| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
   |
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Or should it be "Wow. This is Eve"?
A common retort used by the highly intellectual types on Eve-O is "go play Wow" or "Wow is that way". This is usually in response to the cry to make some things safer in Eve.
Now I have mixed views as to the validity of "safeness" and I fully understand the ethos that is Eve. But you know, if I were a commercial entity trying to raise the subscriber base, I'd be seriously looking at games that make the serious coin.
Wow has more than 11 million subscribers, roughly 20 times more than Eve. I've never played the game but if I take the comments of "go play Wow" to mean a game that is "safe" or has "safe areas" then how come it's so big? One of the most successful MMO's ever to hit the big screen. I'm fully aware that it's not single shard and segmented economics would be a consequence, but this does not seem to hurt the game overall.
Would CCP be doing good for business by making areas - such as high-sec - a safer place to nurture and establish new players and corporations?
Of course, there are many arguments both for and against and as an avid reader of the many posts on the topics, I can only see the protection of an idealogy as the common response for the vast majority of "change nothing" posters.
Is this the right approach? Is this being childishly selfish?
Does Eve need to evolve, in some areas, to be more effective for CCP economically? Is this the plan?
Food for thought. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:SO instead of building Hummers, Hummer should start building Toyota Camrys?
As long as they continued to build Hummers. Yes. Otherwise No. What's your point? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ann133566 wrote:Let me ask you this. Is it wrong not to be WoW?
That is in fact my question. 
I'm getting this vibe that the older players are under the impression that people want ALL of Eve made safe. This is absurd and must be ridiculed for what it is.
But there is no reason (imho) why areas of Eve, or more specifically, some game play in Eve can't be made "safer" to facilitate a higher subscriber base without affecting the game in any particularly bad way.
I'm sort of stuck on this. I've yet to see a convincing argument why gameplay such as suicide ganking, if nerfed, would have such a negative impact on the game.
Is it all just forum rage from older players with no understanding of what other players might want? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote:Or should it be "Wow. This is Eve"?
A common retort used by the highly intellectual types on Eve-O is "go play Wow" or "Wow is that way". This is usually in response to the cry to make some things safer in Eve.
Now I have mixed views as to the validity of "safeness" and I fully understand the ethos that is Eve. But you know, if I were a commercial entity trying to raise the subscriber base, I'd be seriously looking at games that make the serious coin.
Wow has more than 11 million subscribers, roughly 20 times more than Eve. I've never played the game but if I take the comments of "go play Wow" to mean a game that is "safe" or has "safe areas" then how come it's so big? One of the most successful MMO's ever to hit the big screen. I'm fully aware that it's not single shard and segmented economics would be a consequence, but this does not seem to hurt the game overall.
Would CCP be doing good for business by making areas - such as high-sec - a safer place to nurture and establish new players and corporations?
Of course, there are many arguments both for and against and as an avid reader of the many posts on the topics, I can only see the protection of an idealogy as the common response for the vast majority of "change nothing" posters.
Is this the right approach? Is this being childishly selfish?
Does Eve need to evolve, in some areas, to be more effective for CCP economically? Is this the plan?
Food for thought. So your business plan for EVE is for CCP to throw their existing playerbase under a bus and try to compete head-to-head with Blizzard in their own back yard? Man, I don't see anything that could go wrong with this plan!
Did I actually say that? You are the epitome of my entire point.
I'm curious about this common phrase "existing playerbase" though. So you're saying that if suicide ganking (for example) were curtailed, that the entire Eve playerbase would simply up and leave? You truly think that? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pesky LaRue wrote:Having more numbers/subscribers doesn't make something better, it just means there is a low-common denominator that appeals to a wider base.
Yes, I would love EvE to have a wider acceptance (many 'average people' know what WoW is, fewer know what EvE is) but if they had to change the game to become more like WoW (and therefore, less like EvE), would it be worth it?
I hear you. But again, I'm not saying or even suggesting a complete reversal of what makes Eve "good". This is a point being used far too often to smoke up the topic. You can take 10% of space for safe territory and leave 90% available "as-is".
You need to consider that there must be a reason why so many are in high-sec. It cannot be simply because they get to suicide gank. They can get "free kills" in lowsec and 0.0 easily enough without resorting to loss of sec status etc. So why are so many there?
And no-one IS asking for Eve to change entirely. But even the thought of making an area "safe" for some is like a blow to the face. Which is interesting because this is perhaps what makes Eve "good" but can it be made "better" by having "proving grounds" or "training grounds" whatever the heck we might call them.
Surely higher subscriber base makes for more "fresh meat" at some point? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Andski wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:They're scared to lose their hard earn ships/equipment because they had to grind their ass off to get it. Instant action arenas would be a training ground of sorts that allow people to learn what their hardware can/can't do. It would actually breed confidence enriching the pvp experience throughout eve. EVE already has this - the test server.
Funny post.
Been on it lately. Seen the rules about PvP? Interacted with the economy? Skills are much higher on Singularity aloowing for "testing"?
Would have expected more from such a bright boy. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Commander TGK wrote:This thread needs more flames, OP is not getting it yet.
I think you'll find OP has got it. The problem is that you haven't. Come back with something relevant and half intelligent. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Commander TGK wrote:This thread needs more flames, OP is not getting it yet. this entire thread is about OP not getting it, specifically op wanting it to make sense. but it is senseless. it's just "one true way"ism run rampant. "i want to force you to play eve the way i want you too! if you don't like this 'GO PLAY WOW!!!'" is essentially what a lot of it boils down to. eve is a large universe, and it can accommodate more than one type of player. don't like that? want to suggest that they "go play wow"? how about i suggest you give me all your stuff and go find cry in a corner that someone, somewhere, might be safe from you. it's a stupid subject, people need to stop acting like it's the end of the farking world that someone, somewhere might be doing something in Eve that they don't like.
And you're response simply proves my point.
I see your style of play being challenged and your responses are not disimiliar to the very people who are asking for same. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:While I can understand that you might not like the threat of being lol-ganked, the ability to suicide gank these kinds of off-books entities and everyone in them is required to make (player)factional warfare work. The alternative is to massively buff the aggressor side of wardecs (as in: you are not allowed to jump corps, shed wardecs, or in any way avoid the dec once it hits)GǪ and as far as griefing potential goes, that's much worse than the occasional lolgank. The way the game is structured, there must be ways to nuke competitors, or the industrial/economical side of warfare collapses.
And this is an great point and has been raised often.
Suicide ganking is neccessary because there is no "easy" way to kill without getting taken through a ringer. I think The Apostle once said that removal of corp jumping during a war-dec and automatic expulsion from NPC corps would go a long way to making it tougher AND fairer at the same time.
This could cause griefer corps to lock down smaller corps for fun but the "decshield" might also help make pointless "wars" quite pointless. A war declared is going to need to be done with dedication and a reason.
Insofar as null corps using alt corps for logistics, good intel could make this very, very dangerous for 0.0 corps to do with this kind of proposal.
So some things, i.e. changes making it harder and fairer and still provide for the Eve genre - are by and large quite possible. My main point in my OP is as much about this as the vehement defiance of ANY change - even if it might be good for the game. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:K Suri wrote:
Does Eve need to evolve, in some areas, to be more effective for CCP economically? Is this the plan?
Food for thought.
Speaking of food, McDonalds has over 25,000 restaurants in the world and feeds at least 46 million people per day. They are a publicly traded corporation that took in 26.4 billion dollars last quarter. On the other hand my favorite Italian restaurant probably feeds 100 people a day and makes far less money than McDonalds. They only have 1 location. But the food is always fresh, the octopus is divine, as is the wild berry salad, the rosemary foccacia, and the saffron scallop fettucini. And you know what? I like going there much more than I like McDonalds. They don't make billions per quarter, but the owner has a 500 series Mercedes. I'm sorry what was your point again?
If the owner of said Italian restaurant were to also throw in a bottle of '93 Chablis with your meal, it might also attract lovers of '93 Chablis to the restaurant and the owner can drive an Aston Martin instead. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Strangely, I'm curious why 0.0 members are contributing to this thread? It's not that you can't or shouldn't, it's why?
Correct me if I am wrong, after much complaint, bitching and whining, 0.0 alliances have just become the proud parents of substantial nerfs that makes 0.0 safer.
Odd they find it neccessary to defend the norm in highsec.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Komen wrote:I signed up to this game because ...well, truth be told, I watched a trailer where two ships were duking it out. And I was all, 'Woooooooo! **** yeah!"
Which is possible in so many ways.
Suicide ganking would be more akin to watching a dog being kicked to death if it were a trailer.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
Gazmin VanBurin wrote:Im just feeding the troll that the OP is, but ill form a reply anyway.
Wow is full of 10 year old kids that cry, want their mommy, want to have their skills handed to them on a silver platter, and never lose them, its easy and fun for their little minds, bright colors and cartoonish atmosphere.
EvE is an entirely different banana, if it was just like wow, and if it marketed, just like wow, and was full of even more whiny players like WoW, well then why would any one buy eve instead of wow?
Its to late to be like wow, you have to be something their not, cater to a deferent age group, maybe even a different community.
You keep saying eve needs to evolve; yet your suggesting it be dumbed down even further. Now if you where to evolve into dolphin, you might just become a sexier, maybe even smarter individual, but that doesnGÇÖt mean you could ever truly be as awesome as one.
OP is not troll.
And Eve is full of 30 year old kids that cry, want their mommy, want to have their skills handed to them on a silver platter, and never lose them, its easy and fun for their little minds, bright colors and cartoonish atmosphere.
^^^^ They're called gankers.
Is an example of a different banana a red banana?
Nor did I say Eve needs to "become" Wow so it's not too late for anything. I might however be suggesting that certain "wowlike" characteristics seem to be creeping in.
I didn't say Eve needs to evolve either. I asked "Does it need to evolve?"
In fact, my OP is asking whether "a wowlike evolution" is actually happening and whilst I sort of have an opinion on what I'd like, I'm not actually suggesting it should be anything.
But I am asking if it is evolving. Is the Salami Slice approach already in effect with things like the removal of ganking insurance for example? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote:Ptraci wrote:K Suri wrote:
Does Eve need to evolve, in some areas, to be more effective for CCP economically? Is this the plan?
Food for thought.
Speaking of food, McDonalds has over 25,000 restaurants in the world and feeds at least 46 million people per day. They are a publicly traded corporation that took in 26.4 billion dollars last quarter. On the other hand my favorite Italian restaurant probably feeds 100 people a day and makes far less money than McDonalds. They only have 1 location. But the food is always fresh, the octopus is divine, as is the wild berry salad, the rosemary foccacia, and the saffron scallop fettucini. And you know what? I like going there much more than I like McDonalds. They don't make billions per quarter, but the owner has a 500 series Mercedes. I'm sorry what was your point again? If the owner of said Italian restaurant were to also throw in a bottle of '93 Chablis with your meal, it might also attract lovers of '93 Chablis to the restaurant and the owner can drive an Aston Martin instead. But your proposal isn't a '93 chablis, it's diet 7up cut with Everclear.
The wine wasn't a player analogy, it was to point out that Italian food eaters go to the restuarant for the food but if you add Chablis, you may ALSO get drinkers of Chablis who may not neccessarily be there for the food but will eat it anyway while drinking their Chablis.
You get BOTH sets of customers.
Only thing we do know is that McDonalds won't ordinarily get Chablis drinkers. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Look at this frakking chartThere is only ONE. One MMO where subs grow at a nearly constant linear rate. One MMO that is not either kiddy stuff (Dofus, Runescape) or a WOW clone. That MMO is EVE. Now look at the WOW clones/killlers like Age of Conan and Warhammer Online. Now back at EVE. There is only one MMO that fails to give a crap about WOW. EVE is the one.
Not a lot to be read in that. There are games that are almost vertical in ascension and still growing.
I also note that Wow isn't on the chart either so where your comparison comes from eludes me. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Leetha Layne wrote:More people listen to Justin Beiber than Stravinsky. Does that mean Beiber is better?
The music store provides both. They also have Slash, Black Sabbath, Beethoven and Marina Pryor.
The more options, the greater the sales don't you think? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:K Suri wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:Look at this frakking chartThere is only ONE. One MMO where subs grow at a nearly constant linear rate. One MMO that is not either kiddy stuff (Dofus, Runescape) or a WOW clone. That MMO is EVE. Now look at the WOW clones/killlers like Age of Conan and Warhammer Online. Now back at EVE. There is only one MMO that fails to give a crap about WOW. EVE is the one. Not a lot to be read in that. There are games that are almost vertical in ascension and still growing. I also note that Wow isn't on the chart either so where your comparison comes from eludes me. Find a game that's vertical in ascension that is not either: -Kiddy stuff (Dofus, maplestory, etc) -Not a game (Second Life) -Asia-focused (Lineage, Aion) You can't because that would be lying. And that's horrible.
And you stated "There is only one MMO that fails to give a crap about WOW. EVE is the one."
Wow isn't even on the chart.
That's lying. And that's horrible. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Note: I am replying to the OP, and have not read anything else in the thread.
WoW is a fantasy game, based upon a series that has been around for a long time and had a large fanbase before WoW came to exist.
EVE is a scifi game (low profitability in general), and did not have a previous product to draw fans from.
So really, EVE has come much further than WoW ever did.
I'm not sure how well WoW would do if it wasn't for its original fanbase and the obsession with fantasy.
Personally, I would be content with EVE having 50k-100k active players. Enough to make CCP money, not too much to make space too crowded (though at 100k it would be pretty bad in the hubs).
And that is not going to happen if we keep being blind to what Eve COULD be if we diffused some of the myths and stubborness around things like suicide ganking as being "neccessary" to maintain the playerbase.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of changes being bought to Eve in the new WE is mostly to the benefit of players already playing. We either need something pretty significant to entice more players or we need to accept that the subscriber numbers may stay close to static from here on in.
Seriously, most of the changes coming have been done to KEEP the playerbase. What they WERE doing was trying to grow a NEW playerbase. This bit is so often overlooked it beggars belief.
CCP needs ways to attract NEW players AND keep and entertain the older ones. The older ones are the ones PREVENTING this. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Gazmin VanBurin wrote:K Suri wrote:Leetha Layne wrote:More people listen to Justin Beiber than Stravinsky. Does that mean Beiber is better?
The music store provides both. They also have Slash, Black Sabbath, Beethoven and Marina Pryor. The more options, the greater the sales don't you think? They would make even more money if they started pedeling meth out back aswell, The more options, the greater the sales don't you think?
I've always got my meth from the music shop. You? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Wow is on the 1-12million chart with the asian MMOS and kiddy **** (Runescape) CHART
Exactly. So how can a game on a completely different chart be used as a subscriber comparison?
In fact that's highlighted my point. Wow is "off the chart" insofar as subs versus Eve. And it's the reason I'm asking. Could you safely provide for a "wowlike" experience in highsec without affecting the game intent, history or attraction?
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:And that is not going to happen if we keep being blind to what Eve COULD be if we diffused some of the myths and stubborness around things like suicide ganking as being "neccessary" to maintain the playerbase. Does your crystal ball work for lottery numbers? Or is it just for making biased predictions about internet spaceship games?
Funny your should say that. A few years ago I saw logins of 48-50k. I'm STILL seeing logins at 48-50k.
The arguments against ANY change (such as suicide ganking) is stifling development.
Is a crystal ball really needed? As I also pointed out , CCP has had to change direction to KEEP the base. What they were doing to GROW the base was shelved by, you guessed it, players that didn't want CHANGE. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote: Could you safely provide for a "wowlike" experience in highsec without affecting the game intent, history or attraction?
The answer is no, it is not possible wih the resources CCP have available, and it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different.
You not getting my point yet?
"it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different."
It HASN'T happened with this mindset.
It WON'T happen with this mindset.
It COULD happen if we CHANGED the mindset.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Is a crystal ball really needed? It's certainly not needed when (based on your posting history) it's easier to just make **** up and post it as a fact.
Not been reading Eve-O? I'm regurgitating several threads by several people over these issues. Nothing is posted as fact, just like your dissertation that I'm making **** up, you're making just as much **** up to refute my ****. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote: Could you safely provide for a "wowlike" experience in highsec without affecting the game intent, history or attraction?
The answer is no, it is not possible wih the resources CCP have available, and it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different. You not getting my point yet? "it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different."It HASN'T happened with this mindset. It WON'T happen with this mindset. It COULD happen if we CHANGED the mindset. If CCP made ganking impossible tomorrow why do you think subscriptions would substantially improve?
Didn't say substantially but since you asked, suicide ganking is just ONE issue that may be causing newer members to do a "fuckthisiamouttahere" or even holding them out. It's a guesstimate. I don;t know. Hence the OP. Have a read.
But you are completely overlooking the crux of the thread. It's this stifling of ANY attempt by CCP to adapt for a greater share of the pie that is causing the problem. They MAY need to bring changes in a very gradual (and I've used the term Salami Slice) manner to attract more players.
CCP had WiS ripped out from under it's feet, so in order to grow, they now need to make FiS more attractive to a larger audience. Is a "wowlike" space inevitable? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
So 48k users logged in on Saturday night to mine? You're linkys as analogies are starting to get quite silly. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote:Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote: Could you safely provide for a "wowlike" experience in highsec without affecting the game intent, history or attraction?
The answer is no, it is not possible wih the resources CCP have available, and it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different. You not getting my point yet? "it's not possible to do without wrecking what makes EVE different."It HASN'T happened with this mindset. It WON'T happen with this mindset. It COULD happen if we CHANGED the mindset. No it couldn't. Unless you know something about CCP receiving a massive no-strings cash influx from somewhere. Did Hilmar win this weeks Euromillions lottery?
Oh **** off. The changes being suggested are minor mechanic changes and would cost a few bucks at best. They STOPPED the massive new development that MAY have brought in new subs in a big way.
The Old Farts Club made every effort to make sure that didn't happen. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:12:00 -
[27] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
But historically, EVE grew consistently despite being even more "hostile" than it is now. If anything, the correlation is that making hi-sec safer = slower growth.
You contradicted yourself. Highsec has been made safer over time and subs grew.
Nullsec is about to be made safer and potentially highsec as well. The former was to keep the playerbase, the latter may be to retain and grow the playerbase. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:15:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Oh **** off. The changes being suggested are minor mechanic changes and would cost a few bucks at best. They STOPPED the massive new development that MAY have brought in new subs in a big way. rofl...completely removing suicide ganking is more than a "minor mechanic change". How long have you been playing Eve?
lol. How long you been playing Eve?
Here's an example.
CCP NEWS
Gentlemen, killing an unarmed vessel in highsec is now considered an exploit if done without using wardec or aggression mechanics. Any player doing this will be temp banned and then permabanned if they repeat the offense.
At $50 per hour, that's a total cost of about $0.80c
And how many things have been announced thus in Eve's history? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:20:00 -
[29] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Malcanis wrote:
But historically, EVE grew consistently despite being even more "hostile" than it is now. If anything, the correlation is that making hi-sec safer = slower growth.
You contradicted yourself. Highsec has been made safer over time and subs grew. Nullsec is about to be made safer and potentially highsec as well. The former was to keep the playerbase, the latter may be to retain and grow the playerbase. There is no contradiction. He did not say growth stopped, he said growth slowed, which is 100% accurate. As always, correlation does not equal causation, but using only correlation what he said is accurate.
wtf?
EVE grew consistently despite being even more "hostile" than it is now
He said subs GREW despite more "safeness" being added. What bit did I get wrong? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Oh **** off. The changes being suggested are minor mechanic changes and would cost a few bucks at best. They STOPPED the massive new development that MAY have brought in new subs in a big way. rofl...completely removing suicide ganking is more than a "minor mechanic change". How long have you been playing Eve? lol. How long you been playing Eve? Here's an example. CCP NEWS Gentlemen, killing an unarmed vessel in highsec is now considered an exploit if done without using wardec or aggression mechanics. Any player doing this will be temp banned and then permabanned if they repeat the offense. At $50 per hour, that's a total cost of about $0.80c And how many things have been announced thus in Eve's history? Except that couldn't be done. Right now, ganking is allowed (and through the method of allowment ie mild penalties, encouraged as a gameplay option) and more than a simple exploit declaration would be needed. In fact if they went this route, a lot of people would rage quit... and a few would probably burn down CCP headquarters (mild exaggeration, meant as a joke for those who cannot tell).
The example was of how it COULD be done, not what should be done. I was responding to how easy it would be to change if CCP really wanted to. A single paragraph would create the same effect as making code changes and CCP HAS done this MANY times before. It's a simple case of the definition of an exploit or flawed mechanic.
Recent example is decshields. No code change, no fanfair, no massive ragequits. CCP effectively stomped all wardecs for a huge majority of players that relied on being able to dec based on what was once an "exploit".
As for "lots" ragequitting, I'm not so sure. Perhaps the gankers would be pissed and fair enough but I'm betting the vast majority of highsec would rejoice or shrug and the majority of 0.0 would just shrug. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Oh **** off. The changes being suggested are minor mechanic changes and would cost a few bucks at best. They STOPPED the massive new development that MAY have brought in new subs in a big way. rofl...completely removing suicide ganking is more than a "minor mechanic change". How long have you been playing Eve? lol. How long you been playing Eve? Here's an example. CCP NEWS Gentlemen, killing an unarmed vessel in highsec is now considered an exploit if done without using wardec or aggression mechanics. Any player doing this will be temp banned and then permabanned if they repeat the offense. At $50 per hour, that's a total cost of about $0.80c And how many things have been announced thus in Eve's history? OK but if that's the case, the unarmed vessel can't be participating in any PVP activities either. No mining, no transporting, no missioning (except for no LP or ISK), no trading, no plexing, no incursions. Doing any of thise activities will now earn an aggression timer. In short, you're an idiot.
And for the long-term, you're a ******* moron.
So wardecs aren't allowed? Infiltration of corp and internal killing not allowed?
I've ALSO said - moron - that it WOULD require boosts to the wardec mechanics and the removal of the ability to hop corps and stay in NPC making the likelihood of PvP a GREATER possibility. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:K Suri wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Malcanis wrote:
But historically, EVE grew consistently despite being even more "hostile" than it is now. If anything, the correlation is that making hi-sec safer = slower growth.
You contradicted yourself. Highsec has been made safer over time and subs grew. Nullsec is about to be made safer and potentially highsec as well. The former was to keep the playerbase, the latter may be to retain and grow the playerbase. There is no contradiction. He did not say growth stopped, he said growth slowed, which is 100% accurate. As always, correlation does not equal causation, but using only correlation what he said is accurate. wtf? EVE grew consistently despite being even more "hostile" than it is nowHe said subs GREW despite more "safeness" being added. What bit did I get wrong? That as more safety has been added, the rate of sub increase has slowed. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that making hi-sec safer will make EVE more popular. You suppose it will because of your preconceived notions about what makes people play EVE in the first place, but you've ignored the actual data. EVE grew fastest while it was more dangerous.
But it still grew - albeit slower and it's been said - causation is the question. I'm trying to point out that more recent sub slowdown has NO relation to "safe space" because NOTHING has happened for a very long time to cause it.
There have been MANY other factors that have reduced subs, notwithstanding WiS etc. and for all we know, the slow increase may in fact be offsetting losses because highsec is safer? Who knows?
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:Unless the boost is everyone can wardec everyone for free with no timer, your ideas are as useful as what my dog left on the lawn this morning, as are all your horrible ramblings. Idiot.
Why does the timer need to be removed? If you CANNOT leave the corp on a declaration a removal of a timer is not neccessary.
As for what your dog left on the lawn, since we're going down this personal attack road, perhaps your dog grabbed you by the collar and dragged you outside. Just how big is the pile of **** on your lawn? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:47:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:And for the long-term, you're a ******* moron.
So wardecs aren't allowed? Infiltration of corp and internal killing not allowed?
I've ALSO said - moron - that it WOULD require boosts to the wardec mechanics and the removal of the ability to hop corps and stay in NPC making the likelihood of PvP a GREATER possibility. I love how in all of your threads when you realize you're losing the argument you resort to name calling. I have a six year old nephew who does the same thing and it's adorable.
Clever omission of where the name calling started from. You're starting your usual slide from intelligible to terrible once exhausted don't ya know. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:since we're going down this personal attack road ohgod the irony CCP just lock the thread now...it's never going to get better than this.
The usual request after you **** a thread. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:54:00 -
[36] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:And for the long-term, you're a ******* moron.
So wardecs aren't allowed? Infiltration of corp and internal killing not allowed?
I've ALSO said - moron - that it WOULD require boosts to the wardec mechanics and the removal of the ability to hop corps and stay in NPC making the likelihood of PvP a GREATER possibility. I love how in all of your threads when you realize you're losing the argument you resort to name calling. I have a six year old nephew who does the same thing and it's adorable. Clever omission of where the name calling started from. You're starting your usual slide from intelligible to terrible once exhausted don't ya know. Resorting to name calling after someone else does makes you look even less mature than doing so once you have run out of arguments.
Oh my. You're expecting me to follow some quaint morality line as I get trolled by people who obviously don't want topics like this discussed.
And that's exactly how they keep getting sticky subjects they don't like debunked. That's exactly how and why people get sick to death of trying to discuss stuff and that's exactly why, over time, the only ones left on Eve forums all agree with each other and CCP sees it as a consensus.
Good to see you fall for the tactic too.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
I love when topics like this get discussed/debated, but not when people can't come up with arguments with anything to support them and so they resort to name calling and stupidity.
And of course, it was being discussed/debated until the name calling started. I was not the guilty party. So yes, let's all succumb to hijacked threads and make our own apologies for THEIR behaviour.
And while you are so affording of conciliatory posts, go back and look at the number of times any of the Deklein Co boys **** up threads and forum members are forced to back off by being conciliatory to SAVE the thread for discussion.
All too common and CCP has NEVER stopped them. Perhaps this is another thread for another day. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:No, I expect you to provide supporting evidence for your arguments, while the ones going with personal attacks get seen for the fools they are, thereby allowing you to gain support.
I love when topics like this get discussed/debated, but not when people can't come up with arguments with anything to support them and so they resort to name calling and stupidity.
Did you mean like this?
Post #772 Suicide gank topic.
Corina Jarr wrote:Learn the game before you go off and sound like a moron (too late but try for next time).
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:24:00 -
[39] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Now I have mixed views as to the validity of "safeness" and I fully understand the ethos that is Eve. But you know, if I were a commercial entity trying to raise the subscriber base, I'd be seriously looking at games that make the serious coin.
Does Eve need to evolve, in some areas, to be more effective for CCP economically?
Is this the plan?
The 2 paragraphs in the OP that nobody understood.
I bolded the key question.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:K Suri is an obvious troll alt anyways, she even admitted it in another thread. No in that other thread he realized he was losing the argument and went into "lol guyz I was just trolling ju" mode to try and salvage some self respect.
It is hard to admit you were trolled isn't it. That was my "I'm new here introduction". You fell for it. In fact you repeatedly fall prey to my trolls, you just don't see it. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:09:00 -
[41] - Quote
FeralShadow wrote:If you had 10% of the systems that you couldn't suicide gank in or anything, you'd have 500 miners and missioners in each one of those systems because they couldn't be suicide ganked
And the first rule of war would apply. Dec 'em and kill 'em. The demand for the resources in those systems would force them fight each other. Unable to gank, wardecs would be the order of the day.
Which is why we also need corp member lockdown on wardecs and automatic expulsion from NPC corps.
And you know, the more I read from the "do nothing" crowd the more I am convinced that a lot of the argument against anti-SG is because it will need other changes to wardec mechanics etc. and THIS is what worries people more. Because while they expouse the "lawlessness" of a gank, they don't want their own assets put at risk if wardec mechanics were simplified.
What I am saying makes sense when you look at the number of nullsec members involved in the gank/wardec mechanic topics. Why would they?
Quote:or people sitting in there getting their SP up in a perfectly safe environment.
Which they do anyway. I have 4 alts training perfectly safe - in station. I'll bring them out when they're "ready".
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:15:00 -
[42] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:TL;DR.
If you want safety, go play WoW.
Hahahahahohohohoho. That's funny. Really. It is. Seriously. Yes. Funny.
Come here often do you? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:29:00 -
[43] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Ok Suri, I fully agree with you on wardec mechanics. They need to be fixed (IMO) to make EVE less safe, as opposed to more safe if you simply have ISK (no skill required).
However, I would still never agree to a safe zone for regular pilots (though again, the idea mentioned by someone a few posts above about intro systems... I could get behind).
tbh I don't like the concept of safe regions at all. It has been bought forward as an "option" but I don't like it for the obvious reasons.
What I'd like to see is
1) Auto expulsion of NPC after n days as a priority (unleashing hundreds of players into the "real world" - inc bots)
2) A major fix to wardec mechanics so it's much easier to do but also so it can't be abused (and I have a few ideas on this).
The neccessity to gank for economic/strategic/tactical reasons is better catered for.
All that's left is to decide then whether SG should be allowed for "gigglez" because that should be the only reason to do so.
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:42:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:All that's left is to decide then whether SG should be allowed for "gigglez" because that should be the only reason to do so. Why?
Because, as we've seen, massive alliances could bring carnage against hundreds, if not thousands of smaller players for absolutely no reason. This needs to be bought under scrutiny.
If you can't justify an economic/strategic or tactical reason for it then wtf should it be allowed? It's so unbalanced on this point that it beggars belief. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Ok Suri, I fully agree with you on wardec mechanics. They need to be fixed (IMO) to make EVE less safe, as opposed to more safe if you simply have ISK (no skill required).
However, I would still never agree to a safe zone for regular pilots (though again, the idea mentioned by someone a few posts above about intro systems... I could get behind). tbh I don't like the concept of safe regions at all. It has been bought forward as an "option" but I don't like it for the obvious reasons. What I'd like to see is 1) Auto expulsion of NPC after n days as a priority (unleashing hundreds of players into the "real world" - inc bots) 2) A major fix to wardec mechanics so it's much easier to do but also so it can't be abused (and I have a few ideas on this). The neccessity to gank for economic/strategic/tactical reasons is better catered for. All that's left is to decide then whether SG should be allowed for "gigglez" because that should be the only reason to do so. Time marches on yet your bad posting remains. Luckily the people who are stupid enough to agree with you will never have the political clout to pull your dumb ideas off.
And you've got proven techniques on how to get things done? Linky?
"You're dumb, you're an idiot" has obviously worked wonders for you. How about go train Intelligence and Diplomacy to 5 and come back and tell me what I'm doing that's so bad. Until then stfu. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:This is a bit disingenuous considering you were calling everybody who disagreed with you a moron yesterday.
Do you mean that ONE moron that doesn't actually have an opinion to disagree with? Bravo you for for supporting it.
Oh wait. FA. Goon. Goon. FA. Duh. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:00:00 -
[47] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:
And you've got proven techniques on how to get things done? Linky?
"You're dumb, you're an idiot" has obviously worked wonders for you. How about go train Intelligence and Diplomacy to 5 and come back and tell me what I'm doing that's so bad. Until then stfu.
You exist and you sperg worthless trash, and when people point out how incredibly stupid you are your answer is LOL I TROLL U. Get out. Also for linky, click the Dev Blogs button. Thanks.
52 likes and you been here how long? I been here 2 days.
Reckon you got some growing up to do. Getting baited like you are is good experience for when you do. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:03:00 -
[48] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:This is a bit disingenuous considering you were calling everybody who disagreed with you a moron yesterday.
Oh wait. FA. Goon. Goon. FA. Duh. My opinion is that you should get out, which I think was quite clear. Also your general understanding of Null politics appears to be as strong as your grasp on game mechanics, grats.
Null politics? This is a topic about suicide ganking in highsec. 
Btw. How goes the fun against testies? You're so fn bored with nullsec you started shooting blues.  |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:05:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:This is a bit disingenuous considering you were calling everybody who disagreed with you a moron yesterday.
Do you mean that ONE moron that doesn't actually have an opinion to disagree with? Bravo you for for supporting it. Oh wait. FA. Goon. Goon. FA. Duh. Another 4 day old character with lots to say.
And you are? Oh. An alt? Way to go Einstein. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:This is a bit disingenuous considering you were calling everybody who disagreed with you a moron yesterday.
Oh wait. FA. Goon. Goon. FA. Duh. My opinion is that you should get out, which I think was quite clear. Also your general understanding of Null politics appears to be as strong as your grasp on game mechanics, grats. Null politics? This is a topic about suicide ganking in highsec. Btw. How goes the fun against testies? You're so fn bored with nullsec you started shooting blues. And your ignorance shines through yet again. Test is BFF with FA, not that I'd expect a miner to know this. Also, shooting blues is fun and gives us something to do in between suicide ganks. Amazingly, we enjoy losing ships in this PVP Internet Spaceship Game. Whoever would have guessed.
Miner? My ignorance?
Perhaps I oughta jump to my clone in 6VDT and say hi.  |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:33:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Do you mean that ONE moron that doesn't actually have an opinion to disagree with? Bravo you for for supporting it.. Since you aspire to be a forum troll let me give you some advice. When all of your threads devolve into you calling other people names you're doing it wrong.
And since you are a forum troll, I'll take that advice on board.
btw. Your FA boyfriend FA started the name calling. Have you chatted him for name calling yet? Well? Have you? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:btw. Your FA boyfriend started the name calling. Have you chatted him for name calling yet? Well? Have you? If I were to witness him doing it in every thread he posted in I would call him out on it.
Bullshit. I didn't (name call in "every thread") and you did (call me out).
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:34:00 -
[53] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:btw. Your FA boyfriend started the name calling. Have you chatted him for name calling yet? Well? Have you? If I were to witness him doing it in every thread he posted in I would call him out on it. Bullshit. I didn't (name call in "every thread") and you did (call me out). I'm beginning to like these forums. Tasty drama. Although... I wonder, what do people actually talk about here when there's no huge suicide ganking campaign?
And more to the point, if it's so "right" and so "normal" why IS it being talked about so much? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:35:00 -
[54] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:btw. Your FA boyfriend started the name calling. Have you chatted him for name calling yet? Well? Have you? If I were to witness him doing it in every thread he posted in I would call him out on it. Bullshit. I didn't (name call in "every thread") and you did (call me out). Relax, I have only called YOU an idiot in the threads I have posted in recently.
Gimme a kiss sweetie. You're an absolute treasure. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:50:00 -
[55] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:I'd say it's because it's the only large strategic operation that's currently happening in game.
That's one view despite the fact that strategic is a misnomer. That was a Goons justfication for it so they don't get their ass kicked for griefing.
Someone once said that Goons have misjudged CCP here. They have MADE suicide ganking a hot topic and their intent, if there ever was one, may backfire on them. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:07:00 -
[56] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:I'd say it's because it's the only large strategic operation that's currently happening in game. That's one view despite the fact that strategic is a misnomer. That was a Goons justfication for it so they don't get their ass kicked for griefing. Someone once said that Goons have misjudged CCP here. They have MADE suicide ganking a hot topic and their intent, if there ever was one, may backfire on them. Except it isn't griefing. Per CCPs definition, it is nearly impossible to grief a group of people as large as all ice miners in Gall space. In fact, as they are providing a way out (moving to another empire), Goons are definitely not griefing. Ugh I'm defending Goons... I feel dirty.
If I were to buy a Mack and mine in Bramiel (sic) I would get popped by a Goon.
If I were to buy another Mack and mine in Bramiel I would get popped again by a Goon.
If I were to buy another Mack and mine in Bramiel I would get popped again by a Goon.
How many times do I need to do this before it's called griefing as per CCP's "rules"? And if moving locations is a defense to deny griefing can I go to another Gall ice field and mine ice? I bet not.
The rule is ambiguous and "justifying" the campaign by using the wording of the definition should ALSO allow for the interpretation of griefing for the ganked. Does that make sense? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:They doubled gallente ice prices, as long as they bought some before to profit from it, it's not griefing but a valid gameplay maneuver.
That's my point. I'll explain.
What if I decided to go after a rich player over and over again?
Does the very fact that there is salvage preclude a griefing petition because I can simply say it's for economic reasons - as per the CCP definition. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:K Suri wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:I'd say it's because it's the only large strategic operation that's currently happening in game. That's one view despite the fact that strategic is a misnomer. That was a Goons justfication for it so they don't get their ass kicked for griefing. Someone once said that Goons have misjudged CCP here. They have MADE suicide ganking a hot topic and their intent, if there ever was one, may backfire on them. Except it isn't griefing. Per CCPs definition, it is nearly impossible to grief a group of people as large as all ice miners in Gall space. In fact, as they are providing a way out (moving to another empire), Goons are definitely not griefing. Ugh I'm defending Goons... I feel dirty. If I were to buy a Mack and mine in Bramiel (sic) I would get popped by a Goon. If I were to buy another Mack and mine in Bramiel I would get popped again by a Goon. If I were to buy another Mack and mine in Bramiel I would get popped again by a Goon. How many times do I need to do this before it's called griefing as per CCP's "rules"? And if moving locations is a defense to deny griefing can I go to another Gall ice field and mine ice? I bet not. The rule is ambiguous and "justifying" the campaign by using the wording of the definition should ALSO allow for the interpretation of griefing for the ganked. Does that make sense? If you were to continue going to the Gall ice fields after being ganked over and over, you're either stupid or a bot. Especially because Goons are quite vocal about their campaign.
I'm splitting hairs to a degree but the definition doesn't have "stupidity" as an option to justify griefing.
What if were simply new and didn't understand the mechanics or use the forums? How does someone make the call on "stupid" versus "new" versus "ignorant". Is it part of the policy?
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:48:00 -
[59] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:As with the law, ignorance is no excuse.
Goons have provided a way out of being their target, and a very reasonable way out (game wise). It is not griefing.
I used to think like this too. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 03:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Ayuren Aakiwa wrote:@ The OP
You are dumb Don't be too hard on him. We don't want him to get discouraged and stop providing us with so much entertainment.
Like HIS post is going to have a massive impact on my wellbeing.
Kinda proves my point actually. He's an Eve player with THAT level of intellect? |
| |
|