|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 14:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
A quote from a Disney movie my kids watched when they were little "bad idea I said". No matter how you stack it up, no matter how you try to justify this and no matter what pretty descriptions or names you give it this is just another of the I want CCP to eliminate the "perceived" early end to Incursions so I can farm ISK/LP to the bitter end type of post.
And yes this is a "percieved" early ending to these incursions. Wisely CCP put into these incursions the ability for players to end them by wait for it "popping the mother ship". If you go back and look at the dev blog postings prior to the release of incursions it is pretty clear that CCP intended the destruction of the mother ship to be used as a way for players to end the incursion as quickly as possible. So the real question is how can can you classify this as anything but working as intended except to say that it is based on pure unadulterated greed.
Before you jump on me about that I have no problem with greed per say it is a part of what drives this game. What I do have trouble with is when people try to cover up their "GREED" by inventing a problem with a game mechanic that is working exactly as it was intended.
So I have these suggestions.
Stop looking to CCP to solve a player created and player driven problem.
Try a little dose of diplomacy. If they are posting on a web site why they are mom popping "early" they are hurting their own ISK/LP farming abilities so they just might be willing to negotiate a settlement. If not don't try and make your lovers quarrel my problem.
There are game mechanics already in place to deal with these types of player disputes use them. And I do not want to hear about the difficulties of trying etc those are your problems to work out not ours. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 01:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:There is absolutely no reason that 30 people with some battleships and a couple of hours to burn should be able to deny the entire highsec the ability to run incursions for 36 hours. That isn't working as designed, that isn't seen anywhere else, and that isn't something you solve through shoot em up Westerns. Not this again. That 30 players has every right to jump in and end the incursion by popping mom, the design of the incursion portion of the game gives them that right. Others in this game face the same type of denial of ISK/fun that you are experiencing. Miners loose out on the best rocks in the belts because others were there first. Some miners loose out on that randomly spawned low sec ore pocket in high sec because someone beats them to it. Others loose out on choice pieces of salvage from hacking sites etc because someone beat them to it. Some loose extremely expensive ships because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the list goes on and on, why should you be any different? |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 01:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:There is absolutely no reason that 30 people with some battleships and a couple of hours to burn should be able to deny the entire highsec the ability to run incursions for 36 hours. That isn't working as designed, that isn't seen anywhere else, and that isn't something you solve through shoot em up Westerns. Not this again. That 30 players has every right to jump in and end the incursion by popping mom, the design of the incursion portion of the game gives them that right. Others in this game face the same type of denial of ISK/fun that you are experiencing. Miners loose out on the best rocks in the belts because others were there first. Some miners loose out on that randomly spawned low sec ore pocket in high sec because someone beats them to it. Others loose out on choice pieces of salvage from hacking sites etc because someone beat them to it. And the list goes on and on, why should you be any different? Because no 30 players can entirely shut down all mining, mission running, or any other PvE activity in all of highsec. Simple.
And 30 players cannot shut down ALL incursions. They may get his one but another will pop up, they always do.f |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 14:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Apparently even the Goons failed at it. See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607&p=3This disruption is caused by incursion runners themselves, and is 100% the result of CCP putting in an arbitrary site that closes down the incursion. Without that, no one would be disrupting incursions (everyone else who tried quickly gave up). It probably helps that most incursion runners are nullsec alts and not the usual highsec jokers.
I was there for both the Caldari and the Gallente Ice incursions. Incursions are even more localized than ice is and the entry points to these sites are easily found. So trust me if the GOONS decided to shut down incursions in high sec it WOULD happen and to be honest the carnage of expensive incursion ships and the tears from the incursion runners would be fun to witness.
If CCP wrote into the code for these sites to spawn allowing the incursion to be ended how can you possibly think that these sites are arbitrary? Random in timing, or random as to whether they show up at all maybe, but arbitrary no way.
You keep stating that people are ending these early. This all comes down to how you define "early". Since the mechanic being used to close incursions had to be placed into the code by CCP it is obvious to all of us that these are not being ended "early". In fact they are being closed at a time allowed for by the game mechanic and decided on by players. The only definition of them being ended "early" there can possibly be is one based on the desire/greed of a few players to farm as much ISK/LP as possible from each incursion.
And please spare all of us the complaints about how there is nothing for you to do for 36 hours or so till the next incursion forms. All this does is serve as an indicator of just how isolated you are from the rest of the players and the rest of the game and all that there is to do, but here are some suggestions. Spend that 36 hours or so interacting with the new players in the game. Hey you could even try to get them interested in running incursions since you think they are the bees knees. Run a few missions just for giggles. Or if you find all of the other parts of the game of EVE that boring then simply do something else with your time while you wait out the start of the next incursion. You know things like reading a good book, or maybe watch a little of you favorite TV shows, I can go on but you get the point. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 02:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
That's like saying you don't have the right to suicide gank, or run missions, or mine, or trade, or isk double.
you dont have a right to gank, run missions, mine or trade, or isk double. What makes you think you do? The fact that you can do or attempt to do those things at any given moment in highsec. There is no arbitrary game mechanic that makes them cease to exist for 36 hours. How about we put in a new site called "suicide ganking prevention site" which is similar to a mom site, and if done prevents all suicide ganking in highsec for 36 hours?
The gankers would have a field day trying to prevent everyone and anyone from getting into the site. And ultimately when enough people did get into the site to shut down the gankers they would simply go run mission/ratting or anyone of the many other ways there are of repairing the sec status hit they take by ganking. And presto 36 hours later it is back to life as usual. You see because unlike you the gankers always have something else they need to do or want to do.
I am beginning to really feel sorry for you. There is this great big sand box of a game with dozens of wonderful things to do and experiment with yet all you can do is ***** about a petty little lovers quarrel that only affects a very small part of the game. aS they say "to bad so sad" |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 05:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:All you are really doing is showing the need for effective punishments in Eve. Bad activity in the game carries no real consequences, hence the joyous desire of many players to achieve Lose-Lose solutions, and the difficulty in using diplomacy to arrive at Win-Win solutions. Basically the total lack of any real punishment for messing everyone over, and the fact that a lot of people delight in doing so, is precisely why giving a few players the ability to shut down all highsec incursions is rather crazy. If excessive mom-popping resulted in a 60 day sentence in "Eve-jail" I assure you that fewer players would pursue it. .
Other than offending you just what have these people done to deserve any punishment from CCP? Have they violated the TOS? Have they used some form of exploit to accomplish this? Are they using some form of illegal software to accomplish this? If they are doing any of the above then you should not be here in the forums you should be filing official reports of misconduct and supplying CCP with any and all information you have to prove your case.
I find it very interesting that over the course of this topic you have transitioned from calling this "early mom popping" to "excessive mom popping" and I wonder which you really believe it is?
None of this changes the fact that you still fail to understand the most basic aspect of this whole situation.
CCP created incursions. CCP placed into that code a set of conditions that once met the mom site would spawn. CCP placed into that code the conditions that if the mom site was cleared the incursion ended. If a group of players(size is not important here) sees that the mom site has spawned, and that group of players clears the mom site ending the incursion there is nothing going on here but game as intended. There is no possibility for "early mom popping" or even "excessive mom popping".
Going back to a time long before the Veers Belvar character ever entered the EVE universe, I am not sure about the person behind the character but things you say lead me to believe that you have not been in the game any longer than Veers. Anyway excuse me I ramble again. A long time ago CCP proposed the idea of incursions and they were radically different than what we know today. After a severe verbal beating at the hands of the players CCP wisely choose to go back and re-work the idea of incursions ultimately ending with what we have today. They were intended to be few in number and they were intended to offer new, challenging and exciting game play based around a lore they created. As is often the case with things CCP puts into this game we the players have morphed it into something that was not intended or even thought possible when it the idea was first floated out to the public.
Does the incursion side of the game need some adjustments? maybe but what remains the real problem. Certainly CCP should not go back on the lore created for incursions so that places some limitations. Accounting for the negative effects on all of the non-incursion players in the affected systems must be accounted for as well. The ISK versus risk needs to be looked at as does the ISK/LP payouts especially if they make more incursions available. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 05:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: And yes, the lack of punishment explains a lot of activity in Eve that we don't see in RL - suicide ganking, -10 sec status, scamming, market manipulation, etc...
As a former police officer and now a concerned citizen I hope to hell that this statement was off the cuff or not thought out very well and I hope it was not intended as it sounds. You see EVE my good sir is exactly like real life in all it's ugly as well as all it's good aspects.
Every night when i read the papers there is another senseless murder or someone got angry or just weird and shot/stabbed/beat someone very much like the suicide gankings here in game. Here it is just pixels out in real life it is real blood and real people being hurt/killed with real families that suffer for a lifetime and all of these things happen for the most crazy reasons. A local one for me awhile back was a teenage boy who shot a classmate because she would not go to the prom with him. Lucky for the young lady and her family she survived the attack and lucky for society that young man is in jail for a very long time with no chance to get out.
OK you got me on the -10 sec status the only RL thing I can come up with that is close would be a criminal record, and yet in a lot of ways they have the same affect. In EVE low sec status prevents players from accessing parts of space in the same way that a criminal record prevents some people from obtaining certain privileges or access to some portions of our society.
And let's not get started about scamming people. There are estimates that here in the US alone scammers cost those over the age of 60 more than a billion dollars a year and that sir is just a very small fragment of the population and a very small fragment of the scams that go on everyday.
Do you really think that market manipulations only exist in a game? The recession that the US has been dealing with for the past few years was caused in part by some big time stock and mortgage market manipulations. Go to the library or look online and you can find an almost limitless number fo articles about market manipulations of one sort or another.
And least we not forget the good side. In real life there are those who dedicate their lives and in some cases a substantial portion of their personal wealth just to help those that are not as fortunate and here in EVE we have players like The Angel Project and her supporters that freely give out help and advice and well as bilions of ISK of stuff to new players.
No sir, I am afraid that EVE in all its good and bad is very much a reflection of all that goes on around us in this world. If you are in a position that you are not aware of these things, or impacted by these things in your life then you are extremely lucky.
To close this one out. All you out there that enjoy the suicide ganking portion of the game please no hate mail, slings and arrows etc. I do not now, never have and never will truly consider you to be the same as these ugly people from real life. I use you to illustrate a point that EVE is in fact like real life. For all I know most of you are outstanding citizens and worthy of much praise in real life. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 02:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote: From the suicide ganking community, much love. Nice to see someone understands the diff between RL and video game, even if they parallel.
You are welcome. but truth is truth and we rarely know the real person behind the character or what motivates them to do whatever it is they do here in EVE.
Veers Belvar wrote: It was meant for -10 sec status gankers. An interesting thought but I wonder do you think this is the truth? or is this another of your off the cuff posts about something you know nothing about?
It is technically possible to suicide gank someone when your sec status is this low but considering the hassle a player would face I wonder if it could happen. Maybe another member here has experience in this and can answer. Basically once you have reached a -5 sec status you are fair game to anyone and everyone in the game if you enter high sec. With sec status this low or lower concord will not respond if you are attacked because they consider you a criminal. And not only can every player in high sec attack you without fearing reprisal from concord the empire navies and empire police forces will hunt you relentlessly and shoot at you at every opportunity until you leave high sec. So as I said it is technically possible to suicide gank with -10 sec status in reality it would be extremely difficult and would require some considerable coordination of resources and other players. |
|
|
|