|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 72 post(s) |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
57
   |
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Most of this sound really good. I've actually been waiting for these changes since I started playing this game. In general is sounds like a huge step in the right direction.
However eliminating all current bounties seems like a very poor decision. People paid those amounts out of their wallets and now you guys are just going to steal that isk from the game? And I don't use the word steal lightly here. You guys sell PLEX for real life money and the isk made from selling that PLEX can be used for anything in game including placing bounties. When isk is removed from the game it reduces the total isk pool and therefore has an upward effect on prices. Meaning more PLEXs have to be purchased to buy the same stuff. So that aspect of this change seems very shady at best and bordering on criminal.
As far as the bounty only paying out 20% of the ship value I'm not sure why you went so low? I mean anything below full payout will prevent players from cashing in on their own bounties with alts. What the 20% does is make it so that no matter how big of a bounty you put on someone it will almost never be cost effective to gank someone for their bounty. In low sec and null sec the people that like to shoot at other people do, up till now the people that don't like to shoot at other people had no way to deal with this. It would seem bounties should be something to balance things.
what I mean is someone running around low or null sec is likely to get shot at by the people that will shoot at them and not by those that won't and a bounty likely won't change that. I doubt a bounty would make someone shoot at a "blue" and not having a bounty will not stop someone from shooting at a "red" or "neut".
To me it would seem that they way bounties can bring some balance is when someone can put a bounty high enough on a player to make them afraid to travel without much caution in high sec. I realize that the transferable kill rights is intended to help with that but what if you want to put a bounty on someone that has never killed another player like a jita scammer for example.
Again aside from stealing the current bounties most of these changes seem like a real good start but I think there is room between what you proposed and ideal. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I'm not against an increase in risk for gankers or criminals. I'm against a decrease in risk for miners, mission runners, incursion runners, freighter alts, and the like. That's what this mechanic accomplishes, albeit indirectly.
This bounty and transferable kill rights does absolutely nothing to change risk for anyone. All rules that affect risk remain unchanged. The only risk that you could say is being affected is the risk of an actual consequence. There are no changes here that make it any harder or riskier for gankers or criminals nor easier for missioner or miners. The only thing that changes is that if you are they type of person that likes to shoot at people that typically don't shoot back they now have a way to pay other's to do it for them .
Up until now there has been a very extreme unbalance in the game mechanics. This unbalance is that in high sec criminals and griefers have all the advantages of game mechanics to protect them to hunt freely until such a time as they find a suitable victim and up to this point there is nothing the victimized player could do about it. It was totally onesided. A ganker for example can sit on a gate with 6 of his friends and gank all week long and as long as they only shoot at pilots that can only fly industrial type ships like freighters and barges then there was nothing the industrial toons could do about it.
I understand that you are upset that a mechanic that has given an extremely unbalanced advantage to a playstyle that you like is being brought closer to balance will make things less easy for you. But this is not making life in high sec safer for anyone it's just bringing consequence to actions.
I think this will encourage more actual PvP ( meaning PvP fit ships with guns fighting other PvP fit ships with guns ) to high sec which I think is what everyone wants or at least what most interested parties would like to see.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
This is all perfectly, fine, but it will upset carebears, and CCP will respond. Carebears are naturally quite stupid, and CCP has determined it is their job to protect them.
I'm not realy sure how anyone could say this. The first 9 years of this game have been very anti carebear. The HTFU video just put music to a slogan that CCP had going long before then . I agree that this coming expansion sounds like it will be carebear friendly but I think it is much need to bring balance to the game.
I can agree that carbears need to have risk but so do gankers and criminals and currently they don't.
With the current game mechanic criminal types can roam high sec or gate camp high sec freely with all the benefits of concord protection. Since they plan on loosing their ship to concord anyway they will be in cheap ships that they intend to loose and will be a gank magnet to one one. They can chose to engage or not on their own terms full protected by concord and at no risk to themselves. They can do this repeatedly until they get -5 sec status and then have to go to low or null and belt rat a bit until standings improve. All combat occurs on his terms when he chooses and thanks to the protection of concord.
On the flip side carebears have to fly around in expensive ships typically ( and example would be what hulks cost and how easy they were to gank until the recent barge changes ) and have to fly around paranoid like a schizophrenic 23/7 and risk his expensive: barges, freighters, faction or T2 mission boats etc. As things are now one player with no skills can war dec an incursion corp and not even log in all week but still prevent them from running incursions unless they can get a full corp group because no one will want war deced players in fleet.
I agree this game needs and is intended to have risk. But that goes for everyone. Not to mention that if CCP keeps encouraging pirate type game play because it gets lots of press out of game then soon everyone will be a pirate and there will be no carebars left to shoot at. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:
Actually two questions: will a kill-right be expended when the target is ship-killed or only when pod-killed?
This was covered in the blog. You must have read too fast.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:
On one side it's a nerf against all the cowards,
on the other side nobody seems to think of the noobs.
Noobs are totally discouraged to steal cans to make money,
but instead get pushed into carebear activities.
This is a very interesting perspective. However I think having a reasonably safe place for noobs is important. There is a huge learning curve in this game and I think often vets forget about that. Many new players come into this game and wind up victims of game mechanics that there is no way they can be expected to fully understand. further they have no recourse currently or I should say nothing that they can do given their current understanding and in some cases skills to bring a sense of active participation to the situation.
The bounty system and transferable kill rights goes a long way to change that. At least now you can earn enough isk to pay someone to handle a situation that you have no way of handling yourself given your current skills and knowledge of the game.
I like the progression of PvP into low and null sec. I think luring people into low sec and null with increased incentives is a much better way to encourage that progression than forcing people into it in high sec.
You have to understand very few people enjoy feeling like a powerless victim. If we insist on maintaining a game mechanic that provides easy prey for the few that like to enforce their will on the powerless then we will continue to have a very high washout rate in this game.
I fail to see how discouraging noobs from stealing cans to make isk in high sec is a bad thing? Would it not be better to incentivize more people to mission in low and null so that players that would previously can flip in high sec would now hunt missioners?
What I think many people are failing to see is that gankers, griefers and can flippers benefit more from concord protection than anyone else. The risk reward thing needs to work on both ends of the scale. So instead of bringing more victimization to high sec why not bring more carebears to low/null ?
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Bounty payouts can be adjusted up a bit by how highly ranked the person is on the bounty board... and you also have to be aware that module and loot drops that will be picked up also affect (in addition to insurance payout) how profitable the system would be.
those are very good points that I missed.
Ranger 1 wrote:As for "stealing" the current bounties... really?  You realize ISK is not your, and never is yours. The moment you spend your money and convert it to ISK it becomes an in game asset that you do not personally own. It belongs to CCP. They let you use it to play the game, or take it away as they see fit. If you don't get that, you need to adjust your thinking a bit.
I do understand the legal justifications. But legal and illegal having nothing to do with right and wrong nor functional and not functional. I'm not saying you have to see things my way so please don't tell me that I must seeing things your way.
CCP controls all the rules around in game isk. That gives them complete control over it. When the game is strictly sold as a pay over time thing where you give them a set amount of money at set intervals then your comment has more validity. When a mechanic is introduced to buy game money with real money then the line becomes blurred.
It's like designing a product to fail just outside of warranty so that you can sell the product more often. There is nothing illegal about it but it is certainly corrupt.
There is a conflict of interests there. You have to understand that just like we work within the rules of the game to try and benefit ourselves to the highest degree so does CCP work with in the rules of the corporate world to benefit themselves the most. I'm not saying that is bad or wrong I'm just saying that when dealing with people you can better influence how they will act by monitoring their incentives than by trying to argue them to your point of view.
Put into the context of this game that means you can have a greater effect on game design by insisting on certain profit motives than you can on arguing on the forums about game mechanics.
I would rather see it where CCP's main profit motive is to bring more people into the game than to sell more virtual goods to their players. In recent years CCP has moved more and more towards selling virtual goods to people for real life money. I understand that there are many games out there that do it. I understand that I can choose to play this game or not. This is a dev blog and that comment was geared towards the Devs not other players.
I am in so many words telling the Devs that if they continue to turn this game into a marketing opportunity to sell me fake **** I will find something else to do with my free time.
I'm old enough to remember when cable TV first came out. Initially I thought it was a great idea. You pay money every month to watch TV which you used to get for free but the benefit was since you payed monthly you did not have to watch commercials. A lot of people at the time liked the idea of paying so as not to watch commercials as well and cable TV grew to the point where commercial TV was being threatened to go way because so many people were willing to pay to not watch them . It was at this point that commercials started appearing on Cable TV as well as the main networks now being on cable.
I for one got sick of paying over $100 dollars per month for commercial TV and have not had a TV in my home in over 10 years now. I left WoW when they started selling virtual goods and I'm coming close to leaving this due to marketing of virtual goods to me inside a game that I pay a monthly fee to play.
If you like being marketed to in game then contiue to do so. That comment was not directed at you but at the Devs.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:As for "stealing" the current bounties... really?
I just looked in the bounty office. There is someone with a 218 Billion isk bounty currently. At 500 million per PLEX that is about 436 PLEX removed from the game or $8,720 USD worth of PLEX removed from a quick change of code. If you fail to see how that can be considered corrupt then I guess you and I just aren't on the same page and will have to agree to disagree.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 19:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:hey I already told you I'm not a game designer, I don't know why you care so much about my opinion on it  but I like that you're a nice guy and help new players, it's really cute :3
Alexander, dude I'm sorry man it sounds like Punkturis just put you in the friends zone. 
|
|
|
| |
|