| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
64
   |
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
1. Members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on)
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Discuss |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
660
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ok discussion
#1 No
#2 Again no
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
64
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why? |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
527
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
99% probability reasons are:
1) he uses alts in NPC corps to suicide gank.
2) he biomasses toons to create new gankers.
My answer is slightly different. What would it achieve?
1) Can't be in NPC corp? Okay.. just switch to newly created player corps every few minutes.
2) So, I biomass the entire account and just start a new one, probably with 21 free days and then 30 for my main, with buddy invite.
|
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade
The East India Co.
1173
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
He provided as much why in his post as you did in yours.
Malcanis for CSM 8
Eve Online: The full-contact sport for your brain.
Twitter --á@DeVeldrin |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
662
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:99% probability reasons are: 1) he uses alts in NPC corps to suicide gank. 2) he biomasses toons to create new gankers.
Huh guess I'm the 1% as I don't suicide gank, it is not PvP and is boring as hell.
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
14493
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Ok discussion
#1 No
#2 Again no Not empty quoting.
Malcanis for CSM 8.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
64
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ok, here's my reasoning.
Quote:1. Members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on)
Most importantly, it should help encourage new players wanting to become pirates to join player corps and experience more of the social side of Eve, and therefore more likely to continue playing long term.
It might help protect new players (ie not alts) from themselves.
Maybe also limit trial accounts to have safety always on?
You can still shoot anyone/everyone straight away - just in low or null sec.
Yes, gankers can easily join or move between player corps. Don't see a problem with that.
Quote:
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Having negative sec status is a penalty. You shouldn't be able to ignore or avoid that penalty just by biomassing.
Yes, you're obviously limited to low skill point alts like this, but I don't think that is enough.
I can't see any reason why both of these shouldn't be the case. |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group
Tactical Research Lab
57
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Why is it important to Axl Borlara wrote:encourage new players wanting to become pirates to join player corps ? |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
14498
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 19:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:Ok, here's my reasoning.
1. Members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on)
Most importantly, it should help encourage new players wanting to become pirates to join player corps and experience more of the social side of Eve, and therefore more likely to continue playing long term.
It might help protect new players (ie not alts) from themselves.
Maybe also limit trial accounts to have safety always on?
You can still shoot anyone/everyone straight away - just in low or null sec.
Yes, gankers can easily join or move between player corps. Don't see a problem with that. Why would forcing new players in NPC corps into low and null, be a good idea? Also why should people have to leave an NPC corp, to engage in high sec?
Protecting themselves from themselves, is a not a good argument either. New players should make mistakes, it's a very important part of learning the game.
Axl Borlara wrote:
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Having negative sec status is a penalty. You shouldn't be able to ignore or avoid that penalty just by biomassing.
Yes, you're obviously limited to low skill point alts like this, but I don't think that is enough.
What problem are you trying to solve here?
Malcanis for CSM 8.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 19:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:Quote:
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Having negative sec status is a penalty. You shouldn't be able to ignore or avoid that penalty just by biomassing. Yes, you're obviously limited to low skill point alts like this, but I don't think that is enough. I can't see any reason why both of these shouldn't be the case.
This may discourage some people, but the totally committed will simply use existing mechanics to get around it. It would be exceedingly simple to use buddy invites and 'selling' your main between accounts to dispose of entire accounts full of unwanted griefing alts that you're not able to biomass. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups
SOLAR FLEET
58
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Discuss
I personally see this statement is wrong as a game design. You interact with tour account as a player, not as a character. Sometimes you just need to clear a slot for some reason (e.g. to buy a specific character or to play with character creation tools). A player do not want to be forced to grind SS in order to use a basic function that any online game should offer. |
Carniflex
StarHunt
69
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 07:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:1. Members of noobcorps shouldn't be able to engage in highsec (safety always on)
2. You shouldn't be able to biomass an alt with negative sec
Discuss
1. No that should be allowed. It a corp like any other and they lose a ship like any other doing that.
2. This is a exploit (unless CCP has changed its stance recently). Petition it as such if you see it happening and GM's will deal with it.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!*
GOT the bastard. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1080
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 08:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
you shouldn't be allowed to spend more than a month or two in noob corps. Even if you just end up creating your own one man corp, thats better than the bad npc corp mechanics |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D
64
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 14:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Why would forcing new players in NPC corps into low and null, be a good idea? Also why should people have to leave an NPC corp, to engage in high sec?
The idea is not to force anyone into low or null. Players can just as easily join a highsec corp.
I was thinking more as another incentive to get new players to join player corps. That is much more likely to keep those players playing long term.
From my own experience, I spent quite a while in 'single player' mode - high sec missioning by myself. Which was ok, but got boring and predictable after a while. But when I joined a player corp, Eve became a whole new game.
Quote:
Protecting themselves from themselves, is a not a good argument either. New players should make mistakes, it's a very important part of learning the game.
New players already have some protection. For example, the safety switch itself.
I completely agree that mistakes should be made and learnt from. However, having a noob (aka potential paying customer) ragequitting isn't good for them or the game as a whole.
I do find it interesting that most of the people disagreeing appear to be pirates themselves, based on a quick look at corp/alliances and signatures.
Piracy/griefing/ganking/whatever you want to call it, is definitely a vital part of the game. However, it's not in anyone's interest to make people leave the game as a result. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
14513
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 14:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:Mag's wrote:Why would forcing new players in NPC corps into low and null, be a good idea? Also why should people have to leave an NPC corp, to engage in high sec?
The idea is not to force anyone into low or null. Players can just as easily join a highsec corp. I was thinking more as another incentive to get new players to join player corps. That is much more likely to keep those players playing long term. From my own experience, I spent quite a while in 'single player' mode - high sec missioning by myself. Which was ok, but got boring and predictable after a while. But when I joined a player corp, Eve became a whole new game. Well unless they join a corp, low and null is the only place they could shoot first under this idea. I don't think pigeon holing them in this fashion is either fair, or productive.
You may have had a better time in a player corp, but you are not everyone. People have different ideas on what they enjoy and like in a game. I don't think it's right to dictate their play style.
Axl Borlara wrote:Quote:
Protecting themselves from themselves, is a not a good argument either. New players should make mistakes, it's a very important part of learning the game.
New players already have some protection. For example, the safety switch itself. I completely agree that mistakes should be made and learnt from. However, having a noob (aka potential paying customer) ragequitting isn't good for them or the game as a whole. I do find it interesting that most of the people disagreeing appear to be pirates themselves, based on a quick look at corp/alliances and signatures. Piracy/griefing/ganking/whatever you want to call it, is definitely a vital part of the game. However, it's not in anyone's interest to make people leave the game as a result. The good thing about the safety switch, is the option to turn it off. Your idea removes that option and limits play.
If someone rage quits early, is the game really for them anyway? Eve has always been a game to savour over the long term, it improves over time. Rather like fine wine.
I'm not sure of your point regarding me and others being a pirate. Are you intimating that we make others rage quite or leave?
Malcanis for CSM 8.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
DataRunner Attor
Independent Confederacy of Worlds
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 14:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:Mag's wrote:Why would forcing new players in NPC corps into low and null, be a good idea? Also why should people have to leave an NPC corp, to engage in high sec?
The idea is not to force anyone into low or null. Players can just as easily join a highsec corp. I was thinking more as another incentive to get new players to join player corps. That is much more likely to keep those players playing long term. From my own experience, I spent quite a while in 'single player' mode - high sec missioning by myself. Which was ok, but got boring and predictable after a while. But when I joined a player corp, Eve became a whole new game. Quote:
Protecting themselves from themselves, is a not a good argument either. New players should make mistakes, it's a very important part of learning the game.
New players already have some protection. For example, the safety switch itself. I completely agree that mistakes should be made and learnt from. However, having a noob (aka potential paying customer) ragequitting isn't good for them or the game as a whole. I do find it interesting that most of the people disagreeing appear to be pirates themselves, based on a quick look at corp/alliances and signatures. Piracy/griefing/ganking/whatever you want to call it, is definitely a vital part of the game. However, it's not in anyone's interest to make people leave the game as a result.
I remember when there use to not be a safety switch, and you got one warning that said. "If you do this, concord may come and kick your arse." Ah the days of can flipping and tricking others to shoot you when you lock onto them. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |