Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 13:46:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Syekuda
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: Darryl Ward It favors the aggressor far too much.
How so?
The aggressor as no limit to the wardec. He can keep wardec as long as he pays. Since the price is so low, he could continue this until the end of time. Thats what he meant.
CCP knows about this little missing feature. If I'm correct CCP will implement some kind of feature that will prevent a wardec to remain unlimited.
You are incorrect. ~~~
|
forsak3n
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 15:59:00 -
[32]
Edited by: forsak3n on 06/07/2011 15:59:41
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th 1.
2. The cost. The other thing about the cost that bugs the S out of me is how low the cost is. While in the real world it cost billions to go to war before 1 person dies it only cost someone 2 mil to war dec a corp then 50 to war dec an ali. The cost to war dec a corp should be more like 500 mil and 3 bil for an ali.
Actually in real world, it doesent cost much to declare a war. And in eve, it does cost bilions to go to war...
|
Craig Bennett2th
Gallente Bennett Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 17:39:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th btw for those of you who know me in game this and other things like the crappy missions and you not being able to effect anything around you is why I MAY stop playing this game. Only time will tell if I get to tired of this crap.
We will all wait with bated breath your final decision in this matter. Is there a twitter feed we can follow for the latest updates?
I think its funny how people only read the first post. Go up a little and you will see when i find this boring I wont play. However I think that's soon and right now I am looking for 11 things in a game
1. The game has to be realistic looking. This means planets have cloud effects, there is tress and many cities on the planet, stars blow up, black holes, etc.
2. The game has to let you for the most part freely go from space to the planet and back while flying around. A loading screen is OK if its not to long.
3. The game has to be realistic in things like how you fly and shoot. This means when you shoot your ship slows down a little or moves you in a direction (IE if you get stuck without fuel you can shoot your guns to move your ship to a station), if you stop burning to something you keep moving due to newtons lawshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion and again stars and systems can blow up due to natural events or what others do to the system. There needs to be fuel for your ship so you have to dock up or go to a star or something to get fuel. Other realistic things I am looking for is gravity, time dilation, solar burst, stuff like that. Stuff like if your in deep space then a big ship like a titan in EVE would try to make your pod orbit or come to it. (I'm not 100% sure how dense the titans are but I am guessing they are).
4. if you been playing for a while (a month or so), and you die you stay dead for a while or forever. This means after the learning curve it will be up to you to not die and this means you have to keep more in mind of things around you and what your about to do.
5.This is one of the biggest things a game has to have. I look for games that the game forms around you and other player choices. Like some of the missions like you killing something, you are the only one to get it and by doing it, that effects someone on the other side of the uni. And from there on players will be effected by ones pve/p choices. This also means the game is more like real life and the game is NEVER the same so its hardly ever redundant which is the problem I'm getting from EVE and other games. ( I doubt we have the tech today that can handle this)
6. I liked how you can use in game money to keep playing so that would be cool.
7. You can hire NPC to fleet with you. I like this idea a lot because I don't want to trouble someone every 5 min if I run into trouble in missions or pvp.
8. the game can be 3d enable so you can use it on a 3d monitor.
9. One of the things that kinda bug me in EVE and some other games is skills. Like I'm ok with some skill training but the problem with some games like EVE is its almost purely based on skill plan then how you fly. Like a noob will win due to the soul fact of in game skills and not real life skills so its not a true sim.
10.you can fly in your seat and you have a dash on screen you can use. something like you can see on Evochron Renegades. Along with that it would be cool to walk around in your ship or at less have it possible to have more then 1 person fly a ship and/or hire npc if you cant find another person to do the job you need them to do.
11. I like how people can move things for you in EVE but I want to also have some taxi in game. Like I can pay someone or go on my alts ship and move my guy from one place to another while trusting the person moving me that his/her ship wont be blown up. (maybe eve will put this in game if a lot of you like this idea.)
I have no doubt in my mind we don't have the tech today for all of this _________________________________________________
........Fly Safe
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(ò̪●)=є/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿ |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:09:00 -
[34]
Edited by: ShahFluffers on 06/07/2011 21:19:15
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th <list of stuff>
1-3. Dude... these first 3 things pretty much describe a game that does not exist. No game, no matter how well coded, is going to be 100% realistic or allow you to do 100% of the same things you could do in RL. The virtual universe is finite and limited by how much code and hardware capacity it is given.
4. Death is a common part of EVE. To be held in a state of limbo for a month because something went wrong is a bit too harsh of a penalty... especially considering that we're all paying $15 a month. Note: if you read up on the lore, you'll see why we "come back to life" right after our pods are popped.
5. The choices you make DO affect people if you make them so. If you keep to yourself, you will affect no one and thus nothing will be affected. If you are referring to NPCs... well... that's not what the game centers on. The NPCs are a means to an end (i.e. to get money or research things).
6. It was done such to counter RMT. It's kinda done a good job except that now the RMT are using the system to keep their bots going without needing to pay a sub.
7. Hiring NPCs basically cuts players out of the action. What incentive do people have to team up when you can just hire a whole mob of NPCs to compensate for what you can't do? You NEED to bother people in this game in order to get ahead. Having NPCs to "shortcut" around that just isn't kosher.
8. Meh.
9. Bear in mind... you are not "dogfighting" in space, you are commanding a space vessel the size of several city blocks. As far as skills are concerned... it's not just skills. Knowing how to fit your ship, where to fly your ship, how to move it during combat, and when to use the ship's equipment are all important things. Mind you, it isn't "twitch" based combat... but it's still user input. And with 'noobs' being able to crush you... I consider that a good thing. No one person should be able to crush a whole swarm of people effortlessly (not even in a supercap *cough*).
10. Read into the lore of EVE. We are in capsules... attached to the ship's systems... effectively cutting out most of the command structure of the ship and giving orders directly to the grunts. With multiple people flying ships... the DEVs tried to do this but the game code rejected it. So the idea was scrapped. And NPCs... why do you have this thing with NPCs and not doing it yourself/asking someone to do it for you?
11. It's an idea that has been proposed... but there are still problems with the game code and allowing for players to (effectively) be inside other players (the ship IS the player).
All in all... it sounds like you are looking for a 1 player game... not a multiplayer one. You want to be special without having to compete for being special. You want to be lead along in a story rather than create your own. Both of these things runs counter to EVEs ethos and mantra. _______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Craig Bennett2th
Gallente Bennett Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:21:00 -
[35]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Edited by: ShahFluffers on 06/07/2011 21:19:15
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th <list of stuff>
1-3. Dude... these first 3 things pretty much describe a game that does not exist. No game, no matter how well coded, is going to be 100% realistic or allow you to do 100% of the same things you could do in RL. The virtual universe is finite and limited by how much code and hardware capacity it is given.
4. Death is a common part of EVE. To be held in a state of limbo for a month because something went wrong is a bit too harsh of a penalty... especially considering that we're all paying $15 a month. Note: if you read up on the lore, you'll see why we "come back to life" right after our pods are popped.
5. The choices you make DO affect people if you make them so. If you keep to yourself, you will affect no one and thus nothing will be affected. If you are referring to NPCs... well... that's not what the game centers on. The NPCs are a means to an end (i.e. to get money or research things).
6. It was done such to counter RMT. It's kinda done a good job except that now the RMT are using the system to keep their bots going without needing to pay a sub.
7. Hiring NPCs basically cuts players out of the action. What incentive do people have to team up when you can just hire a whole mob of NPCs to compensate for what you can't do? You NEED to bother people in this game in order to get ahead. Having NPCs to "shortcut" around that just isn't kosher.
8. Meh.
9. Bear in mind... you are not "dogfighting" in space, you are commanding a space vessel the size of several city blocks. As far as skills are concerned... it's not just skills. Knowing how to fit your ship, where to fly your ship, how to move it during combat, and when to use the ship's equipment are all important things. Mind you, it isn't "twitch" based combat... but it's still user input. And with 'noobs' being able to crush you... I consider that a good thing. No one person should be able to crush a whole swarm of people effortlessly (not even in a supercap *cough*).
10. Read into the lore of EVE. We are in capsules... attached to the ship's systems... effectively cutting out most of the command structure of the ship and giving orders directly to the grunts. With multiple people flying ships... the DEVs tried to do this but the game code rejected it. So the idea was scrapped. And NPCs... why do you have this thing with NPCs and not doing it yourself/asking someone to do it for you?
11. It's an idea that has been proposed... but there are still problems with the game code and allowing for players to (effectively) be inside other players (the ship IS the player).
All in all... it sounds like you are looking for a 1 player game... not a multiplayer one. You want to be special without having to compete for being special. You want to be lead along in a story rather than create your own. Both of these things runs counter to EVEs ethos and mantra.
The 1-3 is why I said I doubt we have the tech for it today.
As far as 4 "death" is in eve but guess what I'm tired of killing someone 5 times because they have a good amount of the same ship set up. It is to late for eve to put this in the game but I am wondering if it would work.
5. no your choices don't as far as story line. Like lets take recon for example. I know for a fact a large amount of eve has done this mission to me is like watching someone do it because we don't get individual missions. This is also why I said I doubt we have the tech, like to do this the game would have to have its on AI and all the NPC would have to have their own AI and think they are really in the game to make new missions that only go to you and effects everyone to some degree.
Sorry I have to make this a 2 part post bc of characters left _________________________________________________
........Fly Safe
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(ò̪●)=є/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿ |
Craig Bennett2th
Gallente Bennett Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:36:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Edited by: ShahFluffers on 06/07/2011 21:19:15
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th <list of stuff>
7. Hiring NPCs basically cuts players out of the action. What incentive do people have to team up when you can just hire a whole mob of NPCs to compensate for what you can't do? You NEED to bother people in this game in order to get ahead. Having NPCs to "shortcut" around that just isn't kosher.
8. Meh.
9. Bear in mind... you are not "dogfighting" in space, you are commanding a space vessel the size of several city blocks. As far as skills are concerned... it's not just skills. Knowing how to fit your ship, where to fly your ship, how to move it during combat, and when to use the ship's equipment are all important things. Mind you, it isn't "twitch" based combat... but it's still user input. And with 'noobs' being able to crush you... I consider that a good thing. No one person should be able to crush a whole swarm of people effortlessly (not even in a supercap *cough*).
10. Read into the lore of EVE. We are in capsules... attached to the ship's systems... effectively cutting out most of the command structure of the ship and giving orders directly to the grunts. With multiple people flying ships... the DEVs tried to do this but the game code rejected it. So the idea was scrapped. And NPCs... why do you have this thing with NPCs and not doing it yourself/asking someone to do it for you?
11. It's an idea that has been proposed... but there are still problems with the game code and allowing for players to (effectively) be inside other players (the ship IS the player).
All in all... it sounds like you are looking for a 1 player game... not a multiplayer one. You want to be special without having to compete for being special. You want to be lead along in a story rather than create your own. Both of these things runs counter to EVEs ethos and mantra.
Part 2
7. does work. I play games where you can hire NPC to fleet with you or/and you can fleet with people. The npc tend to be a lot and they tend to blow up more so it kinda evens itself out and just because its not for you it could be for others.
8. is bc I think it would be cool to see a space game in 3d
9. I understand EVE isnt a dog fight game but I would think the smaller ships would be more dog fight while the bigger ships would act like command ships. BTW size doesn't matter in space as long as your away from stars and planets bc of the gravitational pull.
10. I know that about eve but I think I would like it more if I could have this.
As far as solo and mmo I would 100% agree with a solo but the problem with a solo is you get stuck with the missions that you get and it would be cool doing SOME stuff with others. But the problem with most MMO is they tend to be to much PVP then PVE which made eve for me, like why did they add a story line. So I do want to do great things but I dont want to do a great thing that EVERYONE has already done or can do. I want to leave my mark on a game like be the cause or the end to a new race or something RPG wise. Not something that made the game easy or harder for others to do. And to make it more clear I kinda just want a game like RL in space with added things.
Keep in mind this list of things is what I want in a space game not what YOU want. Some of this is in a few games like the gravitational, planet to space, etc but no game really has a 100% mix of these things and some things like independent missions that could effect everyone is not really on any game that I know of. _________________________________________________
........Fly Safe
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(ò̪●)=є/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿ |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 23:24:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th
As far as 4 "death" is in eve but guess what I'm tired of killing someone 5 times because they have a good amount of the same ship set up. It is to late for eve to put this in the game but I am wondering if it would work.
Well... if you "permanently" kill a player then what reason would they have to develop any other characters? Why would they want to take them out to have their existence risked in the first place? Why pay 15 a month to run in circles? Granted... the whole "death" thing isn't the most realistic part of the game... but it is done in order to give the game longevity. Still, penalties for being killed must exist (so people are encouraged to try and live)... so the system [literally] makes players pay for the death of their ships and pods.
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th
5. no your choices don't as far as story line. Like lets take recon for example. I know for a fact a large amount of eve has done this mission to me is like watching someone do it because we don't get individual missions. This is also why I said I doubt we have the tech, like to do this the game would have to have its on AI and all the NPC would have to have their own AI and think they are really in the game to make new missions that only go to you and effects everyone to some degree.
So you want to be "special" in that you get a mission tailored specifically to you? And you want it to affect the story and gameplay of other players without you having to directly deal with them? That sounds a bit conceited.
And if you want to deal with a more advanced AI, try doing an Incursion or explore a wormhole. The NPCs in there are "evil" as they do most things that players do (neut, scram, web, omni-damage, change primaries, fly REALLY fast, remote repair, etc).
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th 7. does work. I play games where you can hire NPC to fleet with you or/and you can fleet with people. The npc tend to be a lot and they tend to blow up more so it kinda evens itself out and just because its not for you it could be for others.
The problem still stands... being able to hire NPCs to do the work of other players (even if they can't do it as well) still cuts players from the picture. And EVE encourages you to team up with others to accomplish similar goals. Remember, this is supposed to be a game where the PLAYERS drive the content of the game, not the NPCs. If you want to make your mark, you MUST deal with other players directly.
Originally by: Craig Bennett2th 9. I understand EVE isnt a dog fight game but I would think the smaller ships would be more dog fight while the bigger ships would act like command ships. BTW size doesn't matter in space as long as your away from stars and planets bc of the gravitational pull.
The smallest player controlled ship in the game is slightly smaller than a Boeing 747. That isn't very small. As far as movement in concerned... even in space mass and inertia still hold sway. The larger the ship is and the greater its mass, the more it's going to resist movement. And as you get larger and heavier the power needed to "move" them goes up exponentially.
[continued] _______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 23:35:00 -
[38]
Quote: As far as solo and mmo I would 100% agree with a solo but the problem with a solo is you get stuck with the missions that you get and it would be cool doing SOME stuff with others. But the problem with most MMO is they tend to be to much PVP then PVE which made eve for me, like why did they add a story line. So I do want to do great things but I dont want to do a great thing that EVERYONE has already done or can do. I want to leave my mark on a game like be the cause or the end to a new race or something RPG wise. Not something that made the game easy or harder for others to do.
EVE is probably one of, if not THE MOST, PVP oriented MMO I've ever seen (next to Ultima Online before the PVE server was introduced). If you're looking for a more PVE type experience where you can be largely left alone, you are in the wrong game.
The lore is designed such to give you a background to work with/start from, but not such that it defines your entire experience and decides on what you can be. What you CAN be is up to you and dependent on the choices you make among all the other choices that others make. If you make the right choices, you can come out on top. If not, back to the bottom with you. This is what comes from being in the same world with others.
With doing things that no one has done... if you are creative you can find stuff that no one else has done... but because you are in the same world with multitudes of other people and following the same rules as everyone else it would be EXTREMELY arrogant (not to mention smacking of "entitlement") to think that you, and you alone, can and should do things that no one else can do or reach for. Not even in 1 player games is this possible. _______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Disastro
Wrecking Shots
|
Posted - 2011.07.07 00:16:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Syekuda
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: Darryl Ward It favors the aggressor far too much.
How so?
The aggressor as no limit to the wardec. He can keep wardec as long as he pays. Since the price is so low, he could continue this until the end of time. Thats what he meant.
CCP knows about this little missing feature. If I'm correct CCP will implement some kind of feature that will prevent a wardec to remain unlimited.
Actually there is a cost you are not considering. It is called by economics professors an "opportunity cost" and it very much applies in eve. If i am a griefer corp ceo i can only have 3 war decs going at one time. That sounds like a lot to bears like you but believe me it isnt. When i ran a griefing corp i wanted to have far more than that going at one time. But if i kept a dec going against an inactive target it kept me from decking active ones and my members got bored and wouldnt log in or would go play other games.
keeping a dec going against a target like that costs you the chance to war dec more interesting subjects and that is why ccp limited it to 3 decs (for a corp) at one time filed by that corp. They can have unlimited war decs against themvas far as i know anyway).
There are, however, ways to discontinue a war dec against you. If the agressor is not actively pursuing your members you can petition ccp and they have been known to remove nuissance decs where the griefer doesnt actively attack during a period of time.
|
Darryl Ward
|
Posted - 2011.07.07 14:49:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Disastro
There are, however, ways to discontinue a war dec against you. If the agressor is not actively pursuing your members you can petition ccp and they have been known to remove nuissance decs where the griefer doesnt actively attack during a period of time.
What sort of time frame are we talking about? A week with no kills? A month?
I've been in a war for over a month now, anyone who would have been a target is not logging in, not undocking, or has quit the corp. Yet the war drags on.
|
|
Jyngo
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.07.07 15:06:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Jyngo on 07/07/2011 15:08:05 WAR!
huh! good god...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
say it again!!!
|
Hippie en Thielles
|
Posted - 2011.07.07 19:20:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Hippie en Thielles on 07/07/2011 19:21:13
Originally by: Darryl Ward I suppose fighting dirty is par for the course, and you don't win wars by playing fair.
But I totally agree that it should not be called war declarations, it is annoyance declaration.
And for the record, aside from me being stupid during a war 1 week into the game and losing an empty badger, I have not taken a loss in one. Not in this char, this is an alt.
Personally, I would just like to get one encounter with the WTs without them running away, docking up, playing station games, and waiting to pick off mission runners while I'm at work.
The cost is too cheap, it needs to be doubled or so.
I hear ya!
I gave up on high sec warfare long ago.
However, just a couple months ago...we tried one last time. We were wardecced by a 8 man corp. All were online the first night. We took a fleet to their home system specifically designed to be outgunned. Not by much but enough so that the smart money was on them if they engaged. Did they engage? Hell no. After that I gave up completely. When I want to get my PvP fix I go to Battleground Europe.
|
Haulie Berry
|
Posted - 2011.07.07 21:03:00 -
[43]
The one and only issue I really see with Wardecs is the fact that the initial aggressor is allowed to terminate a war that has been made mutual. IMO, once mutual, the only way to end a war should be by way of mutual agreement.
Sure, it's possible for the "other guy" to declare a new war after the initial aggressor terminates theirs, but it seems reasonable that the initial aggressor should bear the risk of basically giving the other guy a free war if it turns out they actually want to fight.
|
Disastro
Wrecking Shots
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 02:26:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Darryl Ward
Originally by: Disastro
There are, however, ways to discontinue a war dec against you. If the agressor is not actively pursuing your members you can petition ccp and they have been known to remove nuissance decs where the griefer doesnt actively attack during a period of time.
What sort of time frame are we talking about? A week with no kills? A month?
I've been in a war for over a month now, anyone who would have been a target is not logging in, not undocking, or has quit the corp. Yet the war drags on.
I would think a war without anything killed or lost for a full month would probably be petitionable. At any rate its worth trying. I personally have never needed to petition to get rid of a nuissance dec but i have had someone dec us for a month before with no action. I just never felt the need to do anything about it since we were looking for more targets anyway.
|
Llambda
Space Llama Industries
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 03:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Disastro
I would think a war without anything killed or lost for a full month would probably be petitionable.
It's not. Why would you think that?
Quote: At any rate its worth trying.
Unless you don't like being laughed at for nothing, in which case it probably isn't worth trying.
|
Aggressive Nutmeg
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 03:49:00 -
[46]
Life isn't fair. The universe is neutral towards you. Those with the will to succeed generally do so. Whiners generally fail.
The above is my take on reality.
But let me say this: As a relatively new player, my feeling is that the wardec mechanism is illogical. It seems unrealistic that anyone can get away with murder/harrassment in a 'civilised' part of space by paying a small fee.
Seriously, what is that?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to create safer space. I think it is already safe enough by a fair margin.
But I do want to see realism in EVE. I want to see plausible political and financial systems. I want to see plausible game mechanics - not this current wardec crap.
What's my solution? Well, I'd make wardecs in hisec only by mutual consent. But, before you bite my head off, I think this would need to be done in tandem with other changes:
Maybe hisec is too profitable? What if we put a bigger chunk of the roids, all L4 missions, etc in 0.0? Let hisec stay safe, but make the place poverty-stricken.
You can survive in safe, hisec space but only at a subsistence level.
If you want to be rich, or if you want lots of killmails, you can't do it in hisec.
You need to go make your fortune or your reputation in 0.0.
Does that sound more realistic? It should at least sound familiar. Humans have been hitting frontiers and applying the pioneering spirit in search of wealth/glory throughout history.
|
Roosterton
Internet SpaceCraft Raiding Fleet
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 14:56:00 -
[47]
Quote:
But let me say this: As a relatively new player, my feeling is that the wardec mechanism is illogical. It seems unrealistic that anyone can get away with murder/harrassment in a 'civilised' part of space by paying a small fee.
My guess is that, roleplay wise, it's because capsuleers are the richest of the rich in New Eden. Even to large organizations such as CONCORD, the collective fees they obtain from wardecs are massive amounts to them.
That said, I wouldn't particularly mind this idea either:
Quote: If you want to be rich, or if you want lots of killmails, you can't do it in hisec.
|
Haulie Berry
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 15:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Aggressive Nutmeg
What's my solution? Well, I'd make wardecs in hisec only by mutual consent.
The primary function of a wardec is to provide a means to attack someone in high-sec without their consent. That is its purpose. This isn't a quirky, unforeseen side effect of the mechanic - it is the entire reason for its existence. |
Darryl Ward
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 15:22:00 -
[49]
Eve war is not war, it's just an annoyance. This is CPP's mechanic to prevent Eve becoming like WoW, where everyone pimps out there rides in safety. That's cool and all, but aggressors will often use neutral RR and scouts out the wazzoo giving them a terrible advantage.
Mutual-only wars would mean the only war in Eve will be Red v. Blue.
CCP just needs to give defenders a realistic ability to strike back and fight off an aggressor, or nerf neutral RR / station games. If it did that, then hi sec war might be good for players who are somewhat new, but not brand new, and want to take a stab at PvP.
I really do like the PvP, dog eat dog aspect of Eve. But hi sec war is not that, it's just lame. |
Llambda
Space Llama Industries
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 15:33:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Darryl Ward
CCP just needs to give defenders a realistic ability to strike back and fight off an aggressor, or nerf neutral RR / station games. If it did that, then hi sec war might be good for players who are somewhat new, but not brand new, and want to take a stab at PvP.
There are already means of dealing with an aggressor in-game. Most people opt against using them in favor of whining. |
|
Praedil Menelaos
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 21:53:00 -
[51]
I think these tears are about this:
Quote:
Super Seriously Strong Cheddar Declares War Against Bennett Corp From: CONCORD Sent: 2011.07.04 00:16
Super Seriously Strong Cheddar has declared war on Bennett Corp. Within 24 hours fighting can legally occur between those involved.
I was getting bored of you refusing to undock to fight me with your BS against my BC and was thinking of retracting the war.
Suddenly your tears just made it worth it again. |
Victyrael
PonyWaffe Test Friends Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 21:55:00 -
[52]
:popcorn: |
Disastro
Wrecking Shots
|
Posted - 2011.07.09 01:07:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Disastro on 09/07/2011 01:07:36
Originally by: Llambda
Originally by: Disastro
I would think a war without anything killed or lost for a full month would probably be petitionable.
It's not. Why would you think that?
Quote: At any rate its worth trying.
Unless you don't like being laughed at for nothing, in which case it probably isn't worth trying.
Folks have petitioned about non-prosecuted war decs successfully before. that is why i would think that. And the ccp rep answering the petition isnt likely to be laughing at a player who files a petition. the worst he is going to do is say no we are not intervening. I have no idea what the minimum criteria is for ccp to decide that a war dec is just for harassment and not for actual fighting. I would think that a month with no kills on either side would probably be a good indication that there isnt going to be any actual prosecution of the war. |
Llambda
Space Llama Industries
|
Posted - 2011.07.09 02:14:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Disastro Edited by: Disastro on 09/07/2011 01:07:36
Originally by: Llambda
Originally by: Disastro
I would think a war without anything killed or lost for a full month would probably be petitionable.
It's not. Why would you think that?
Quote: At any rate its worth trying.
Unless you don't like being laughed at for nothing, in which case it probably isn't worth trying.
Folks have petitioned about non-prosecuted war decs successfully before. that is why i would think that. And the ccp rep answering the petition isnt likely to be laughing at a player who files a petition. the worst he is going to do is say no we are not intervening. I have no idea what the minimum criteria is for ccp to decide that a war dec is just for harassment and not for actual fighting. I would think that a month with no kills on either side would probably be a good indication that there isnt going to be any actual prosecution of the war.
I strongly suspect you misread or misunderstood something. There are means in-game to escape a wardec if you're butthurt about it. |
Tim Steakley
|
Posted - 2011.07.09 20:22:00 -
[55]
I think the OP is relying a little too heavily on a baseline 19th/mid 20th century notion of "war" to define his concept. Namely the intent to form a clear military force for the purpose of destroying another military force, at which point the loser concedes land/resources/idealogical concerns/what have you.Relying on this definition is pigeonholing his view of what a "war-dec" should be.
Just like the real world circa the 21st century, warfare in Eve consists entirely of using available means to achieve an effect on the enemy, and either entirely prevent him from affecting your goal OR make him think it is unfeasible economically/politically/socially/militarily to attempt to affect your goal. In this more modern context a "war dec" is simply another tool to be used to that end.
Don't think "oh, we're at war because there's a war-dec out, and therefore we should have game mechanics making war conform to my vision of what a proper war is" think "we're at war because we decided to resort to force to achieve our goal." Because thats really the definition eve-wise. Even if your goal is just to get an easy kill mail.
The rest of the mechanics are up to you. What level of effort and resources will you put into that goal? Because you CAN "make them go away from an area" even in his...you just need to make it so expensive or so boring that they leave. It just takes a lot resources, a lot of time and a lot of people willing to blockade stations. Similiarly, a hi-sec war can "make them give something" by virtue of negotiation, but it has to be in they're best interests to give you stuff. Which in turn means you need the resources and dedication to keep them not missioning, not mining, not reseraching in their shiny burning PoS, etc to make it cheaper for them to give you the concession than to sit in station all day.
WHile the agressor is tactically capable of achieving great advantages, the defender has every strategic advantage in hi sec...the agressor needs to constantly deploy resources to affect him, whether through patrolling, raiding, or blockading. The defender just needs to be willing to avoid those resources, and he has achieved his goal.
If the OP is looking for a more linear battlefield, 0.0 falls into the more traditional font: you can take and hold ground. There is usally a "front line" and a "rear area". People try to achieve decisive battles. It is possible to completely control access to and from an area using force alone. Even without a "war dec", this porbably coincides much more cleanly with the OPs concept of what a war should be.
Of course, in a serious 0.0 war, there's liekly to be a "war dec (or several against any known indy/research corps)" just to prevent the enemy from taking refuge in high sec. Every time he has to light the cynos rather than just drive his ship out is one more time he's burning time, money, and the ever essential MMO resource "willingness to do boring stuff." Every time he blows up in Jita when he was looking for a skill book...you get the idea. In which case, despite being a high sec tool, it is causing those very effects he was talking about - in 0.0.
0.0 tends to naturally fall along what we think of as linear warfare, because there's usually some sort of front-linish area. |
Craig Bennett2th
Gallente Bennett Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.10 03:40:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Craig Bennett2th on 10/07/2011 04:49:42
Originally by: Tim Steakley ....
I kinda find it odd that you don't have a pic while everyone else does. That means 1 of 3 things. 1 your a GM or work in CCP which is cool because that means you guys pay some attention to the post and I hope you guys reflect on it. 2 you hadn't play in a really really long time now so personally whatever you said is half way invalid automatically. or 3 you are awesome and you found a way to not have your pic up and if this is the case please share.
____________________________________________________
Anyways I counted 12 original post (post that is a reply to the first message and post that isn't a reply at all) that war is a joke and this part of the game is a problem.
There is only 17 original post including yours Tim. So that means about 71% of this is for topic is for change on the war system.
All the other 38 post was a reply of a reply so they were not reply back to the original post or adding to it.
____________________________________________________
From reading in the 12 post, most of the people including myself have a problem with the cost. However, post 47 try to justify this as RPG saying we are like billionaires compare to people who don't fly a ship. For myself I personally don't give a crap about fake people who don't fly fake ships since real people flying fake ships is being war dec and not them. On top of that there is NO interactions with them besides the hookers you pick up and the agents. You, Tim Steakley post 55 try to justify the word war is change or lost. If I'm wrong please reword what you said because it appears that way to me and others may run into the same problem. But if the word has change then 1 I think that was a bad move on CCP end giving the word hasn't change since man first has its war. 2 if you don't point blank tell someone that then they won't know so again that is a bad move on CCP. If its in the back story then please post a link but I could not find where it said anything like that about war. But, I did say this is kinda war on post 23 so that means other people have a problem with war or just want to keep crying and *****ing at people for "crying" while they cry.
But I am glade this is still going on because I just thought of something. War is made between 2 things while in this game you only need 1 corp to OK the war. Like in the real world one side can say we are at war and the other says we aren't then the one side that is at "war" with the other is really at a opposition with the other and not war.
The other problems that was said about the war system that I have the same problem with is war can be used as a tool of harassment. Personally I had a problem where a person will keep making an all and keep making new corps which war dec me and example of that is I got 2 war decs from 1 guy. (that's not why I made this post, I had problems with the war system long before someone left the uni and started messing with others that left the uni for no reason.) I looked this up for when it gets to the level that most will say it is harassment, and in most countries, this is look at as cyber bulling which is against the law in some countries and can possibly cause money issues between players since CCP doesn't let the person being attack surrender without the other person being there. I could be highly wrong about this but this is what several lawyers said. I had to look this up because I had wittiness to them brag about messing with me for some time now but nothing is going to come of this since I'm leaving this game for now do to it being redundant TO ME and I think it could become fun again if some time go by before I play it and got burn out on it.
Which brings me to my other problem that I have with it is you can't surrender without the other corp being in station with you. So it is possible for the CEO of the one corp to only come on to renew the war.
|
Brycesv1
Caldari Elko Bail Bonds Lonely Maple Conglomeration
|
Posted - 2011.07.10 23:28:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Brycesv1 on 10/07/2011 23:31:10 nvm
------------------------------------------------- There once was a man from Nantucket. Who tried to build a good ship but said "**** it". He grabbed his glue and his duct tape too. And thats why th |
Puss in Boots
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:12:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Miss Rabblt Edited by: Miss Rabblt on 05/07/2011 08:50:35 Edited by: Miss Rabblt on 05/07/2011 08:50:10
HIGH SEC is meant "safe" to players who isn't interested in any kind of pvp. That's why CONCORD. That's why no sov. Wars in high-sec is a joke. It is like training before real deal. You want to shoot someone? You have low-sec, 0.0, wormholes. You want to play casual style? Ok. High-sec is for you.
No. High sec is not safe. If someone wants your stuff, they will do what is required to take it. Concord is not there to protect you, they are there to punish the one who attacked you. And your hair is horrible.
|
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army B A N E
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:19:00 -
[59]
More whining....
|
Alsione Ailermane
Amarr Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 23:16:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Jude Lloyd More whining....
War.
War never changes.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |