Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1230
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:MalcanisWhilst I'm instinctively inclined to agree with you, I'm reluctantly forced to state that it's meaningless to reconsider NPC corps until the wardec & bounty systems have been convincingly reformed.
My [i wrote:personal [/i]sentiment is that NPC corps should really be for new starters, but again we run into the core theme of the manifesto that hi-sec isn't primarily used by and shouldn't be constructed around the needs of new players, but "convenience" players. So, again, what we should be looking to do is open up opportunities for chosing a level of risk and reward appropriate to their requirements rather than simply punish people for not wanting to join a player corp. One obvious way of doing this is to allow players a free choice of NPC corp and then attach different terms and conditions to membership of those corps. You're ignoring alts on primary accounts or alt alts on alt accounts... Any self respecting player corp is not going to accept an alt who is only on for an hour or so at a time a couple of times a week, and there are good reasons for not having all your alts in one corp..
Please expand on your comment - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 03:14:00 -
[122] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Please expand on your comment - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I've read it three times, and I'm not sure what he's trying to say.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 14:24:00 -
[123] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:MalcanisWhilst I'm instinctively inclined to agree with you, I'm reluctantly forced to state that it's meaningless to reconsider NPC corps until the wardec & bounty systems have been convincingly reformed.
My [i wrote:personal [/i]sentiment is that NPC corps should really be for new starters, but again we run into the core theme of the manifesto that hi-sec isn't primarily used by and shouldn't be constructed around the needs of new players, but "convenience" players. So, again, what we should be looking to do is open up opportunities for chosing a level of risk and reward appropriate to their requirements rather than simply punish people for not wanting to join a player corp. One obvious way of doing this is to allow players a free choice of NPC corp and then attach different terms and conditions to membership of those corps. You're ignoring alts on primary accounts or alt alts on alt accounts... Any self respecting player corp is not going to accept an alt who is only on for an hour or so at a time a couple of times a week, and there are good reasons for not having all your alts in one corp..
AS an alt I have to agree. Additionally you have to consider that sometimes RL intervenes and you don't play for months at a time. Many corps won't keep an inactive or even an unsub. Where would they turn up without NPC corps? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1233
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 14:30:00 -
[124] - Quote
But how does that contradict what I proposed? Or are you just being discreet in how you say "I agree with Malc"? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 15:51:00 -
[125] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Malcanis wrote:Introduction:
(5) "Carebears". These are players - often with significant assets and skills - who simply won't accept the risk of losing a ship to PvP at any price, regardless of other considerations. Economic, gameplay and game balance considerations are not of interest to them; the idea that other players can destroy their ship is revolting to them.
For the carebears, I honestly have no ideas. The psychology of being emotionally invested in your ship to such an extent that you won't accept losing it for any reason is so foreign to what I believe EVE is about that I can't think of a good way to integrate that lifestyle into a fully connected, single shard PvP game with a player driven economy. Let's just hope that there aren't really as many of these guys as we fear, and that most of the people in hi-sec aren't quite so risk averse as we're led to believe.
I feel that these types of people need to be "re-educated" as it were to be less risk averse, or to be capable to be more accepting of combat. I feel that this attitude is detrimental to EVE as a whole going forward. Other than that, well written, Malcanis. Edit: Re-educated, or forced to cope or leave/die.
Good thread Malcanis ....
Myxx, your statement that Carebears are detrimental to EVE .... where's that coming from? .... after all, they pay to sustain CCP operations, provide market capacity, etc. ... can you expand on what detriment they cause to the rest of EVE? --> other than the typical Nullbear perspective of them being "different" and therefore "undesireables" and "not worthy of playing the elite game of EVE" hogwash of course .... you sound like you have deeper thoughts on the matter that would be great to delve into. |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 21:39:00 -
[126] - Quote
I guess it comes down to the 'requirements' put in to the NPC corp. I mean this is not a chronologically newb account but it is basically skilless. Unless it was an isk requirement which would be detrimental to new player if it was anywhere near large enough for me to notice it. Unless my little errand runner/ scout who can die all week without mattering is an exploit? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1236
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 22:48:00 -
[127] - Quote
JitaJane wrote: I guess it comes down to the 'requirements' put in to the NPC corp. I mean this is not a chronologically newb account but it is basically skilless. Unless it was an isk requirement which would be detrimental to new player if it was anywhere near large enough for me to notice it. Unless my little errand runner/ scout who can die all week without mattering is an exploit?
Oh I see, no I had nothing in mind like that. No, I meant that membership of different NPC corps might give access to different activities and privileges but might also involve obligations and risks. Did you know that Caldari corporations fight amongst each other? And that there's a war on (that might well involve the military organisations). Some NPC corps even have a presence in lo-sec... Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 01:43:00 -
[128] - Quote
Yeah they do some corp infighting in the Caldari Cosmos IIRC. And of course lots of corps have low presence. You always get those couriers when you are starting out, course the pirates know about them too so you lose a few noob ships before you learn to turn them down. It was the requirement part that set off alarm bells.
90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:03:00 -
[129] - Quote
JitaJane wrote:Yeah they do some corp infighting in the Caldari Cosmos IIRC. And of course lots of corps have low presence. You always get those couriers when you are starting out, course the pirates know about them too so you lose a few noob ships before you learn to turn them down. It was the requirement part that set off alarm bells.
Oooh, heres a idea.
How about if you're in an NPC corp you get shot at by the opposing faction navy when you visit their space |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1239
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:06:00 -
[130] - Quote
Yeep wrote:JitaJane wrote:Yeah they do some corp infighting in the Caldari Cosmos IIRC. And of course lots of corps have low presence. You always get those couriers when you are starting out, course the pirates know about them too so you lose a few noob ships before you learn to turn them down. It was the requirement part that set off alarm bells. Oooh, heres a idea. How about if you're in an NPC corp you get shot at by the opposing faction navy when you visit their space
Well if you're in Navy corps, anyway...
...but then what privileges or opportunities does membership confer? Zero NPC corp tax? access to better missions than other NPC corp members? Faster faction standings increases? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 18:29:00 -
[131] - Quote
Yeep wrote:JitaJane wrote:Yeah they do some corp infighting in the Caldari Cosmos IIRC. And of course lots of corps have low presence. You always get those couriers when you are starting out, course the pirates know about them too so you lose a few noob ships before you learn to turn them down. It was the requirement part that set off alarm bells. Oooh, heres a idea. How about if you're in an NPC corp you get shot at by the opposing faction navy when you visit their space
There is this thing called faction warfare...
90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed. |
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 18:53:00 -
[132] - Quote
My point about alts boils down to a couple of things 1) If you have alts on a primary or secondary account you probably only log them on once in a while - may be once a week, may be once a month, may be only when your main's corp gets war decced or may be only when you want to check the prices in a regional hub. The alt may also only exist to allow you to get stuff from a region where your main can't go. I can't see player corps, other than your main's putting up with that level of inactivity. And having the alt in your main's corp defeats one of the the objects of having and alt in the first place 2) If you impose a lesser requirement for an NPC corp, ie to maintain membership you have to maintain some form of standing by carrying out tasks for that corp then again the alt fails to meet the requirements because they're simply not on line enough. 3) If 2 exists you may never meet the requirements to leave a starter NPC corp simply because the alt is never online enough
If I remember what the other thing was I'll edit this but it escapes me for now. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1266
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 19:03:00 -
[133] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:My point about alts boils down to a couple of things 1) If you have alts on a primary or secondary account you probably only log them on once in a while - may be once a week, may be once a month, may be only when your main's corp gets war decced or may be only when you want to check the prices in a regional hub. The alt may also only exist to allow you to get stuff from a region where your main can't go. I can't see player corps, other than your main's putting up with that level of inactivity. And having the alt in your main's corp defeats one of the the objects of having and alt in the first place 2) If you impose a lesser requirement for an NPC corp, ie to maintain membership you have to maintain some form of standing by carrying out tasks for that corp then again the alt fails to meet the requirements because they're simply not on line enough. 3) If 2 exists you may never meet the requirements to leave a starter NPC corp simply because the alt is never online enough
If I remember what the other thing was I'll edit this but it escapes me for now.
I don't see an NPC corp ever actually kicking anyone out purely for inactivity - that defeats the whole object of having an NPC corp.
It's not like you're going to have to attend CTAs to be a member of the State War Academy. "Obligations" might be more like tax rates, requirements to do missions (with no time limit) to maintain special access to corp-specific facilities, standings modifications vs other corps and factions leading to higher transaction and refinery taxes (or perhaps even being barred from stations belonging to hostile corps). There might also be other limitations like being required to maintain faction standings above a certain level - and keep hostile faction standings below a certain level. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Killer Gandry
Shadow of the Pain
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 00:30:00 -
[134] - Quote
For miners:
Why should you know all asteroids as what they yield on warp in. Make scanning a roid part of the mining proces, this makes miners do more then warp in, lock and zippidity afk. Make the damage higher and yield on usage of wrong crystals lower than currently.
For null sec dwellers one of my major issues was always them jumpbridges. Set a limit per constelation or region of JB's possible to anchor. Next to that add a special fuelbay to ships for JB fuelling. Wanna use the JB then you better have the fuel. Players themselves are then responcible for having the fuel for the trip there and back. Take that transporter along with fuel to get back.
The same fuelbat can be used in high sec as travelpayment for gate maintenance at a set rate. Rate going up slightly the lower the security rating because the lower the security rating the higher ofcourse the maintenance costs.
The null sec gates are exempt from this tax because no empire controls them and a fixed maintenance cost for gates in null sec befalls the alliance which controls it. This only has to be a small fee. No need to add bureaucratic costs which the empires have.
|
Count MonteCarlo
The New Era C0NVICTED
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 16:22:00 -
[135] - Quote
Not read the thread but brilliant post OP and I agree completely |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 13:39:00 -
[136] - Quote
Good stuff Malc.
Some random comments: - I think you should phrase out more clearly in your proposal that the risk vs. reward ratio in hisec is currently completely out of whack, especially now that incursion running has been perfected, and that this needs to change. - The players you call "commercial" are, to a large part, alts of 0.0 pilots. This has some implications that should be considered when reworking the concept of hisec. - I don't think that letting the sec rating of systems influence things like production efficiency. POS spots, production slots and roid belts are already extremely crowded in hisec. By forcing people to concentrate their activities in fewer systems to stay econonomically competitive is just added annoyance for little benefit. Yes, it's a driver for conflict, which is good, but it doesn't outweigh the negative aspect IMO. - I wholeheartedly agree on the much needed rework of the bounty and wardec system. So much potential there... - IMO the whole d-scan mechanics need a complete overhaul. Hitting d-scan every few seconds as both PVPer or PVEr in lowsec or 0.0 isn't good gameplay nor a definitive solution. Cloakies also shouldn't be comepletely invisible to d-scan either. Might be difficult to balance between escapability and catchability here... |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:45:00 -
[137] - Quote
Here are my thoughts on some improvements that may help empire and the game come alive.
1) CONCORD and Faction Police are different forces. CONCORD are still unbeatable but the Faction Police are kill-able and escape-able. Introduce faction hits for committing any infraction that causes the faction police to show up. Bigger faction hits for actually killing Faction police. As the sec status goes down faction police response is lower and slower. In a 0.9 you might get a very large and instantaneous response. in a 0.1 it might take 2 minutes for the faction police to show up and they trickle in slowly as long as the pirate is criminally flagged or undesirable status. The drops on faction police would contribute to LP or tags or something FW, no ISK.
2) More granularity for security status. No more High/Low/0.0 splits with very little difference between them. Each step means a meaningful something. CONCORD and Faction police show up for things, but at different times. CONCORD are inescapable but the Faction police are more numbers based, and may have scrambling ships. 0.5 you might be able to escape from CONCORD and the Faction Police. Maybe. CONCORD shows up from 1.0 - 0.6. From 0.5 to 0.1 only faction police show up.
1.0 - No wardecs honoured. Instant CONCORD. No insurance. This is basically newbie friendly space. Highly reactive faction security forces. Islands of very safe space around every faction stronghold / newbie centre.
0.9 - CONCORD Delay (3 seconds), Instant Faction police
0.8 - War declarations honoured. CONCORD Delay (6 seconds), Faction Delay (3 seconds)
0.7 - CONCORD Delay (9 seconds), Faction Delay (6 seconds)
0.6 - Longer CONCORD delay (15 seconds), Faction Delay (9 seconds)
0.5 - No CONCORD, Faction police only. A response time of 12 seconds and a strong response. Possible to escape. It will chase pilots around and contain warp scrambling ships. Good AI and an escalation every minute to ensure that they are not chained or takable for long periods of time. It would be possible for criminals to run away and jump out of system or dock. If you gank in this space you should die half the time.
0.4 - Faction Police only. Response time of 20 seconds. The initial force in would not scramble. The faction forces get reinforced every 1 minute, introducing scrambling ships and escalating until the criminals are no longer in system.
0.3 - Faction Response 40 seconds. Approximately half the response of 0.4 systems.
0.2 - Faction Response 1 minute. Approximately half the response of 0.3 systems.
0.1 - Faction Response 2 minutes. Approximately half the response of 0.2 systems.
0.0 - As it is now.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
148
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 21:53:00 -
[138] - Quote
Just get rid of NPC corps altogether. If a player wants to be a "Freerunner' and do his own thing while connected to a chat room, that's his own business. But also let them be individually wardec'd. Idle/inactive players, or rookies and casuals with not much to their name are weeded out due to lack of reward, while guys afk autopiloting from Rens to Jita in a freighter under CONCORD"s watch everyday are either forced to fight or join an organization that can protect them to get their ISK. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 04:28:00 -
[139] - Quote
NPC corps be involved in faction warfare. The new player has something immediately to strive for [and lets face it its not like the new players to have anything worth losing at the start] and so the only way someone can go into a warring factions space is to create a corp. Make system sec status change dynamically.
Enable pos's to be put up in ALl empire space and make player owned CO's capable of being put up in all of high sec too. Enable trade to flow, remove bounties, goods tax and overseers personal effects. Replace near invulnerable CONCORD with the faction navy and you give ALL people a fighting chance.
Bounties with transferrable killrights is a decent idea but bounties shouldn't be restricted to people with a low sec status, anyone should be a target. So say you put up a reward for the bounty of a person. Multiple people can claim a killright and the first person to kill him/her gets the reward [and maybe something sparkly from the bounty hunters office]. More economic warfare with various methods of reducing the isk income of an opponent.
Conflict should be encouraged in high sec and made more accessible. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1396
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 08:09:00 -
[140] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:NPC corps be involved in faction warfare. The new player has something immediately to strive for [and lets face it its not like the new players to have anything worth losing at the start] and so the only way someone can go into a warring factions space is to create a corp. Make system sec status change dynamically.
There are already NPC faction warfare corps, I believe. The only requirement for a new player to join is a minimal amount of standing with the faction involved.
Terranid Meester wrote: Enable pos's to be put up in ALl empire space and make player owned CO's capable of being put up in all of high sec too. Enable trade to flow, remove bounties, goods tax and overseers personal effects. Replace near invulnerable CONCORD with the faction navy and you give ALL people a fighting chance.
I honestly don't know enough about PI to evaluate this, but for some reason it makes me apprehensive, and the idea of empires looking away whilst pod pilots seize customs offices seems rather contradictory somehow
Terranid Meester wrote: Bounties with transferrable killrights is a decent idea but bounties shouldn't be restricted to people with a low sec status, anyone should be a target.
The proposal I put forward did not restrict bounties to characters with low sec status. It's perfectly possible to have killrights on characters with sec higher than -5.0. However my proposal did allow for anyone to put a bounty on -5.0 flashies at any time
Terranid Meester wrote: So say you put up a reward for the bounty of a person. Multiple people can claim a killright and the first person to kill him/her gets the reward [and maybe something sparkly from the bounty hunters office]. More economic warfare with various methods of reducing the isk income of an opponent.
Are you proposing that anyone should be able to attack another player merely because someone has put a bounty on them? Such a system would be wide open to abuse and essentially end hi-sec. It's very important to consider loopholes!
Terranid Meester wrote: Conflict should be encouraged in high sec and made more accessible.
Agreed 100%, but the essential point of hi-sec should remain that a player is able to choose the level of risk/reward he operates at. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
151
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 08:22:00 -
[141] - Quote
Why should non-aligned players be tied to a faction in the first place? Non-aligned players should be able to do whatever the hell they want, when they want. If they want faction war they know where it is. But they shouldn't be given stupid, easily-abused advantages like being undecable. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1396
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 08:32:00 -
[142] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Why should non-aligned players be tied to a faction in the first place? Non-aligned players should be able to do whatever the hell they want, when they want. If they want faction war they know where it is. But they shouldn't be given stupid, easily-abused advantages like being undecable.
People in non-FW NPC corps are essentially in this situation of being able to do whatever they want regardless of faction already. I'm not in favor of forcing everyone to be deccable as long as suicide ganking remains viable (and until the wardec system is replaced with something that's not terrible).
But as I said above, I am strongly in favour of increasing the variety of options obtainable through NPC corps, with corp-specific resources matched by corp-specific drawbacks and risks. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 09:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
Yes, please.
And when you run out of ideas, make systems themselves less stable.
If sec levels or sovereignty change at a very low rate, say due to suicide ganking or factional warfare or Incursions or anything, really, players will adapt.
Jita could be 0.7 in half a year until people move to a safer trade-hub.
It's not like we haven't already moved from Yulai to Jita, or to new agents (at least two times), and there was a time when Incursion runners moved all over the map almost daily. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1396
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 09:47:00 -
[144] - Quote
Smagd wrote:Yes, please.
And when you run out of ideas, make systems themselves less stable.
If sec levels or sovereignty change at a very low rate, say due to suicide ganking or factional warfare or Incursions or anything, really, players will adapt.
Jita could be 0.7 in half a year until people move to a safer trade-hub.
It's not like we haven't already moved from Yulai to Jita, or to new agents (at least two times), and there was a time when Incursion runners moved all over the map almost daily.
If we're going to have sovereignty change, then it seems obvious to me that this should be a part of Faction Warfare.
Personally I think all Empire systems should be "FW" systems, and sustained victories by one faction should be able to change system sovereignty by gradually lowering the sec of a system all the way to 0.1 (or returning it to it's original sec level if the defenders win) whereupon there would be a major Incursion-style event by the NPC navies, with NPC Titans, Motherships, event staff, the works, which the players could participate in to decide system Sov, after which the system resets to a 0.5 with sov belonging to the winner of the event for at least 30 days.
This would give real meaning to faction warfare, and genuinely allow the players to change the game. Plus it could provide a huge amount of fun gameplay. Of course it would be contingent on providing a slightly more engaging and imaginative victory mechanic than FW bunkers Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 10:44:00 -
[145] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Personally I think all Empire systems should be "FW" systems, and sustained victories by one faction should be able to change system sovereignty by gradually lowering the sec of a system all the way to 0.1 (or returning it to it's original sec level if the defenders win) whereupon there would be a major Incursion-style event by the NPC navies, with NPC Titans, Motherships, event staff, the works, which the players could participate in to decide system Sov, after which the system resets to a 0.5 with sov belonging to the winner of the event for at least 30 days. This would give real meaning to faction warfare, and genuinely allow the players to change the game. Plus it could provide a huge amount of fun gameplay. Of course it would be contingent on providing a slightly more engaging and imaginative victory mechanic than FW bunkers
I should point out that this would almost instantly result in a major effort (largely by parties with no previous interest in FW) to degrade the security of Jita.
I make no comment on whether this would be a good or bad thing. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1398
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 10:52:00 -
[146] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Malcanis wrote:Personally I think all Empire systems should be "FW" systems, and sustained victories by one faction should be able to change system sovereignty by gradually lowering the sec of a system all the way to 0.1 (or returning it to it's original sec level if the defenders win) whereupon there would be a major Incursion-style event by the NPC navies, with NPC Titans, Motherships, event staff, the works, which the players could participate in to decide system Sov, after which the system resets to a 0.5 with sov belonging to the winner of the event for at least 30 days. This would give real meaning to faction warfare, and genuinely allow the players to change the game. Plus it could provide a huge amount of fun gameplay. Of course it would be contingent on providing a slightly more engaging and imaginative victory mechanic than FW bunkers I should point out that this would almost instantly result in a major effort (largely by parties with no previous interest in FW) to degrade the security of Jita. I make no comment on whether this would be a good or bad thing.
And most likely the other market hubs as well. Gosh, the idea of Faction Warfare with something of value at stake, eh? The notion of a real strategic target! The possibility that the different militias might want to keep their respective hubs as the only hi-sec one... all those empire players who would suddenly find that they do in fact have a stake in the success of their faction.
Yeah... I'm going to go with "good". Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Dzajic
Level Up
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 15:02:00 -
[147] - Quote
Wow amazing. Another "I want more faction fit mission runners to shoot" thread. Sure it didn't start like that but we are back to "individial wardecs". You have already gotten CCP to move L5 back to be only lowsec. You have made CCP to introduce npc corp tax. You have long ago made CCP remove masking effect of deadspace (lolcarebear exploer took a hour to find a site and you can probe him down in a minute). Recently you got a nerf on unprobeable Tengus. And all of this has given you less and less targets to shoot.
If you get CCP to completely remove L4s from highsec (or refrom highsec in such a way to no longer be highsec) you will see majority of your ooh soo much sought victims leave EVE; rest will do L3s or whatever is doable in new "true" highsec until they have money skills for one more in practice still unprobeable Tengu.
And ffs you can still suicide gank them. You won't get insurance but that just removed lolganks of not very rich fits. 2Bn fit will still be a profitable suicide.
People who are willing to take a risk are already there, doing 00 exploration and Angel missions in their unprobeable Tengus and 2 scouting alts. People who will at no point risk their PVE ships to ganks cant be made to change their mind in any way. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 15:22:00 -
[148] - Quote
Lookit dis guy. Lookit him.
He completely missed the point of the thread. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1403
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 16:00:00 -
[149] - Quote
Dzajic wrote:Wow amazing. Another "I want more faction fit mission runners to shoot" thread. Sure it didn't start like that but we are back to "individial wardecs". You have already gotten CCP to move L5 back to be only lowsec. You have made CCP to introduce npc corp tax. You have long ago made CCP remove masking effect of deadspace (lolcarebear exploer took a hour to find a site and you can probe him down in a minute). Recently you got a nerf on unprobeable Tengus. And all of this has given you less and less targets to shoot.
If you get CCP to completely remove L4s from highsec (or refrom highsec in such a way to no longer be highsec) you will see majority of your ooh soo much sought victims leave EVE; rest will do L3s or whatever is doable in new "true" highsec until they have money skills for one more in practice still unprobeable Tengu.
And ffs you can still suicide gank them. You won't get insurance but that just removed lolganks of not very rich fits. 2Bn fit will still be a profitable suicide.
People who are willing to take a risk are already there, doing 00 exploration and Angel missions in their unprobeable Tengus and 2 scouting alts. People who will at no point risk their PVE ships to ganks cant be made to change their mind in any way.
I guess you missed the part where I not only rejected the old concept of removing options from hi-sec but actually advocated returning Level 5s to hi-sec, albeit in a different way? The part where I specifically and explicitly said that people in hi-sec should be allowed the option to engage in high risk:reward activity?
Malcanis wrote: I'm not in favor of forcing everyone to be deccable as long as suicide ganking remains viable (and until the wardec system is replaced with something that's not terrible).
But as I said above, I am strongly in favour of increasing the variety of options obtainable through NPC corps, with corp-specific resources matched by corp-specific drawbacks and risks.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 18:28:00 -
[150] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:If we're going to have sovereignty change, then it seems obvious to me that this should be a part of Faction Warfare. Personally I think all Empire systems should be "FW" systems, and sustained victories by one faction should be able to change system sovereignty by gradually lowering the sec of a system all the way to 0.1 (or returning it to it's original sec level if the defenders win) whereupon there would be a major Incursion-style event by the NPC navies, with NPC Titans, Motherships, event staff, the works, which the players could participate in to decide system Sov, after which the system resets to a 0.5 with sov belonging to the winner of the event for at least 30 days. This would give real meaning to faction warfare, and genuinely allow the players to change the game. Plus it could provide a huge amount of fun gameplay. Of course it would be contingent on providing a slightly more engaging and imaginative victory mechanic than FW bunkers
This.
This and npc system patrols. Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |