|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
856
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 21:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
What are your thoughts on White Knight mechanics? This would seem to be the other side of the same coin for anyone serious about highsec content creation. How can they be improved to encourage cooperative defensive play? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
934
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 00:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Sephira, if letting the air out of the balls was a legal move in a game that strongly featured letting the air out of the balls, I would be all for it.
Zappity, having been on the defense and having been successfully defended against in these situations, I feel that defenders have a great number of advantages in these situations. I don't think they need more of them in a generalized non-specific way, but I do feel like they should know more about them. Honestly, each of the major types of content creating gameplay has several very strong counters, the shortcoming is only in the knowledge or will of those that would apply them. Care to comment further on the quote below? This is along the lines that I was thinking:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Asking a dedicated PVP ship to defend a mining fleet can often lead to mind numbing boredom for the PVP pilot, so we're providing the option for players to make sacrifices in their mining ships to allow self-defense. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
934
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 05:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
To be honest I don't really know what I'm asking, having never mined. I just sense missed gameplay and player interaction opportunities in highsec in particular.
At the moment, a miner is interacted with (ganked). No problem. I would like to see additional mechanics which promoted team play to defend against this without resulting in the boredom Fozzie mentioned. Don't know what and just thought that you might have had insights given your play style.
If such mechanics could be figured out I'd actually ask for a nerf to solo miner safety. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
946
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 20:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Esha Amphal wrote:...and give -constructive- feedback on how to move forward. I would feel more confident about a candidate who also gave some feedback in their own thread. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
946
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 22:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sadly I have to agree with Zappity. I actually put a vote in behind Monk last elections and would have done so again this time, as I feel that the Ganker/Criminal playstyle is an important part of EVE even if we don't like it that much when we receive it. However Monk hasn't answered the hard questions in this thread, only the nice soft questions as well as not giving feedback even though we are past the date he said he would be back by, which leaves me feeling his campaign is based on popularity issues rather than seriousness, & that he won't be as effective as other options. What hard questions? The only ones I've seen in a while consist of "I hate you because you is pirate!" or "What do you think about Erotica1?" There have been precious few people asking him "questions" that weren't pure bullshit. ISD Ezwal has basically been having to camp out in this thread because it's mostly personal attacks and "+1" statements. Not a lot to reply to. Then you fail at comprehension. Let me put it in a simple manner that even you cannot obfuscate.
Monk, without reference to specific players, is the bonus room the sort of emergent gameplay that your platform embraces? If so, what message would you use your CSM term to convey to CCP? If not, how do you reconcile this with the fact that you have participated in bonus rooms? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
946
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sadly I have to agree with Zappity. I actually put a vote in behind Monk last elections and would have done so again this time, as I feel that the Ganker/Criminal playstyle is an important part of EVE even if we don't like it that much when we receive it. However Monk hasn't answered the hard questions in this thread, only the nice soft questions as well as not giving feedback even though we are past the date he said he would be back by, which leaves me feeling his campaign is based on popularity issues rather than seriousness, & that he won't be as effective as other options. What hard questions? The only ones I've seen in a while consist of "I hate you because you is pirate!" or "What do you think about Erotica1?" There have been precious few people asking him "questions" that weren't pure bullshit. ISD Ezwal has basically been having to camp out in this thread because it's mostly personal attacks and "+1" statements. Not a lot to reply to. Then you fail at comprehension. Let me put it in a simple manner that even you cannot obfuscate. Monk, without reference to specific players, is the bonus room the sort of emergent gameplay that your platform embraces? If so, what message would you use your CSM term to convey to CCP? If not, how do you reconcile this with the fact that you have participated in bonus rooms? See above, about E1. Again. In before Ezwal deletes this one too. There is a distinction between the behaviour associated with the bonus room (fine to discuss) and Erotica 1. Notice that I specifically exclude reference to specific players. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
946
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 01:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:It's a loaded question, it's an attempt at guilt by association, it's bullshit, and if I were him I wouldn't bother answering it either. Stay on message, and all that. I understand that concern. I had him on my CSM8 list. I think you are oversimplifying the situation. Anyway, I would counter that refusing to address the topic is a very poor strategy - I imagine there are quite a few people like me who aren't impressed with the ""lalalalala, I can't hear you!!!" approach. Silence on the topic of limiting emergent gameplay will just mean that he doesn't make it onto my CSM9 list.
I want to know what he thinks about limiting emergent gameplay. Can it go too far? Will his message to CCP be that they should just back off? Does he agree with CSM8's position to support CCP in limiting the sandbox? Does he think, on reflection, that the bonus room was not an acceptable extension? These questions will surely be of direct relevance to CSM9.
From the OP:
Psychotic Monk wrote:It is fundamentally important that someone with significant hands on experience in these matters be on hand to help CCP determine what is or isn't going to be good for the health of emergent gameplay in highsec. Yes, that's why you made my list for CSM8. Can we please have your views on what is/isn't good for the health of emergent gameplay? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
|
|