|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1598
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 13:59:25 -
[1] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:PvEers have a goal Yea, make overall game significantly worse to 'make them interested'
This approach will get you much support!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1598
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 14:59:57 -
[2] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:March rabbit wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:PvEers have a goal Yea, make overall game significantly worse to 'make them interested' This approach will get you much support! Feel free to post constructively below. Or don't just avoid the urge to troll needlessly Well... I can only say that approaching the problem only from Merc side will not give any good results. You see only one side: you want people to wardec and kill. You don't see it from other side. From side of players who does not want to be decced and killed.
Try to approach the problem from other side: what needs to be changed in the game to make PVE players MORE interested in fight? I can say that it's mostly PvPers who make PvEers evade PvP at all cost. Duels and suspect baits - once you have seen it you will never accept duel request or open fire to some suspect. Even more - you WILL warn your friends. Result: the little opportunities for learning to PvP in high-sec are gone.
I think fixing duels and suspect games would increase people's interest in high-sec PvP for the start. - no neutral logi for duels and suspects - no OGBs for duels - maybe disable bumping function when in duel Not sure if this would provide more PvP players but it will stop to make people to evade it.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1599
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 16:55:06 -
[3] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote: So you feel that increasing income for PvE'ers in battles with other PvE'ers over PvE based objectives Would not encourage PvP in highsec?
.... I feel if you combine 'ownership' and 'ISK rewards' together in highsec and lowsec with a new set of structures that lets everybody know you live here and rewards you for living here it will not only improve highsec and lowsec but will also drive competition for the better areas and thus will attract people to form bigger highsec groups to compete over these while at the same time allowing the smaller groups to get into 'less desirable' areas and grow there while not really getting picked on by anybody due to the changes i proposed in declaring war on others. I would be intrested to hear your thoughts on this?
Well. - we already have it in 0.0. Did it make PvE players fight? Or it made overall more fights? - (thanks to Sol for reminding) we already have Customs Offices in high-sec. Did they make PvE players engage in PvP? And Customs Offices are "ownership + bonuses" in refined form. - you mentioned 'PvErs against PvErs' but where are PvPers then? You said 'they will assist'. Lol. They will wardec anyone around knowing that targets have no choices.
Let's compare pros and cons here: Corporation: + (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?) + 'ownership' of piece of space - creation payment - management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...) - wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses - freedom - you cannot leave the corp - with constant wars you will have everything from 'killright' to 'personal wardec'. And wars will be constant - you cannot take vacation or go to cinema with wife/kids - your corp needs meatshild to defend that structure - you cannot just move to other end of universe - you will lose bonuses from that structure you need to have and defend - you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency
NPC: - taxes and penalty to mining - no lvl4s (just blitz lvl3s and you fine) - did i miss something?
Again: You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players". Personally i'm trying to put myself into such situation.... For now i think i would either: 1) accept losses (taxes, no lvl4s) and ignore new system 2) add alts to my account and switch between them while in war 3) move to 0.0 renter empire In both cases you got nothing in high-sec. Yes, you did hurt my PvE playstyle so maybe that was what you really wanted to achieve?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1604
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 10:47:16 -
[4] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why?
Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally. Quote: That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that. You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way. 1) remove PvP in low- and 0.0-sec in favor of high-sec? 2) remove high-sec incursions (which are mostly used by 0.0-seccers alts)?
Totally supporting this idea.
Kaarous to CSM!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1604
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 15:32:18 -
[5] - Quote
to Noragen Neirfallas: (i've tried to make it readable without lots of quotes)
Let's compare pros and cons here: Corporation: + (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?) 10% increased income from LP/ISK and Mining is quite the benefit to be fair. Make it 15%? I'm not a numbers guy. What would motivate and yet not be unbalanced?
Don't forget: being at war you will spend less time for PvE anyway. Will 'spend less time' + 'get more bonuses' be better? This is what needs to be balanced out.
+ 'ownership' of piece of space Ownership=Vanity. At the end of the day that will motivate some
Let's hope!
- creation payment That one off creation payment is negligible. A group of friends starting out in the game could pool that together in a few days of playing and it would mean something to them. Those who can afford it with no hassle wont be affected. It also encourages you financially to hold on to your in game identity.
OK.
- management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...) If you can't keep 10 players in yoru corp (including ALT's) the Social Corp proposal is the idea for you - wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses Yes the other groups will want your space if you own better space. Welcome to eve online I hope you enjoy your stay here . On a serious note this falls under the Risk/Reward category. Is painting a giant bullseye on your corp really worth controlling the Osmon Constellation?
We are talking 'will PvE players like new corporations or not?'
- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all?
I don't know about current situation but when i was living in 0.0 (back in 2011-2012) i always used PvE fits. Maybe since then 0.0 became dangerous? I can take your word on that too. In high-sec smart people use PvE oriented fits. So you want people to change their behaviour too.
Quote: Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. Does anybody actively dispute that? ... Nobody is attacking you don't take this personally mate. You want changes. I'm proposing some that don't turn High-Sec into Disneyland. Eve is gritty. Eve is harsh. It makes Eve fun.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:March rabbit wrote:Again: You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest. March rabbit wrote:These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players". That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting.
As i said right from the start: you are approaching the problem from PvP aggressor side. I'm presenting you with views from other side. If you don't care about it - Ok. Personally i would love new proposed system to have some meaning for everyone involved unlike things like bumping. That's why i'm posting here.
And i haven't taken anything personal here. Thanks. Good discussion till now. Keep it going!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
|
|