Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
32833
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 23:44:44 -
[31] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Once again as stated earlier that's a +10 as now boosters have to expose themselves to combat and can be easily ganked if you want.
You even stated yourself that you didn't care about the mining links. As it is the Rorqual is so awful that forcing it to be on the field would pretty much kill it's usage. Go back and reread the discussion.
Feyd has included it as a nerf to pvp because pvp links are exposed to risk, while mining links can boost from behind a POS shield.
Mining links can be active with 100% safety while pvp links cannot.
That was the point of including it in the graph and the basis for the subsequent discussion.
The difference between the risk to mining links v risk to pvp links.
The interpretation you've made is different to the intent the discussion initially followed.
Hope that clears it up. Not a major point worth taking the thread off track for.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
ashley Eoner
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 23:48:05 -
[32] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Once again as stated earlier that's a +10 as now boosters have to expose themselves to combat and can be easily ganked if you want.
You even stated yourself that you didn't care about the mining links. As it is the Rorqual is so awful that forcing it to be on the field would pretty much kill it's usage. Go back and reread the discussion. Feyd has included it as a nerf to pvp because pvp links are exposed to risk, while mining links can boost from behind a POS shield. Mining links can be active with 100% safety while pvp links cannot. That was the point of including it in the graph and the basis for the subsequent discussion. The interpretation you've made is different to the intent the discussion initially followed. Hope that clears it up. Not a major point worth taking the thread off track for. SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? That's just weird thinking. Where as before the carebear miners could keep their boosters completely hidden the change to expose at least part of their boosting is now considered an awful nerf to pvp/gankers? The only reason mining boosts work in POS is because CCP knows the Rorqual is totally broken and needs some major love. It appears that CCP is having trouble coming up with a solution so for now we have a bandaid.
In highsec by far the majority of miners don't even hide their booster alts in a POS. Why would you when your ship has 380k EHP and the "elite pvpers" are too busy crying about eve becoming Hello kitty to bother with getting a gank group together?
What's really funny to me is that most of those on grid orcas have minimal tank although some do run shield harmonizer links instead of a tractor beam. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
32833
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:00:09 -
[33] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? It's the inequality that is the issue, not the pvp.
Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves.
That's the basic argument. It's one I agree with, because even though I don't fly in highsec, it does have a major impact on the whole game. I'm as much a stakeholder in where highsec pvp sits as anyone else is. I happen to agree with Feyd's views. That doesn't mean other views are wrong though. Where the mechanics sit are for CCP to balance and no matter what happens, the discussion will always continue.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
ashley Eoner
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:20:17 -
[34] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? It's the inequality that is the issue, not the pvp. Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves. That's the basic argument. It's one I agree with. It''s an ideological statement that has little relevance once you introduce reality.
|
Another Posting Alt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:22:55 -
[35] - Quote
There's already a second shard where miners and carebears can potter around in peace. It's called SISI. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
830
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:23:51 -
[36] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? It's the inequality that is the issue, not the pvp. Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves. That's the basic argument. It's one I agree with. It''s an ideological statement that has little relevance once you introduce reality.
How is "mining boosts work in blissful safety while combat boosts do not and it should be that both type of links work the same way" an ideological statement?
And both should be nerfed harder and be required to be on grid.
Vote Sabriz!
|
ashley Eoner
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:25:11 -
[37] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? It's the inequality that is the issue, not the pvp. Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves. That's the basic argument. It's one I agree with. It''s an ideological statement that has little relevance once you introduce reality. How is "mining boosts work in blissful safety while combat boosts do not and it should be that both type of links work the same way" an ideological statement? And both should be nerfed harder and be required to be on grid. Ideology rarely translates directly into reality.
Like your silly statement about requiring boosters to be on grid. AT that point boosting would cease to exist as they all would be alphaed off the grid in the first shots. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
830
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:26:45 -
[38] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:SO making it so that those involved with PVP are exposed to PVP is a nerf to PVP? It's the inequality that is the issue, not the pvp. Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves. That's the basic argument. It's one I agree with. It''s an ideological statement that has little relevance once you introduce reality. How is "mining boosts work in blissful safety while combat boosts do not and it should be that both type of links work the same way" an ideological statement? And both should be nerfed harder and be required to be on grid. Ideology rarely translates directly into reality. Like your silly statement about requiring boosters to be on grid. AT that point boosting would cease to exist as they all would be alphaed off the grid in the first shots.
I'm ok with boosting ceasing to exist.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
953
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:44:21 -
[39] - Quote
as stated earlier there have been a bunch of buffs to ganking too, I think it is in a reasonably good state right now. Also from what I remember there have been a few changes to concord since 07, not quite sure when your timeline starts. also note that drone mechanics change means that drones no longer auto attack gankers.
also I feel that one of the best ways to deal with people in highsec is to suicide gank them. a wardec gives way too much notice, and they will just go play with alts, or stay docked. The main use to a wardec imo is to bash a pos (do pocos require wardecs?). And I'd say harassing null alliances in HS is a good use too. 99% of my time in wardecs is sitting around doing nothing (usually on the aggressor side).
social corps, well I'll wait till more discussion happens, but they sound like fancy names for a group mailing list and chat room, which already happen.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
225
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:06:54 -
[40] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Quote:Where's the +1 that is tags for sec status? Highsec gankers don't bother with sec status too much to my knowledge.
Then that would invalidate the -2 point. Works out as a +1 either way.
Scipio Artelius wrote:Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves.
Except as pointed out, links are kept in NPC corps anyway, so the only impact to PvP AND PvE in hisec is that it makes them more gankable. If you want to count it as a nerf to boosting, fine, but as combat links are used for both PvE and PvP it has no relevance to this particular chart and has nothing to do with highsec carebearism.
And the fact that mining links weren't changed is also not relevant to the chart. You can't count the fact that they HAVEN'T been changed as a -1 compared to the old status quo. |
|
Serene Repose
2210
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:10:37 -
[41] - Quote
Ahar! Is this dumb. Looks like a roadmap to rationality to me. Though, I know "some" people will object. Then, they always DO.
Treason never prospers. What is the reason?
Why, if it prospers, none dare call it "treason."
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14924
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:10:58 -
[42] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ganking has never been cheaper thanks to the introduction of t2 BCs and the changes to destroyers.
Wrong. The current ships used are more expensive (battle cruisers and teir 3 battle cruisers especially are a lot more expensive) that they ships used before the insurance nerf. Ganking has never been more expensive.
ashley Eoner wrote: Like your silly statement about requiring boosters to be on grid. AT that point boosting would cease to exist as they all would be alphaed off the grid in the first shots.
If you lose the flying bricks of steel that are command ships in one volley thenyou deserve to lose them and you have much bigger issues than a lack of boosts.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3209
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:11:58 -
[43] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:as stated earlier there have been a bunch of buffs to ganking too, I think it is in a reasonably good state right now. Also from what I remember there have been a few changes to concord since 07, not quite sure when your timeline starts. also note that drone mechanics change means that drones no longer auto attack gankers.
also I feel that one of the best ways to deal with people in highsec is to suicide gank them. a wardec gives way too much notice, and they will just go play with alts, or stay docked. The main use to a wardec imo is to bash a pos (do pocos require wardecs?). And I'd say harassing null alliances in HS is a good use too. 99% of my time in wardecs is sitting around doing nothing (usually on the aggressor side).
social corps, well I'll wait till more discussion happens, but they sound like fancy names for a group mailing list and chat room, which already happen.
Nope the ganking nerfs are far far more numerous than the buffs and most of the ganking buffs are unintended effects of adjusting other areas. However almost all of the ganking nerfs have been direct nerfs.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7315
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:15:18 -
[44] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ganking has never been cheaper thanks to the introduction of t2 BCs and the changes to destroyers. This is completely false.
Attack Battlecruisers and the major buffs to Destroyers were introduced around the same time as the insurance nerf. And the former two changes did not compensate for the latter.
Before the insurance nerf, you could suicide gank in ANY SHIP (even a Battleship) and the cost for doing so would have been equal or less than it is to suicide gank in a Destroyer today.
The insurance nerf made suicide ganking economically unappealing (or outright out-of-reach) for "casuals" and forced more professional ganking outfits to get more people and/or funding... both of which require effort.
Meanwhile, no additional effort (to protect themselves) was required of the carebears asking for "one more nerf."
I agree with a few others here... high-sec should lose some of its money-making capacity or general warfare/combat should be made easier to initiate. As it stands... high-sec IS too "safe." And the people coming into this game now (or have already gotten used to this level of safety) have a lower threshold for warfare/conflict than previous generations of high-sec dwellers... reinforcing the feedback loop of "one more nerf."
This isn't the direction the game should be going in. I signed up for a game that is hard for EVERYONE because EVERYONE ELSE is trying to "get them."
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11723
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:15:40 -
[45] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ganking has never been cheaper thanks to the introduction of t2 BCs and the changes to destroyers.
Since it's you, I know I should not have expected better, but I should point out to all involved that this statement is a blatant lie.
Especially since the insurance nerfs.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
32843
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:28:59 -
[46] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Quote:Where's the +1 that is tags for sec status? Highsec gankers don't bother with sec status too much to my knowledge. Then that would invalidate the -2 point. Works out as a +1 either way. Only in the case that my understanding is valid for 100% of cases, which I'd be fairly certain it isn't.
So that leaves those that do want to maintain their sec status with either spending more ISK for the same amount of ganking, or ratting longer for the same amount of ganking.
Either way, it's a nerf to those people, even if not all gankers care about their sec status. It certainly can't be classified as a buff to highsec (or lowsec) pvp.
Lena Lazair wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Expose all to the same level of risk and allow players to all manage their risk. No need for mechanics to make things safe when players are competent enough to manage the risk themselves. Except as pointed out, links are kept in NPC corps anyway, so the only impact to PvP AND PvE in hisec is that it makes them more gankable. If you want to count it as a nerf to boosting, fine, but as combat links are used for both PvE and PvP it has no relevance to this particular chart and has nothing to do with highsec carebearism. And the fact that mining links weren't changed is also not relevant to the chart. You can't count the fact that they HAVEN'T been changed as a -1 compared to the old status quo. The chart relates to a shift from HTFU to Themepark.
Removing the ability of combat links to work inside a POS shield was a nerf to those links, while not also applying the same nerf to mining links.
It makes providing combat links more risky (for both pvp and mission running) while allowing a mechanism to maintain complete protection for mining links.
In terms of nerf/buff classification, it was a nerf to combat links. More risk for one activity, but not applied equally.
Not all mechanics are black and white, but aside from the Rorqual, there's no need for mining links to work from inside a POS. Expose them to risk, in highsec, lowsec and nullsec if people want to use them.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Enyalie
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security
32
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:32:31 -
[47] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Depressing. |
Daerrol
Death By Design Did he say Jump
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:38:21 -
[48] - Quote
All I read is "I can't shoot people who don't want to be shot/know what to do anymore" tears. Second shard? Give me a break. The economics alone of highsec-lowsec-nullsec-WH interaction are MORE than enough to disprove that, not to mention lots of residients of other parts of space use highsec for various things.
Here's an idea. If you love PVP that much, come out to Low-sec and shoot people who A: Expect it. B: will shoot back. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14928
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:41:04 -
[49] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:All I read is "I can't shoot people who don't want to be shot/know what to do anymore" tears. Second shard? Give me a break. The economics alone of highsec-lowsec-nullsec-WH interaction are MORE than enough to disprove that, not to mention lots of residients of other parts of space use highsec for various things.
Here's an idea. If you love PVP that much, come out to Low-sec and shoot people who A: Expect it. B: will shoot back.
The point is that PvP has been nerfed and nerfed hard over the years while the bears have enjoyed nothing but buffs yet the calls for more nerfs continue.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
The Protato
Vitriolic Animosity Diplomatic Immunity.
268
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:41:04 -
[50] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Ganking has never been cheaper thanks to the introduction of t2 BCs and the changes to destroyers.
"Ganking has never been cheaper"
Cost has never been a balancing factor. Look at the fuckery with supercaps now. |
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:47:52 -
[51] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:All I read is "I can't shoot people who don't want to be shot/know what to do anymore" tears. How would low and nullsec residents react if CCP were to remove the ability to "shoot people who don't want to be shot/know what to do"?
How many low or nullsec kills don't want to be shot at or don't know what they're doing? Do you kill them, or do you leave them alone?
Quote:Second shard? Give me a break. The economics alone of highsec-lowsec-nullsec-WH interaction are MORE than enough to disprove that, not to mention lots of residients of other parts of space use highsec for various things. None of which affects the amount of isk to be made in hisec for very low risk and appears to be becoming even more so. It's about balancing risk and reward.
Quote:Here's an idea. If you love PVP that much, come out to Low-sec and shoot people who A: Expect it. B: will shoot back. Why? Hisec is a target rich environment, there are targets in every system, the same can't be said for lowsec.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
181
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:09:06 -
[52] - Quote
OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6430
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:10:56 -
[53] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:All I read is "I can't shoot people who don't want to be shot/know what to do anymore" tears. Second shard? Give me a break. The economics alone of highsec-lowsec-nullsec-WH interaction are MORE than enough to disprove that, not to mention lots of residients of other parts of space use highsec for various things.
Here's an idea. If you love PVP that much, come out to Low-sec and shoot people who A: Expect it. B: will shoot back.
This is EVE, mate. The moment you log on, whether you want to be shot at or not is irrelevant, as is whether or not you know how to defend yourself. What matters is you logged on, and by virtue of that, by default, you've agreed to participate in a PVP environment. That includes highsec. I've been to all 'secs' of space, spent a long time in Khanid lowsec, and I know for a fact that it's not just high sec full of risk averse players. So when you say, 'come to lowsec where people will shoot back', that's not necessarily true either. Half the population where I hung out tended to hide in station or cloaked up whenever I was around.
EVE's been going this way for a while now, and it's all because of players that know what they're logging on to, but think that it ought to change to suit them, and the somewhat weak-willed devs who fail to stand up to them and say "no, that's not the game we're developing."
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:23:03 -
[54] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene. Social corps won't stop them dying to the same shenanigans that NPC corp members die to, and as you say they may encourage newbies to stick around, hence I have no objections to the proposal as it stands.
Slightly offtopic: What CCP does need to work on is education. I know they're working on it; but the NPE sucks, it's better than the "here's your ship, there's a rat, try not to die" NPE I went through, but it still sucks. It's a topic worthy of a thread of it's own though, I'd love to see CCP start one along the lines of little things threads.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
831
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:23:16 -
[55] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene.
I gotta agree here. If the "social corp" concept hadn't popped up at the same time as creating the option to turn off friendly fire in a corp, I don't think it would be as widely railed against as it is. Everyone has the hackles up over the one and in turn they're blowing the other out of proportion.
At least, that's part of the blame. The other part is CSM members overstating what the "social corp" could be used as.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
1894
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:28:37 -
[56] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene. Sadly the key precept envisioned for 'social corps' is to make them 100% invulnerable to wardecs.
Oh sure, there will be lip service about them not being able to perhaps own POCO's or other 'balancing' factors, but the real intent is to kill hisec wars, with a potentially unforseen consequence of killing the robust hisec mercenary landscape along with it.
The approach isn't to close existing wardec dodging exploits, or increase NPC corp taxes to incentivize players into player corps. No, its more mechanics nerfs dressed up as 'increasing social interaction'.
There once was a dream that was EvE, and this is not it. This is NOT it.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6432
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:31:46 -
[57] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene. Sadly the key precept envisioned for 'social corps' is to make them 100% invulnerable to wardecs. Oh sure, there will be lip service about them not being able to perhaps own POCO's or other 'balancing' factors, but the real intent is to kill hisec wars, with a potentially unforseen consequence of killing the robust hisec mercenary landscape along with it. The approach isn't to close existing wardec dodging exploits, or increase NPC corp taxes to incentivize players into player corps. No, its more mechanics nerfs dressed up as 'increasing social interaction'. There once was a dream that was EvE, and this is not it. This is NOT it. F
This. With the introduction of unwardeccable social corps, loopholes for dec-dodging in regular corps, such as rolling corp and making a new one, need to be closed simultaneously, or the 'good intentions' of social corps or just a thinly veiled nerf to wardecs.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
183
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:39:36 -
[58] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene. Sadly the key precept envisioned for 'social corps' is to make them 100% invulnerable to wardecs. A rose by any other name...
As I understand it, the social corps are mechanically identical to NPC corps, with the obvious excpetion that they can be created & named by players. As for in-game impacts: there are none.
I see absolutely no harm in introducing this feature. Players most likely to use it are the players that drop corp at the first sign of danger, anyway. So it's not like there's going to be a notable dip in targets.
Players in these corps do no avoid NPC corp tax, they cannot declare war, join alliances or claim sovereignity, they cannot establish POSes or POCOs. Every mechanical advantage granted to a regular corp is denied to the social corp.
If these social corps offered some sort of "free" advantage, I'd oppose them. If they somehow detracted from EVE's open world, 'HTFU' PvP or somehow made their members even safer, I'd be against it.
As far as I can see, they're just NPC corps with a different name and I'm OK with that. If it gets people to stick around longer without removing anything about EVE that makes it so unique then I say go for it.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
297
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:43:41 -
[59] - Quote
It is difficult to envision why anyone would join a highsec industry corp after the proposed 'social corp' change unless they are heavily invested in blueprint research. The balance pass for this ought to include substantive incentives to being in the player corp in the first place.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
599
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 02:47:18 -
[60] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:OP points out a long history regarding HiSec content nerfs and I agree. The exception would be the attitude that social corps are somehow detrimental to 'HTFU' - I strongly disagree. They'll encourage new players to make friends and socialise, stick around for longer at absolutely no expense to the current HiSec PvP scene. Sadly the key precept envisioned for 'social corps' is to make them 100% invulnerable to wardecs. Oh sure, there will be lip service about them not being able to perhaps own POCO's or other 'balancing' factors, but the real intent is to kill hisec wars, with a potentially unforseen consequence of killing the robust hisec mercenary landscape along with it. The approach isn't to close existing wardec dodging exploits, or increase NPC corp taxes to incentivize players into player corps. No, its more mechanics nerfs dressed up as 'increasing social interaction'. There once was a dream that was EvE, and this is not it. This is NOT it. F This. With the introduction of unwardeccable social corps, loopholes for dec-dodging in regular corps, such as rolling corp and making a new one, need to be closed simultaneously, or the 'good intentions' of social corps or just a thinly veiled nerf to wardecs. I think with social corps CCP are trying to strike the right kind of balance, we know that there's a problem with newbie retention; social corps will give the already existing social groups in the NPC corps, which may well have a better retention rate than the NPC corp in general, more visibility and their own identity. At the moment finding out about them is very hit and miss, which is a shame because Eve is a social game and is better when played with others, plus they usually have operations running everywhere, doing everything.
Social corps not being able to be wardecced is neither here nor there, they're essentially NPC corps and pretty much every player corp is essentially wardec immune if it chooses to be these days, especially since instant corp rolling ceased to be an exploit. I think that the current corp rolling mechanic sucks and agree with Remiel in that it needs to be changed, either with penalties for doing it, or redeclared an exploit and patched out.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |