said "ambushes are murder and murder is good". As far as this GAME goes, yeah if the goal is to shoot and be shot at, there's a lot of cat and mouse going on. I once got tied up in a session change jumping into a bubble camped WH and was in a BC outnumbered 5 to 1 by 3 cruisers and 2 frigates and they all warped off. In that time they could have destroyed my ship. Another time I was warping in 100 KM off a WH when what appeared to be a standard consignment of "small gank gang" had already came in and caught a glimpse of my ship before it cloaked. There was one camping the WH and 4 on D-scan. All 4 came back in seconds and they all jumped out. There is a very thick line between EvE PVP and FPS PVP where you get popped and respawn in a few seconds. I don't think it's so much an aversion to losing or getting griefed as many have described in anti-carebear rantings. It's the time it takes to set up a ship to replace what you lost. I supposed if a corp had a clone vat and everybody in it had dozens of the same ship geared up and ready to go they can play Eve "FPS-style", but even setting that up in the first place is still going to take a lot of time. Eventually you run out of ships. When play time is limited, the time spent replacing a ship can take up a whole session - get popped one day, spend the next day getting a new one and going all over town getting modules. It's just a bore really. I don't PVP much, thats not why I play MMOs but I can say this. I had much more fun doing PVP in WoW than I ever have in Eve. Yes, I don't loose stuff in WoW but getting beaten over and over again and loosing the battleground...that hurts. It's like a slap in the face saying "you suck and your whole team too". A couple reasons I don't PVP in Eve: - If I get blobbed, I'm had - If I get gatecamped, it's over for me - Replacing ships is such a bore, especially the fittings, time-consuming - Fair fights...never seen one - I gain nothing much from killing someone but I stand to loose much more In WoW, I was doing PVP in Winterspring constantly, I had almost full second tier PVP gear, I was enjoying it very much. 40 vs 40. You could be in the blob, you could go solo and ambush etc. Dying in WoW isn't a big loss to you personally but it can be to the team, loosing the Battleground (and in the end, THAT is a loss to you personally).
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2011.03.03 05:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Sader Rykane Add arena pvp where you can only field ships / mods that you purchase yourself. Use alliance tournament rules and automate it. Seriously, I don't know why they haven't added this.. because it'd be a waste of development time and resources that could go towards, y'know, actually fixing PvP issues instanced arena pvp is not the solution, it just deepens the problem with open world PvP _____________________ Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like.

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).

Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:09:00 - [61] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:09:47 Originally by: ZenSun 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). Yea, well I disagree. I think it *could* be possible if enough creative and intelligent people worked on it. But then ofc there are so many unimaginative conformists like yourself who simply say it's not possible, WOW is that way and move on.
Neamus	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:21:00 - [62] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian 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. I claim no special understanding, nor do I require your respect. I was merely paraphrasing some well respected doctrine that seemed appropriate to this thread. You're right that the book is an English translation, but it was a gift and not purchased from ebay. I'm curious though, since you seem to know so much about me and you're so determined that I'm an imbecile... What qualifies you to pass judgement? Are you a real life general? Or perhaps a Chinese military strategist? Historian maybe? Or just another outspoken individual who's ego is magnified by the perceived anonymity of internet forums?
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:27:00 - [63] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:27:37 All you need to know about me is that I am someone who does *not* quote The Art Of War, by verse and chapter like it is the bible... on an internet forum belonging to a popular MMO Space pixels are serious business yo.
PreZiDenT1 The Nintendo Generation Snatch Victory	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:29:00 - [64] Guy gets angry at the ganking aspect of EvE...... Joins 0rphanage.
Fearless M0F0 Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:31:00 - [65] Quote: people just don't want to fight unless they have a gross advantage. Just like in real life, working as intended. There is something sick with human beings finding amusement at ganking the weak. Getting ganked sucks so you bring a bigger blob to ensure you have the last laugh. -- I take offense on people feeling offended by me
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:32:00 - [66] Originally by: PreZiDenT1 Guy gets angry at the ganking aspect of EvE...... Joins 0rphanage. Reminds me that i still want to see the The Orphanage movie. Anyone seen it??
ZenSun Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:35:00 - [67] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:09:47 Originally by: ZenSun 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). Yea, well I disagree. I think it *could* be possible if enough creative and intelligent people worked on it. But then ofc there are so many unimaginative conformists like yourself who simply say it's not possible, WOW is that way and move on. No you are just naive, sir. I am simply giving you the realistic punchline... you must be high if you think CCP fall under the characteristics of a 'creative and intelligent' group. The matter of the fact is, if you want 'fair' fights and game mechanics which auto-balance and benefit the underdog, then EvE wont be, and never has been, the game in which you are looking for. Unfair fights comes with a sandbox, why cant you get to grips with that? :P
Neamus	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:39:00 - [68] I thought it was a fun thing to do, its pretty obvious really that there's no serious application of the Art Of War here.. But I am a fan of escapism, from the drudgery of my real life lol. Anyway, I somehow seem to have offended your sensibilities. So, Mr Mysterious, I apologise.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:40:00 - [69] Originally by: ZenSun More stuff They are smart enough to get your money
ZenSun Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:44:00 - [70] Edited by: ZenSun on 03/03/2011 14:45:13 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Originally by: ZenSun More stuff They are smart enough to get your money Yes... but... I am not the one thats trolling and whining about it, am I? I rather enjoy my time spent playing, so I have no problem giving them my, urm.. isk (not a dime from my pocket) Effortless.

Qui Rune	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:49:00 - [71] Edited by: Qui Rune on 03/03/2011 14:50:20 Here's my solution: 1.Reduce the Security Limitations of Bomb Launchers to be used from .4 to Null 2.Create a requirement for Fleet Battle Kills such as a minimum of 25 or 50 Solo Kills before you can get credit for Fleet Kills: This could encourage more 1v1 engagements. 3. Revamp High Sec: a. 1.0 to 0.8 = Leave alone b. .7 to .5 = Limited or No concord involvement with cruiser class to frigate class engagements. (BC+ will still get Concorded as usual) c. 0.4 to Null = Leave alone Just my 0.2 ISK
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:50:00 - [72] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:51:43 I will also add that only fools think that things cannot be improved overtime. Anything can be improved upon with human effort and creativity, including EVE. However there will always be sheep that herd with the masses...so enjoy playing your "free and effortless game" along with the status quo that you are mindlessly supporting.
ZenSun Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:55:00 - [73] Effortless = meant in the context of this thread failscading, not the gameplay.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 14:56:00 - [74] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I will also add that only fools think that things cannot be improved overtime. Anything can be improved upon with human effort and creativity, including EVE. However there will always be sheep that herd with the masses...so enjoy playing your "free and effortless game" along with the status quo that you are mindlessly supporting. Sorry to say but you really could/should have known by now that the EVE forum community is the most ultraconservative of any existing game; sometimes I think if it was up to them we'd still be walking in animal skins and clubbing mammoths.
Zesoft	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:02:00 - [75] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:51:43 However there will always be sheep that herd with the masses...so enjoy playing your "free and effortless game" along with the status quo that you are mindlessly supporting. Different =/= Better. I won't deny that there's a sheeple mindset in broad human society (Hint: it's somewhere in the low end 1/3rd of the IQ bell curve :P ), but try not to seem too much like a socially clueless introvert by casting stones at the imaginary sheep herd.
Vixisti Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:07:00 - [76] To the OP, the main reason people play Eve is fun believe it or not, where people find their fun is up to them. If you've been an alliance leader with 1000+ people under you and the most fun thing you can think of to do is to go griefing people, the problem lies with you and not the game. Eve simulates some of the characteristics of real life in that more numbers is usually better whether it be in combat, trade, manufacturing etc. Why would this be any different in a sandbox type game like Eve? If you want evenly matched games in an online pvp environment, go play team FPS, chess, or unplug from the internet and go and play a sport. My preferred play style is to solo or roam in small gangs but I fully expect to get baited and blobbed sometimes and I don't moan about it either. I get my fun and the blobbers get theirs.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:35:00 - [77] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 15:39:25 Originally by: Zesoft Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:51:43 However there will always be sheep that herd with the masses...so enjoy playing your "free and effortless game" along with the status quo that you are mindlessly supporting. Different =/= Better. I won't deny that there's a sheeple mindset in broad human society (Hint: it's somewhere in the low end 1/3rd of the IQ bell curve :P ), but try not to seem too much like a socially clueless introvert by casting stones at the imaginary sheep herd. So clarify? Are you stating that in your opinion EVE has reached it's peak of awesomeness and thus cannot be improved upon at this point? That it can only be made different? What precisely are you trying to convey with regards to the subject matter of this thread? @ Vixisti most of the people I talk to in game are "Searching for fun" and that compels them to continue playing. Most people in game are in the process of "Looking For" and "Planning For" fun not so much "Having fun". That in itself can be a strong draw to the game play, but it does not mean that we should all leave it at that and not consider what could potentially be better alternatives... does it?
Zesoft	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:40:00 - [78] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian So clarify? Are you stating that in your opinion EVE has reached it's peak of awesomeness and thus cannot be improved upon at this point? That it can only be made different? What precisely are you trying to convey with regards to the subject matter of this thread? No, I stated exactly what the words say. I find plenty of reason to address someone elsewhere when the reasoning seems to warrant it. In this case, I'm trying to help you seem less ignorant.
Ana Vyr	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:42:00 - [79] One thing that constantly amazes me about EvE is the emphasis placed on sov warefare, yet unless you are directly involved with that, you have no clue what's going on in nullsec unless you scrutinize the forums and use outside resources. There should be an in-game sov map updated in real time. The in-game news should revolve around what's going on in nullsec, and include any significant battles that take place elsewhere in the game. Folks complain that PvP is insignificant, and this might be one reason why. To me, your average highsec player should be able to get a good idea of who owns what and what's going on in nullsec using in-game resources.
Laura Kingsley Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.03.03 15:45:00 - [80] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian most of the people I talk to in game are "Searching for fun" and that compels them to continue playing. Most people in game are in the process of "Looking For" and "Planning For" fun not so much "Having fun". That in itself can be a strong draw to the game play, but it does not mean that we should all leave it at that and not consider what could potentially be better alternatives... does it? Couldn't agree more ...

Klandi Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2011.03.03 16:17:00 - [81] To the OP, well written post and props to the majority of you for not dragging it down to the usual slanging match .... I gotta say, I found the fun. It was doing everything one can do in Eve with people you enjoy spending time with. Whether that includes PvP or not Continue...
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives	Posted - 2011.03.03 16:27:00 - [82] Have you run high sec anomalies? ?
Florio Versatech Co. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.03 16:37:00 - [83] <- agree with OP.
DonHel Gallente Kentucky Fried Capsuleer	Posted - 2011.03.03 16:55:00 - [84] Originally by: Laura Kingsley Originally by: Eternum Praetorian most of the people I talk to in game are "Searching for fun" and that compels them to continue playing. Most people in game are in the process of "Looking For" and "Planning For" fun not so much "Having fun". That in itself can be a strong draw to the game play, but it does not mean that we should all leave it at that and not consider what could potentially be better alternatives... does it? Couldn't agree more ... that describes me perfectly lol
Matroxion Gallente Chickens with an Attitude	Posted - 2011.03.03 17:05:00 - [85] All I know is when I started with this game back in '05 PVP was different from now. And with that I don't mean the fact that its changed because other ships came around and stuff (eventhough I will talk about SC's a bit down), I mean ppl have changed. Like the OP says its all about the blob now a days. Back in the day ppl would just go about and fight ppl for fun... yes I said it: for fun, who the heck cares if you lose, just have fun. Now its only about: win win win. A totally different mindset. I have had enough kills through the years and I have seen pvp change since then and I don't like it. I love the solo/small gang pvp, but everywhere you go now you're most likely to find a blob. Now ppl might bring forth the addition of Super Capital sized ships as an excuse for bringing the big blob, but thats just not right. I only do lowsec pvp so those ships should have never come past me on the battlefield, and they haven't, yet blobs keep comming my way. Somehow everyone needs to be "prepaired" for the event that they show up, I dunno but you CAN run you know, and go look for a smaller gang to fight a much cooler fight with. Ofcourse this does not apply to 0.0 at all, but then again, thats a player contested world so thats normal. Lowsec (and to some extend highsec aswell) pvp should not have changed this dramaticly imo. I used to go out in T1 cruisers just to have a nice fight, now....well I can still go out and I occasionally do, but finding a nice (aka fun and partly fair) fight is almost not done (read: 9/10 times you get blobbed). About killmails needing to be removed because they might somehow be the root of the problem (or partially anyway), thats just utter bs, killmails have always been in game and, like I stated before, pvp used to be totally different and fun. So for me the problem boils down to: safety before fun, ppl don't wanna have fun anymore. Just my (somewhat long) 2 cents. -Matroxion Ps. for those looking up my kb stats (use griefwatch), yes I have been inactive in the pvp department for the better of a year now, but I keep track of pvp anyway. ______Sig______ - Matroxion - [CWA] Diplomat
Iria Vexille	Posted - 2011.03.03 17:57:00 - [86] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 02/03/2011 22:56:57 . . . 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. . . . Despite you being a vet, you seem to lack the "vet" status in real life. What I am talking about is not getting aged, which directly relates to the lifetime of your biological shell, no, I talk about you getting enough wisdom and knowledge in real life to understand what "life" means. It means, to survive. Since, we, humans, are determined in our deepest within to stay alive and live for as if nothing else matters we dont engage in "fair" combat. Nature does not engage in fair combat and nature tought us this lesson long ago, that fair, is weak and thus we are not weak but strong. Humans engage always as a group, be it in combat, in social life or in anything else. If we come to the point to risk something, we do either of the following. We become one of the mass and do it together, as together we are strong (Legion*). We do it not at all because there is no group that shares my interests and thus the idea is not necessary for life to go on. Or we lack the numbers at the moment but know that with time we gain these numbers to engage for said goal. Thats what we as humans learned from nature and which besides all gameplay or definition of a sandbox will direct our actions.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.03.03 18:10:00 - [87] With the new forums I could just hit the "like" button.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.03 18:12:00 - [88] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 03/03/2011 18:14:30 Originally by: Iria Vexille Since, we, humans, are determined in our deepest within to stay alive and live for as if nothing else matters we dont engage in "fair" combat. Sure. As if we don't play games like chess or monopoly or play tennis or whatever other game where the odds are perfectly 50/50 to start with and only player skill determines the outcome. You're confusing things, EVE isn't real life. EVE is a game.
Waylan Yutani Gallente Order of the Seraphim	Posted - 2011.03.03 19:14:00 - [89] for true awesomeness, try out solo pvp'ing - target the pirates for maximum fun. Im hopelessly addicted to the rush of the fight as being primaried is guarenteed :) My destiny ? - To rid eve of every goddamn pirate i come across
Sader Rykane Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.04 15:37:00 - [90] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: Sader Rykane Add arena pvp where you can only field ships / mods that you purchase yourself. Use alliance tournament rules and automate it. Seriously, I don't know why they haven't added this.. because it'd be a waste of development time and resources that could go towards, y'know, actually fixing PvP issues instanced arena pvp is not the solution, it just deepens the problem with open world PvP How is it a waste? You know whats a gigantic waste of my time? Roaming 2-3 hours in low sec looking for a fight and never finding one where the odds aren't overwhelmingly in someone elses favor. I spend the majority of my time in W-space/high sec but one week I decided to roam 2-3 hours a day through FW infested low sec a legion and see if I could find a fight. I found ONE fight and that one fight ended up being a 2v1 (legion vs tengu+drake) where I end up getting jammed by the drakes hornet ec-300's so that the tengu could run away because they started to lose. Was the fight fun and exciting? YES, did the fact that it took nearly a week to actually find make it worth it? NO. I don't have the patience or the free-time to roam around looking for one decent fight every other day (if im lucky). I would much rather have some sort of instant action, where we could actually get some damned fights.

Gimmy Rotten	Posted - 2011.03.04 15:55:00 - [91] 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 but for the small group of close friends there is NO ACTUAL reason to PVP... 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? Try Factional Warfare
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.04 17:16:00 - [92] Originally by: Gimmy Rotten Try Factional Warfare I have, the Amarr Militia (forgot to mention that) and since I have experience with FW I can only assume that you were hitting the crackpipe before you hit the "Post Reply" button.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Night Witches.	Posted - 2011.03.04 17:24:00 - [93] Originally by: Sader Rykane Add arena pvp where you can only field ships / mods that you purchase yourself. Use alliance tournament rules and automate it. Seriously, I don't know why they haven't added this.. WoW that way ---->
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.04 17:30:00 - [94] Originally by: ShadowMaiden Originally by: Sader Rykane Add arena pvp where you can only field ships / mods that you purchase yourself. Use alliance tournament rules and automate it. Seriously, I don't know why they haven't added this.. WoW that way ----> Funy that everyone loves the alliance and fanfest tournaments though .. or do you find that a disgusting WoW thing that doesn't belong in EVE too?
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.04 17:39:00 - [95] Here Is An Idea: We have the fleet finder after all . . . Would it be hard to implement a "Wardec" section of the fleet finder for instance? One totally theoretical addition to it might be one where you have the option to join an "Arena" in the form of a fleet that would be at war with all other active "Warfleets" Fleets could vary in size, and even better the FC could specify the size of enemy fleets that they wish to engage. Something like 10, 20, 30+ designations that could be checked upon the fleets conception (like an advert) Such a system could also allow for solo setting which would allow 1v1 or 3v1 (whatever) PVP. Instant gratification. Arena quality PVP. Does not effect the market or ISK system of the game. Does not effect the sandbox outside of giving people some instant PVP gratification in Empire where most of the population currently resides. This is just 1 potential example mind you... One that could come from a pool of ideas complied by EVE's member base. One thing that is good about CCP is that if you make enough threadnoughts on a subject they tend to listen.
Nomaar Caldari Stellar Aberration	Posted - 2011.03.04 18:36:00 - [96] Quote: Reasonably equal numbers. Reasonably equal ship types. An environment where skill can meet skill and it ACTUALLY matters who wins. The only way you can achieve this environment consistently, and on demand, is through instances, which would be poisonous to what EVE is all about. You do identify a problem, but I think the answer lies in making Factional Warfare better.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.04 18:53:00 - [97] Did you by any chance read the suggestion directly above your post?
Ily Backbreak	Posted - 2011.03.04 22:38:00 - [98] I read it, such a bad idea. And I understand you're a ***. Get a ship and go roaming mofo, you will finaly find ennemies. But what you're looking for is : "Instant gratification" - not part of a sandbox's idea, it's a long way to get skills, money, technics, ships & items. The only instant gratification I know in EvE is when a pilot get instantly a new clone ! Fair to me. "Arena""instances", no need of it. CCP already organize tournaments... you could also organize yours within your corp and and alliance. "Does not affect the market or ISK system of the game" ; yeah, you want fights for free, you're afraid to loose isk while loosing ships. Or maybe would you fight in spacesuits and spit at your target ? War is expensive FYI.** This is why many players avoid combats. Or you could stay on SiSi, all for free, and don't bother Tranquility's market. WoW is that way >>> or you could try BattleStarGalacticaOnline this way if you prefer lasers >>>
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.04 23:46:00 - [99] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 04/03/2011 23:48:39 Hey look, it's another random forum alt talking **. Edit:** Your reading comprehension is abhorrent BTW. You missed everything that I posted and committed yourself to a flurry of pre-prepared, forum warrior twitch responses.
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.05 19:17:00 - [100] Have you soloed a large tower in a sub-cap, though? Winning duh

Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.05 19:44:00 - [101] No, but I have shot at more then enough offline WH POS with a small gang of 4-5 BS to know that you wasted a hell of allot of time AFK mining a large POS for what ultimately = 170M isk kill. I am sure that if you made your own thread about your glorious-epic-win KM, you will get mad respect from the EVE Online player base. By all means please do so, I will be more then happy to post in it when I see it.
Aarkana	Posted - 2011.03.05 19:47:00 - [102] Absolutely not true, I have engaged pilots even if I knew I might lose! The problem is directly linked with ship cost. On singularity, I engage more people in on hour then a month worth of pvp on tranquility. So the issue is directly linked with how many times you can actually fight. When a ship costs 100 million to build on TQ it takes the average player about 1 week to earn 100 million. So you can maybe get 4 BS ships, assuming you play all month non stop. If insurance actually replaced your ship after it was blown up and paid all your modules again there would be more pvp. Once insurance issues a ship though there shoudl be no minerals or salvage allowed from your wreck. Concord would just take the stuff and your player would get a new ship. This way you can actually get right back in a fight and continue fighting until insurance runs out. I think TQ simply has penalties for pvp which cost too much to maintain.
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.05 19:55:00 - [103] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian No, but I have shot at more then enough offline WH POS with a small gang of 4-5 BS to know that you wasted a hell of allot of time AFK mining a large POS for what ultimately = 170M isk kill. I just did it for the lolmail. Obviously not worth the effort in terms of ISK/hr or whatever. I guess you missed the Charlie Sheen reference. Anyway, ya certainly didn't mean to derail your thread. Carry on.
Kogh Ayon	Posted - 2011.03.05 20:20:00 - [104] Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 05/03/2011 20:23:37 All because there is nothing profitable for a small gang. For a alliance fleet they make profit by taking systems, outposts even just moons. But what does a 10-20man fleet could get? Some T1/T2 loots from a noob drake? And for 2 hours maybe. Drop some money-springs in some specified systems, which would spary 100m isk per 10 minutes, in any names (Tags, salvages, loots, or sleeper stuff). Then there will be gang fights, everytime in all forms. Blob will not be very profitable and if they stay there then there will be a bigger blob :)
Niveon	Posted - 2011.03.06 00:04:00 - [105] Sorry, haven't read the thread, but has anyone thought through just physically limiting the size of corps, alliances and their standings lists? It'd be pretty hard to have people blob if you can only get 10 people per corp, 10 corps per alliance, 10 corps flagged. You could still gather official fleets approaching the node crushing numbers, but if you can't green or blue half the players online, and surely can't remember their names when they're on overview, there'd be much more cause for smaller constant conflict and dispersion of players, no?
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives	Posted - 2011.03.06 00:24:00 - [106] Originally by: Bumblefck Have you run high sec anomalies? Excuse me, but would you be so kind as to give me an answer to my question? ?
Kreshin High Flyers RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.06 00:45:00 - [107] OP to sum it up, you ran out of ways to be an ******* in Eve and want the game to change to make things easier for your "asshattery." I base my statement on the fact you're in "The Orphanage" and you complain about everyone seeking fights ONLY if they have a "gross advantage." Yet your "alliance" specializes in camping haulers in empire, using out of alliance logistics when you get a "fair" fight to provide an unfair advantage, and define a group of gamers who focus on abusing game mechanics to obtain an upper hand. From then all, anything you say is hypocritical and a waste of bandwidth. BTW: No you haven't ganked me, the escapades of "the orphanage" are comical at best and add nothing of value or benefit to the Eve Universe. Fail Post, Fail Alliance, Fail Vet. (no I'm not mad bro, just stating the obvious for those who can't see it for themselves.) Move along now .... ----------- Kreshin
Katja Norolyev	Posted - 2011.03.06 01:21:00 - [108] Incoming carebear idea; What if Corps could 'build up' NPC fleet reinforcements for systems they held sovereignty in? The method is already in place (Concord), one just has to balance it properly. So, in theory, an agressive blob rolls into your system while you've only got 10 or so pilots online. The highest-ranking pilot of those online has "corp fleet command" rights, and so those ten pilots can go engage the blob, because they can call in just enough backup to give them a chance, if not an edge. Make such reinforcements expensive to build and modestly expensive to maintain, so that every new corp won't have a massive fleet at their beck and call, and those corps that do will spend them wisely. Only let them be usable for the purposes of sovereign-system defense, so they can't be abused or exacerbate existing numerical imbalance problems. It's almost a sort of 'invasion insurance', that would result in (more) balanced engagements, theoretically. You could even expand the idea; alliances could have (more expensive and difficult to maintain) reinforcements that any (or selected) member corp CEOs could call in to aid in the defense of sovereign systems.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.06 04:46:00 - [109] Originally by: Kreshin (no I'm not mad bro, just stating the obvious for those who can't see it for themselves.) And yet... you do seem a little mad bro.
Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.	Posted - 2011.03.06 05:54:00 - [110] PvP could be rewarded - if the loot was decent. Sometimes you kill 100 mill Battleship and get nothing of value out of it. PvP is a money waster, not a money maker. First risk of loosing money. Second 90% guarantee of not making money from kills. If only somebody actually paid money for killing enemy ships. Then PvP would be self sustainable. Only because PvP is so expensive every party wants to make sure they have clear advantage. On the opposite in First person shooters online Tank/Soilder is 'free' and you don't worry much about loosing it. You charge straight in. In eve loosing a BS means that you need to carebear another 4 hours and spend 1 hour fitting a new ship and transporting it to PvP area.

Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.	Posted - 2011.03.06 05:59:00 - [111] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Here Is An Idea: We have the fleet finder after all . . . Would it be hard to implement a "Wardec" section of the fleet finder for instance? One totally theoretical addition to it might be one where you have the option to join an "Arena" in the form of a fleet that would be at war with all other active "Warfleets" Fleets could vary in size, and even better the FC could specify the size of enemy fleets that they wish to engage. Something like 10, 20, 30+ designations that could be checked upon the fleets conception (like an advert) Such a system could also allow for solo setting which would allow 1v1 or 3v1 (whatever) PVP. Instant gratification. Arena quality PVP. Does not effect the market or ISK system of the game. Does not effect the sandbox outside of giving people some instant PVP gratification in Empire where most of the population currently resides. This is just 1 potential example mind you... One that could come from a pool of ideas complied by EVE's member base. One thing that is good about CCP is that if you make enough threadnoughts on a subject they tend to listen. Here is an IDEA in stations they have 'simulator' computers you can challenge other people in eve ships for CASH, prestige in ship-free environment. Even instant action team on team. match arcade somthing like this
Smack my hoe	Posted - 2011.03.06 06:14:00 - [112] Edited by: Smack my hoe on 06/03/2011 06:14:00 http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DonPellegrino/Nanofiber_Internal_Structure.avi you should watch that
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.03.06 14:53:00 - [113] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian snip 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? To recap.. high sec: well, people who stay there usually don't seek pvp, so no use to blame them. And making their life worse (lvl4 to low etc pp) won't help to get them into your corner of the sandbox. They'll refuse and rather quit. low sec: people who are there should be prepared for pvp (even if they came for something else like PI or Exploration). Now game mechanics make it pretty hard to do both pvp and pve at the same time, then you got the increased player numbers and you wind up with to many predators chasing anything else. So with the small fry gone or hiding where it can you have to fly around a lot to find others you can shoot. null sec: people who are there probably like politics, caps, their freedom and blobs. With the current game mechanics its possible to blob up and project your force over vast areas of space. There is no need to have small local fleets ready, as the central blob can do it better. Anything else there doesn't support small skirmishes and with the blob on standby the guys from low sec, who run on their teeth in search for prey, don't like you for that ability. whisky: people there like the iskies, the quiet landscape and pvp. No central blob possible, no local as instant intel to dock up. Probably the only place for small scale pvp that's left in Eve. Doesn't even need spawn-point camping to force pvp. Going round and resupply sucks though and the populations density is low at best. ..if you think I nailed that, read this. Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.03.06 15:03:00 - [114] Originally by: Kogh Ayon snip Drop some money-springs in some specified systems, which would spary 100m isk per 10 minutes, in any names (Tags, salvages, loots, or sleeper stuff). Then there will be gang fights, everytime in all forms. Blob will not be very profitable and if they stay there then there will be a bigger blob :) FW does that.. seems to lead to blobbing. If you want small scale pvp blur the border towards high sec, remove the travel bottlenecks and on the other side make it so that alliances need small fleets to protect their soft targets and have no way to bring their guns to a knife fight (hotdrop SCs onto a roaming gang). This way the small gang pvpers will orientate more towards the null-bears and make their life hell and give some breathing space to the high sec bears venturing into low sec (if give the chance to get past bottlenecks). Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.03.06 15:13:00 - [115] Originally by: Aarkana snip If insurance actually replaced your ship after it was blown up and paid all your modules again there would be more pvp. Once insurance issues a ship though there should be no minerals or salvage allowed from your wreck. Concord would just take the stuff and your player would get a new ship. This way you can actually get right back in a fight and continue fighting until insurance runs out. I think TQ simply has penalties for pvp which cost too much to maintain. So I would absolutely fight more if I could afford to buy more ships. It would only make ships cost more.. production wise there is a limited capacity of players engaging in that field. It's what also brings down alliances.. or did, a limited industrial backbone to source the war-machine from. If your BS costs you a week to replace, how about going in cruisers or god forbid frigates? If you can have caviar each day, what does a steak mean to you or a bean soup? Right.. nothing, cause you're entitled to caviar.. each day. Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.06 15:47:00 - [116] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 06/03/2011 15:55:20 @ Tres Farmer Your comments are simply not accurately reflecting what the vast majority of people are actually thinking in game. Two day old noobs enter EVE with a strong desire to PVP, but the lessons they immediately learn in game teach them that 1.)They will usually be outnumbered or 2.) If they are the ones with greater numbers they will be bored because no one will engage them. This changes their perspective and behavior patters in game, and leads to a snowballing effect that has brought us to a borderline ridiculous state of game play. If I Were To Build In The Sandbox, CCP Has Given Me Some Very Specific Guidelines Blue Prints that contain ME and PE. I need a specific list of minerals. I need a station and research time (and/or I need to acquire a BPC) I then need to build my item. I then need a ship large enough to transport it. I can also invent. If I Were To Trade In The Sandbox CCP Has Given Me Some Very Specific Guidelines M3 size for goods (packaged and unpackaged) Travel time. Autopilot. Slow Freighter class ships. Distance between star systems and stargate arrangements that encourage trade hubs (deliberate or not, it is present in the game) Buy/Sell orders and market timers. Without becoming a redundant wall of text, the same can be said for missions, sleepers, mining, plexes, contract trading, POS's, POS siege warfare. Literally EVERY ASPECT of EVE has very specific guidelines for players to adhere to. This promotes an optimal gaming experience inside of the sandbox environment for all players of all professions. But If It's Not Sov Based Warfare: All PVP gets is a fleet. That's all we get in terms of PVP game mechanics, a fleet that has no criteria or guidelines. We get wardecs that have no victor, loser, purpose, ISK gain or loss, or rhyme or reason of any kind for that matter. We get a Low Sec with so little incentives that only a tiny % of the gaming population wants to live there. That... or we get sov blobs. Regarding the "PVP fleet game mechanic", if you really think about it all it truly has is a squad position... that's it. No definite DPS, fast tackle or logistics positions. It only has spots that commanships need to be in order to run gang links. Beyond that there is NO In Game Mechanism that helps guide it intelligently within the sandbox environment. IF CCP let any other aspect of this game run with so little guidelines it would be both nonfunctional and self imploding. Much like the present state of PVP and blob warfare is currently. Now why is that?
Brooks Puuntai Minmatar Solar Nexus. -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.06 16:17:00 - [117] Welcome to human nature. Where safety in numbers means higher chance of survival. Adding arena style PVP in EVE is a horrible idea. Also PVP in EVE shouldn't be instant gratification, if it was then it would become mundane and p much a grind that would mean nothing. Lastly trying to argue your point while being in "The Orphanage" is pretty fail. Considering it contradicts everything your saying.
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.03.06 17:14:00 - [118] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Your comments are simply not accurately reflecting what the vast majority of people are actually thinking in game. Two day old noobs enter EVE with a strong desire to PVP, but the lessons they immediately learn in game teach them that 1.)They will usually be outnumbered or 2.) If they are the ones with greater numbers they will be bored because no one will engage them. This changes their perspective and behavior patters in game, and leads to a snowballing effect that has brought us to a borderline ridiculous state of game play. Usually they get told that they should blob up to fight the older player with his 20M (usable) SP for that particular setup he's flying and that they can beat him this way Or that they can tackle for the fleet or scout and that even if they die (repeatedly), they will be important and useful, even with low SP. Essentially.. the noob gets told that he should blob up if he want's to be on the winning side. Now, why didn't you got that? Originally by: Eternum Praetorian snip But If It's Not Sov Based Warfare: All PVP gets is a fleet. That's all we get in terms of PVP game mechanics, a fleet that has no criteria or guidelines. We get wardecs that have no victor, loser, purpose, ISK gain or loss, or rhyme or reason of any kind for that matter. We get a Low Sec with so little incentives that only a tiny % of the gaming population wants to live there. That... or we get sov blobs. I give you that there are no specific written down recipes within Eve for fleets, though each month/season sees other flavours.. this means, the sandbox there is functional. Much more than in any other area of the game. You get the tools and can make up your own recipe. Small changes to some module/ship and whole gang formations are rendered obsolete, fits go back to the drawing board.. etc pp. Wardecs usually have a reason.. at least the ones I attended. Either it's 'move your crap out from here' or 'give me money' or 'you look stupid' or 'you might fight back, let's try that'. Once the purpose was fulfilled the wardec was dropped.. even the 'you look stupid' ones. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Regarding the "PVP fleet game mechanic", if you really think about it all it truly has is a squad position... that's it. No definite DPS, fast tackle or logistics positions. It only has spots that commanships need to be in order to run gang links. Beyond that there is NO In Game Mechanism that helps guide it intelligently within the sandbox environment. IF CCP let any other aspect of this game run with so little guidelines it would be both nonfunctional and self imploding. Much like the present state of PVP and blob warfare is currently. Now why is that? If you got a problem with mismatching opponents (all scales, from the alliance blobbing a 100 man fleet to the 3 guys popping that shuttle at a gate) then you need to change the mechanics that lead to this kind of behaviour.. the fleet mechanic itself is not the problem for that, or do you really think any restrictions put into that thing will render the 'strength in numbers' obsolete? Also, what do you tell those people enjoying those big clashes? If you want intelligent fleets hire competent FCs. If you want matching engagements get some game rules changed so they can occur. That's why I listed the above points. Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
Lain Umi	Posted - 2011.03.06 18:57:00 - [119] they just gotta tweak some numbers to keep the current sandbox feel and make pvp fun. station humping can be prevented by taking away docking rights after engagement. stargates need to regulate pilot numbers better. and something needs to be added to make camping less advantageous.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.06 19:29:00 - [120] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 06/03/2011 19:30:42 Originally by: Tres Farmer Now, why didn't you got that? You are talking like someone who currently resides in null sec, but since you are posting on your alt who can tell? I will just say that although people think that their epeen grows bigger in 0.0... the bottom line is that 90% of EVE population does not live there. Your account does not match my own experiences in game (unless we are talking about low SP 0.0 recruits) and I have allot of experience with nooblets whom are new to the game. But ofc who wants be objective and look at both sides of the coin when you can instead just be loud and appear to be universally correct in the eyes of your Cheetos-on-fingers-keyboard-pounding peers. Amiright?

JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.06 19:32:00 - [121] Orphanage Elite neutral remote repair in docking range PVP.
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.06 20:27:00 - [122] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Rant The true problem with Eve: It's not really a sandbox It's more of a tabletop on which pieces can move around, but nothing really changes. Nothing that any player does, short of creating another Band of Brothers, will effect the overall structure of the game in the slightest. Examples of things you could do in a true sandbox: True Invention: New ship types should be generated by the player community at this point. Not in the form of contests but through some internal invention mechanic. Same should be true for modules. Barton's cap recharger, for example, should be player invented and created and should bare the name of its inventor Reshaping Regions: Wars should be able to move borders. Wars between NPCs and other players should have real, in-game consequences on material prices and trade routes Monuments: Design and build lasting monuments to joint effort. Whether it's a city or a statue or just some new playable mission that you've named after yourself, you should be able to leave the game for a year and come back and see if it's still standing In order for Eve to really be a sandbox players would have to be able to leave footprints in that sand. They would have to be able to take over and name systems after themselves. They would need to be able to mar the face of Eve and leave their mark on it for years to come. These abilities would change the motivations of the game dramatically. People would be out to erect monuments to themselves. They would have a motivation for stomping on anyone who got in their way. In short: Combat would have a purpose. Until then, the only reason to fight someone would be to display their carcass on your kill board. And no reason to engage in that fight unless there's a clear chance you'll win. Until these things start to chance, and Eve becomes a place where you're able to truly effect the shape of the game, then there's no reason to fight except for the personal glory of it. Knowing that, when you've left, there will be no way to mark that you were ever there. tl;dr - The only Eve players with a sandbox are the devs.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.06 20:49:00 - [123] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 06/03/2011 20:54:24 Originally by: Ahz Farts in public What your suggesting is WAY to far out there to be implemented into EVE's existing programming. You might as well go make a brand-new MMO. ATM people just want some fixes to current in game mechanics and some better PVP encounters on a more regular basis. Originally by: Ahz Then there's no reason to fight except for the personal glory of it. How about fun? Good god some of you people, its a game and it's supposed to be as entertaining as possible so CCP can make as much money as possible. There is no "Glory" in internet spaceships unless your certifiably nuts. Ninja Edit: And on a final note Mr Ahz, if you were to go create an MMO like what you described I'd most definitely be a subscriber. As would most people here I gather . . . PM us when it's ready for beta testing.
Wildcarrd Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.03.06 20:57:00 - [124] allow sb's to use bombs in low sec. do that and gatecampers have more to worry about; sb pilots get an additional role in EVE; more ship destruction(which helps the economy), and campers have to come up with something better than just sitting on a gate to get some easy kills. I don't see the problem with doing this..
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.06 21:14:00 - [125] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian What your suggesting is WAY to far out there to be implemented into EVE's existing programming. True, things would have to change. But CCP could be working on these mechanics rather than things like Incursion. Eve players need true outlets for their creativity rather than "more dots" to shoot at. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian ...if you were to go create an MMO like what you described I'd most definitely be a subscriber. As would most people here I gather... So, why not just say that? People like Eve. It's captured our imaginations for very good reason. But CCP is not addressing the underlying game mechanic. People fight for things. Just challenging yourself in a 1 on 1 (or 3 on 3) doesn't appeal to enough people. Especially when the outcomes can be guessed from the start. CCP need to address motivation. And online, motivations look like persistent outcomes. Something that can be built and will last. Imagine renaming Curse "Eternum Praetorian" and then logging back in five years and seeing it still standing there. CCP seriously starts building on that mechanic and you get in someone's way, you'll get all the fights you want.
Ardamalis Caldari A Third Betrayal Circle of the Shadows	Posted - 2011.03.06 21:45:00 - [126] Edited by: Ardamalis on 06/03/2011 21:50:15 Ahz hit it right on the money. applauds Please go and run for CSM when election time rolls around again.
Pasmerktas	Posted - 2011.03.06 22:22:00 - [127] Edited by: Pasmerktas on 06/03/2011 22:26:09 The problem lies within the best feature of this game - you risk everything, if you are not sure you're going to win the fight then you know you will lose your ship, and what matters most, people just shows what cowards in RL they are, because they start to live not play when risk is involved. Me myself I never run away from fair fight, I try to avoid unfair fights, but I stay and fight like a man if engaged and know i'm going to lose, and I take someone with me to hell. I roam alone if there is no friends around, I also try to defend my home because it's the only place where I can earn isk. In RL I stay and fight too, I lost teeth which costed me much to get back and I had injuries, but I felt alive once fight was finished, if it was an unfair 1v7+ fight, I smile at myself knowing that I knocked down few guys before they knocked down me. I am not stupid and try to avoid unfair fights as in EVE, but same, if I must fight I fight to the burger, no matter what, I manage to turn on berserk mode and god help those who I took with me to the land of unconsious. I play same in EVE, sure it doesn't hurt here and I don't have to pay to reconstruct my broken bones, but the feeling of managing to kill somebody in an unfair fight is still with me and I am addicted to it. When now, all I can see (with exceptions) is fight with one tactic - numbers (it is always wrong tactic, unfair and dishonest). I watched PL movie today about defending their home with only one carrier+bses vs. NC's blob of doom, they (PL) won, because strategy and tactics are always better than numbers. Problem is people just don't have balls to fight, when they risk something. And here you risk only not your ship but everything in it + maybe out of stupidity, all your time spent in this game, not upgrading a clone frequently - you become a noob with 900k SP, and EMORAGEQUIT :S
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.03.07 00:04:00 - [128] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Originally by: Tres Farmer Now, why didn't you got that? You are talking like someone who currently resides in null sec, but since you are posting on your alt who can tell? I will just say that although people think that their epeen grows bigger in 0.0... the bottom line is that 90% of EVE population does not live there. Sorry mate, wrong guess. And yeah, this is an Alt. And no, I don't like to hear me talk or stroke my e-peen or some such.. I like to live in all k-space from time to time. W-space is not really my cup of tea, as it's to quiet.. can't stand that. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Your account does not match my own experiences in game (unless we are talking about low SP 0.0 recruits) and I have allot of experience with nooblets whom are new to the game. But ofc who wants be objective and look at both sides of the coin when you can instead just be loud and appear to be universally correct in the eyes of your Cheetos-on-fingers-keyboard-pounding peers. Amiright? Is that a logic argument or just leashing out under the assumption I'm a zero-zero-bear? I find it funny that you quote and reply to the only part of my post that was more or less meant to be a funny reply to your own, without much substance.. If I were someone who resides in zero-zero I for sure wouldn't propagate the slow down of capitals or the increase in workload for those pvp guys to patrol their miner&industry-bears.. don't you think? Same goes for the high sec travel slow down I want to see. Can't put me there either. And then with the proposed removal of gates as bottlenecks into low sec.. I must be huge fan of spawn-point camping for sure. Now, as I obviously didn't got you, would it be too much to ask if you could please state in some rant-less points what you think is wrong? I already brought up the mismatch of fleets (1 - 1000+ participants) running into each other, but didn't get any positive response on that one.. so I must be missing something. Care to pick me up? Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.07 01:37:00 - [129] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 07/03/2011 01:37:38 Actually no, not really. I'd much prefer a few more original, realistic and creative ideas be posted in this thread. I can play the troll the trolls mini-game with you later. I think that Ahz had a fantastic idea, but imo there is just no possible way that we could get there in any kind of reasonable/foreseeable timeframe. It would take too much money and recoding and CCP will simply never do that... . . . Do you forum trolls really think that there is no possible way that the PVP system can be improved upon? I get that epic forum alts like Tres Farmer are infused with Tiger Blood And Adonis DNA but seriously? No room for improvement Mr. Sheen? None at all? What precisely are you arguing? EVE's current state of immaculate PVP perfection?
Lost Greybeard	Posted - 2011.03.07 02:35:00 - [130] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Well flame me but the solution are obviously arenas. There are 1000 other games that offer the arena playstyle, among them every FPS ever, every RTS ever and every 2-player fighter ever. If that's what you want, there are places to get it. EVE is not that place, and the primary design consideration of the game (the sandbox) runs directly counter to what you're proposing. --- If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous

Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.07 02:59:00 - [131] But why does the pursuit of "Arena Quality PVP" have to be the same as an actual arena?
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.07 03:32:00 - [132] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I think that Ahz had a fantastic idea, but imo there is just no possible way that we could get there in any kind of reasonable/foreseeable timeframe. I don't think it would be as hard as you seem to think it is. Certainly no harder than creating w-space and populating it with sleepers and a whole new technology tree for Tech III Lego ships. CCP is just distracted by more shiny, visible stuff. New ships, new Sansha effects, these are obvious, "cool", and easy to show off. Providing a mechanism for moving regional boundaries (imagine having the security status of certain systems become dynamic, change from .5 to .4 and back again, depending on the outcome of wars) is a bigger change to the game but harder to sell to the player base. CCP has done an awesome job with Eve. There's no game like it, and there's not likely to be for quite a while. But I think they've taken their eye off the ball with recent expansions. They need to find ways of bringing the players into the creative process of Eve. They do that and everything players do (especially combat) will become much more meaningful It's very doable. They just need to focus on it.
Ardamalis Caldari A Third Betrayal Circle of the Shadows	Posted - 2011.03.07 06:29:00 - [133] Edited by: Ardamalis on 07/03/2011 06:31:13 I guess that I will try a take a stab at this. The people who claim that pilots are risk adverse are on the right track, but they are missing the true underlying cause. The current situation of pvp is not the result of risk adversion but because player vs player combat does not advance your characterÆs development. Character advancement in this game comes in two forms. 1). Moar Skillspoints 2). Moar iskies In a nutshell, PvP does absolutely nothing to advance your character. In fact, it does the exact opposite. I would consider it to be highly detrimental to advancing your character. It does the exact opposite since pvp just serves as money sinkhole (and in some cases, a skillpoint sinkhole too). Why would anyone bother to participate in combat other than for the occasional sport under these circumstances? Let us examine a case where pvp is a form of advancement: Sov Warfare. Soveriegnty warfare only serves as a form of advancement on a macro scale. Here, you are fighting for tangible resources such as belts to mine/ratt in, moon goo, and living space. Sov warfare has huge incentives for wars. This is good. We have an engine that drives warfare and it does its job well by creating massive scale wars. The bad thing is that we donÆt have anything driving combat on a small scale. You can go out in your solo roam harby or small gang, kill two enemy ships, and then get popped on your way back home but what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing. You killed two ships but it doesnÆt have any lasting impact. The enemy coalition has a million more ships to go. Not to mention that those two ratting boats are cheap and easily replaceable and would never have been used in a combat situation in the first place. In addition, by losing your own ship, your character is now ôless advancedö. In order for small fights and skirmishes to happen, they need to be able to secure resources as a form of advancement. Loot from killed ships just doesnÆt cut it.
Ardamalis Caldari A Third Betrayal Circle of the Shadows	Posted - 2011.03.07 06:33:00 - [134] Edited by: Ardamalis on 07/03/2011 06:36:25 Pt2 New mechanics need to be introduced and a lot of potential exists. I will suggest a few possibilities as food for thought with the notion of character advancement as the way to approach the problem. This is aimed at shifting the general direction of thought rather than providing a select suggestion. Giving Incentives to 0.0 What if you could steal resources from a POS? IÆve always wondered how resources get to the POS from the moon. Moon harvesters just seem to have a glowing thing with rocks coming towards it. What if that were changed to a different mechanic? Imagine if a POS sent small mining craft to the moon that ferried moon goo from the moon to your POS. Each mining craft would carry 2 units of moon goo so every 72 seconds for a total of 100 units/hour. Now imagine if you could anchor a warp bubble just outside of the range of the POS guns that would intercept these little mining craft. Every single destroyed mining craft is guaranteed to drop their 2 units moon goo. In addition, moon harvesters cannot be offlined if a bubble is on the grid. A typical low value moon such cobalt would hardly be the time; however, a Dysporium and a Technetium moon would be juicy targets for theft. If your little gang jumps into a system and no one wants to play, anchor a bubble outside one of the Dysporium moons and then see if they undock and come after you. A lot of people complain about the monopolies on certain types of moon goo and this suggestion would be killing two birds with one stone. The beauty of this suggestion is that it allows more people to enter the supply side without increasing or reducing the amount of supply. It also limits this to purely 0.0 moons as you cannot anchor bubbles in lowsec. Incentives for Highsec/Lowsec As far as character advancement goes, highsec pvp offers absolutely nothing. But what if we introduced a new mechanic called reputation. Imagine if mission agents were willing to pay a premium for the best capsuleers. They would offer more pay/rewards or even better missions. There could even be agents who would only offer missions to well known capsuleers. Doing a level 5 in highsec anyone? Reputation would work like a pointage system. Every kill you get/participate in earns you points similar to how killboards work. The only catch is that your reputation decays every day by 10% of its current points. Eventually you will reach an equilibrium between reputation decay and reputation gain. The more successful you are in combat, the more you get paid by agents. So how do we stop people from gaming the system? The trick is to make the isk gained from reputation less than the amount gained from insurance and missions bonuses. If a person took 2 accounts and kept suiciding ships to feed a characterÆs reputation, he would end up with a net loss even though he ran missions with the character with high reputation. There would also be diminishing returns on killing things belonging to the same account. The pointage system would be purely based upon the following formula: Very small % * (value of stuff destroyed û insurance payout to the target) / number of parties involved In addition, kills in lowsec could offer more of a point reward. If you are a part of a militia, then reputation also factors into your rewards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are probably much better ways of implementing incentives for Pvp (these things were thought up in 5 minutes) but my point is that any incentive has to be based upon allowing Pvp to be a form of in game advancement rather than something that hinders it or exists simply as a sideshow.
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.07 11:05:00 - [135] Interesting topic. it's pretty much impossible to find equal force. you either gank someone or get ganked. neither is fun, but people just don't want to play it "fair" saying that I don't want removal of huge alliance fleets, campaigns with thousands of people, wars that change fate of tens of thousands of players. blobbing is bad but unfortunately current game mechanics encourage it. it would be a good idea to create some environment (in lowsec/NPC 0.0?) where playing with equal forces would be profitable. maybe tweaking FW, some pirate-anti pirate action, whatever. and remove ****ing hotdropping from the game
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.07 12:05:00 - [136] Originally by: Ahz A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless it lets me design a new bucket and space. lol yes it is - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.07 13:09:00 - [137] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 07/03/2011 13:08:55 Another fun idea: 1. Enable players to join Pirate factions just as FW; 2. Make them earn LP and "kills" by killing other players; 3. Kills are split between the number of people involved, so 10 vs 1 only gets you 0.1 kill and you don't get kills for a certain pilot more than once a day; 4. You get LP for ISK destroyed per person, so if 10 players kill a single 100 ISK ship they hardly get anything (this to avoid cheap alt ship ganking for rewards). This way fighting equal fights gets rewarded a lot more than blob ganking.
Pookie McPook	Posted - 2011.03.07 13:21:00 - [138] 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. There is no reason not to stay docked and wait for sheer, mind numbing boredom to deter your aggressor Speaking as a carebear I have to say I agree with the OP on this. In a way PvP has become carebear in the extreme as very few people will elect to engage without huge overwhelming advantage which clearly takes out the competitive element. Consentual PvP now seems to come down to poring over Excel spreadsheets to maximise tank/dps before setting foot into the game to gank some poor unsuspecting innocent. Yes, thats the way it is deal with it etc etc, but its not the way it used to be "back in the day". The OP is correct. Maybe there needs to be some "carrot" for PvP rather than just bragging rights over a hugely one sided gank fest that most engagements seem to be based on the killboards. ----- Marmite. Rocket fuel of champions.
Kwashi Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.03.07 13:40:00 - [139] Edited by: Kwashi on 07/03/2011 13:40:33 People have posted the fun to be had on Sisi, where fights areicommon because the losing penalty is removed. I play on a mac, so haven't experienced SIsi; humor me... It seems from your posts that there's something lacking about Sisi though. What's the issue here? If you want endless goodfights, why not just play on SIsi all the time? Is it more laggy or something due to unstable serve builds or something? Or is it that the results on Sisi don't "count" in some manner? Is it that we want even fights and also brutal results? Can't have both. Folks won't fight if there's significant risk of losing and also significant penalty for losing. Human nature.
Vernn Miller Caldari Dreddit	Posted - 2011.03.07 13:44:00 - [140] Sorry bro but all the respect I had for you went directly out the window when I saw "The 0rphanage" below your corp name so anything you say about "good fights" and "pvp" just really doesn`t matter at all.

Zoom Sanna	Posted - 2011.03.07 13:59:00 - [141] I feel really sorry for you, OP. You have come so very far in this game yet you have been reduced to a highsec pvpbear, ganking haulers. I guess that falling so far is the price of soaring so high :(
Siouxsie B	Posted - 2011.03.07 14:31:00 - [142] 1) Make everyone in game automatically a member of FW fighting for whatever empire they chose to create their character from. (Supposed to be a PvP game after all) 2) Make all the Lowsec FW area stations capturable by Empire Militias. 3) Once a system is captured, make the gate guns react to enemy militia. 4) Add faction NPC navies once a system has been held long enough (spawn them in in percentages) 5) Have reduced market fees/higher refinery percentages etc. in captured systems. 6) Do something to make the new FW Highsec 'safer' for the carebears who don't want to actually fight so they don't just get ganked all day long, but not so safe that they cannot be legitimately attacked if they smack in local (OP wanted suggestions to change something in PvP - here's one..)
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.07 16:17:00 - [143] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ahz A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless it lets me design a new bucket and space. lol yes it is You misread me. A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.07 16:34:00 - [144] Originally by: Ahz A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand. Well there's plenty of people building entire castles so I guess they can. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.07 18:01:00 - [145] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ahz A sandbox isn't a sandbox unless you can actually move the sand. Well there's plenty of people building entire castles so I guess they can. There are? I hadn't noticed. Maybe you mean POSs? If that's enough for you then rock on my friend. But it's a small fraction of what's possible. CCP simply has to shift their focus from the "shooting dots" focus of the game to more "shaping the game" kinds of activities. I once heard that the first titan wreck is still in the game where it fell. I don't know if that's true or not, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. If it's true then people, years ago, engaged in combat and it had a permanent impact on the game. They're able to look back years later and say "I was there." It's a small example, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.07 18:10:00 - [146] Originally by: Ahz There are? I hadn't noticed. Ever heard of BoB? Of course, their castle got kicked over. The game isn't the ones and zeros. The game is the people. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Shiarra Bloom	Posted - 2011.03.07 18:20:00 - [147] Edited by: Shiarra Bloom on 07/03/2011 18:27:23 I think they should leave open space PvP untouched. My suggestion would be that player corporations be allowed to build combat simulators. Players could journey to these systems where the simulators are present, dock, and for a small fee (set by the corp) take part in "simulated" battles featuring their simulated ship in the system they are currently in. If a player's simulated ship is destroyed their real ship is unharmed. The player simply returns to the simulators hanger or lobby. There in order to re-enter the simulator they would again have to pay a fee set by the corp. This fee would almost always be a tiny fraction of what they would pay to insure or replace a real ship if it was lost. The corporation that's offering these simulators could tweak the ruleset and rewards. For instance they could set minimum skill point levels for entry, and could set ship type requirments. They could determine whether it's free for all pvp or team based. Players ships designated as simulated couldn't see ships that aren't also simulated and vice versa. Also they cannot leave the system they are in. Small ISK bounties could be given for simulated pvp kills as a reward. The amounts given as bounty rewards would be set by the corporation sponsoring the simulation and would come from their treasury. This means that the corporations would be tasked with balancing entrance fee with bounty rewards. Set the bounty reward too high and go broke. Set the entrance fee too high and drive away potential customers. Building and maintaining these combat simulators could be expensive so some fee would almost always be needed. Also because any corporations could build a simulator this means they will be competing for customers with other corporations.
Ahz	Posted - 2011.03.07 18:29:00 - [148] Originally by: Crumplecorn Ever heard of BoB? You troll poorly. I mentioned BoB myself in an earlier post. Creating a giant alliance is an example of what I'm talking about. There are others. Responding to you has now outlived its usefulness.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2011.03.07 18:48:00 - [149] Originally by: Ahz You troll poorly. I'm not trolling, I just didn't bother reading any more of your posts when you tripped up at the starting line. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
FeralShadow RipStar Mining Industries United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.07 21:33:00 - [150] Eternum... I didn't read any of the other posts, and since you're in the Orphanage I just assumed most were flames anyways. I just want to say that YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Over and over and over and over people simply are unwilling to participate for one reason or another. There is no reward for pvp other than the excitement (yeah loot drops? LOLOLOLOLOLOL right), and there is no penalty to abstaining other than the resentment of your peers. What they should do is to have a reward system based on the number of killing blows you have (maybe). That may be nice and would entice people to pvp (but that doesn't solve the blob dilemma). As to the blob dilemma......... man that's a toughie. I don't have the brain power to think about it right now. _______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura

Makie Ber	Posted - 2011.03.07 23:34:00 - [151] Edited by: Makie Ber on 07/03/2011 23:34:32 Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 03/03/2011 14:27:37 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. You started out with credibility, and then lost it ^
Julius Rigel Sub-warp Racing Venture	Posted - 2011.03.07 23:42:00 - [152] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I Have Done It All Well, since you have done it all, I'm wondering if you would be interested in giving a lecture at Impulse Con again. Since you have done that before. As you already know, we would appreciate it a lot! We're always looking for skilled and enthusiastic pilots to help us out, and help the community! And as you obviously know from having done it before, it was a lot of fun! Since you enjoyed it so much the first time, why not do it again?
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives	Posted - 2011.03.07 23:45:00 - [153] I might suggest you try popping NPC haulers; unless you've already done this, Mr. Troll, I highly doubt you've done everything EVE has to offer ?
Akira Hiroshima	Posted - 2011.03.08 01:43:00 - [154] How about this: An anchorable module not unlike a pos. it would act as an 'arena'. can be configured thru a management window like a pos for details such as number of ships allowed in, of what type, of what corp/alliance, sp, size of the arena, type of battle etc, what happens to u if u go outside it, what u can do inside it, targeting can be enabled or disabled as a toggle by one or all parties or whatever, could even use a system of entry fees straight from participants' wallets and use bounty-style system to split winnings to the victors blah blah blah or even rights to assets or resources...this could also be configureable ofc...the details of configuration options could be endless but just giving some ideas here. there is ur fair/handicapped fights within a still believable sandbox environemt, and surely not hard to program. it of course would not represent half the thrill of (nor serve to replace) real pvp (hunting, ambushing and general current realistic sandbox style dynamics etc) but real pvp shouldnt be fair or predictable, that's just not realistic or sandbox style, and i think the way pvp happens at the moment is a realistic representation of real life, real war, real fights, in a real environment for real reasons (not to say the whole current pvp interface/implementation/etc could not be revamped to be a lot more slick) this mustv been mentioned before but i dont really trawl the forums too often. just my 2 pence here as to how to solve the problems talked about. o/
Sraik Doubter En Garde	Posted - 2011.03.08 04:14:00 - [155] Uh....you guys realize that EP is totally trolling you, right? That said, I think that his premise that folks tend to avoid PvP in eve is completely correct. I disagree that this is an issue that can be "solved" with a game mechanic. As in RL, some folks like to fight for the sake of doing it; most do not. Eve is no different; change of the type proposed comes only at a social level. Encourage PvP just to do it, foster an ethic in other players that supports it; only then will you see the changes in behavior that you are looking for. Good to see you still are hanging in there, EP. Best wishes.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.03.08 13:05:00 - [156] Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 08/03/2011 13:07:36 Originally by: Bumblefck I might suggest you try popping NPC haulers; unless you've already done this, Mr. Troll, I highly doubt you've done everything EVE has to offer The only person I am trolling is Bubmlefck, I am finding it amusing to completed disregard his posts and watch him continue to make stabs at me until I give him some kind recognition that he is making them. . . . Beyond that, I am not trolling anyone. If you hopped into a ship and talked to random people in game, you will find that 90% of all people whom you encounter (of all ages and careers) wishes that EVE had some improvement to it's current PVP system, it's incentives and/or it's fleet structure. The only reason why these forums do not reflect this trend, is because of the unending epeen measuring of "Internet Tough Guys" who choose to smash any idea that gives them an opportunity to look like hot ** inside of these troll dominated forums. Edit:** Waves @ Sraik Doubter
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.03.08 13:21:00 - [157] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian If you hopped into a ship and talked to random people in game, you will find that 90% of all people whom you encounter (of all ages and careers) wishes that EVE had some improvement to its current PVP system, its incentives and/or its fleet structure. I definitely agree with this.
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2011.03.08 14:57:00 - [158] Alliances can control great swaths of space in null-sec and they fight for control over the resources there. Moon goo mostly, but at least there is a reason to attempt to expand your area of control. Low sec and high sec need something similar that will encourage people to get out and pew. Corporations should be able to control individual systems in lowsec - fix the Faction Warfare system and expand upon it. Perhaps set it up so that the only people who can anchor towers in low security systems are those with positive standings towards the owning corporation (but this would not offline existing towers). This would encourage people to interact in multiple ways. Corporations, and perhaps even individuals, should be able to fight for control over high sec stations - the benefit being that you get a cut of all the station services that are used (repair bay, market orders, cloning facilities, etc.) if you have a "controlling interest" in the station. Can you imagine the explosions in Jita? Basically, take what works in null-sec (sov system aside), then scale it down as you move up in security. - "When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed." - CCP Big Dumb Object
CamoMark	Posted - 2011.03.10 23:39:00 - [159] Edited by: CamoMark on 10/03/2011 23:40:31 Can you Imagine the lag in Jita? The whole system would implode, and people from all around would gather in Perimeter to mourn. All of the lost ships and modules would damage the economy beyond repair for months, even years. And many people would rage quit over their lost items. Note that I am trolling. Anyway... Almost every aspect of EVE has at least one flaw, many of which are serious, CCP has a lot of work to do to fix PVP, And then they will have to face almost every other mechanic of the game. It sounds hopeless.
Eternum Praetorian True Creation	Posted - 2011.03.12 03:10:00 - [160] Revived Topic. Some of these ideas were good.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one 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.