Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 17:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Suspend disbelief and naysaying, long enough to peruse this.
I thank you.
F
Would you like to know more? |
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
This idea... is horrible.
Couple things: - Post your ideas here on the forum, not on your lil' blog. - Think before you post. Your idea is bad-- not as in "I don't agree" but as in bad for the game and against all that the developers have ever even hinted to as far as the roles of CONCORD and the mechanics of how they spawn. - Giving players, no matter what security status/standings required, the ability to wield super-pwnage ships and insta spawn on top of other players is more than just ripe for abuse, it is a clear sign that you don't play that same game we do. - If you wanna PvP-- great. Grab a ship and join the rest of us. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kell Braugh wrote:This idea... is horrible.
Couple things: - Post your ideas here on the forum, not on your lil' blog. - Think before you post. Your idea is bad-- not as in "I don't agree" but as in bad for the game and against all that the developers have ever even hinted to as far as the roles of CONCORD and the mechanics of how they spawn. - Giving players, no matter what security status/standings required, the ability to wield super-pwnage ships and insta spawn on top of other players is more than just ripe for abuse, it is a clear sign that you don't play that same game we do. - If you wanna PvP-- great. Grab a ship and join the rest of us. Hai Kell,
Your not reading the suggestion fully before sperging is what's horrible actually. I did think before I posted, advice you should have taken to heart yourself...
F Would you like to know more? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
first for lore reasons no
then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:first for lore reasons no
then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?
re: Lore reasons. If players can play Amarrians, Galente's, etc...why not CONCORD. Your point doesn't make sense.
Also, nice spin, but I hardly said "im a bad idea but implement anyway'....
Still waiting for some serious commentary, and someone actually familiar with the brainstorming and idea-generation process.
F Would you like to know more? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4113
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
OMG, this would be crazy abused.
My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.
Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.
Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: OMG, this would be crazy abused.
My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.
Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.
Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!
(sigh)
I give up, you guys are hopeless.
F Would you like to know more? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4113
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: OMG, this would be crazy abused.
My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.
Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.
Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!
Yay, another comment from someone who didn't read the proposal. Did I not specifically mention locking safeties to GREEN? How is that a bad thing? You guys do know how to read, right? You know how to take a good concept forward, without killing it in vitro 'just because' right? Christ. F
lol... Oh the irony!!! |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6033
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
2 things come to mind:
- what is the point? Whether it is players or NPCs, the point and purpose of CONCORD is functionally the same (enforcing cost on a "PvP act"). All you will be doing is feeding kills to people who wait in a que and saying "it's PvP!" without the player having done nothing to actually earn the kill in the first place.
- If you are trying to expand CONCORD's role beyond its current one using players' "best judgement" then you are opening it up to abuse. Players may just join CONCORD with with as many alts as possible, jump into a gank in progress, and then sit back and let it happen. When the gank is successful, THEN they gank the offending ships and call it a day. And no... computerized mechanics cannot understand intent with very high accuracy. The same person who "let" the gank happen could merely be fumbling with the controls... or lagging out and can't do anything.
- if gankers (who are typically below -5.0) are flying around in space then you can ALREADY shoot them down using the tools that are currently available. If they are not below -5.0 but not 0.0 then you cannot automatically assume they are up to no good. Again... a computer mechanic cannot infer intent. To open up the ability for a player CONCORD to shoot someone they suspect of being a ganker (but does not have sufficiently low security status) means that a player CONCORD can technically be allowed to shoot EVERYONE with a weapon attached to their ship.
Also... don't use a blog to propose an idea here. Not everyone wants to wade into that crap. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bah humbug is not an argument.
F
Would you like to know more? |
|
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
379
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
There are enough 'white knighting' and 'capsuleer police force' suggestions and threads here. This is nothing new .. maybe you should have cared to read those first.
Yours goes even farther in breaking the game and making things annoying, not to mention unbalance a lot of things. There were some suggestions I could have run with, yours are just beyond ... even arguing about those points is not worth it, since you kindly forgot to consider almost everything. And we (I) are not here to explain to you your own suggestion.
-1 Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:first for lore reasons no
then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?
re: Lore reasons. If players can play Amarrians, Galente's, etc...why not CONCORD. Your point doesn't make sense. F
CONCORD was formed to prevent capsule pilots from becoming to powerful and causing untold damage to mortals since mortality means nothing to us as such opening CONCORD up to every bum joe who has killed enough rats and never got the bug to go pop someone makes little seance
as for you hardly said "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"
at the beginning of the blog it is stated that the writer knows it would be abused |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM.
Now i don't know how good of an idea this is because from the gankers stand point he may now have less time to kill you b4 he loses his ship so this idea may not be a good one but i like it better then CONCORDian |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4116
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
We seem to be having a communication problem.
When I was reading your blog idea, my mind kept drifting to fun ways to abuse your proposal, absolutely loving the idea of (ab)using the Concord ships to destroy innocent players. Then, in the second to last sentence of your 3-page thesis, you ruined my ******* Christmas. I acknowledged this by specifically mentioning your "forced green security" setting with a "Bah Humbug" comment. That wasn't me arguing against your proposal.
The following section explained how I would still abuse your system within the scope of your limits. That was to point out how it would be abused.
The final section explained why I'm against your proposal in principle. I believe you should have to risk your own assets when attacking someone else.
Shah Fluffers did a good job of outlining why its a bad idea from a mechanics point of view, and how intent is difficult to determine from a design perspective.
So, rather than making ironic ad hominem attacks, how about you address the problems with your proposal. Failure to address these obvious shortfallings is why your proposal's D.O.A.
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3082
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
This horrible idea again.
Why do you need to hide behind a veneer of game mechanics? You can already shoot and kill criminals anywhere in the EVE universe. No special added mechanics necessary.
What you seem to be looking for is the game to give you an invulnerability shield that lets you gank players who act in a manner that you don't like, with zero fear of retaliation.
Welcome to being worse than the criminals of EVE: You not only want to kill defenseless targets, you want their defenseless nature to be mechanically enforced. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: OMG, this would be crazy abused.
My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.
Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.
Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!
(sigh) I give up, you guys are hopeless. F
Well it's your own fault, you don't care about hearing any critics, all you want to hear is people who are on your idea. Learn to take critism. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
209
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM. I just weep for the overviews when 50 beacons simultaneously appear in Uedama.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1352
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
My view is that the key to any new idea, be it player built stargates, wormholes or player CONCORD...is to take a first pass that only focuses on reviewing if said proposal is a) compelling gameplay, and b) player content generating.
If a concept passes the 'compelling gameplay' and 'content generating' smell test, you then try to come up with ways to conceptualize how it CAN be made to work, not to abort said idea in-utero with naysaying... There is always time to pick holes in an idea or mechanic, but even then I would tend to reserve that for outside of this forum, and for CCP design teams to explore.
Sure, comment on angles from the view of improving on a core concept, but don't just spew 'bad idea', 'cant do it', 'it would be abused' naysaying in a vacuum of first trying to help envision how it could work.
Again, if it passes the first 'compelling play', and 'content generating' smell test.
If everyone feels player CONCORD is not compelling gameplay, nor content generating, I will gladly bow to the collective. But so far all I am hearing honestly is naysaying and lack of vision on how it COULD work.
This is sad, and gives me a sad.
F
Would you like to know more? |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1352
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM. I just weep for the overviews when 50 beacons simultaneously appear in Uedama. Separate scrollable 'CONCORD HIT LIST' window, that can be resized and sorted in any number of ways. i.e. Range/distance, # of criminals in system, etc?
Would you like to know more? |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1352
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:This horrible idea again.
Why do you need to hide behind a veneer of game mechanics? You can already shoot and kill criminals anywhere in the EVE universe. No special added mechanics necessary.
What you seem to be looking for is the game to give you an invulnerability shield that lets you gank players who act in a manner that you don't like, with zero fear of retaliation.
Welcome to being worse than the criminals of EVE: You not only want to kill defenseless targets, you want their defenseless nature to be mechanically enforced. 1) Gankers will die anyway, detonated by NPC Concord 2) How is giving people who are locked in PVE and fear PVP, an opportunity to play a white-knight and experiment with PVP mechanics (tackling, webbing, neuting, damping, etc) a bad thing?
One of the underlying goals here is to help introduce and climatize more carebears to PVP mechanics, while addressing their core fears of ship loss, expense, etc; again, ganker would have died anyway, so why not?
Naysayers. Meh.
F Would you like to know more? |
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
209
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Separate scrollable 'CONCORD HIT LIST' window, that can be resized and sorted in any number of ways. i.e. Range/distance, # of criminals in system, etc? Sorry. Shouldn't have been taken as a real criticism. Overview spikes happen all the time. It's not that big a deal, and I'd assume these beacons would be their own separate category in the overview, so if you didn't want them to pop up, they wouldn't.
Which, actually, could be the argument against them now that I think about it. A distress beacon that pings so frequently people start blocking it is not an effective distress beacon. Meh. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM. I just weep for the overviews when 50 beacons simultaneously appear in Uedama. Lol wasn't a serious suggestion |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4118
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:My view is that the key to any new idea, be it player built stargates, wormholes or player CONCORD...is to take a first pass that only focuses on reviewing if said proposal is a) compelling gameplay, and b) player content generating.
If a concept passes the 'compelling gameplay' and 'content generating' smell test, you then try to come up with ways to conceptualize how it CAN be made to work, not to abort said idea in-utero with naysaying... There is always time to pick holes in an idea or mechanic, but even then I would tend to reserve that for outside of this forum, and for CCP design teams to explore.
Sure, comment on angles from the view of improving on a core concept, but don't just spew 'bad idea', 'cant do it', 'it would be abused' naysaying in a vacuum of first trying to help envision how it could work.
Again, if it passes the first 'compelling play', and 'content generating' smell test.
If everyone feels player CONCORD is not compelling gameplay, nor content generating, I will gladly bow to the collective. But so far all I am hearing honestly is naysaying and lack of vision on how it COULD work.
This is sad, and gives me a sad.
F
Is this content generating or compelling game play?
The content I see it generating would center around breaking concord, or making them less effective. As you stated though, this is not your intent.
It is pretty easy to find criminals to shoot. Just go to Niarja or Uedema or Aufay and wait. Follow CODE. to any ice belt system, etc.
Your idea, out of necessity, removes the hunt and adds instant-action. To be honest, I think instant action PvP would be harmful to EvE in general.
Does it create compelling game play? I don't particularly see how. You don't have to train into the concord ships, you don't risk anything by assuming the concord role., you don't change the outcome of Concordokkens (unless its in the abuseable manner where you prevent Concord from effectively performing their task). What is compelling about this?
If you want to be a white knight, you already can be. Get in a griffin and jam out gankers in the freight pipes. Get in an RR vessel and attempt to save them. See what works, see what doesn't. I don't see this proposal helping anyone out other than gankers, in which case it is neat but also breaks game balance in the exact manner you want to avoid.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
1352
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 20:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Is this content generating or compelling game play?
The content I see it generating would center around breaking concord, or making them less effective. As you stated though, this is not your intent.
It is pretty easy to find criminals to shoot. Just go to Niarja or Uedema or Aufay and wait. Follow CODE. to any ice belt system, etc.
Your idea, out of necessity, removes the hunt and adds instant-action. To be honest, I think instant action PvP would be harmful to EvE in general.
Does it create compelling game play? I don't particularly see how. You don't have to train into the concord ships, you don't risk anything by assuming the concord role., you don't change the outcome of Concordokkens (unless its in the abuseable manner where you prevent Concord from effectively performing their task). What is compelling about this?
If you want to be a white knight, you already can be. Get in a griffin and jam out gankers in the freight pipes. Get in an RR vessel and attempt to save them. See what works, see what doesn't. I don't see this proposal helping anyone out other than gankers, in which case it is neat but also breaks game balance in the exact manner you want to avoid.
The randomness injected into ganking calculations would be compelling content. Instead of 'I am ganking in a 0.5 system, against ship 'x', fit 'y' so I need 'z' catalysts'..done. It would also be..."Damn, I wonder if a player CONCORD will cyno in the moment the gank starts..." Formulaic and repetitive ganking where no white knights are in-system, would be transformed...
1) Ganker doesn't know if he will get a player CONCORD hot drop prior to normal NPC arrival times 2) Ganker gets a shot at ruining a white-knights day, by evading detonation by him (or even zapping his CONCORD ship?)
Yes, someone can today white-knight, but the ability to role-play a CONCORD cop, in a CONCORD ship, is compelling in itself I would argue to many people. Given the choice of sitting in a griffin with ECM's and waiting for someone near you to go GCC, and the option to sit in a CONCORD ship with your CONCORD buddies, and cyno on top of a criminal across the map...I know what I would want to do. That in itself would inspire more die-hard PVE'ers to try white-knighting and PVP, which is good for the game IMHO.
F Would you like to know more? |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
3082
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 22:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: 1) Gankers will die anyway, detonated by NPC Concord
As they should. Leave insta-gib mechanics to the NPCs.
Quote: 2) How is giving people who are locked in PVE and fear PVP, an opportunity to play a white-knight and experiment with PVP mechanics (tackling, webbing, neuting, damping, etc) a bad thing?
Because CONCORD is not a PvP mechanic. An AI controlled ship shutdown is not a PvP simulator. Knowing that CONCORD NPCs are coming to do the job behind them does not teach PvP skills; it teaches bad habits and complacency.
Quote: One of the underlying goals here is to help introduce and climatize more carebears to PVP mechanics, while addressing their core fears of ship loss, expense, etc; again, ganker would have died anyway, so why not?
Naysayers. Meh.
F
This does not address those goals. In PvP you don't prevent ship loss by flying an invincible ship. Giving clueless carebears CONCORD style mechanics to play with does not teach them to survive. It does not teach them fitting, it does not teach them range control, damage mitigation, damage selection, tank management, cap management, situational awareness, it does not teach them to do anything except lock target and strike F1, because they are flying in god mode.
You can 'Naysayers' all you want. People **** on this idea when it pops up because CONCORD is god mode. The NPCs are invincible. So either you roll that back to the days of yesteryear where CONCORD can be permatanked and a player flying a god ship can be killed (or ganked) or you put the white knight in a position to learn exactly the opposite of what you claim to want to teach them. They learn how to shoot at a neutered, immobile, defenseless target. This is exactly what most highsec gankers are after, only you want it mechanically enforced by AI. "i advice you to go spit on the back of someone else because you are fall on the wrong horse." - Meio Rayliegh |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
729
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 22:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Your not reading the suggestion fully before sperging is what's horrible actually. I did think before I posted, advice you should have taken to heart yourself...
F
you say that, but then we read your posts and are forced to conclude not only are you not thinking you're also lying |
Angeal MacNova
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
191
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 23:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
I've always toyed with the idea of something like this. The thing is that this couldn't be another game profession that anyone can pick up and do. It would have to be something along the lines of being a CSM, ISD, or one of those knowledgeable players who get to stay in rookie chat. You give CCP an appication and get approved. This would give you access to CONCORD ships. However, you assume the role and with it the responsibility. So no taking it into missions (wanna solo an incursion anyone?) and no camping your corp's mining op.
However, I can see players following gankers around to "keep an eye on them" which those that gank would have a huge issue with.
|
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3365
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. Thread closed. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |