|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
57
   |
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...
Will solve *most* problems.
Because theres only ONE right way to play a sandbox game .....................
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.
No.
It means you should be able to mine and mission run.
It means someone else should be able to interfere.
You can do both with current mechanics
You can do both with proposed Winter Changes
The OP is proposing that the sandbox to be changed into a themepark.
The OP is stipulating that if you aren't playing the game his way, your doing it wrong.
ps
To the clueless moron that automatically assumed I'm an Empire Carebear
Locator Agent |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:So you're saying risk is bad for successful players in high-sec?
Because Value = Demand / Supply, it seems that inherent risk is healthy for the game's economy.
It's elementary mathematics.
No.
I'm saying that the PvE playstyle is no less valid than a PvP playstyle
A sandbox game should allow for both.
Let me make this totally, absolutely clear. I am NOT advocating 100% safe PvE, because that is themepark gaming, and some people just seem to be incapable of differentiating between the 2 statements.
I will argue against requests for 100% safe PvE as much as I do against ideas such as this one
Each idea tries to push the game away from the sandbox ideal towards a more generic locked in themepark style.
Aren't the really succesful highsec players, the traders ??? with market-pvp risking thier billions of ISK on market trends and speculations. So, no, risk is actually good for them, it seems to spur them on. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be destroyed in hisec" is not true?
It can neither be proven, nor disproven.
As far as I am aware CCP are the only people that have full 100% access to all killmails.
And they don't seem to be in any hurry to make all that information public.
Eve-kill, battleclinic & griefwatch all operate on an opt-in basis, and as not everyone opts in they do not have 100% of the information.
All you can say with any certainty is that either scenario is statistically probable, which means practically nothing in the real world.
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.
That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.
So newbies should only be in 1.0 systems then ??
Because with advocted change to belts rats, they would get butt f***ed (without lube), and then most likely uninstall the game permanantly. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
I fixed this, because the point has always been about profit.
Fix it properly ..
with the correct POSTER name. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella it's obviously quite clear it's a very long time since you were completely new in eve.
Eve, by it's design, is a massively complex game
You do not get to understand eve in 5 hours
You do not to 'rush' end content in a few weeks
There is so much content available it can take a week just to discover what most of your options are.
Clones, Skilltraining , Fitting Skills , Core Skills and Tanking Styles are just some of the basics that you take for granted as 'given knowledge' ... but how long did it take you to aquire that 'given knowledge'. was it weeks or months ... when did you STOP learning.
You cannot detrimently affect the completely new players to the game, just because you dont like how some people continue to play after several months or even years in some cases.
New players are potentially, the future bittervets of a few years down the line, but not if hisec is changed to exclude them from 90% of it. They simply will not stay in the game, new players are needed and your a fool if you think otherwise.
CCP realise that people need time to get to grips with the game, thats why there is a blanket ban on griefplay ONLY in starter systems ... because if you grief them within their first f ew hours (and there are braindead retards in this game that would) they will quit, and it is not hand holding. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 16:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Shizuken wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Shizuken wrote:I am all for creating a natural risk/reward system. That however would go beyond these suggestions. I would like to see local chat go bye bye. I would also agree with destructible containers. I would also though favor increased penalties from suicidal behavior and criminal acts. Those penalties for "suicidal behavior" have been put in, are being put in, and probably will continue to be put in far into the future.  I have to wonder why players seem to want their risk in the form of canned NPC-generated risk and not player-generated risk, though. Players are more effective at providing legitimate risk than NPCs will ever be. Suicide is not the only source of player created risk. I have nothing against player generated risk in general, but highsec should not be just some shooting gallery wherein a whole class of players become serfs to a ruling elite of antisocials. If you want to kill people either declare war or prey on people in null. Suicide should not be so lucrative that players exploit clones to take rampaging advantage of other players. Suicide should always be an option, but it should not be widely profitable. So you are all for creating a risk vs. reward system where any playstyle goes except the one miners have consistently refused to adapt against. Fair enough. An opinion is an opinion. No, my position is part of a larger plan. I dont really think highsec mining should exist in the form it currently does either. I would make several changes to it such that it would no longer resemble the communist paradise it currently is. And you forgot above that I wanted to remove the crutch of local chat. That alone would add significant risk from players without aggressors being able to readily resort to suicide.
You do realise mining of anysort (hisec, losec, nulsec, moon) is not an ISK-Faucet
Belt mining is infact an ISK-Sink due to refining and market order costs.
The only time a miner actually, actively, generates any ISK into the economy, is if he kills the belts rats that spawn. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
Guess what......not EVERYONE in Eve wants to live in 0.0. SURPRISE!
Perfectly fine but their reward should not be equal to mine out in nullsec.
It's not
The highsec miner has no access to
Arknor
Bistot
Crokite
Mercoxit
If the Highsec Miner is part of a playercorp, he has no access to Moon Materials.
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Guess what......not EVERYONE in Eve wants to live in 0.0. SURPRISE!
Perfectly fine but their reward should not be equal to mine out in nullsec.
It's not The highsec miner has no access to Arknor Bistot Crokite Mercoxit If the Highsec Miner is part of a playercorp, he has no access to Moon Materials. Your point is accepted. Now why would you want to drive down the prices of commodities which are available in high-sec on a macroeconomical scale by removing any risk?
why are you so determined in removing, or limiting the effectiveness an ISK sink ? |
|
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Theres plenty of risk in hisec
You can be wardecced
You can be ganked
You can get a socket error mid-mission
all working as intended.
edit
cept the last one, i doubt ccp do that deliberately ... |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
he missed/ignored the edit comment at bottom re socket errors
and Darth has still not answered my earlier question re hisec mining
why are you so determined to restrict and/or remove an isk-sink ? |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 22:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Hecate Shaw wrote:
The question is, who exactly thinks the "risk/reward balance" is not in balance? Think of it this way: risk isn't the only factor to be considered in highsec, especially in mining. Miners pay a huge price in sheer boredom. Factor that in and I'd say mining is pretty much in balance. I'm all for anything new that would make mining more interactive, but not turning unarmed ships into sitting duck targets again. Making all belts scan sites, changing the mechanic to make it more interactive, anything but making barges dodge suicide attackers they have no real defense against.
People who have experienced more of the game than just highsec. The boredom part of mining I agree it is a poorly designed profession that should be revised. Okay you enter dumb territory where you state that they have no real defense against ganking. Since when is being attentive and tanking your ship not a defense against ganking?
cpl of serious Q's for you
Before the bargechange
1a) What ship & Fittings did you use to gank a hulk
1b What were the common fittings used on those hulks according to your killmails
1c) what was the total cost of your ship + fittings
1d) what was the total cost of the hulk + fittings according to your killmails
Since the bargechange
2a) What ship & Fittings do you use to gank a mackinaw
2b What are the common fittings used on those mackinaws according to your killmails
2c) what was the total cost of your ship + fittings
2d) what was the total cost of the mackinaw + fittings according to your killmails
The pre/post buff change in exhumer is based on each ship being the 'mining ship of choice' before or after the change to the hulls
thankyou.
ps
if you are unable OR unwilling to supply the requested information, i would welcome those answers from any other gank proponent in this thread, or from any miner that has been a victim and can supply this information.
once again, cheers |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 16:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:It costs the miner nothing to mine asteroids/ice.
By your own argument, it follows that the below statements equally apply
It costs the Mission runner nothing to run missions
It costs the Nulsec Belt Ratter nothing to clear belts
It costs Explorers nothing to salvage/hack or gas/oremine
It costs FW pilots nothing to plex
It costs Incursion runners nothing to deal with sansha hoards
|
|
|
| |
|