Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reeses Peices
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 04:17:29 -
[181] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Discussing it today with some people, the conclusion was that there needs to be better ways for corps to band together. Maybe some sort of list of "white knight" corps that would move into newbie corp's system and join the war with them.
Do these even still exist, I was in one years ago, but they tend to fold to Awoxx tactics, and eventually those white knights eventually join the dark side as well. The rest are just the care bears who refuse to put SP into anything capable of PVP. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
950
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 06:52:44 -
[182] - Quote
I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest. If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave.
AWOXing can now be turned off.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
950
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 07:00:23 -
[183] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:This whole topic and dozens of others like it are a sad testimony to the state of ... ... EVE. There are too many ways for veterans to circumvent risk and strike out at others. There are too many ways that people sit far too safe, farming and skewing the markets. (This goes for Null Sec also and I have posts and a thread or two addressing that.)
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Reeses Peices
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 07:28:07 -
[184] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest. If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave.
AWOXing can now be turned off.
You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
953
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 13:56:47 -
[185] - Quote
Reeses Peices wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:AWOXing can now be turned off. You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends. I don't really get it. People say that it has nothing to do with their personality but when given absolute freedom they make the choice to ruin someone's day. That says to me that they have some tendencies that they might be in denial about.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Dave Stark
7384
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:10:30 -
[186] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Dave Stark wrote:ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.
i'll be honest, none of those make me want to not fold a 1 man alt corp and run incursions all day for isk.
bigger asteroids - pretty much irrelevant. if i'm at the keyboard i won't be mining for isk, and if i'm afk then i don't really care about the isk per hour. if you actually want the minerals - it's still better to just chain incursion sites in a fleet then buy the minerals.
unless the sites offered a better isk/hour than l4 missions and/or incursions, i won't be bothering to defend them either.
unless my home station is jita 4-4, i won't be trading there either.
not sure if i really give a **** how many other people are missioning in my system to be honest, unless maybe i was selling ammo at a silly mark up.
also depending on how this system is "attacked" and "defended" would depend on how inclined i am to bother to try and do either of them. still - there's not a lot there that i'd be interested in defending. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
629
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 16:18:54 -
[187] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Dave Stark wrote:ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. These are good ideas that could be fleshed out a bit into a workable system that provides some risk vs. reward to highsec. You could also tie these bonuses to deployables which are moderately expensive and/or take some group effort to put up (kind of like POCOs), but provide significant bonuses (and are vulnerable). Corporations would then have a persistent identity, the added income potential would give a reason for players to join, and more importantly a reason to stay with and defend the corporation. Those that don't want the responsibility of defending a corp still can operate in highsec, but at reduced income without them.
The trick is balancing it so that once established, these corps are attractive, but not too lucrative so that no one can start a new one and be competitive in a reasonable time, and that these income bonuses can be attacked and disrupted/destroyed by a wardec, but not too easily so that no one ever bothers to build/upgrade/deploy them. It also naturally favours larger corps, which I don't think is a necessarily a problem but may require some other mechanisms to even the playing field a bit for medium-sized corps.
Dangle a big enough carrot and many players will leave NPC corps and band together for mutual benefit.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:21:15 -
[188] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Dave Stark wrote:ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.
As long as negative standings are included.
Shoot a player, lose standing with who they have a positive standing in. You have a negative standing, no access to anything that faction controls. Negative standing low enough, ship destroyed and you are podded. If you have items in their station and drop below a certain level, you lose your items.
I am sure there is more risk we can include but its a start. |
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
298
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 19:15:40 -
[189] - Quote
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:Antonio Steele wrote:
I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?
Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp. Woah, that's actually a really good idea.
And if any benefit/penalty was unbalanced they could just tweak it in the next patch a corporate policy update.
I do like the idea of some corps being at war with other corps though, as long as it wasn't troublesome. |
Jel Kishmond
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:54:51 -
[190] - Quote
For me, its not about AWOX at all so the toggle does nothing for me.
The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS (even today with 4+ years on the clock). I've always preferred small groups and the current wardec system is a pretty good way to kill a small corp.
I doubt it will ever be fixed but I would rather see wardec costs overhauled. Include one-sideness as a significant cost component rather than only the size of the target. Having a 1000v10 wardec should cost a heck of a lot more than a 500v500. With that level of imbalance it is more of an extermination than a war and should be priced accordingly.
Forcing people out without dealing with the reasons why (like the one-sided wardec problem) isn't really a solution. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
954
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 02:07:41 -
[191] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. As long as negative standings are included.. I agree there would need to be something on the flip side.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
162
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 02:47:56 -
[192] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Everyone keeps telling me this is a sandbox where we all have to figure out how to live and play next to all the others in the box. When a PvE player complains about the state of things you PvP players are quick to trot out the "sandbox" flag and tell them to adapt or quit playing. Well here is your "sandbox" flag right in your face, adapt to how others want to play the game or get out.
Please don't lump all PvP players in with the OP. That's just insulting. Most of us want improvement so that people choose to fight over things, not forcing everyone else to fight on principle. P.S: I have corrupted many a miner and indy player in the past. Even those who believed they would never like it. A lot only like small gang and home defense stuff, but typically even the most die hard miner gets a bit of a rush from yolo charging at an enemy group while in a home defense fleet. Don't knock it till you try it. Highsec gankers and wardeccers are basically the pond scum of the PvP world, don't use them as an example for what you think all primary PvP players are like :( Anhenka No insult was intended, it is simply a statement of truth. All one needs to do is browse around these or any other EvE related forum on the net with an open mind and they will see the endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and the useless high sec war dec mechanic. All I can think is that life in nul and low sec must be really bad for these players since they keep trying to force others into a game style they do not want especailly when they are so quick to point out htis is a sandbox.
I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec.
I know what you mean, I seem to be on a role here in my corp, get new players in give them a little character skills training guidance, give them a little human skills training then take them on a roam with my low sec friends and off they go to have fun blowing stuff up. Makes me feel good when I see them go off knowing that I had a role to play in getting them into something they enjoy in this game, but damn I do miss a lot of them cause they was fun to fly with. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
310
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 02:58:08 -
[193] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:It surprises me to this day how so up-in-arms people get about other players' playstyles. What difference does it really make to you or I what the hell Joe Schmoe does or doesn't on the other side of New Eden unless he is directly and adversely affecting your gameplay? Last time I checked, being in an NPC corp isn't really hurting anyone else's way of playing (and they are already paying a pretty hefty tax for being there too). "But, they can't be war-decked." So? Since when was that the only way to blow up his stuff? Get a few friends together and suicide him, if you're that adamant on getting up in his face. "Adapt and overcome," sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's a sandbox. Everyone has some level of effect on others as minute as it may be. That gives players all the right to try and impede another player's gameplay.
The point your crowd misses on this topic is that it's about risks and rewards, not an inability to theoretically kill a ship. CCP rightfully believes it to be healthy for the game to encourage players to interact with others through player corps. Being in a player corp mechanically increases your risk however. It only makes sense then that it also mechanically increases your rewards for taking that risk. If not, you are not encouraging players to join player corps.
To put it more simply, it's not about killing ships. It's about giving players a reason to put themselves at increased risk.
Donnachadh wrote: I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec.
If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
954
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 03:24:08 -
[194] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
163
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 03:01:22 -
[195] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec. I have no problem with them hangin around in high sec and trying to increase the risk factor, we will have to agree to disagree that such additional risk is needed as a balance in the game, but this misses the point to be made entirely.
If they want PvP where other players will actually engage them and shoot back then they NEED to go where that kind of activity happens and stop whining about the high sec players that have no desire to fight.
And if they want to hang in high sec to add the "balance" you think is needed then they need to accept the rest of the high sec play style and stop trying to change it into something that it is not.
CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and that is what makes EvE unique in the MMO world and it is what keeps thousands of players with diverse interests paying their subscriptions every month. And when we break this down to it's most basic level subscriptions is what CCP needs, and making alot of the changes proposed here and in many other forums would put CCP at risk of losing a large part of their monthly subscriptions.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Donnachadh wrote:.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164 Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec. And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
964
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 04:07:05 -
[196] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and .... ... was (most likely is) not their plan but more of happenstance. Quote:The company was started in 1997 when a handful of people bailed out of OZ Interactive, an Icelandic dot-com that gained some measure of fame for cooking up impressive virtual reality technology during the early days of the Internet boom. The founders wrote the beginning of EveGÇÖs plot and sold prospective employees on this vision of creating a space game. They just had no money to fund the effort.
GÇ£It is about building a world where everything is an action and reaction to what other players are doing. It targets the base human emotions. People have always formed tribes, and someone always wants to be king.GÇ¥ GÇ£Since thereGÇÖs no legal system, the economy resembles that of a developing nation where people trade based on trust and social relations.GÇ¥
CCP's creative director Torfi Frans Olafsson took to the stage to outline the developer's grander ambitions for Eve... An emphasis on the importance of collaboration between miners was also made. CCP is committed to placing more of the universe into players' hands, with the aim that all services in the game - such as manufacturing and research installations - should ultimately be controlled by players.
Senior Producer Andie Nordgren near the end of the presentation ..."Think about home, and then imagine what could lie beyond the known if only you could construct the right kind of stargate."
There was a project called "EVE United" that was briefly shown during the final keynote of Fanfest in Iceland, and this is the real prize for CCP. The demo we were shown included a single screen that could launch Eve Online, Vaklyrie and Project Legion, along with a single character you controlled in each game.
Many MMOs change too much content over their lifetimes, ruining the game or diluting it away from the original vision - Olafsson. My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers.
I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically.
Donnachadh wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Donnachadh wrote:.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164 Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec. And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC. Orcas go to high sec. Matter of tar brushing.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Ryuu Towryk
The Nephilim Covenant
44
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 08:56:25 -
[197] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:1 man corporations do wonders. Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them. There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks. Why does me being a one-man corp hurt you? Do I smell? *Sniffs* Oh...
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1923
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 13:27:57 -
[198] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers.
I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically.
Emergent Game play. Otherwise known as significant changes to highsec will destroy the ability of people to do the first part you mentioned, as it will be possible to prevent someone gathering resources in any meaningful way. As soon as that is possible it becomes possible to actually grief someone out of the game, so the kings can eliminate even the remotest spectre of a challenge by destroying potential opponents while they are still at the highsec gathering stage.
Hence why High sec can't significantly change, even if some people do use it to infinitely farm NPC's and not put that money anywhere. |
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 13:32:17 -
[199] - Quote
Not everyone wants to fight (fight meaning PvP), a vast number of players want to play the game fight-free, if all you want is a fighting game, play counter strike. The simple fact is, by joining a player corporation, you can be forced to fight, by merely a 1-man corp paying fifty million measly isk to ruin your corp. By not joining a player corp, you cant be forced to fight. The best thing about EVE is you do not have to fight to play the game. And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. Players in NPC corps can still interact and fleet up through common chat channels without having to leave themselves vunerable to gankers. Invent a mechanic where non-PVP focussed corps cant be wardecked, and people will join player corps more. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2415
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 14:07:35 -
[200] - Quote
Jel Kishmond wrote:The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS
Wow. First of all, if you've been here 4 years and haven't yet realised that Eve is meant to be one-sided, I strongly suggest another game. Secondly, if there are so many "griefer" corps out there, why haven't you filed support tickets? Probably because there's no such thing.
Hello Kitty Online is that way --->
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2415
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 14:11:41 -
[201] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:Not everyone wants to fight (fight meaning PvP), a vast number of players want to play the game fight-free, if all you want is a fighting game, play counter strike. The simple fact is, by joining a player corporation, you can be forced to fight, by merely a 1-man corp paying fifty million measly isk to ruin your corp. By not joining a player corp, you cant be forced to fight. The best thing about EVE is you do not have to fight to play the game.
If you're playing Eve at all you're engaging in some form of PvP. What's wrong with my using spcaeship PvP in response to your doing some other kind? Whatever form of PvP you're doing has an impact on me.
Redbull Spai wrote:And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank.
Poppycock, balderdash, tosh, stuff and nonsense. Shuttles and freighters are the only ships in the game that can't fight. What you meant to say is that a lot of *pilots won't* fight. I refer you to my last post about your ridiculous complaint of one-sided ganks. Don't want to be ganked? Take precautions.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
966
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 17:07:27 -
[202] - Quote
This is terrible. It is going to start sounding like I am in total agreement with a ganker.
Redbull Spai wrote: And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. . I think the essence of what you are saying, is that players feel compelled to min-max their ships to get the best ISK/hour returns. This then leaves them vulnerable to attacks from players who do not stick to one or two damage types. This is why I support changes to make the AI work more like PVP against players. Sleepers omni tanking and doing omni damage was probably the closest step in this direction.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers.
I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically.
Emergent Game play. Otherwise known as significant changes to highsec will destroy the ability of people to do the first part you mentioned, as it will be possible to prevent someone gathering resources in any meaningful way. As soon as that is possible it becomes possible to actually grief someone out of the game, so the kings can eliminate even the remotest spectre of a challenge by destroying potential opponents while they are still at the highsec gathering stage. Hence why High sec can't significantly change, even if some people do use it to infinitely farm NPC's and not put that money anywhere. I think that the way EVE is designed at the present time, it funnels new players first toward mining and then missions. Missions can be good as it builds some combat skills, however, it teaches players to fight AI and not players, there is not enough similarity.
Then the way corps and war declarations are working in high sec, it almost pushes people into staying in NPC corps.
So, I don't have my finger on exactly what it is but I think I am starting to point in the right direction that EVE is funnelling people in the wrong direction and not spelling out their intentions clearly enough.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
167
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 04:32:16 -
[203] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers. That is your interpretation of something written in the dark stone age past of CCP and you know what, players happened and changed it all. Besides that I disagree with you and interpret that section differently.
When CCP set up nul sec it was never intended to be dominated by several very large blocks causing it to become the most stagnant and least played in area of the EvE universe. Incursions were meant to be killed off as quickly as possible, not drug out to the bitter end to farm every single ISK and LP possible. In both of these areas and many others these outcomes were never intended and quite probably never foreseen by CCP. But that is what happens when you set up a sandbox, those who play in it decide what it will become. So even if CCP had not intended high sec to turn out the way it has it is just another in the long list of things that we the players have decided will be the way it is.
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
26
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 05:24:39 -
[204] - Quote
Taxes won't solve much because they only apply to activities that are solo anyway. If there's any problem that affects everyone from people being immune to wardecs, it's in the form of transport alts. Doesn't matter if it's blockade runners or freighters, the effect is similar. The market is distorted, and a prime driver and opportunity for conflict is lost.
Normalizing mass based docking taxes across empire would have the effect of normalizing them everywhere else, but I think that lead balloon has already sailed. We are a decade beyond the point of wondering why CCP implemented a feature they do not see fit to utilize. Docking taxes are essentially that dumb tattoo on your kid.
The real issue, of course, is war decs. They are the true blunt instrument. For an imprecisely calibrated amount of isk, Concord smiles on them everywhere. That doesn't really make sense from a political, economic or role playing perspective. It's also rather silly to go from safe-ish some places to not safe everywhere with the mere flick of a button.
Let's make wardecs have a geopolitical component. Make incremental wardecs that can cover individual solar systems, constellations, regions, or even factions. At each increment, increase the cost. As a compensation, a war dec in a single system should cost next to nothing, even against a very large organization. Whoops, there goes Jita.
If I'm the director a mining corp, and a rival group is hammering the belts too hard, then let's have our own private little scuffle. It might not seem significant to veteran war mongers, but it could seem quite significant to that group, and that actually kinda matters in a big, cold and indifferent universe.
As far as Concord is concerned, all of our corporations are actually formalized gangs. On a larger scale, they're not too dissimilar from Westphalian states. Letting the neighborhood gangs squabble over and establish turf keeps the conflict from sprawling out into more civilized areas.
The effect of this means corps carving out their own territories, using new trade routes, and making moves against other groups that are calibrated to their capabilities. That said, some kind of visual warzone indicator on the HUD would likely be very beneficial to all involved. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
969
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 05:41:35 -
[205] - Quote
Lienzo wrote:Let's make wardecs have a geopolitical component. Make incremental wardecs that can cover individual solar systems, constellations, regions, or even factions. At each increment, increase the cost. . +1 It also ties in with having a value on your home system and fighting other miners or ratters for it.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3513
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 06:43:16 -
[206] - Quote
I would love to put a permanent wardec on all the mining corps that think it's acceptable to mine the asteroids in my home system - but only in my home system. You want to mine? Go one jump next door. Leave my spacerocks alone, you filthy greed-infested poachers. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2016
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 07:20:51 -
[207] - Quote
In almost all cases wars would be literally useless if they were restricted to a certain region of space.
Unless the cost of declaring a war in a specific system, constellation, region, or empire was astronomically lower than the current cost those options would virtually never be used.
I'd also like to point out that a mining corp declaring war on its rival over a single system is not a thing that actually happens. The idea might seem reasonable, however by declaring a war the aggressor subjects themselves to the ally system, which is an incredibly powerful deterrent since the people likely to ally in are dedicated PVP groups and the system has no counter whatsoever. So long as that's the case the status quo of all highsec wars being fought by dedicated PVP groups will be maintained.
And general cost increases in the past have lead to the current situation where highsec wars are predominately fought by large, well financed, dedicated PVP corps, not by the average joe against his neighbors, or by new people trying to get into PVP in the environment they're used to. Adding more limitations and usage barriers to wardecs would only serve to drive the mechanic further out of the hands of regular highsec folks and further into the hands of people like myself.
The ideal wardec system is one that everyone can consider using when they think "I want to blow that guy up" not one where nobody but the ultra rich can afford to use, or which is so dangerous to use that only dedicated PVP groups can deal with the associated risks, or which is so heavily limited that it doesn't serve its stated purpose. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
974
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 01:56:53 -
[208] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:... or by new people trying to get into PVP in the environment they're used to. Adding more limitations and usage barriers to wardecs would only serve to drive the mechanic further out of the hands of regular highsec folks and further into the hands of people like myself... I take everything you say about new players with a pinch of salt. I have first hand experience of you and yours piling in on a newbie corp.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2018
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 04:01:42 -
[209] - Quote
Just because I routinely explode new players it doesn't mean I wasn't ever one and that I don't care how they interact with the war mechanics.
In fact I care a lot, because when I was a newbie me and my newbie friends started a corp and declared war on other newbies because we wanted to do PVP. Something that we could not have afforded to do under the current war mechanics.
It bothers me endlessly that new players don't have that same opportunity me and my corpmates had that lead to such an incredibly tightly bonded group that still play together years later.
I also feel that the lack of accessibility of wars to the space poor, and lack of utility to everyone but dedicated highsec PVPers is harmful to the highsec "community" in general, but that's a long ass story.
Long story short, having a high barrier to entry benefits large, organized, well funded groups and crushes people attempting to start from nothing. I don't think that's a good thing. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
974
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 04:30:28 -
[210] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:... Long story short, having a high barrier to entry benefits large, organized, well funded groups ... So, some veterans banding together and fostering new players is a bad idea? Instead we should have a corp full of new players ripe for the slaughter?
The higher bar to entry means there is more likely to be a mixed bag.
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |