|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1750
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 05:04:34 -
[1] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Yay another buff to HiSec!!!!
And people said a single hisec rep[ would be useless and have no influence
bwa ha haaaaaa
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1759
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:17:27 -
[2] - Quote
I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do.
That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that.
Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other?
With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1763
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:50:03 -
[3] - Quote
Sol Project wrote: If CCP really believes this will help player retention, then this game is doomed.
Tell me, you CSM person, what are they doing against the real reasons that make new players quit?
.) Player run New player corps which do not provide gameplay for their new players, or completely one sided gameplay.
.) Vets in rookie corps who make people mine or run missions, which equals to playing solo or not at all, although CCP themselves said that players who become social are more likely to stay.
.) Vets in rookie corps who lie about lowsec and the attitude of PvPers in general.
.) Player run New player corps who do not teach anything and force their members to become targets, instead of making them understand how to survive and defend themselves.
I will wait for your response.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave?
But bullet by bullet
'do not provide gameplay' yeah, I agree some folks who came looking for a themepark experience leave when they find this is not it. I do not propose we ever try to become one, either. Sometimes you are just not the right game for the player.
Force players to mine or run missions. um, how? Oh they may suggest it for standings or to get some isk while the skill queue ripens but are you talking slave labour? What are they, Amarr?
People lie in Eve . . . yup
Some corps are bad and don't teach. Yup, others are better at it. I'd like to see an encouragement to the latter class of corps.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1764
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:00:43 -
[4] - Quote
Haedonism Bot wrote: Brother, this is a fantasy role-playing game, the rules don't need to have logic - they just need to allow opportunities for fun content, which AWOXing mechanics certainly always have.
But if you must have an RP justification for every single goddamn game mechanic, it's easy enough to cook one up.
How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security."
Mechanic logically justified. Happy now?
Actually that is pretty good.
But it is still a dumb loophole, for those of you who haven't read the relevant section you might notice Fozzie did hold out the poossibility of it being a toggle-abble function.
Quote:CCP Fozzie - Yes. We have put a lot of thought into this such as flags that people can turn on and off.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1766
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:57:43 -
[5] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence.
Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player.
Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against.
If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right?
Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons.
Concord has hired the Capsiuleer running the mission to handle the threat. They then allow him/her to succeed or fail on thier own merits. But they DO interfere with capsuleer/capsuleer violence unless the appropriate fees have been paid (wardec)
makes sense to me
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1766
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:03:35 -
[6] - Quote
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman
personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha.
Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1767
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:09:17 -
[7] - Quote
Sol Project wrote: Do you have any ideas why people do not stay for longer or do you just have data?
Isn't any list of reasons I present 'data'?
Sadly, IF I do know the stats/data from sessions with CCP NDA would preclude me from giving them to you so we are left with the choice that a) CCP is randomly making changes with no reasoning behind them hoping that out of the chaos something will happen that makes the game better OR (b) they do have some reason for this change.
The only group I do feel sorry for is the corp free-for-all events
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1785
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 16:47:29 -
[8] - Quote
I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game.
Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player.
So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church.
So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1787
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:16:58 -
[9] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
"This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core"
[quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space.
from the line following
so we are both right, eh?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1787
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:25:58 -
[10] - Quote
Quote: Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Mags
Depends on your definition of PvP. as a MMO I am always in competition with other folks but if I mine my own stuff and then use it to build my own ship so I can run missions quietly in a small out of the way system my level of PvP is low, very low. Only interaction with outsiders was buying the bpo's. I do miss drone poo as it allowed me to be very independent when I was that way inclined.
If you define PvP as shooting the other guy there are TONS ofg non PvP things to do. If your definition is broad enough to encompass them then this minor change does not really shift much of the PvP that takes place in hisec every damn day.
which is it?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1790
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 19:51:13 -
[11] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Let's cut to the chase Mike. Would removing the ability to awox corp members without CONCORD intervention increase or decrease player conflict and content creation?Seriously folks, if we can't ensure only CSM's that hold that key litmus test above to heart when elected, then the CSM needs to be blasted from existence, because yahweh knows CCP sure as hell doesn't need any more help from carebear players to rush down its road to nerfdom in pursuit of moar WoW subs. F
OK, but your question should be broken down, the AND kinda makes it impossible to answer correctly.
Remove the corp on corp free fire zone. Will, in the short run, decrease player conflict? Yes, unless awoxers are willing to lose a ship to kill a corpmate.
Increase content? I hope so. If a few more people join corps, if a few more corps recruit without worrying about bad things happening then we have more people, more content. If not, then I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease.
As I asked before and Mags magnified on, we throw terms around without a solid base of definitions. PvP, carebear, PvE. You log on, you could argue that you are doing PvP by some folks definition. Others think it involves ships exploding. If we are ALL doing PvP then what are Carebears? PvPers just like the rest.
I did not mean the religion reference earlier as an insult but anybody who reads these forums on a regular basis KNOW that there are some fanatical supporters of specific playstyles. In that regard I am an agnostic. I support the game as a whole and closingh an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1792
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 20:02:11 -
[12] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb.
How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb?
Population of the game pretty well guarantees dumb people. And smart people and everyday folks.
http://funnyfilez.funnypart.com/pictures/FunnyPart-com-i_see_dumb_people.jpg
I am a teacher, this doesn't mean I don't think some kids are dumb, I just don't call them that and I try to remedy the situation as best I can. Here, I call some folks as I see them and there are NO requirements for CSM to be 'nice'.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1796
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 20:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.
What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic. Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period. Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs. F
I am honestly trying. But sometimes a surgeon has to make cuts and injure the patient to keep it alive in the long run. Nerfs are the cuts that CCP applies in hopes of keeping the game alive . . . now some of you might carry this medical analogy out and call the devs 'quacks' and 'bloodletters' who practice medicine with no clue of what is really going on.
You have the right to think that.
I am allowed to disagree.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1798
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 20:19:42 -
[14] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
Aren't the CSM suppose to represent everyone. Even the dumb ones. Its obvious by reading the minutes that you look down on these people and I have to wonder how can represent them.
I don't think you can and by your statement....no requirements to be nice ...I can only think that you don't represent everyone equally. You only represent the ones who you agree with.
This whole CSm thing seems alittle dodgy to me now.
Bwa ha ha haaaa
pant pant
wooo hoooo hooo hoo
represent EVERYBODY? How in the hell do you expect a person to do that when you have been in this forum? WHICH EVERYBODY SHOULD i REPRESENT?
I listen, participate, listen more and form an opinion and THAT is what I take up the ladder and to summits. That is also why I ask for and respect clear proposals and counter arguments.
It is impossible to represent everyone but what I mainly try for is to represent THE GAME. Not CCP, the game I play and you play and everybody else here supposedly plays. We play it in all sorts of different ways and that is GREAT! I love that. Eve is not one game it is like a Rec Centre in a city, bowling alley and pool, library and youth centre all rolled into one.
You want to sway my opinion? Leave off the hysterical ranting or the 'I'll quit if I don't get my way' Present a good solid argument.
I madly volunteered to be the forum guy, other come and go and if you think another CSM would better suit your interest then write them a note. If you write it here? I am mainly 'it'.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1805
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 20:47:25 -
[15] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
I am allowed to disagree.
m
Indeed. Now then, can you provide me an answer yet?
I did
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1806
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:34:42 -
[16] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed?
It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect.
To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1810
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 01:09:34 -
[17] - Quote
It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling?
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1814
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 18:43:12 -
[18] - Quote
Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages.
Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains.
I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future
aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|

Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1824
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 21:18:11 -
[19] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then?
I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does.
I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so.
You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things.
Actually, I claim exactly that.
Wardecs are NOT on the same slope as corp awox. One you get warning, announcements and a ramp up time.
I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
|
|
|