| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khaldorn Murino
   |
Posted - 2005.02.03 10:20:00 -
[1]
Evening Ladies, Gents, and evil CCP slavers (apart from Hammer, our man in amsterdam)
I would be very grateful if someone could tell the ole community why this wasnt stuck in the patch and if its going to get stuck in at all, or if the idea has been scrapped. Cos I really would hate to see alot of good friends leave the game over this, and theres a shed load of small corps who want to fight us and who we want to fight but cant afford it.
Cmon, give the working roleplayer a break here! :) Where's the love?
-
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Unknown Warrior
|
Archbishop
|
Posted - 2005.02.04 03:34:00 -
[2]
I'm a bit discouraged as well Khaldorn after the "PvP Exodus" video thread where we heard it would be. The only thing I can think of is this was a "bug patch" and the real patch is coming soon.
How about it Wrangler or Orestes whats the story?
Archbishop
VISIT THE PIE HOMEPAGE & FORUMS
PIE INFORMATION CENTER |
Graelyn
|
Posted - 2005.02.05 03:05:00 -
[3]
Is this going to be commented on AT ALL? 
Minister - Public Affairs
AEGIS MILITIA
ATCR Forums |
Brother Edward
|
Posted - 2005.02.05 03:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Brother Edward on 05/02/2005 03:17:23
This is an IMPORTANT isue thats needs quick attention and OFFICIAL word from CCP. This game thrives on it's potential for RP. As such to limit RP by an in game mechanice CCP is shooting it's own foot.
Please CCP can we have a direct comment on this issue??
|
Graelyn
|
Posted - 2005.02.05 23:25:00 -
[5]
Guess not.
Minister - Public Affairs
AEGIS MILITIA
ATCR Forums |
Graelyn
|
Posted - 2005.02.09 20:18:00 -
[6]
Threads on this issue (Including the 10 page long one in which CCP made thier claim) seem to be dissapearing.
Give us a reason NOT to fear the worst.
Minister - Public Affairs
AEGIS MILITIA
ATCR Forums |
Kota
|
Posted - 2005.02.09 21:57:00 -
[7]
I dont like sound of concentual war even though it would not effect non-concentual wars. War cost need to be re-designed, if players cant affort to war each others instead some concentual war.
I dont mean to bash RPers, but if someone then rp communities should understand this that it's supposed be a war and not some sort of tea party where you shake hands and agree to war each others. Just doesnt sound right 
They should just remove whole warring cost or reduce it A LOT. I like how it was before Exodus.
|
Phant Zon
|
Posted - 2005.02.10 21:54:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Kota
I dont like sound of concentual war even though it would not effect non-concentual wars. War cost need to be re-designed, if players cant affort to war each others instead some concentual war.
I dont mean to bash RPers, but if someone then rp communities should understand this that it's supposed be a war and not some sort of tea party where you shake hands and agree to war each others. Just doesnt sound right
They should just remove whole warring cost or reduce it A LOT. I like how it was before Exodus.
I dont know why it shouldent be a gentlemans war agreement. Such things have happened in the past, and were even common
at times. Most of the 'wars' fought between England and France in the middle ages were handled this way, with battlegrounds often agreed upon by the field commanders, who often hosted their enemy counterpart in their tents before and/or after a battle.
Before I get flamed as a 'carebear', Ill explain that i dont care much for the 'duel' arrangments that so many people mean when they talk about PVP. I like the adreneline rush of getting jumped when I didnt expect it, or spotting a fat target or a reviled foe ripe for the taking. Perhaps what we need is some sort of legalized vendetta betweem corperations or persons that would have to be formally aceepted by both parties and would perhaps cost less per day than wars.(Think Kanly, for any Dune geeks)
|
Tarm
|
Posted - 2005.02.10 22:10:00 -
[9]
A. Kierion promised (in a post in the Exodus Discussion Forum) to include it in the first patch of 2005.
B. Was not included in said patch.
C. Subject was brought up again in the Exodus Discussion Forum.
D. Exodus Discussion and all related posts deleted.
E. Subject regarded as 'too hard' or 'not important' and therefore ignored?
-------------------
|
Kalfu
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 00:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Brother Edward
Edited by: Brother Edward on 05/02/2005 03:17:23
This is an IMPORTANT isue thats needs quick attention and OFFICIAL word from CCP. This game thrives on it's potential for RP. As such to limit RP by an in game mechanice CCP is shooting it's own foot.
Please CCP can we have a direct comment on this issue??
CCP don't care about roleplay. At all.
You either have to put up with this or leave; CCP aren't going to change their mind no matter how many people sign a petition. They care more about the Devs goal of a pure PvP slaughterfest than what the customers base actually wants.
|
|
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 00:46:00 -
[11]
Well.. technically I agree with a tick off box for consentual warfare. But from an rp perspective, and organized conflict in general.. aren't there 0.0 systems with rp signficance for any rp storyline, traditional or not?
I understand your desire for random conflict as well though. Organized affairs are easier to report on after and in advance though.
|
Deros
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 02:29:00 -
[12]
i hope that these are never brought in.
however i hope also that there is a major reason brought in to make more experienced players move to 0.0 other than high end mining, but in this case i hope that they either make safespots more findable << hell that aint a word afaik, and POS killable :)
D
|
Khaldorn Murino
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 11:38:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 11/02/2005 12:37:02
Mention the word roleplay to anyone and it seems they get the idea that its all carebareville with everyone going , oh good shot old chap, care for another round?
Its not like that, its bloody viscious. And another little fact, you all roleplay, as in play a role. The 0.0 alliances are the biggest roleplayers out there. Just cos the guys in Empire choose to follow some sort of storyline to give their fights meaning and have at it in local, shouldnt this be incouraged?
I mean, your a new guy, you've read a bit about the backstory and that, then you start playing, and you run slap bang into a bunch of freedom fighters attacking a fleet of slavers. Giving it all the crap in local and everything. Wouldnt that be cool to see? Im sure the guys in empire enjoy running across our fights every now and then.
So, consenual wars just mean that the small corps who cant afford to declare on an alliance get to fight us. Why not?
Im telling you CCP (edit oops) should just hire someone to keep a presence on the forums, everywhere i read people are just mainly annoyed becuase there are 30 page posts on things that no CCP person has replied upon, they only want to know what your thinking with their precious game. Not too much to ask is it? To keep your players happy?
-
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Unknown Warrior
|
Lefia
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 12:06:00 -
[14]
Hell at this point I'd love player to player consensual non-affiliation battles (sort of like 2 people being able to be aggresive to each other without the need to call a full scale war, and be able to select podding options). This would make holding tournaments a viable profession (currently 0.0 tournaments create a large enough blob on the player map as to create a sort of "bug zapper" effect... only it zaps those in the tournament). Holding tournaments is something I've longed to do since day 1, especially since I have several themes in mind already.
Originally by: hired goon
------------------------------------------------
I agree with every point and counter point that has been brought up in this and every other argument ever had.
--------- |
Valentine Keen
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 12:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Khaldorn Murino
Im telling you CVA should just hire someone to keep a presence on the forums, everywhere i read people are just mainly annoyed becuase there are 30 page posts on things that no CCP person has replied upon, they only want to know what your thinking with their precious game. Not too much to ask is it? To keep your players happy?
I think you have CVA on the brain my comrade, surely you mean CCP. 
Besides, officially they do, it's Kieron. (Not commenting on my opinions of effectiveness though, but the number of angry rants I'm seeing and taking part in lately seems to say it all imho.)
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 14:37:00 -
[16]
According to the tentative features list for the next patch, Mutual War Declaration is on the list for inclusion.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online
|
Juniper
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 14:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: kieron
According to the tentative features list for the next patch, Mutual War Declaration is on the list for inclusion.
Ummm... you said that last time I believe.
Can we see this tentative features list please?
-- Gotta sell my stuff...
|
Jacque Custeau
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 14:42:00 -
[18]
The problem really comes in when determining what really is consentual and what is not.
For instance if I invite the CEO of one corp out to drinks, get him drunk and then agree to the war, is it still consentual? |
Khaldorn Murino
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:03:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 11/02/2005 15:06:52
In all fairness to keiron, hes the community manager, not the devs. I believe him when he got told that the mutual war dec would be in the next patch, its hardly his fault that it wasn't eh?
It just a shame they made him look bad. Chin up keiron, we need to see more of you around these forums mate!
Give them a slappage from us.
EDIT: Oh, and a little note on whether the balancers are going to look at minmatar ships, or whether they think there fine now with the small projectile boost? oh and if they are going to fix the megapulse? That would be rather nice to know. etc etc :)
-
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Unknown Warrior
|
Manny Tanato
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:12:00 -
[20]
Consentual war game mechanics really needs to be included. I am a noobie, and I was taken into a corp that had quite a numbr of veteren players. They are players of all stripes: some super traders, some hardcore miners, and some manufacturing nuts. But no PvPers.
And then one day some idiot corp declared war on us. They are one of the uber PvP corps out there, and they simply bully us as far as this war is concerned. They did not/have not made any demands, they did not/do not communicate even when my corp CEO tried to contact them. They simply declared war on us and kept silent about it.
The corp I am with have always kept to themselves. We have never crossed into anyone's turf (as far as I know), and we do not have any dealings with PvP type players. Now comes along a bully corp and makes things difficult for us. There are those amongst us who do not even own a combat ship (but they fly Itrion 5s). Also those amongst us who have th large mining barge, but cannot fly cruisers.
This is really inequality. This is the equivalent of someone who comes along and threatens to kill you next time he sees you out of the blue. Rediculous!
|
|
|
Namelesz
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jacque Custeau
The problem really comes in when determining what really is consentual and what is not.
For instance if I invite the CEO of one corp out to drinks, get him drunk and then agree to the war, is it still consentual?
-Namelesz
"I never run away. I merely advance in the opposite direction." -Judicator
"She was so dumb, the smartest thing to ever come out of her mouth was my *****." |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:13:00 -
[22]
Must likely an issue where they said next content patch or something and somewhere the content part was forgotten. The only programmer added stuff were bug fixes in the previous patch (as far as I could tell), the content that was added didn't seem like it needed any more progamming, just someone to determine and enter the values in some database.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:15:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Jacque Custeau
The problem really comes in when determining what really is consentual and what is not.
For instance if I invite the CEO of one corp out to drinks, get him drunk and then agree to the war, is it still consentual?
Of course it is 
|
Juniper
|
Posted - 2005.02.11 15:17:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Khaldorn Murino
Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 11/02/2005 15:06:52
In all fairness to keiron, hes the community manager, not the devs. I believe him when he got told that the mutual war dec would be in the next patch, its hardly his fault that it wasn't eh?
It just a shame they made him look bad. Chin up keiron, we need to see more of you around these forums mate!
Agreed, and I don't mean to be harsh to Kieron. But it is kind of emblematic of how low CCP's customer relations has fallen when you struggle to believe the word of their own Community Manager - be it their fault or not. I'm sure everything he's telling us is on good faith - it's just the faith is dwindling on this side of the monitor unfortunately due to one too many fob-off's and outright lies from CCP. As Kieron is the Community Manager, he unfortunately takes the brunt of it - even though none of it is his fault I'm sure.
It's so sad, because I love this game... 
-- Gotta sell my stuff...
|
Sanaen Eydanwadh
|
Posted - 2005.02.21 16:13:00 -
[25]
I surched the old "consentual warfare" thread in the forums to the page 75 or so, but didn't find it anymore, so I bring this one back up....
Originally by: Graelyn
Threads on this issue (Including the 10 page long one in which CCP made thier claim) seem to be dissapearing.
Give us a reason NOT to fear the worst.
:/ I fear there are few new arguments, but we still have had no answers, and we from the Ushra'Khan Alliance did lost one more trusted foe yesterday because of these strange rules...
SO ? Please someone? Anybody at home CCP ? 
|
Mangold
|
Posted - 2005.02.21 18:05:00 -
[26]
Signed.
|
Tenacha Khan
|
Posted - 2005.02.21 18:23:00 -
[27]
I read a thread where tomB mentioned something about supporting a faction.
So you could pick sides in amarr vs minmatar or gallente vs caldari letting you fight the person from the oposite faction. Id like this idea too as an individuals choice and not the whole corp.
Also a thing like a gang invite that alows two people or two gangs to fight. This id need a cheap skill that both partys need to have so that it couldnt be used to exploit noobs.
For a pvp game, there is alot of red tape to thrash in order to actually fight people, I chose to be a pirate so I could have as much pvp as possible. But lately that just got boring and id like to hop on the ol minnie vs amarr bandwaggon
|
Tenacha Khan
|
Posted - 2005.02.21 18:25:00 -
[28]
Signed.
I like this idea too, I just like to drabble off topic on all posts
|
Darius Shakor
|
Posted - 2005.02.22 09:50:00 -
[29]
To everyone who does not agree with it I would like to ask why?
If included, consentual wars will not be forced on everyone. It will not mean that all wars are consentual. The war fee was created to stop empire piracy and greifing wars. Job done. But it has had an adverse effect on wars between empire corporations. OK for those with little to do with RP they can move out to 0.0 and maybe join an alliance, or make a new one to take on an alliance. But not everyone wants massive blob battles in the middle of nowhere. Some prefer small scale fights between small corps, each crasping for a pice of the pie.
And moving to 0.0 space for us roleplayers is pointless. We are supposed to be fighting on behalf of our respective empires. Why would we have to move all the way out to the middle of 0.0 space to do that? In WWII I don't recall the entire battle for France taking place out in the middle of the Arctic to keep France clean.
"Come on guys, the CVA are coming after us. We had better move to P-74KL And fight them or Pator might fall into their hands."
WTF? Please....
As for what makes a war consentual, when both sides hate eachother, thats what. The CVA want to fight us, and we want to fight them.All it takes is a check box that both CEO's or Alliance leaders have to tick in the alliance management section. If not checked then the person declairing still has to pay the normal fees as a penelty for declairing on an unwilling corp.
If thats so hard to grasp then maybe we should all go play SWG or WoW and call it a day.
------
Analysis[Ceasefire]....Complete - 'Term given to the act of firing, causing the ceasation of the life it is directed at |
MinorFreak
|
Posted - 2005.02.23 03:09:00 -
[30]
i believe we need to coach this in terms that CCP can understand. to them, your prattle seems a useless call for "convenience"
You've got to hammer home the fact that your alliance war RP is designed to NEVER END.
This is the thing that CCP, i think, forget. I believe they assume your two alliances conducting such an endless RP war with 'consentual' tags would condone your warfare as somehow officially sponsored.
you get my drift? You've got to convince them alot more folk in this game would love to play an online version of Homeworld without the need to head into deepest darkest 0.0 space.
You cannot do this. it simply flies in the face of what CCP would consider too much liability. You must convince them that to cater to your wish for a 'consensual' tag is a compromise between chucking corp war fees altogether and biting the hand that feeds.
YOU DO THIS by focusing on what CCP intended: it's obvious they coded this with the "short term" war that someone would "win" concept.
Your problem is that CCP most likely consider 'consentual war' tags in empire space to be akin to considering coding in NPC corporate influence by players with high standing. (convince them otherwise, and you've sold them the idea)ignore this advice at your peril
______________________
Best darned links ingame and out (backup) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |