Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2781
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 20:22:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yes, I am aware of this. But you know something? I can't imagine that getting it fixed is helped any by all the little diversions, or the big ones for that matter. *cough DUST 514 cough*
For things like this dojo, it's called "20% time" and they're entitled to spend it on whatever they wish. As for DUST, I'm not touching that.
Quote:Because that's a good reason to leave a major component of the game broken. How do you fix it without having something else to put in its place? I would love to know the answer to this question. Taking out one horrible sov system and placing something equally terrible in its stead is not a fix; it's Dominion.
Quote:Those two things are one and the same. That's a deliberate oversimplification and you know it. Development is more than just POSes and your damnable Sov. It's also new features, which we haven't really had any of since Apocrypha.
Quote:Where are his? I said the exact same thing he did, "I wonder". Numbers came into it when you implied more people have left EVE because of POSes and Sov than for lack of new things in the game. Word choice is important, you know. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9919
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 20:28:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: That's a deliberate oversimplification and you know it. Development is more than just POSes and your damnable Sov. It's also new features, which we haven't really had any of since Apocrypha.
And you should know full well what is at fault for that.
This is the development and iterative improvements in the base game that are years, literal years overdue thanks to Incarna pissing away so much dev time on a completely pointless set of features.
That only goes to prove my point by the way. If you don't do your upkeep, you spend all your time trying to keep up. The base game m.u.s.t. be brought into line and updated properly before you can really talk about "adding content", otherwise you're just adding one broken feature onto the top of the pile.
Quote: Numbers came into it when you implied more people have left EVE because of POSes and Sov than for lack of new things in the game. Word choice is important, you know.
"how many more" meaning "in addition to". I know English is my second language but did I mangle it that badly? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9919
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 20:30:00 -
[1083] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:As for DUST, I'm not touching that.
Neither is the playerbase!
*bah dum ting*
I'll be here all night folks. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
320
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:01:00 -
[1084] - Quote
One line bad idea thread winner of the year goes to CCP Veritas.
The Law is a point of View |
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
40
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:17:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Here is some actual feedback (even if not sure any Dev will take over the prototype):
I tried again today and made small progress. This time I got the match making windows and could select a fit and click ready. However at that point I got a message claiming not enough guns were in the Dojo and I should complain to the Dojo Master. happened on both characters (different guns). There were enough guns stocked in the Dojo, though. Could this have anything to do with stacking?
Cheers, Chira. See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/ |
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:58:00 -
[1086] - Quote
You know, I seem to recall reading numerous threads where the idea of "instanced" combat was shot down numerous times, not only by players but also by dev's, as it breaks the sandbox concept. Why this is now on the table I have no idea, but I do know, I don't like it. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:17:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bamboozlement wrote: Eve is all about risk vs reward, I'm repeating myself because you elude this part over and over.
And you're arguing for a frankly enormous reduction in the risk of dueling. For no tradeoff, and no drawback.
Well, except that people who want to duel risk-free can do so on Sisi w/no problem, and risk absolutely nothing, because the ships there don't come out of their pockets on TQ. This would provide a system where even 'risk free' duels cost someone money. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
321
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:35:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Bamboozlement wrote: Eve is all about risk vs reward, I'm repeating myself because you elude this part over and over.
And you're arguing for a frankly enormous reduction in the risk of dueling. For no tradeoff, and no drawback. Well, except that people who want to duel risk-free can do so on Sisi w/no problem, and risk absolutely nothing, because the ships there don't come out of their pockets on TQ. This would provide a system where even 'risk free' duels cost someone money.
No one cares about Sisi.
Even allowing an idea like this to even be discussed starts Eve down the slippery slope of instances and pay 2 win. No. The Law is a point of View |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1911
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:03:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: sandbox means everyone can do what they want. It actually doesn't mean that. It means that the players are given the tools to make their own content and shape the game world themselves, as opposed to themeparks where the content is provided for you and there is little or no player effect on the game world as a whole. Sandbox doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want". It means "I can decide for myself what I want to do" and yes there is a very big distinction.
So why do you all keep saying it does? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2786
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:35:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: sandbox means everyone can do what they want. It actually doesn't mean that. It means that the players are given the tools to make their own content and shape the game world themselves, as opposed to themeparks where the content is provided for you and there is little or no player effect on the game world as a whole. Sandbox doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want". It means "I can decide for myself what I want to do" and yes there is a very big distinction. So why do you all keep saying it does?
I've never said that. |
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:42:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Session pvp on EvE...
What next? Button "battleground" and arena 5v5? Instance dangeons?
CCP build good sandbox (that mean i can affect at any player in space), and CCP ruin own sandbox with that module (i cant affect).
We have arenas with RvB. But 3rd side can join the battle at any time.
|
Solaris Vex
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:46:00 -
[1092] - Quote
With a few changes like forcing participants to warp to the dual site, making them an npc owned service available to everyone, and limiting the total number of dojos to just one or two in all of new eden. CCP could create hot spots for solo pvpers and other glory seekers to gather, which would inevitably lead to fights as people from different alliance and corps gather in one system to use the dojo.
|
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
242
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:47:00 -
[1093] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:
- Fights need to be un-screw-with-able. We strongly feel that if whatGÇÖs supposed to be a GÇ£fairGÇ¥ match given a set of predetermined rules is thrown off course by outside influence, it invalidates the whole premise.
Am i the only one who feels that this is un-eve?
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Erin Crawford
270
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:57:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:Am i the only one who feels that this is un-eve?
uuuhhh... Blind much? You see your post is no. 1050? You see you're posting on page 53? Maybe you should start from page 1? Then ask yourself that question again...
|
PastyWhiteDevil
Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:02:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Bamboozlement wrote:PastyWhiteDevil wrote: The problem with you ridiculing him for using the slipery slope argument is that you too are engaging in conjecture. you're saying that our fears are unfounded and will not come to fruition and you have about as much if not less solid evidence that it won't happen as we do that it will. So get down off ur high ****ing horse. This is all CONJECTURE, so stfu about logical fallacies when nobody in here is engaging it structured sound logical argumentation. I could just as easily call your argument the "Believes all content in eve is compartmentalized and will not effect other aspects" fallacy. All you are attempting to do is marginalize legitimate fears.
Btw. In debate an argument has to be both sound and logical to be considered valid. Also it's better to be sound and not logical than logical and not sound.
The burden of proof is on you, if you don't expect me to react when people with a meta-game agenda (aka I don't want to adapt my gameplay to this change) post doom and gloom comments with no logical basis then you should ignore my post, because I will, over and over. As an example last time people were saying duels would kill eve : http://i.imgur.com/5v1zptC.jpgStatements like "why go to lowsec/nullsec/x instead of pushing a button for a fair fight" imply that dojos will remove the incentive to go to nullsec/lowsec, which is plain wrong. Stop trying to leverage fear with doom and gloom posts and be honest : you might have less easy targets to blob/gank if you don't adapt your gameplay to this change that's why most people are against this change. Eve is all about risk vs reward.
I'm sorry, but how exactly is the burden of proof on me? I'm not the one who wants this added to game you are. It is up to you to justtify why this needs to be added. This is a needless feature and it's no different than a miner wanting one of these to protect him and his rocks. absolutely laughable. "oh you can still destroy it so it's in the spirit of eve" stfu you shouldn't need a bs or cap fleet to mess with a 1v1 or a miner and his rocks.
it won't remove incentive to go to low sec but it will most definitely lessen it and there is already very little incentive to begin with. If this involved some sort of rebalance that placed more emphasis on low sec as being a place you need to go to whether you pvp, pve, mine, industry etc. i'd be less inclined to kill this with fire, but as it currently stands KILL IT WITH FIRE.
"you might have less easy targets to blob/gank if you don't adapt your gameplay to this change[/b] that's why most people are against this change." Have you ever tried to legit pirate while trying to achieve true -10? I can't shoot rats, run sites or do missions. Loot and ransoms and the occasional loathsome bouts of exploration are my only sources of income. Any feature that will pull people away from the already painfully empty low sec is unacceptable. Additionally most of your average pirate corps don't have the resourses that would probably be needed to reinforce and destroy one of these dojos all while fighting off the ppl who don't want it blown up. Your taking what should be 2 targets of opportunity (the 2 ships fighting) and tuning it into a multi day fleet endeavor. Part of this games appeal is the ability to be a pirate and we are a disappearing breed. We get no love from ccp to begin with. We don't need this on top of it. This is not just an adaptation of playstyle thats focused on meta-game. I shouldn't need a cap fleet in order to mess with 2 ppl 1v1ing. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2795
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:12:00 -
[1096] - Quote
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Stuff about capfleets and poverty
It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet.
I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.
|
PastyWhiteDevil
Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:35:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Stuff about capfleets and poverty It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet. I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.
Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures...
So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high?
"Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2795
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:51:00 -
[1098] - Quote
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Stuff about capfleets and poverty It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet. I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely. Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures... So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high? "Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man.
It wasn't even a strawman. It was a snip for brevity because I didn't want to quote that whole wall of text. Get over yourself.
Anyway, if you can't kill - or at least reinforce - a mobile depot with a destroyer (to say nothing of cruisers) then I just don't know what to tell you.
However, you seem to have missed something in your butthurt shitpost: The entire point I was making is that it doesn't take capitals to attack these things. That's all I was saying, and anything beyond that is all you. |
PastyWhiteDevil
Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:02:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PastyWhiteDevil wrote:Stuff about capfleets and poverty It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet. I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely. Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures... So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high? "Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man. It wasn't even a strawman. It was a snip for brevity because I didn't want to quote that whole wall of text. Get over yourself. Anyway, if you can't kill - or at least reinforce - a mobile depot with a destroyer (to say nothing of cruisers) then I just don't know what to tell you. However, you seem to have missed something in your butthurt shitpost: The entire point I was making is that it doesn't take capitals to attack these things. That's all I was saying, and anything beyond that is all you.
no, it most definitely was a straw man because my point was not about poverty. it was about an aspect of eve being further marginalized. It being harder to make isk is just a symptom.
|
Raquel Rova
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:23:00 -
[1100] - Quote
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 |
|
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:05:00 -
[1101] - 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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9939
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:14:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Toriessian wrote: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.
There will be no next phase. The guy who designed it in his spare time has left CCP, and as one last troll posted it here before he moved to work for Riot. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:21:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Instanced pvp. I seem to remember another large MMO that did instanced PVP which utterly destroyed the game. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
118
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:39:00 -
[1104] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote: There are four strong guiding principles that I applied while doing this: [list=1]
Fights need to be un-screw-with-able. We strongly feel that if whatGÇÖs supposed to be a GÇ£fairGÇ¥ match given a set of predetermined rules is thrown off course by outside influence, it invalidates the whole premise. ~CCP Veritas
Dear CCP and Mr. Veritas,
Why would you think that this is a decent premise upon which to build a new PvP feature?
After having been unsubbed for a year or so I am back flying around in New Eden. Why? Because after touring around the MMORPG market I have discovered that you folks, and ONLY you folks, have managed to build a vibrant virtual world. Every other MMO has failed to do that and one of the keys aspects that has allowed EVE to do it well is the sense of interplay and interaction that exists in this virtual universe.
It is like the cliche goons recruiting line about any pilot being able to make a difference... They can, at very low skill points, as many stories have attested to over the years. It is the same sort of sense that pilots like me have about the volatile nature of undocking a ship in this game. While the opportunity cost of suicide ganking makes in unappealing to me, I COULD do it. We all know this. And it is one of the first things new players get ingrained into them. You are never truly safe when you undock. There is no instance or scenario where you can't be engaged with applicable consequence once you leave that station interface behind and start to play the wonderful experience that taking a spaceship through this universe is.
It is this sense of 'right' in the EVE universe that I think you are treading on in this thread and with this proposal. Much like Incarna as released wasn't right for EVE, this is a step in a direction that is dreaded by the type of people who, like me, come back to this game after a year away because it has stayed TRUE to the vision of a virtual world where player interactions, while properly guided by the rules of the world, still reign as the supreme factor on who lives and who goes home in their pod.
Please build an arena feature. Give the players some defensive tools so that given time, effort, and resources PvP matches can be 'fair' and free from outside influence. However, given more time, effort, and resources make sure that OTHER players absolutely can mess with the balance and cause a very EVEish and wonderful amount of fuckery. Please go back to the drawing board on the initial premise of this thread and reconsider what the proper way to bring arenas, if that is what you want, to this world.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
A hopeful customer glad to be home. For now at least... |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
510
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:30:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Interesting idea. Needs to be implemented with care. Why are people whining about instances? Assuming of course, that this doesn't actually affect anything.... it would be an alternative to ship spinning.
Idea: Virtual Reality Room -No cost -No risk -No payoff (not even achievements, or titles, or killmails. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. If you duel for 5 minutes, you just lost 5 minutes. Presumably having fun while doing it though.) -No sec restrictions. -Limited fitting (t1 ships and mods only) (to prevent it becoming a testing ground)
Wanna break up missioning? Take a breather from mining? Try out pvp at no risk? Explode spectacularly in a level of fail never before seen, then stream it to a bunch of drunk guys from other games to show them how awesome dying in a fire can be?
It hurts nothing, benefits no one, and gives us something new to do while dicking around. It might even help get more people into pvp by giving them a place to try it out. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Lelira Cirim
EVE University Ivy League
161
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:20:00 -
[1106] - Quote
If this concept survives Duality I look forward to see what it can become! Mainly the vending machine mechanic seems a lot tidier than the usual Hunger Games layout of an arena. Honestly indifferent about having a "Singularity" pocket. But I use SISI for that reason, so I can see our newbros appreciating it. Do not actively tank my patience. || -áEvents Team -á|| -áUniWiki Team |
Eessi
Murderous Inc
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:29:00 -
[1107] - Quote
The Dojo is the best deployable idea ever, right next to the mobile tractor unit!
Please make this happen!
Thank you CCP Veritas!
Good Luck! |
Josef Djugashvilis
2541
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:08:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Dun'Gal wrote:You know, I seem to recall reading numerous threads where the idea of "instanced" combat was shot down numerous times, not only by players but also by dev's, as it breaks the sandbox concept. Why this is now on the table I have no idea, but I do know, I don't like it.
I rather suspect it is because subs appear to be down, so CCP are now hoping that instanced pvp in a protected area might bring in the 'I don't really want to play Eve, but will play protected shoot em ups' in an attempt to raise sub numbers.
It is sad that CCP have been reduced to this. This is not a signature. |
PastyWhiteDevil
Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:28:00 -
[1109] - Quote
It might also be a good idea to note in your analysis of this that ccp veritas is going over to riot games who make league of legends. In my opinion that makes it pretty clear what type of content he wants to create. so make of it what u will. |
Mazzara
Gale Force Contractors
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 02:13:00 -
[1110] - Quote
+1 great idea. No matter how much you scrub, how hot of water you use,-áyou can't wash shame! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |