| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Agondray wrote:your right, lets remove mining, the market, all pve content and no was for any one to make isk and see how far the game goes.
im sorry this game has areas outside that allows other players to gain isk that they spend with little disregard.
maybe LoL or WoT will be better fitted for you trolling gankers since than you can kill players all day there with no safety....oh wait those can get you killed right back This sounds like a brilliant idea actually. It's been stated that the only reason anyone plays EVE is for the pvp against other people. Obviously that's what the OP wants, the ability to find more meaningful PvP. So lets just remove missions, mining, industry, trading, and all that other carebear nonsense straight into the dumpster. Instead we can Have isk be paid to players for winning in the Arena of Combat! Where when you log in, you purchase the ship you wish to fly, and then you fly around on the pre designated team you've been assigned and fight other combatants. That's definitely how EVE should be. Is there a petition I can sign? I'm so excited thinking about how EVE is suppose to be that I don't even really want to waste my time with all the other ridiculousness this game provides. *edit* I'm mining AFK in hi-sec and my clone is outdated.
Its called SISI
|

Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
460
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:hellokittyonline wrote:^Typical carebear response. Completely uninformed posting in defense of their mindless play with the assumption that they should be able to play in a 100% safe environment, by themselves (themepark), at the expense of the fun of others who would prefer a risky and exciting game environment (sandbox). Harassing CCP to change the game to suit your needs does not constitute "content creation". Harassing CCP to nerf my content creation ruins my sandbox.
Don't you mean "our" sandbox. |

Hadrian Blackstone
Barringtons Research
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote:EVE needs carebears to function, but their carebearing activities need to more closely resemble playing in an interactive environment with other players who might wish to interact in a manner inconsistent with the carebear's fantasy of a single player game.
Isn't OP already doing that? |

Divine Entervention
The Lonetrek Militia Rapidus Incitus Pactum
57
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote:EVE needs carebears to function, but their carebearing activities need to more closely resemble playing in an interactive environment with other players who might wish to interact in a manner inconsistent with the carebear's fantasy of a single player game.
The guy who works at the subway you never visit, and never encounter.
You might not be interacting with him directly, but the actions he takes performing a role in society is contributing to the interactive environment with other people. Just not you directly. His presence has an influence.
Unless someone is choosing to log in and sit docked in their station silently, then any action he performs in game is interaction with the game, and since we're all playing the same game, interaction with the entire gaming community.
Be it someone shooting at you, someone for you to shoot at, mining an asteroid, building a ship, it's all actions effecting the entirety of the game. |

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
Not that I object to nerfing highsec it could be a good thing if hisec was more challenging ... but its amusing that people want to force DEV changes on a game because they think it should be a player created sandbox with no DEV intervention. Something a little irrational going on there.
There is also a lot of confusion in this thread between sandbox, multiplayer and PvP. The three things are separate, for example WoW is a themepark but definitely encourages multi-player and PvP. The two main posters (same person?) both seem to be wanting to encourage PvP (a good thing) as if PvP is part of being a sandbox (its clearly not).
I suppose what I am saying here is the intentions of the OP to open the game up more may be good ... but its very poorly argued to the point of sounding illogical and doing his/her cause more harm than good. |

Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3934
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 05:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
It is well known that I am terrible at pvp. I cannot be the OP. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |

hellokittyonline
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
I'm still not quite sure how you guys twist my original post into me forcing you to PvP. I do not want to force you to PvP, I did not say that at all. I do however think that actions with inherent risk should be rewarded more than those without, that's my main point. 0 risk is infinitely more safe than even the slightest risk, so risky actions need to be infinitely more profitable or the game will devolve into a whos-MR-battleship-is-shinier e-peen contest with no real depth.
edit: your arguments are a tell as to the level of your intellect, and it is in line with the lack of intellect that I prey on daily. I CANT MAKE COHERENT ARGUE SO IMA JUST PERTEND U SAY WHAT I THINK U SAY AN RESPOND TO DAT HURRDUURRDURR |

Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1030
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:08:00 -
[38] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote: 1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.
Yes, please.
hellokittyonline wrote: 2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.
Then do it everywhere; nearly 3/4 of the bounties that you're worried about come from null sec ratting, according to CCP. And then figure out how newbros are going to get by without even the meager income provided by L1s and L2s. Mining? Ninja salvaging doesn't pay so well since the salvage market crashed, although it's still worth it for new players if they go into L4s and pick their wrecks carefully.
hellokittyonline wrote: 3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.
For them, and also for you. For instance, if you're trespassing in pirate territory, there's no reason for them to be much friendlier toward you: you're also a trespasser. If you're attacking another trespasser, they might leave you for last, but they might not. It would be interesting if the reactions depended on the nature of the rats and of the site. A site with a wing of tackle ships might try to pin every intruder down; a site with only one would only tackle primaries, or maybe call as primary someone you'd so generously tackled for them. The point is that the more complex and less predictable the behavior is, the better. It rewards in-depth knowledge about the rats and the missions.
As for the "oh so juicy ores" in low sec that so few people mine, is this a stealth "nerf the Venture" thread? Because the answer is no: Ventures are entirely killable as is. They're just not sitting ducks the way Retrievers are.
hellokittyonline wrote: 4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.
How does knowledge of the safety, knowing how to use (or work around) the gate guns in low sec, and knowledge of how and when to use warp core stabs not constitute knowledge of game mechanics? What you're asking for is for the game to be easier for you, so there are fewer variables that you have to think about and prepare for. (Personally, I dealt with all that crap by moving into a wormhole--there, it doesn't matter one bit how your safety's set, and there are no gate guns; no Local, either--why isn't that on your list of safety nets?--but if you want to stay in Empire, you play by Empire's rules.)
There are more elegant solutions to the problem of the cloaky warp-stabbed FW farmer proposed in the various CSM9 candidate threads. But you can't really complain that they're not incentivized to know the game mechanics, as they're being rewarded handsomely for taking full advantage of them. The mechanics are the problem.
hellokittyonline wrote: TL;DR - Make players have to learn about the game and its mechanics in order to be successful.
You realize that we got safeties in no small part because people were having their ignorance of the rules taken advantage of well before they'd had a chance to get familiar with them, right? As it is, the rules of engagement in high sec do not favor mission boats, something you take full advantage of every time you warp your frigate into someone's mission and close into your preferred range under the protective wing of CONCORD.
I won't even mention the number of people who've lost ships in low sec because they forgot that their $*(#@&%@$# safety was set green, so they didn't shoot when they thought they did, so they went blooey. But hey, at least the loss is an incentive to be more familiar with the mechanics, right?
Risk is not just for other people; you are not just creating content for them, but they are also creating content (and income!) for you. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |

Divine Entervention
The Lonetrek Militia Rapidus Incitus Pactum
58
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:I'm still not quite sure how you guys twist my original post into me forcing you to PvP. I do not want to force you to PvP, I did not say that at all. I do however think that actions with inherent risk should be rewarded more than those without, that's my main point. 0 risk is infinitely more safe than even the slightest risk, so risky actions need to be infinitely more profitable or the game will devolve into a whos-MR-battleship-is-shinier e-peen contest with no real depth.
edit: your arguments are a tell as to the level of your intellect, and it is in line with the lack of intellect that I prey on daily. I CANT MAKE COHERENT ARGUE SO IMA JUST PERTEND U SAY WHAT I THINK U SAY AN RESPOND TO DAT HURRDUURRDURR
I have seen it argued many times that there is always a risk. If someone is undocking, they're taking a risk.
So by your own definition, if the person is farming NPCs, which you cannot do docked in a station. He is taking risk.
Please explain to me how a person farming NPCs is doing so with zero risk. I was told that I should be aware of risk at all times. |

hellokittyonline
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship. |

Lugia3
Emerald Inc.
860
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:hellokittyonline wrote:^Typical carebear response. Completely uninformed posting in defense of their mindless play with the assumption that they should be able to play in a 100% safe environment, by themselves (themepark), at the expense of the fun of others who would prefer a risky and exciting game environment (sandbox). Harassing CCP to change the game to suit your needs does not constitute "content creation". Harassing CCP to nerf my content creation ruins my sandbox.
I almost liked your original post. Almost. Then I realized you didn't know what you were talking about and decided not to.
This is coming from a hard pirate. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10208
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
Em arr Roids wrote:Sigh another nerf high sec thread hey ? I knew one was due!
What the op says will never happen. If you look at the map and statics you will see that most of the active playerbase is currently in high sec. Always was and always will be the most active areas of space.
That is a lot of custom to loose by fcking their game and content up and driving them out.
This is a myth.
A huge chunk are null sec alts who are only in high sec for the isk and there will be no mass unsub, high sec bears always threaten to leave but never do. CCP should fix game imbalances and ignore the people who defend said game imbalances. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

hellokittyonline
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:19:00 -
[43] - Quote
The problem is that you can also do it wrong and never lose your ship. |

Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
104
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:20:00 -
[44] - Quote
Eve IS a sandbox. You just don't like how other people play in their part of the sandbox.
If someone doesn't want to socialize with other players, let them decide to not socialize with other players. If they enjoy ratting in highsec or running missions, they've got the right. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean a damn thing as to whether it should continue or not when it's their preferred play style and their money funding their play style.
I will agree that NPCs should be much harder, and that there should be more incentive to venture into other parts of space, but I don't agree with nerfing Highsec to oblivion, nor removing ways to make money that don't involve PvP.
Infact, I'll go so far as to say that removing the ability to make money without interacting with a player is ******* dumb, and so is the person who believes that's a good idea. |

Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1479
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Em arr Roids wrote:Sigh another nerf high sec thread hey ? I knew one was due!
What the op says will never happen. If you look at the map and statics you will see that most of the active playerbase is currently in high sec. Always was and always will be the most active areas of space.
That is a lot of custom to loose by fcking their game and content up and driving them out. This is a myth. A huge chunk are null sec alts who are only in high sec for the isk and there will be no mass unsub, high sec bears always threaten to leave but never do. CCP should fix game imbalances and ignore the people who defend said game imbalances.
Bears fill up games like WoW to the tune of millions. Wonder what CCP wants, more paying subs or more ISK for nullsec to RMT away.  ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2858
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Em arr Roids wrote:Sigh another nerf high sec thread hey ? I knew one was due!
What the op says will never happen. If you look at the map and statics you will see that most of the active playerbase is currently in high sec. Always was and always will be the most active areas of space.
That is a lot of custom to loose by fcking their game and content up and driving them out. This is a myth. A huge chunk are null sec alts who are only in high sec for the isk and there will be no mass unsub, high sec bears always threaten to leave but never do. CCP should fix game imbalances and ignore the people who defend said game imbalances. Bears fill up games like WoW to the tune of millions. Wonder what CCP wants, more paying subs or more ISK for nullsec to RMT away. 
And dozens of other games have died trying precisely that.
Blizzard is the exception, not the rule. They're hanging on by their fingernails, poisoning their once beloved IPs by catering to the casuals, what's more. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10209
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Em arr Roids wrote:Sigh another nerf high sec thread hey ? I knew one was due!
What the op says will never happen. If you look at the map and statics you will see that most of the active playerbase is currently in high sec. Always was and always will be the most active areas of space.
That is a lot of custom to loose by fcking their game and content up and driving them out. This is a myth. A huge chunk are null sec alts who are only in high sec for the isk and there will be no mass unsub, high sec bears always threaten to leave but never do. CCP should fix game imbalances and ignore the people who defend said game imbalances. Bears fill up games like WoW to the tune of millions. Wonder what CCP wants, more paying subs or more ISK for nullsec to RMT away. 
WoW has lost millions of subs in the last two years and every MMO that copies it crashes in less than a month. EVE is the only MMO to do nothing but grow.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
544
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:41:00 -
[48] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:...
SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:
1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid ....
Wanna-be sociopath tears are quite simply the platinum standard of tears, don't you know?
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good. |

Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3935
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:43:00 -
[49] - Quote
Chopper Rollins wrote:hellokittyonline wrote:...
SKILLS MY PROFESSION REQUIRES THAT PVE DOESN'T:
1. People Skills - the socio-path-like ability to talk someone into doing something completely stupid .... Wanna-be sociopath tears are quite simply the platinum standard of tears, don't you know?
2003 player tears are pretty good, or so I hear. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |

Sara Navorski
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
hydraSlav wrote:[quote=hellokittyonline] [...] "pvping" in high-sec, you'd know that this already exists. It's called Sleeper AI, and does everything you've listed above.
And where are sleepers to be found? Absolutely nowhere near hisec, and far far from a safe place to do things solo.
What bothers me most is the people who like to say that their chunk of the sandbox is mission running or mining. You are not part of the sandbox when all of the options to interact with you have been hammered shut.
Mission runners especially face almost 0 risk aside from getting blapped by nados or being extremely stupid and aggressing flashies in particular situations. The fact that there is only one way to directly interact with a mission runner without having him shoot first is in my opinion, contrary to the ethos of eve.
OP isn't saying hisec needs a nerf, he is more saying that the options available should be more inclusive of other players, and be more difficult to stay in line with the amount of isk people are making.
These missions were designed long before people perfected methods of running them. They now need to be changed to be in line with the income they provide, and have the walls separating the runners from other players toned down. |

James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9086
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:43:00 -
[51] - Quote
If you're going to sockpuppet you should make it a bit less obvious. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|

Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3935
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:49:00 -
[52] - Quote
I only see independent parties here, who is engaging is sockpuppetry? See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |

Sara Navorski
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:51:00 -
[53] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote:I only see independent parties here, who is engaging is sockpuppetry?
If you share somebody's sentiments you must be an alt! |

Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
591
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:52:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ok, I'll bite. I mostly agree with the OP in the form of questions, however, some solutions are slightly problematic:
hellokittyonline1 wrote: NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.
I absolutely and 100% agree with this one. However, building an AI for this would be a royal pain in the ass.
Quote:2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.
Where would isk come from then? While it's true that bounties (and plex) bring money into the game, it's also true that pvp removes it. None of the other activities produce any form of isk, they just make it trade hands.
Quote:3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.
Absolutely agree. The problem is, some people are so risk-averse that they would never take an additional risk, no matter the cost. For instance, there were ideas of removing L4 missions from high sec. I honestly believe that there are those who would choose to run L3 missions or even mine instead of moving to low/null/WH space. As long as they believe that they'll be instantly vaporized the moment they get out of the "safety" of high sec, they'll never take the first step. All the talk of pirates and gangs doesn't help, people need to see the shinnies too.
Quote:4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.
Which should be part of missions in the first place. But again, without seeing a shiny, the risk-averse players will never be conviced to take that needed step. |

Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3935
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 06:57:00 -
[55] - Quote
Sara Navorski wrote:Erotica 1 wrote:I only see independent parties here, who is engaging is sockpuppetry? If you share somebody's sentiments you must be an alt!
One of these days I'm just going to list all my alts (and have them confirm) so everyone can see what wonderful names I picked out for them. Hint, a good number of them are in my corp. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |

Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 07:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:1. NPCs need to be DIFFICULT. Make the NPCs fight like a seasoned PvPer would. Neuts, scrams, webs, transversal, and the utilization of range control. These NPCs should only target the aggressors and they should encourage your average carebear to actually learn how combat works.
Agreed. A good chunk of PvE content right now is an industrial farming activity with no challenge or connection to the rest of the sandbox. Its predictable, mundane and detached from other activities. An overhaul of content and mechanics that turns the activity to a potential ladder between PvE and PvP would be very desirable, as well as beneficial for carebears and PvPers alike.
hellokittyonline wrote:2. Remove bounties. Rewards should 100% be in the form of a tangible item in the game that one can trade to another player for that players isk (or even, god-forbid, STEAL). Bounties inflate currency and line the lazy-mans pocket as no processing is required to get the value out of their time.
I really think that the bounty system can work with an overhaul. The concept is good, and the possibilities for new professions and player interaction is great, but right now everything is borked due to the mechanics at hand. Bounty hunting is not a viable profession, neither is putting a bounty on someone you want dead.
hellokittyonline wrote:3. Incentivise risk-taking. Whether it be a risky market endevour or a trip to low-sec for those "o so juicy ores" there needs to be incentives that involve risking an engagement with another player for our lovely sandbox to remain as such. Furthermore, the rewards for said endevours need to fall in line with the risk involved.
The problem here is a little bigger. It is very difficult to stop risk aversion just by putting more value to risk, simply because a good chunk of the population does not care about value in the first place. Its a mentality problem really, stemming from the fact that the empire space in itself forms a cocoon of gameplay that a priori limits player interaction and chains players to slow suffocation via boredom. To alleviate that, you have to incorporate systemic (not player driven) risk at the source (empire) while marshaling the playerbase to interact.
hellokittyonline wrote:4. Remove safety nets. The green safety, gate guns in low sec, warp core stabs on ships already small enough to escape almost anything, all need to go. The idea should be to incentivise knowledge of game mechanics, and player interaction, not solo-farming.
I don't think that any of the mechanics or features you listed are bad. For example, the crime-watch system is admittedly a welcome addition simply because before that a good chunk of game mechanics were obfuscated behind a massive wall of close-the-client-and-read mindfuck. That was really bad, especially for new players. |

Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations CODE.
3935
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 07:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
Some good points. Let's start by having NPC's gank miners and freighters in highsec.
Speaking of, why doesn't Concord shoot the rats who open fire on players in belts? It seems, inconsistent... See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did. |

Xia Kairui
United System's Commonwealth
68
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 07:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
OP TL;DR: ganking is too hard nowadays, everybody who disagrees with me is a carebear.
0/10, would not read again. |

Helia Tranquilis
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 08:05:00 -
[59] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship. So essentially you just want to make sure you don't ever have the risk of losing ship by skipping the baiting and go straight in with a pvp T3 and kill the poor mission runner in a hilarious way. There are already plenty of areas to do so. But perhaps those areas are too much risk for you? |

March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1251
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 08:12:00 -
[60] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship. let me guess: if you are god-like pvp-er and never lose your ship you do "pvp without risk"?  The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |