| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
170
   |
Posted - 2013.11.10 12:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm rather hoping that CCP will return highsec back the way it was in the early days when there was no Concord protection.
At present there are a lot of suicide ganks in highsec, I would suggest that the removal of Concord would make miners and indy pilots safer as they could then either buy mercs to guard them (or have an internal pvp wing) that will shoot any bastard that comes within 200k of them (unless blue).
This would also re-link the connection between industry and combat and give meaning to both sides of the game.
No doubt there would be a lot of whining at the beginning but on balance being able to actively protect a mining fleet or mission runner in highsec would be a great advantage, as at present all they can do is die or run. The trade hubs might be a problem but if they were player owned as well then the holding corp would have an interest in policing the area.
It also makes sense in terms of the game storyline which CCP seem to have lost interest in, so having player corporations take over from NPC empires would be in keeping.
I'll just get my flameproof underwear on  |
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 12:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Your reasonment was VERY sound in the early 2000.
Since then, more than a decade has passed and the MMOs playerbase composition has changed.
These days the majority are NOT going to have the time to invest in a game and find protection mercs and whatever... just to earn the right to log in and have a greater than 10% chance to survive.
I disagree because in effect that is already the current situation, carebears are currently cannon fodder for highsec gankers, all removing Concord does is allow them to be proactive in protecting themselves
|
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 13:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Forcing the majority who don't have this infrastructure behind them to become farmables is not going to make the game any more popular than is now.
The point is that they are farmables already with no means of defence
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this |
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 14:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Krimishkev wrote:
There is a HUGE amount of space allocated in EVE for direct player interaction, we call it low-sec, and null-sec. So basically what people want is to be able to terrorize easy targets and ROFL all the way to the complete stagnation of EVE Online development.
I'm not clear what you are proposing here, GD is littered with tears by casual players that have been suicide ganked and the current Concord mechanism actually works against them as they cannot field a defence. From the ganker's perspective at present, it's merely an accounting exercise with added tears as a benefit and some profit most of the time.
Are you suggesting there should be zero pvp in highsec and would that include wardecs and maybe pve as well (no guns allowed)?
The direction of Rubicon would indicate that CCP may be looking to make highsec less protected though of course that is pure speculation
|
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 15:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
They have a "poor man's" deterrent in the form of NPCs. It's still better than being helpless game moving around and waiting to die.
The problem is that it's not a deterrent just a known cost to the attacker., there needs to be some sort of balancing mechanism so that the prey have some way to protect themselves.
Removing Concord is one way though I do accept your point that it might be more difficult for casual players, the other way is to ban all pvp in highsec which I don't think would go down well either.
|
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
171
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 20:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Niec Mogul wrote:
'Cause we all know that's how it would go down. I mean really, who wouldn't bite that hook? You'll be where? You'll be flying ****-for-tanks mining ships? You're gonna pay me to show up? Well yeah, I think I'll be right on over!
Now surely some apologist will be along in a moment crowing "ruined reputations" and how "no one would hire such a merc corp after a few kills." Sure buddy. You go ahead and name a few corps that are still around with such sullied names. Painted so red that they just can't get hired anymore. I'm positive that there's just scads of them lurking in the shadows, hiding in the corners from their prior deeds...
Also, don't ask me how they got tires on a Tornado. Or how they peeled out in space. I'm sure it'll be in a future expansion.
There may well be cases of that but they'll also be new enterprises to breathe some life back into the merc game and who would be trustworthy if they want to make a profit.
In any case the indy corp could develop it's own pvp wing to protect it.
I accept that there would be problems removing Concord but I'm not so sure that it would be any worse for miners as they are prey to suicide ganks already so what's changed? This at least would allow them to be proactive in their own defence.
It would make logistics harder as escorts would be needed for transporting stuff, so yes it would need to be worked out carefully and some game rebalancing would be needed
|
| |
|