|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
777
   |
Posted - 2013.02.14 03:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
the fact is that suicide ganks are cheap and easy to set up nowadays. A fleet of some thirty or so Thrashers will happily mince most sub-capital targets.
and let's face it, this event was advertised well in advance by the news story. there was plenty of time to get a gank organised.
That's not "player actions having consequences" that's basically just trolling. The goons didn't have an in-character reason for being there, their presence was purely a case of wanting to **** with somebody else's playstyle.
CCP shoved a rock in their sandcastle and now the goons are whining about stubbing their toe when they went to kick it over.
Deal with it.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
785
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 03:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
I wasn't aware the Goons are a roleplaying alliance.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
788
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 04:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
So your reasons for trying to kill the TTI was because OOC you wanted to kill the TTI, and your whole pro-slavery thing from earlier is just the excuse you came up with to try and justify the action IC.
That would seem to validate my whole sandcastle thing.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
805
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 11:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roleplaying, live events and the story are part of the sandbox too and I'm actually very glad to see that this is one area where the Goons aren't free to use it as a litter tray.
In other games, we have cutscenes. Moments where the player's control is taken away from them for the sake of the story. Often, the player's superpowered ability to do stuff goes away too.
I recently played a quest in Skyrim where you walk through a door, get hit with a paralysis poison, fall down and have to watch two people talk before one of them stabs you. At any other occasion in the game, you would tear both these individuals to shreds. At pretty much every other juncture in the game you're free to react more or less as you wish, though the game does flag some enemies as unkillable just for the sake of not allowing the player to break the game by killing off a critical quest-giver or something.
Now, EVE is a sandbox sure. We're not used to that sort of mentality in this game. But the thing to remember about these live events is that the actors are not player characters, for all that a person may be controlling them. Last night, the NPCs had that special "unkillable so troll players can't screw up the story" flag.
Maybe the solution is to have a "Buddha" code like exists in Half-Life 2, where the game will allow you to be reduced to 1 hit point but no further. Maybe 50% structure or something. A flag grantable only by GM or dev command where the target player cannot be reduced below 42% structure for 20 minutes or something. with that system in place, you've still got the rock in your sandcastle, but it doesn't break the immersion quite so much and paves the way for the delegate to arrive shaken and maybe a little injured, but alive. Then the Goons would have been left with an "aargh, so close" feeling and an influence on the story, without turning the live event into a killmail dispenser.
Ultimately though I think the Goons just got a bloody nose for wanting to crap on the event, and rightly so. Whatever RP justification they dig up after the fact to justify it is irrelevant.
Laerise wrote:So what you're saying is this:
"The minmatar got god moded, now everyone else will get shafted."
Well done CCP Falcon and events crew. Once again the minis get a "great" event with no tangible way to influence it and without any negative consequences.
I doubt you'd be complaining if the Royal Heirs had been flying to Amarr to meet with the Empress and the Impocs were fitted with QA armor plates.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
817
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alizabeth Vea wrote:What you want is your own portion of the sandbox to be walled off and protected from Goons. That, per se, is breaking the sand box. I shudder to think of your vision of Eve. If CVA is holding some event, should they get CCP protection so that 'Goons with no valid RP reason-they just want to kill them" can't attack? I don't have to have an RP reason to do something in this game. Wanting to see forum tears and a TTI blown to bits is perfectly valid. As valid as any RP reason to protect them.
Everyone in the RP community, it seems, is celebrating "Goon Fail to Gank '13" that they fail to see the broader picture. CCP, I'm glad to say, has seen the broader picture.
If that's what you think I'm saying, then you're completely failing to see my point, which is that by its nature this particular event was NOT sandbox.
Look, the Goons for the most part have their section of the sandbox that they claim, and all the people who are interested in sharing that section with them have (or at least think they have) the resources to meet Goonswarm on their own terms. If the Goons want their space, then the owners of that space typically have the ships, numbers and muscle to stage a defence. If they get involved in a market war, then the other side typically has the cash to step up and match them.
If a player freighter gets suicide-ganked, it's not really an issue. Their fault for not taking the appropriate precautions.
If the entire point of the live event is for a character to publicly travel from point A to point B along a specific route in a nice ship, and this fact is advertised a day in advance, and if they will do so no matter what, then no such precautions are possible. In the sandbox, the freighter op can be rescheduled, the scout can warn the freighter not to jump in and it can dock up instead. The NPC was going to go through that gate come hell or high water, even in circumstances where a player in the usual sandbox context of the game would be like "to hell with that."
In that context, if anybody - goons, a militia corp, anybody - decide they want to play silly burgers with the event by throwing a suicide gank at it, then all the people who go along to "escort" the NPC have no say in the matter. They can't prepare, they can't defend, they can't counter. The mechanics of highsec and the fact that this is a live event place the whole operation outside of the usual sandbox framework.
In the sandbox, if you fail to defend against something that's your own fault for not being prepared for it, or for allowing the information to leak or whatever. In yesterday's live event, there was literally nothing that the players could have done to counter your gank attempt. We don't have the means to take damage on the target ship's behalf, or to give them any kind of a significant HP buff, or render it impossible to lock until the ship with the anti-lock module has been destroyed.
There was an asymmetry of capability in that scenario. One side was capable of influencing the outcome by ganking the target ship, the other side was incapable of stopping them. What using the QA module did was resolve that asymmetry by making both sides equally powerless, which restored us to a kind of sandbox-ish scenario where everyone's powers were limited, but they were still capable of acting and influencing things outside of those restrictions.
Other live events have not been so asymmetrical. Take the Combined Harvest jump freighter op - either side could have "won" there. if I'd placed the Cyno somewhere stupid, the freighters could have been blown up. If Snuffbox had blown me up before I could light the Cyno, then the freighters would have had to slog it through lowsec, becoming much more vulnerable.
Live Events need to have equal opportunity for success or failure for both sides. If it's simply impossible for one side to adequately counter the other in any realistic way, then the fairest thing to do is to force everyone onto a level playing field even if that means introducing restrictions that don't otherwise exist in EVE.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
820
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
I take it you didn't read my most recent post then? The one in which I explained why this particular live event (not all, just this one) fell outside the usual sandbox bounds?
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
820
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Read it and decide for yourself.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
820
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
If you've got a means of making an event where a high-ranking delegate parades in a shiny ship from A to B at a specific time and place and still make it sandbox, share it.
One live event which bucks the trend doesn't threaten the entire nature of the game, folks. Try and retain some perspective.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
828
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Your point is valid to degree but EVE is about player created content. Live events happen all the time at the players own creation if they actually want them, but they form part of that content, in this case the players wanted a scripted event like a mission or single player game.
This wasn't a player-requested live event, it was a Minmatar story arc "cutscene" live event.
Quote:Why play an MMO but want fair scripted events?
In case you hadn't noticed, EVE is fair. Everyone has the same tools to play with. The ships are (mostly) balanced, the available intel is identical, the players are on a broadly even footing. It may not seem fair to get suicide ganked in your freighter, or whatever, but that's just butthurt-ness. Ultimately, the blame for getting blown up lies with the player who didn't scout, and loaded up their ship with too much value.
This live event was an exception. It introduced what I earlier called an asymmetry of capability that doesn't otherwise exist. As I've argued, the QA module just restored the balance, by removing some freedom of action very temporarily and in that one specific context.
Quote:The ridiculous thing is the objective of this live event is what happens in wars every day,
I wasn't aware that politicians being shot at in their nation's capital city is an everyday event in the real world.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
832
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Don't reimburse them. They made a stupid decision, and they should have to live with the consequences. You don't see me crying to get Stitcher's Falcon reimbursed because he lost it in a live event (in significantly less stupid circumstances).
The difference being, I didn't attack a ship in the reasonable belief that it would be fitted with ordinary modules only to find it was instead slathered in QA modules.
If the Goons had known that those QA shield extenders were on there, they'd very likely not have attacked. I think the idea to reimburse is the correct one. If they'd known and attacked anyway, then I'd think reimbursment was inappropriate but in this case it seems only fair to me.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
834
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Not so sure about permanence. one of the themes of EVE is corruption and being willing to cut deals with the metaphorical devil, after all. a few bribes here and there, some hard graft to show willing and even the most rustled of jimmies can be soothed.
Besides, you have to consider the newcomers. Give it a month after the event, there'll be new players joining the alliance only to be all like "WTF I JUST UNDOKED ADN THE NAVY SHOOT ME!?" in alliance chat. That's not a good new player experience.
Penalize the participants by all means, but not the whole alliance. That's like court-marshalling a general for a corporal's transgressions.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
834
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Us changing the pre-established rules isn't a sandbox response, it's us changing the rules. If we were to do something like that, it would be well communicated beforehand. See CSM Live Event minutes on the topic of NPCs at gates for instance. The entire root of this thread is that we "broke the rules" (fudged, but you get the idea) of the game for this event.
Maybe you should tag new stories announcing these sorts of events in some way then? A "see here for more details" link to a post in a sticky thread detailing such rule "settings" that the players might want/need to know?
If it had been known beforehand that the TTIs would be fitting QA shield extenders, then while I'm certain it would still have resulted in some grumbling, people would have been forewarned and things wouldn't have blown up quite as much as they seem to.
So, supposing a Federation senator were to tour a few systems in a few weeks' time without the devhax modules. You could announce that this will be a "failable" live event for the defenders, in that the senator's ship can be destroyed, but warn any would-be attackers that everyone on the killmail is looking at losing a lot of Gallente standing.
That way, everyone knows what's up before the event begins, and has no grounds for complaint when things don't go in the way they expect.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
836
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Yeah, it's a solution, but I wouldn't want to classify events as "failable" or such. Much better is having multiple endings, like a choose your own adventure book!
"The senator's Deimos is torn in two by a massive explosion as the hostile ships sweep onto the field in a flurry of gunfire. If you have salvage drones, turn to page 112. If not, turn to page 300."
Like it :D
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
837
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
awesome as that would be, it sounds rather labour-intensive for something very situational.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
837
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:3) A flag for actor players that sets the drop rate to 0% for ship loss. If no modules drop, you can fit anything. (Wouldn't Republic Fleet ships be fully fit with Republic Fleet gear?).
+1. And like I said earlier maybe a "vital" flag that prevents a ship from dropping below a certain % structure HP. Between them, these two would create ships that don't look impossibly hardcore, can be fit with setting-appropriate modules, and don't run the risk of adding any value to the player market. That same "no drops" flag could also be used to prevent the wreck from producing any loot.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
839
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
One person could make a valid case for having an in-character reason for being there.
What about the other thirty-eight?
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
839
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Samira Kernher wrote:There are ways to ensure the survival of actor NPCs, without simply making them invincible.
Such as?
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
842
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:You change the question from "how do you prevent suicide gank fleet F from blowing up ship A" to "how do we get ship A there without getting suicide ganked", "what do we do if ship A gets suicide ganked" and "if we can't find an answer to those questions, how do we get the same effect with a different method"
Option 1: in which case it's no longer following D. I thought the point of this event was that it was exactly what I just described: a ceremonial procession from B to C through D, with no deviations?
Option 2: For the escorts, that scenario constitutes mission failure, and as such was our "we want to avoid this scenario at all costs".
3: That's the trick, isn't it?
As I've been saying, it was the nature of this event that made that QA module necessary. literally the only option available to the escorts was to tag along and watch, being effectively superfluous to requirements. It was fun RP, but our actual usefulness or influence over the outcome was nil. We couldn't really persuade the delegates to re-ship, take an alternative route, jump at the first sign of trouble or anything.
Adding the QA shield extender put the Goons in exactly the same boat the escorts were in - unable to influence the event in any serious "make your own adventure book" kind of way. We could say stuff and watch the explosions and that was about it.
Now, I personally don't mind that so long as we know in advance that the event is a "cutscene" rather than being fully interactive. But if we can keep such cutscene events to a minimum, that would be much appreciated I think.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
847
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Stitcher wrote:One person could make a valid case for having an in-character reason for being there.
What about the other thirty-eight? Are you saying that players need to submit their roleplay credentials in advance before showing up in a system where story arcs may be happening? If a ship is getting ganked, are you going to have CCP read the resumes of every player attacking and determine who has a legitimate roleplay reason to be firing? Implement 100% TiDi so they can read the CVs and conduct interviews with every participant? You are being silly.
Once again, my failure to use a little yellow to face to indicate my not-quite-total-seriousness gets me into trouble...
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
847
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Samira Kernher wrote:Hoshi Takasu wrote:Samira Kernher wrote:There are ways to ensure the survival of actor NPCs, without simply making them invincible. Name one. I already did. As have other people. As have CCP.
Both suggestions boil down to "hold a completely different event".
Which, you know, on your side, but the question is, what could the escort players have done in the specific scenario we were presented with to prevent the big shiny actor ship from exploding, and the answer is.... well... Nothing. The way the event was constructed put the question of whether or not the actor's ship would survive completely out of our hands.
The addition of the QA module put it out of everyone else's hands too. If the goons had successfully blown up the actor, I would have raised my concerns about one side's effective uselessness with Falcon, but as it turned out everybody was on a level playing field, we just lacked some information regarding how much our actions could influence the event.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
848
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Like I said: I'm fine with the idea of an event being a "cutscene" where the outcome is less malleable. I just want to know ahead of time if what we're turning up to is such an event.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
855
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 22:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:~Elite RPGer~ attitudes should be treated with the same derision as ~Elite PVPer~ attitudes are.
Damn it all, now I'm agreeing with a Goon. What's the world come to?
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
861
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Just an observation for the chap who was suggesting that Falcon should run a game of DnD around the office or something: I've been GMing assorted RPGs for ten years now. DnD, Shadowrun, Rogue Trader, Lord of the Rings RPG, some GURPS, even BESM.
In all that time, I've had a pact with my players - they're absolutely fine with me giving them no opportunity to interrupt events provided I tell them before hand that we're going into "cutscene mode".
I try not to use this technique very often - maybe once every five sessions or so? - but I'm yet to receive any complaints about it because the guys know that we're trying to tell a story here and that there are some cases where if I allow them to whip out their arrow of black holes +10,000 and shoot the BBEG before he can escape through the portal or whatever, then it'll result in an anticlimax. Star Wars would have been a very different series if the storm troopers had shot the droids' escape pod.
You're not going to please 100% of everybody 100% of the time, but what you can do is keep them in the loop. I don't think the solution here is some kind of remote buff module (and in any case like I said, If those kinds of things do ever end up in the game then I'd prefer they be designed by the actual devs, rather than on the forums) but rather to ask that in future, live events not be designed in a way which makes the players largely irrelevant to the outcome or, where they must be, to let us know well ahead of time in an OOC way so that we don't go into the situation with inaccurate expectations.
The EVE community is bigger and more diverse than the group of friends I play P&P games with, there'll inevitably be some grumbling, but one of the first things a DM needs to get used to is the idea that the players aren't always right. Sometimes, "I'm not willing to let you do that" is a valid response so that you can go on and have an actual story, rather than a "Lord of the Rings Eagle Bombing Run". Sure, it's not 100% sandbox, but Live Events aren't quite sandbox anyway because it's not players on all sides.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
864
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
As a rule, wherever remote damage resistance increase, damage share and HP increase exists in other games, the recipient can only benefit from one instance at a time. Otherwise you swiftly wind up with one super-player running around winning everything and treating all his mates as hitpoints.
So, at the very least a remote HP buff would have to suffer from stacking penalties...
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
864
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ah, woops. I really should have made it clear that my observation was in response to:
Vincent Athena wrote:A Remote Shield Extender would allow several escort ships defend one VIP against a gank.
Sorry for the confusion.
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
864
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:02:00 -
[26] - Quote
that's where the conversation has led. what led us here was the observation that if the mission was to escort a VIP actor then the escorts had no reasonable means to improve the actor's survivability. The recommended fix for that is to not give us this kind of live event in future, please.
New module ideas are a fun discussion, but I'm inclined to agree that it should be its own topic in "features and ideas". (but would it kill you to be less gratingly unpleasant when pointing that out?)
An in-character blog and a video:
http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|
|
| |
|