| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo
Red Coat Conspiracy
1235
   |
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
tl;dr - Questions about progressive versus conservatism in wormhole development. Questions bolded below.
Something IGÇÖm learning a ton about quite recently is the depth and detail of different playstyles outside what my friends and I have enjoyed over the last few years. Take NightingaleGÇÖs response, along with many responses IGÇÖve received recently from players about this game and our communities. Some of us, like myself enjoy the war, conflict, and the battlefield; while some players such as a few who replied to my Super Highway article simply like the serene and quiet gameplay where they can live or simulate their virtual life in peace.
The loud voices within the GÇ£notableGÇ¥ and more well-known wormhole entities propose ideas advocating change, conflict, and interaction; while some recent voices joining in the conversation advocate conservatism, with respect to maintaining the enjoyable environment they provide for themselves and their friends. They accuse the loud progressives of dismissing their style of gameplay, and disrespecting their view of how to play Eve Online. They refer to the progressives as GÇ£bulliesGÇ¥, GÇ£griefersGÇ¥, and simply GÇ£disrespectfulGÇ¥.
After observing and participating in these discussions recently, I try to think about how a CSM delegate breaks down this information, reviews the perspective of the various groups, and makes the best decisions for the GÇ£communityGÇ¥. The more IGÇÖm learning, the less inclined I am to even refer to this as a community, as there seems to be a large community of players (C5/C6 Residents), a couple smaller communities (individual friendships between alliances/corps), even smaller communities to individuals residing quietly in various parts of the greater wormhole area, and then the individual corporations and alliances within wormhole space.
Take the Super Highway idea, for example, where a number of groups were very excited and very much liked the idea of removing the old C4 highway, dead-end pipes, and quiet cul-de-sacs and transforming it into an opportunity to spread throughout wormholes. After the article was published, it would seem a hornetsGÇÖ nest had been rattled; an outcry from the C1-C4 residents that the idea was more GÇ£bullyingGÇ¥ from the C5/C6 community. I recall one guy even referring to C5/C6 dwellers as carebears, even though he said he had to run 5x the sites to make what they earn in their systems? I digress.
So, as I spoke with some friends, I asked them, GÇ£Apparently our gamestyle and ideas negatively impact the gamestyle of another group, and they seem to think we completely are dismissing them and proposing to ruin the game for them. What do you think?GÇ¥ One reply ofcourse was GÇ£well, theyGÇÖre weak, so who caresGǪGÇ¥, another was GÇ£I donGÇÖt envy that diplo/CSM s***, bruhGÇ¥, but then I was asked, GÇ£do you think that they realize or care that they are equally dismissing our gamestyle and ideas?GÇ¥
So, IGÇÖm curious, what are your views and thoughts on the future of this GÇ£communityGÇ¥, wormholes, and Eve Online? Do we shelf the progressive changes to appease one group, dismissing the desires of another; do we act on progressive changes to appease the other group, while dismissing the style of the other; how would you weigh the gains and losses of players, and how would you justify your decisions?
CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected]
Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889
Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
234
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Normally I would say the only poor decision is doing nothing, but that's not entirely true because there is a development cycle going on behind the scenes that we're catching pieces of.
I think we need to see where POS updates and deployable modules take us. If they make W-space more inhabitable then people will get more pew. There may not be a need for increases in wandering holes, or trying to change C4 or C5 statics.
If T3s get nerfed into the ground the price of nanoribbons will plumit, but it will change the PVP meta which would be nice. Our proposal to the Devs should be to either go easy on T3s or create a new product (hopefully T3) that we can make in W-space.
Those two pieces right there will change the wormhole landscape pretty significantly. |
Nightingale Actault
The Night Crew
The Night Crew Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
There can be a middle ground taking into account both sides and ends of the spectrum. |
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
Black Legion.
243
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Game is boring if you let democracy decide how the game is developed.
What we need is a dev who has a vision of what w-space should be and has the ability to implement that vision, regardless of whether or not you, I or anybody else likes that idea. It's up to CCP to figure who has the best vision and whether it will actually gain them players in the long run.
I think that players should have little say in this kind of game design because tbh 99.99% of the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
Many times the devs/company/whatever is being dumb as well, but I really feel that the game's direction should be based on actual results rather than players saying what they think or will do in the case of something being introduced. I'd rather CCP just put in dual-static Cx class WH's and let it play out for a month and see how it goes rather than agonizing over whether or not it's the right decision.
Edit: To answer your specific question, I don't think that the opinion of people who want to be 'alone' in their WH are valid whatsoever. If you want singleplayer, play singleplayer. In the case of C4's and a dual static, I think that for the most part the people in C4's who think it's a bad idea are just afraid of having to deal with the larger playerbase in w-space and I think that the opinion of these people is invalid for the reason above. More player interaction is always a good thing 100% of the time and I think that any change that increases it should be implemented regardless of what people think. |
RudinV
Syndicate of Death
BLOOD UNION
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Whatever u gonna do, just do NOT touch local in w-space... |
Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
736
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 21:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Priority is player-driven content.
There's nothing worse than an EVE player, generally considered to be top of the food chain in the MMO world, that cannot smacktalk with wit and coherency. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1416
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 22:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
For the most part, wormhole space has been designed very well and I don't think CCP need to change the way wormholes and their solasistem function. However, i think we can all agree that, at some point in the future, there needs to be a wormhole expansion (new content).
If CCP were to start developing new content for wormhole space tomarrow, i would what them to do to things:
1. Allow players to upgrade/change change a wormhole system using a deployable structure (Not at a pos).
2. Introduce new Tech or content that would attract more people to wormhole space.
+1 |
Nightingale Actault
The Night Crew
The Night Crew Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 22:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: I don't think CCP need to change the way wormholes and their solar system function.
How sir, can you then advocate for a module that removes or inhibits system effects?
Rek Seven wrote:Allow players to upgrade/change a wormhole system using deployable structures (not at a pos) that drop loot if destroyed..
Then go on to say the exact opposite? |
Jack Miton
Sky Fighters
3099
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 22:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:Rek Seven wrote: I don't think CCP need to change the way wormholes and their solar system function.
How sir, can you then advocate for a module that removes or inhibits system effects? Rek Seven wrote:Allow players to upgrade/change a wormhole system using deployable structures (not at a pos) that drop loot if destroyed.. Then go on to say the exact opposite?
it's Rek Seven, why you surprised about this?
basically he doesnt want pulsar effects to stop him from fighting in 40 armour T3s all the time, every time.
whatever, ccp dont need another pure WH space expansion. it would be far better for them to work on mostly separate new content, which looks to be what theyre doing with the new stargates thing.
whs need a LOT less work than people seem to assume.
people keep trying to argue about what changes are needed in wh space when the real question is do whs need changing?
the answer to that is a solid no for me so i basically argue against all of the ideas put forth.
Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1417
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 22:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:**Snip**
Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale?
+1 |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo
Red Coat Conspiracy
1236
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 23:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:**Snip** Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale? To answer your question, what i was saying is that i wouldn't want CCP to change the way wormholes currently work because lots of people that are happy with their system could be disappointed but i would like them to add content that would allow players to change things and create conflict at the same time. Proc, would you like me to refrain from debating in this thread? 
Not at all, Rek. Debate and discussion are welcome.
CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected]
Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889
Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Winthorp
Sky Fighters
1344
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 23:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:**Snip** Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale? To answer your question, what i was saying is that i wouldn't want CCP to change the way wormholes currently work because lots of people that are happy with their system could be disappointed but i would like them to add content that would allow players to change things and create conflict at the same time. Proc, would you like me to refrain from debating in this thread?
The problem i have with player driven "conflict driver" ideas is they always come in the form of a module or set of scenarios that only favor the aggressor in the situation, add to that the multiplication factor of an aggressor with numbers to overwhelm the opponent they no longer become "content drivers" and instead become absurd ways to drive out your opponent from the space they/we live in.
I am yet to read a "conflict driver" thread that is even remotely close to being balanced.
(Insert witty signature here) |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo
Red Coat Conspiracy
1236
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 23:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:**Snip** Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale? To answer your question, what i was saying is that i wouldn't want CCP to change the way wormholes currently work because lots of people that are happy with their system could be disappointed but i would like them to add content that would allow players to change things and create conflict at the same time. Proc, would you like me to refrain from debating in this thread? The problem i have with player driven "conflict driver" ideas is they always come in the form of a module or set of scenarios that only favor the aggressor in the situation, add to that the multiplication factor of an aggressor with numbers to overwhelm the opponent they no longer become "content drivers" and instead become absurd ways to drive out your opponent from the space they/we live in. I am yet to read a "conflict driver" thread that is even remotely close to being balanced.
Community questions:
> Do we need "conflict drivers" added?
> Is it possible to balance any of the suggested "conflict drivers"?
> Any particular "modules" or "scenarios" proposed that could work if adjusted?
> What are the pro's and con's of adding or not adding "conflict drivers"?
> If changes to the game aren't desired, what would you expect from your CSM?
Feel free to add questions, answer questions, debate, discuss.
CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected]
Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889
Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1421
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 00:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
In high sec and low sec, a POCO is a good example of a conflict driver that is fairly well balanced. They provide isk to the owner, which in turn, provides an incentive for people to fight for their control. They don't have the same effect in wormhole space because only the corp living in a system can control them long term and their low value makes it an unnecessary risk to fight over them.
Should CCP desire, i feel confident that they could come up with balanced conflict drivers that work in wormhole space. ISK doesn't have to always be the reward, it's just the first motivating factor i think of.
+1 |
Winthorp
Sky Fighters
1346
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 00:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:In high sec and low sec, a POCO is a good example of a conflict driver that is fairly well balanced. They provide isk to the owner, which in turn, provides an incentive for people to fight for their control. They don't have the same effect in wormhole space because only the corp living in a system can control them long term and their low value makes it an unnecessary risk to fight over them.
This is simply not true, We and a few other groups infact control POCO's in several inhabited WH systems.
To call the POCO system balanced is a bit odd as the only small groups that own POCO's in HS are in small dead end systems and they will long term be owned by the major groups like the popular POCO's are now. Is it a conflict driver? yes, Is it well balanced? No.
(Insert witty signature here) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1421
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 00:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Are these groups controlling POCO's in systems owned by PVPer or just a few farmers that do not have the ability/will to fight back?
Balance doesn't mean that heavy objects should way as much a light objects. Can you think of a gameplay mechanic (or conflict driver) that is balanced for both sides while making the size of your alliance irrelevant?
+1 |
Thor66777
Obstergo
Red Coat Conspiracy
62
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 02:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Should probably for this idea, and similar future ideas, propose both opposing ideas to devs, if you cant find common ground. Ultimately this is CCP game as much as it is ours. And give them both ideas and let them figure it out and find out where one fits with their future scheme of the game. |
Winthorp
Sky Fighters
1347
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 02:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Are these groups controlling POCO's in systems owned by PVP'ers or just a few farmers that do not have the ability/will to fight back? Balance doesn't mean that heavy objects should way as much a light objects. Can you think of a gameplay mechanic (or conflict driver) that is balanced for both sides while making the size of your alliance irrelevant?
I never said we controlled the POCO's in a balanced way, you in fact are claiming POCO's are a balanced system i was only correcting you on the fact that you can't control them long term in WH space. And yet you still ignored my first comments so well...
(Insert witty signature here) |
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
45
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 04:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Just add some more pve content/loot that can be turned into usable products for all of eve. All the new mobile structures should have come from wh content.
Everything else is fine. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
322
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 08:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:Community questions:
> Do we need "conflict drivers" added?
> Is it possible to balance any of the suggested "conflict drivers"?
> Any particular "modules" or "scenarios" proposed that could work if adjusted?
> What are the pro's and con's of adding or not adding "conflict drivers"?
> If changes to the game aren't desired, what would you expect from your CSM?
I dont think we need more conflict drivers. Most of us are already pretty driven towards conflict. What we need is more conflict opportunities - ie. more interaction, meeting each other more often, cross each others paths.
This can be done imho in two ways:
- increasing the occurence of connections
(adding statics to C4s, boosting spawnrate of random holes for example, adding new space accessible via WSpace)
- making preventing others from interacting with you more difficult
(making crashing holes more risky, not showing new sigs on overlay immediatly, incentivizing farming outside your WH)
I'd also like to post my idea I floated during the townhall and some seemed to like it:
The higher the ship mass, the higher the warp accuracy deviation. Ie. small ships would come out of warp and land pretty much exactly on the BM. Larger ships would land gradually farther and farther, until capitals would have decent chance to land let's say 5km off, so that you might need to slowboat a bit towards the hole in order to jump through...
So this would be "making crashing riskier" kind of idea - thoughts? how terrible would that be?
W-Space Realtor |
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
45
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 09:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:
This can be done imho in two ways:
- increasing the occurence of connections
(adding statics to C4s, boosting spawnrate of random holes for example, adding new space accessible via WSpace)
- making preventing others from interacting with you more difficult
(making crashing holes more risky, not showing new sigs on overlay immediatly, incentivizing farming outside your WH)
I'd also like to post my idea I floated during the townhall and some seemed to like it:
The higher the ship mass, the higher the warp accuracy deviation. Ie. small ships would come out of warp and land pretty much exactly on the BM. Larger ships would land gradually farther and farther, until capitals would have decent chance to land let's say 5km off, so that you might need to slowboat a bit towards the hole in order to jump through...
So this would be "making crashing riskier" kind of idea - thoughts? how terrible would that be?
Everything and I mean everything you say promotes the style of gameplay you do. Not everyone can run around in 30 man t3 fleets. I really hope none of the devs read the drivel being posted on this subforum. |
Jack Miton
Sky Fighters
3101
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 10:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:Winthorp wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Nightingale Actault wrote:**Snip** Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale? To answer your question, what i was saying is that i wouldn't want CCP to change the way wormholes currently work because lots of people that are happy with their system could be disappointed but i would like them to add content that would allow players to change things and create conflict at the same time. Proc, would you like me to refrain from debating in this thread? The problem i have with player driven "conflict driver" ideas is they always come in the form of a module or set of scenarios that only favor the aggressor in the situation, add to that the multiplication factor of an aggressor with numbers to overwhelm the opponent they no longer become "content drivers" and instead become absurd ways to drive out your opponent from the space they/we live in. I am yet to read a "conflict driver" thread that is even remotely close to being balanced. Community questions: > Do we need "conflict drivers" added? > Is it possible to balance any of the suggested "conflict drivers"? > Any particular "modules" or "scenarios" proposed that could work if adjusted? > What are the pro's and con's of adding or not adding "conflict drivers"? > If changes to the game aren't desired, what would you expect from your CSM? Feel free to add questions, answer questions, debate, discuss.
> no
> no
> no
> zero
> stop ccp fro breaking existing functionality and/or adding stupid features
Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |