|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
162
   |
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:16:02 -
[1] - Quote
How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances.
I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc.
How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are? |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
162
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 05:21:42 -
[2] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....
But:
NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!)
Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group)
and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....
Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff?
The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social.
I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
165
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 02:57:02 -
[3] - Quote
admiral root wrote:I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel *\o/*), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game.
However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it.
I am in the minerbumping channel too, so I understand what you mean.
It solves the problem of "corps are one size fits all". Once you have a corp for social people who aren't interested in the risks or rewards, you can change mechanics for real corps to give real benefits and risks. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
170
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:02:05 -
[4] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo.
I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank....
..
They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly.
It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears. |
|
|
| |
|