Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5099
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:33:00 -
[331] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:So with the opposition to an Ultra-Sec no longer choosing to voice their opinions against it's implementation, the only logical step to take now would be for CCP to convert 19 high security systems into "Ultra-Sec"? I will support this "ultra-sec," assuming CCP implements an "enlightened pimping zone" (with that precise name) in Jita and the surrounding systems. We have, after all, come to an agreement that Eve is in fact a pimping game? So CCP should thoroughly support this facet of the sandbox.
If we're going to play the subjectivity game of "EVE is whatever I say it is!", then I also want ponies. I did used to be in Fweddit, after all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:33:00 -
[332] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, please do go at it you two, this will be fun to watch. Troll Death Match? I'm down with that. If it were to be a troll death match, it would have to be you and kaarous. Except that I'm not a troll, neither is Kaarous, kindly stop projecting your own vile posting habits on to others.
I've gone through the entirety of this thread and not once have I engaged in trolling.
"Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote."
I've done no such thing, which makes your label of me disrespectful in the sense that it's a bold faced lie.
Being disrespectful could be interpreted as attempting to elicit an emotional response, which is what you and kaarous are doing. Kaarous especially when he insults the intelligence of people he disagrees with. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17996
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:35:00 -
[333] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote: Yes it's his opinion, it's also CCPs as far as I know.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:36:00 -
[334] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:So with the opposition to an Ultra-Sec no longer choosing to voice their opinions against it's implementation, the only logical step to take now would be for CCP to convert 19 high security systems into "Ultra-Sec"? I will support this "ultra-sec," assuming CCP implements an "enlightened pimping zone" (with that precise name) in Jita and the surrounding systems. We have, after all, come to an agreement that Eve is in fact a pimping game? So CCP should thoroughly support this facet of the sandbox. If we're going to play the subjectivity game of "EVE is whatever I say it is!", then I also want ponies. I did used to be in Fweddit, after all.
Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.
you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:37:00 -
[335] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote: Yes it's his opinion, it's also CCPs as far as I know. as far as you believe you know.
As far as I know, which isn't a mere belief, but an actuality, is that the action of partaking in PvE exists within EvE meaning that it is a PvE game. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1199
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:37:00 -
[336] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game No need to disprove it, the gameplay does that every single day.
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:38:00 -
[337] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game No need to disprove it, the gameplay does that every single day.
The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day.
It might not be for those who choose not to participate in it, but those people are not the entirety of EvE, and while they may have their preferred methods of how to play within the EvE universe, theirs is not the only one. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5100
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:40:00 -
[338] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:
The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day.
The gameplay of people falling into bottomless pits in Super Mario Brothers proves that it's a spelunking game, every single day. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:43:00 -
[339] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day.
The gameplay of people falling into bottomless pits in Super Mario Brothers proves that it's a spelunking game, every single day.
Which doesn't prove that EvE is not a PvE game. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5100
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:44:00 -
[340] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day.
The gameplay of people falling into bottomless pits in Super Mario Brothers proves that it's a spelunking game, every single day. Which doesn't prove that EvE is not a PvE game.
The funny thing is that it does. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:46:00 -
[341] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day.
The gameplay of people falling into bottomless pits in Super Mario Brothers proves that it's a spelunking game, every single day. Which doesn't prove that EvE is not a PvE game. The funny thing is that it does.
That is an opinion you're allowed to have, but sadly, it being your opinion doesn't constitute it's being correct.
Because there is more than enough evidence to prove that EvE is a PvE game, along with a PvP game, Crafting game, and exploration game. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1199
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:46:00 -
[342] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:The game play of logging in and doing PvE proves that it is a PvE game, every single day. It doesn't prove anything (which is different to disproving something).
It's just an environment. Everyone is free to make of it what they want. Trying to pigeon hole it as one or the other, or something else is a little on the silly side.
Everyone v Everyone will always be the meaning of it's name, no matter how people chose to go about that.
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17998
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:47:00 -
[343] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major minor feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.
you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more. FYP
You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players?
PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading.
TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players; therefore Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times, as in no less than 12 times, in the New Player FAQ
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5102
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:51:00 -
[344] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.
you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more. You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players? PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading. TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players, ergo Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times, as in no less than 12 times, in the New Player FAQ
The developer stating outright that EVE is a PvP game is just their opinion, and they're allowed to have that opinion.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:51:00 -
[345] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.
you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more. You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players? PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading. TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players, ergo Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times in the New Player FAQ
Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.
Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17998
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:55:00 -
[346] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote: Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.
Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being.
For ultrasec to succeed it needs to be completely disconnected from the rest of Eve, which cannot happen because Eve, unlike every other MMO out there has only one shard; disconnecting a portion of Eve from the rest of the universe breaks the sandbox.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1201
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 01:56:00 -
[347] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" No ultra-sec because it removes choice.
It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems.
If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship. . -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:01:00 -
[348] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote: Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.
Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being.
Your logic, it is illogical. For ultrasec to succeed it needs to be completely disconnected from the rest of Eve, which cannot happen because Eve, unlike every other MMO out there has only one shard; disconnecting a portion of Eve from the rest of the universe breaks the sandbox.
it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:03:00 -
[349] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" No ultra-sec because it removes choice. It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems. If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship.
He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.
If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1201
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:04:00 -
[350] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.
If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec. The same for all the other players.
If they want to shoot at rocks or npcs, or run missions etc., they can do that in highsec, lowsec or nullsec too.
No need for ultrasec at all. . -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
|
masternerdguy
Dominion Task Force
1718
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:05:00 -
[351] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" No ultra-sec because it removes choice. It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems. If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship. He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there. If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec.
Ultra sec would unbalance the viability of the EVE economy if it is possible to make any level of profit there. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:08:00 -
[352] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:
it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.
It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
18004
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:09:00 -
[353] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote: It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters. How? You're proposing the equivalent of a crime free tropical paradise in the middle of a warzone.
If ultrasec existed it would be exploited by older players; because they're in a far better position to take advantage of the benefits of such an area by virtue of their game knowledge than a newbie. It won't help newbies or less experienced players at all, thus rendering it invalid.
Would you ban players over a certain age from ultrasec? Ban certain ships?
Quote:Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. This applies here methinks.
You have me agreeing with masternerdguy, the apocalypse is nigh.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:11:00 -
[354] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" No ultra-sec because it removes choice. It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems. If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship. He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there. If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec. Ultra sec would unbalance the viability of the EVE economy if it is possible to make any level of profit there.
Which is why you keep the level of profit low. Also, changes CCP has made to EvE unbalanced the economy, yet they were still implemented.
With the shift to production coming up, people could be prevented from placing Player owned structures within the Ultra Sec systems to prevent industrial oriented players from flocking there en-masse. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:12:00 -
[355] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote: It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters. How? If ultrasec existed it would be exploited by older players; because they're in a far better position to take advantage of the benefits of such an area by virtue of their game knowledge than a newbie. It won't help newbies or less experienced players at all, thus rendering it invalid. Would you ban players over a certain age from ultrasec? Ban certain ships? Quote:Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. This applies here methinks. You have me agreeing with masternerdguy, the apocalypse is nigh.
Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:14:00 -
[356] - Quote
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.
It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.
But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.
Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
18006
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:18:00 -
[357] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:
Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere.
I can absolutely guarantee that we'd find ways of making huge profits from ultrasec, and we'd be doing it in a risk free environment, which renders the risk/reward equation invalid; thus breaking the sandbox.
Everytime CCP change anything about the game, someone figures out a way to profit from it, Eve is a game of unintended mechanics and consequences. CCP know this and are usually quite impressed with the unintended things we do with new stuff, they call it emergent gameplay.
|
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:21:00 -
[358] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere.
I can absolutely guarantee that we'd find ways of making huge profits from ultrasec, and we'd be doing it in a risk free environment, which renders the risk/reward equation invalid. Everytime CCP change anything about the game, someone figures out a way to profit from it, Eve is a game of unintended mechanics and consequences. CCP know this and are usually quite impressed with the unintended things we do with new stuff.
I don't think you can guarantee it. Especially because it hasn't even been introduced yet, which is why an attempt at a discussion to figure out a way to balance the implementation is being derailed by people who have no desire to participate in the purposed discussion, yet are still taking the time out of their day to post in a thread they don't actually want to talk about. Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:24:00 -
[359] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:Cassandra Aurilien wrote:Divine Entervention wrote:
it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.
It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game. But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.
In the OP's suggestion, even bumping players would be disallowed. That would mean that it would not be even be possible influence other players directly, only to attempt to use up resources before they do.
That might be the design philosophy of the "Hungry Hungry Hippos MMO - Space Hippos", but last time I checked, that was not this game. Correct me if EVE has taken a strange turn in the last few hours that I'm unaware of. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1203
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 02:25:00 -
[360] - Quote
Divine Entervention wrote:But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.
Yep, so that would need to be nerfed too. No mining in ultra-sec.
Also, it makes no logical sense that the Empires would provide this super safe zone for capsuleers but still allow known pirate faction npcs to roam around unchecked. The Empires would hunt them down just as strongly as they would hunt down a player that tried to agress another player. Nerf npc rats too. No NPCs in ultra-sec.
About the only thing would be a station to play market games. Ultra-sec would be such a small part of the market, that all other systems could more greatly affect the prices in ultra-sec than the reverse. NO problem with that.
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |