| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
291
   |
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is very similar to an idea I posted about putting toys in the sandbox. As long as the players are running the arena and not an "NPC entity" this opens up options for interactions between the players.
I appreciate the concerns about killing off world PVP BUT this isn't Trammel and more 1 out of every 10 players in UO got beyond "leveling their Raven". EVE is a PVP game where a terrifyingly large portion of the player base already doesn't PEW. Anything that might get a few more people into popping ships is good.
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
291
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:
If you cannot judge the merit of certain feature without forum (player) input, then you're useless, and so is the CSM.
What if a lot of players DO see merit in that feature. |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
292
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:When the core principles of EVE are resulting in people logging off and playing other games, roaming for three hours and finding no fights or not even undocking because everyone else's ability to interfere completely kills your own ability to do what you want in the game in the first place, perhaps it's time to revisit those core principles.
This and it comes from both sides...
Suggest a war dec mechanic that might increase people's willingness to undock and you'll be accused of wanting "Cheap gank kills" and wanting risk free indy corp farming.
Suggest a mechanic that might get more people to TRY PVPing in a controlled environment - "Screw off you're ruining the sandbox"
Personally I'm tired of it because I want a better GAME with people UNDOCKING. The ability to run mini PVP tournaments would be such a boon for content creators I'm stunned that there is there are this many tears over the mockup. How many motivated people could do more with a few toys to play with in the sandbox? I think this is a situation where the good of the game needs to be given a little priority over ideological sandbox purity.
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
292
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Being cloaked is being docked by other means. You can't do jack to anyone while cloaked.
The hunters in my black ops fleets disagree with this statement. |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
292
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:
Try to look beyond their initial glee of this feature (or short-run benefits of this feature), and think about the consequences of this feature, or any feature, for EVE as a whole.
If people can't do that, they should pay attention to people who can. If they don't want to - they should be quiet.
Oh of course. Anyone who views the consequences as positive when you disagree with them should be quiet. I see.
Your example was also a horrible false equivalence for the reasons on this post |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
293
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Hence the thread ya knuckle scraper, because this might get to the main server it's relivant to everyone with a sub.
Anyone on either side of the debate not understanding this should probably "shut up"
ISD should clean some of the junk (attack posts) building in this thread to keep conversation on track. Last couple pages have been bad. |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
293
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Raquel Rova wrote:well i didn't think so before. What about this could you not do before given the proper motivation?
Control which ships are stocked in the Dojo?
Prevent neutral logi?
Just first thoughts.
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
295
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 21:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Raquel Rova wrote:Seems to me like that example wouldn't be popular because of the effort involved. So why do you deserve something you are unwilling to work for?
And if the mechanics are making it nearly impossible to run this kind of content absolutely no changes should be made to support it because "sandbox purity"? How many people is it going to take to secure a system to do this?
Your arguing to keep it unfeasible and difficult to run tournaments.
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 05:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
AT is not part of the sandbox, they are a stand alone event hosted by CCP in space we have no access to using tools have had no access to. There has never been any point in the last 14 years in which we have had consensual PvP on Tranq. The only people looking for risk free PvP are people who want to lock out everyone else from their honourable PvP 1v1 matches.
Thats a lot of effort, ISK, and time by a lot of players, and a lot of advertising on the part of CCP to be "not part of the sandbox"
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Raquel Rova wrote:maybe if they didnt have to wait 2 days to desroy something deployed in under 1 min.
with no need to stront it or actually pay for the reinforcment ability
I DO agree with this. 2 days is a bit much. Thats a tweak to take to the next phase after this prototype.
|
| |
|