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) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14200
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:38:47 -
[331] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.
Now this is just nonsense.
Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar.
If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1330
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:45:26 -
[332] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Your points are valid but what I'm trying to get at is that a model that encourages conflict over improved resources would take people interested in conflict and hive them something to do beyond simply hunting whatever prey they can catch. Obviously they would still be doing that somewhat, but if they are getting their fix elsewhere there's less incentive to hunt prey.
People looking g to avoid conflict would still have to be wary, but their predators would be mostly preoccupied in more meaningful fights.
Of course that's an idealized view of what I think would improve the situation, actually getting to that would be difficult to say the least. I can definitely see the goal here but the usual issues aren't necessarily resolved. Will to fight remains an issue because the barrier there isn't simply having nothing to fight for, but also believing one case win and that the reward will be worth the losses involved in securing that victory. A miss in any of those considerations becomes an issue, and with having the resource or structure acting as a beacon for potential fights the predator/prey mechanic isn't truly removed, but rather is just focused on fewer "prey" groups that in theory should be defensible best case and worse case these resources just get locked down by the owners of the biggest stick. If the latter happens then lesser predators will do what they are doing now, pooling resources to become big fish or hunting easy prey for not being able to hold their own in the big boy mechanics. As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened. I see what you're saying, those who believe they cannot fight will still believe they cannot fight, but will just be more poor. Those who already know they can fight probably won't notice much change.
My biggest problem with trying g to push people into null or WH space is that people who can't play every night reliably tend to run into problems in those ares. I myself, in my last 3 or so months with test, spent ~%50 of my time on move ops, ~%30 of my time shooting structures, ~%10 of my time ratting or running sites with corp mates, and ~%10 of my time actually in fleets shooting baddies or roaming.
It was the primary reason I left, when I was available, nothing good was happening, everything fun was happening g while I was at work or sleeping or hanging out with my wife.
Low sec obviously doesn't suffer that problem as much as 0.0 or WH but still there at least a bit.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1555
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:49:00 -
[333] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.
Now this is just nonsense. Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar. If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it. No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other. So long as player corps have no distinction, meaning the benefits of being in one are conveyed to all corps equally, there will be no advantage to staying in any particular corp during a war.
The optimal method of NPC corp dwelling will shift to 1 man corps and wardec evasion corps. Which is something I really have no issue with. My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing, so the whole point of NPC corps being relative isn't even addressing the statement I made.
Player corps have never been only compared to just NPC corps and never will be. So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14202
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:58:53 -
[334] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other.
No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter.
Quote:My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing
How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing.
Quote:So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless.
People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1555
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 00:10:27 -
[335] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter. Which isn't an issue if being in the latter inherently only gives advantages but never requires those advantages be defended. Rather as things stand now there are advantages distinguishing the 2, but nerfing NPC corps to the point of further compulsion towards 1 man corp online eliminates that barrier. That's a reality I'm fine with as it's personally beneficial, but it's certainly not a social or conflict improvement in itself.
Quote:How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing. No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."
Quote:People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction. Ignoring the unnecessary pejoratives applied to those who haven't fallen for the typical "only one way to play" BS, if this is true there are no reasons to change NPC corps as they are collectives consisting of largely those kinds of players. |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1330
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:10:54 -
[336] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm certainly not advocating the idea of forcing people out of highsec, I tend to consider it as valid a place to play as any other, rather I'm just pointing out that the current wardec mechanics had the same high hopes as the suggestion while filling in none of the actual gaps and further incentivizing dog piling on opponents. The only difference here is that there is now a game acknowledged throne for the top dog. As you stated, all those who would rather not compete go on as normal.
I'm not sure what the solution is, mainly due to the will to exploit whatever is put into place, but who knows, maybe the evils with this idea are lesser than what we currently suffer.
Sorry the part about kicking people out of high sec by making it utter crap to live in wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Feyd. I'm on my phone and out for dinner with my inlaws so I probably failed to make that clear.
I agree that there are no simple solutions, and I have yet to read a suggestion that fills in all the gaps without breaking g something else in some horrible way.
I don't claim to have an answer, and while I don't agree with all of Feyds ideas, I do concede it's very well put together. I think many of the things here have merit of their own.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14210
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:39:02 -
[337] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."
And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course.
If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1556
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 03:26:46 -
[338] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage." And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course. If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back. Who's post are you reading where you saw something about quitting? It wasn't in what you quoted. It wasn't in the parts of the post you didn't quote either.
Either way there isn't any reason for anyone to feel required stay in NPC corps if they are nerfed so of course they won't if the nerfs affect them significantly. Your opinion about attitudes based on the way someone else is enjoying the game holds no weight over other players. Each of them will decide what to do for themselves as they should if such changes were to happen, just as they do now.
If being in a player corp is significantly advantageous to me I will be in one, and I will continue to fight on the terms I decide to the extent of my ability to determine those terms. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2567
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:15:33 -
[339] - Quote
I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.
But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Noragen Neirfallas
The Scope Gallente Federation
1762
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:40:04 -
[340] - Quote
Op is now updated. have at it again
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1413
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 08:24:35 -
[341] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets. No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).
Of course, the "social corp" proposal could solve this - the NPC corp that has a player-selected name and chat channel. I still am in favour of this idea as a way risk-averse players can tune their risk but still play the game with a social group while respecting the risk vs. reward side of the game.
Ultimately though, corporations exist to compete with each other. This game is founded on the ideas of competition for power and resources. Players need tools to disrupt their rivals.
It seems that these new structures might be just that. The fact that much of the bonus of them comes from rigs that are unanchorable, means that players will be forced to defend them, and their corporation if they want to keep the benefits of them. It all depends on these bonuses and their cost, but if both are significant, we have a new reason to fight for your corporation in the event of a wardec which might make some of the problems with wardecs go away.
Seems like the OP proposal for additional, but limited, constellation-wide structure benefits could co-exists with this and drive even more conflict. So +1 in general for the idea.
These new structures have much promise to revitalize the game. I might even go as far as saying the long-term health of the game depends on CCP getting them right, and maximizing their potential. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1797
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 09:36:02 -
[342] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets. No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Of course, the "social corp" proposal could solve this - the NPC corp that has a player-selected name and chat channel. I still am in favour of this idea as a way risk-averse players can tune their risk but still play the game with a social group while respecting the risk vs. reward side of the game. Ultimately though, corporations exist to compete with each other. This game is founded on the ideas of competition for power and resources. Players need tools to disrupt their rivals. It seems that these new structures might be just that. The fact that much of the bonus of them comes from rigs that are unanchorable, means that players will be forced to defend them, and their corporation if they want to keep the benefits of them. It all depends on these bonuses and their cost, but if both are significant, we have a new reason to fight for your corporation in the event of a wardec which might make some of the problems with wardecs go away. Seems like the OP proposal for additional, but limited, constellation-wide structure benefits could co-exists with this and drive even more conflict. So +1 in general for the idea. These new structures have much promise to revitalize the game. I might even go as far as saying the long-term health of the game depends on CCP getting them right, and maximizing their potential. Non mutual violence is part of the essence of eve. I do not want this gone however I do want there to be a reason for more people to want to do space violence.
I do think that a corp lite is needed that isn't deccabel but cant compete with a real corp on its benefits. that's an idea for another thread now
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1340
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:19:18 -
[343] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.
But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.
Your idea is awful but let me explain why.
If that were the case, it would lead to corporations filled with veteran risk averse players (people who could defend themselves if they chose to). They corps would be immune to war decs under your system.
These groups would refuse to recruit newer players as it would lower their average security status, putting their war immunity at risk. Due to this, veterans would be immune to war and new players would be left to the wolves (I am a wolf). Seeimg as all otger targets would be immune to war, war dec corps would have no one to attack but newer players.
Overall, this would be the complete opposite of healthy for the game.
It's important for new players to get a taste of war, or some other form of spaceship violence, early. But they shouldn't be singled out as the only viable targets of war.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2582
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 02:13:51 -
[344] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec?
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1809
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 02:50:12 -
[345] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec? He is talking about highsec. People forget that this is something that will affect lowsec (albeit only slightly and make more isk for those living in their areas)
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1433
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 05:44:43 -
[346] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec? Highsec. There is no other mechanism to remove/attack a POS in highsec other than a wardec. |
Morgan Agrivar
Yamaguchi Holding LLC Dread Pirate Syndicate
56
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 11:02:15 -
[347] - Quote
NPC corp is 11%. I can put my own corp at 0% if I wish. It is like tithing to someone who doesnt do much, well except protect you from wardecs.
"Out of all the people who have tried to kill me, you are my favorite."
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1833
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 06:53:35 -
[348] - Quote
Added some ideas to the OP that people have been commenting about to get them discussed a bit more
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
430
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 19:45:05 -
[349] - Quote
SOV already exists and already destroyed about 90 percent of the systems in EVE so naturally we should duplicate the idea in the 10 percent of EVE that isnt a total snooze fest.
This isnt just my sole opinion CCP isnt scrambling to do something about SOV because it has been good for the game.
Homogenization has sent the biggest online game in history to its deathbed and it would swat a small niche game like EVE straight to the F2P graveyard.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1559
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 20:10:55 -
[350] - Quote
I still look at the idea and think most will conclude "why bother?"
Solo/small entities need not apply for reason of insufficient strength. Entitiles capable of taking the constellation get locked into an endless game of king of the hill which sucks up any profit gained by being on top. Non-combat focused entities of similar size do better by being able to apply their focus freely without incurring continual defense costs (whether via merc costs or internal defense routing players away from industrial/PvE focuses and the gains provided). Fight trolling instead of actual use is encouraged since owning the structure makes your PvE/Indy pilots targets.
The most beneficial arrangement for these structures as proposed is a large PvP corp/alliance with indy characters who don't undock and rely on out of corp (or better NPC corp) logistics. Meanwhile nothing prevents or even discourages hunting smaller prey. |
|
Joanna RB
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 22:04:32 -
[351] - Quote
Lyric Masters wrote: If you would seriously stay docked to a one-man wardec that wasn't active in your system, you are far too risk-adverse. Unless of course, you are AFK in which case you should garner zero sympathy.
If you would seriously even consider undocking a 2b+ ratting ship while under wardeck, you wont get any sympathy when you get locator agented and smashed open before you have the chance to warp out. If you keep your 2b+ ship docked, the wardecker has defeated you without even undocking himself.
Either way, its wardecker 1, you 0. There is no possible way a non-combat player can defeat a wardeck. Even if they fight and win, their operations are being interrupted and they gain nothing, the decker corp just reships.
Lyric Masters wrote: "Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.
This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
469
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 06:34:28 -
[352] - Quote
Homogenizing a game is ALWAYS bad for a game, removing real choice removes players permanently without gaining any new ones.
If you start with a bowl of mixed fruit you appeal to a broad audiance. If you change the bowl to only have variants of oranges you lose a lot of your audience because while you have 20 different orange variants you lose everyone that hates oranges. EVE has one apple, highsec space, in a bowl full of variants of oranges, if you dump the only apple in the bowl you will lose subs.
If your idea is implemented, it will cost EVE subs, it will negatively effect CCPs finances, which will permently hurt EVE.
Lets hold out hope that CCP devs are better at game design and direction than you are or we are in for problems.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
106
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 06:48:40 -
[353] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again) All points are still open for discussion A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too 1. Bounty payouts 2. Mission rewards 3. LP Generation 4. Mining cycle times 5. Station related fees It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed) The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?) I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think? Slightly increased refining yields Slightly reduced production times Ideas to discuss Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space? Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space? Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs It requires An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys ). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war. The goal of all this? Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them.
So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there.
-1 |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:04:22 -
[354] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again) All points are still open for discussion A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too 1. Bounty payouts 2. Mission rewards 3. LP Generation 4. Mining cycle times 5. Station related fees It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed) The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?) I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think? Slightly increased refining yields Slightly reduced production times Ideas to discuss Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space? Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space? Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs It requires An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys ). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war. The goal of all this? Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them. So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there. -1
Except that Sov sucks. Why would you want to hold Sov?
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:13:59 -
[355] - Quote
Joanna RB wrote:Lyric Masters wrote: "Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.
This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers.
By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.
And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.
The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1646
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:38:36 -
[356] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:...
By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.
And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.
The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.
On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D
New EvE advertising tagline:
CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community... |
Tengu Grib
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
1405
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:42:28 -
[357] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...
By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.
And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.
The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing. On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D New EvE advertising tagline: CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community...
Thanks for making me crack a smile this morning. Needed it.
Seriously though, the vast majority of Eve criminals I've meant are fantastic people. I can only think of one exception but I won't name names. (wait maybe two come to think of it)
My time among carebears though, I met a lot of people I consider to be awful people.
Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities.
StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1956
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 16:26:28 -
[358] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:...
By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.
And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.
The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing. On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D New EvE advertising tagline: CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community... Thanks for making me crack a smile this morning. Needed it. Seriously though, the vast majority of Eve criminals I've meant are fantastic people. I can only think of one exception but I won't name names. (wait maybe two come to think of it) My time among carebears though, I met a lot of people I consider to be awful people. Having spent a large amount of time among both I will say that both groups have their questionable people and I am in no way talking about their ingame methods... I tend to find that the RL threats come from the prey community (mostly there are some shining examples from the predator community) and I have heard and read chats from the predator side that honestly made me wonder if those people used those same mouths to kiss their mothers and hands to hug them (again the Prey community has some shining examples of this too). What I'm not a fan of is that there is a prey community and a predator community and no reason to intermix and I feel this is the main barrier between the 2 groups is the lack of incentive to mix them. I will respond to the posts that deserve it in the morning (like the orange post that is actually the first decent rebuttal so far until it got ruined in the last 2 sentences). see yall in the morning
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] [12]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |