Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mortlake
Devils Rejects 666
660
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:18:04 -
[271] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:some people are entertained by inflicting misery and discomfort on others.
Indeed. |
Malt Zedong
WorldTradersGuild.Com
43
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:19:16 -
[272] - Quote
Side notes are side notes.
But about hisec you are wrong.
I've seen people being blown up in Uedama in the most variable ways possible, and no matter how much you and other may deffend the idea that it is only occurent to blow up afk people. In the neighbouring systems of Uedama and Niarja, people are blown up either for carrying value or for just plain being easy taregets. That has nothing to do with being AFK or not.
I am not saying it should change, not it is bad for EVE. But that is the way it is.
And I deffend the right of people to do those kinds of things as much as I defend the right of people to run business or remain in hisec and npc corps as much as they like at the present balance between restrictions and advantages.
Our discussion is not productive anymore because you are taking it to a field where it favors you. And I dont want to go there.
WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14398
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:34:32 -
[273] - Quote
Malt Zedong wrote: Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.
The ever-loving irony.
You are literally saying in that same post that you only play the game to do what you want to do, and the game should not have any purview besides that.
You are the ONLY one suggesting there is only one way to play the game, and the only one demanding that the game be altered accordingly. We're just here to play the game the devs told us was there, you want that twisted around and cut into pieces so that we can't do things you don't like. And you absolutely refuse to countenance anything that conflicts with your unbelievably wrong view of EVE Online.
Up yours, hypocrite.
"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.
|
Malt Zedong
WorldTradersGuild.Com
43
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:48:55 -
[274] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Malt Zedong wrote: Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.
The ever-loving irony. You are literally saying in that same post that you only play the game to do what you want to do, and the game should not have any purview besides that. You are the ONLY one suggesting there is only one way to play the game, and the only one demanding that the game be altered accordingly. We're just here to play the game the devs told us was there, you want that twisted around and cut into pieces so that we can't do things you don't like. And you absolutely refuse to countenance anything that conflicts with your unbelievably wrong view of EVE Online.Up yours, hypocrite.
You lie here.
I am not saying YOU MUST remain in NPC corps or hisec. I am saying you must have the right to choose.
I am not saying the bull everyone knows it is a lie that hisec is risk free high rewarding. I worked in low and null and I know the kind of money you make there.
But you are saying we should make npc corps unatractive to force people to interact, in ways they dont want to.
You are implying that hisec is all roses and no one is blown up because of the will of people on blowing you up despite anything you do.
This is really contra-producent because as most of the people who are vocal or so called player representatives only represent the kind of player we know they do. If we want something to our side, we are better off just simply filling up feedback, forms and what not, because in forums it is always the same:
"In EVE you this, in EVE you that, EVE is a sandbox so you MUST this, that".
And I defending freedom of choice with equity of joy am the one telling people what to do.
I laugh. lol
WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14398
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:55:29 -
[275] - Quote
Malt Zedong wrote: You lie here.
Do I?
Malt Zedong wrote: Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy.
Nope, I don't.
You're playing the wrong game. EVE is highs and lows, EVE is gain and loss.
Quote: But you are saying we should make npc corps unatractive to force people to interact, in ways they dont want to.
No, I'm saying that risk vs reward should mean something, and that NPC corps should not be the obvious best choice. Yes, that serves as an incentive to join player corps, and since player corps have a much higher retention rate, that is something you will have to get used to, whether you like it or not.
"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.
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
3548
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 23:23:54 -
[276] - Quote
Malt Zedong wrote: Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy. My joy ingame is to do what I like to do. I happen to work in real life doing what I like to do, and I do it in game because I like to do it. I respect my joy in being able to do it, and my joy comes most of the time from being able to confront a realistic simulation which is what devs strive so hard to make EVE be. If you dont care about your pixel ships, it is your right. Accusing me of insanity for not being like that is the same "You see the game as I see it because it is the right way to see it."
On my side note, it is interesting enough when that bites the rear of people. You have now 5 threads running when a "its just a game folk" cries over the fact they were massacred because they ambushed a person from a group who does the whole reality simulation thing. They say things like "It is just a game, why people get nervous and amass a horde to destroy all ships I have ?". See the issue ? If it is just a game, why cant I play the game fiercly while the so called "hardcore pvp" play the game in "softcore immersion" ?
Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.
I am going to wardec you in 20 mins. I get joy from it. Respect my joy. Its all about joy.
Joy.
Does this make anyone else joyful? It gives me joy.
Joy.
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2425
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 01:38:23 -
[277] - Quote
Updated the OP, specifically points 2A and 2B. Gone are the NPC corp taxes (sticks are bad) and more formalized are the benefits of player corp growth, which I now refer to as Maturity (carrots are good).
I welcome further feedback on these changes. Even from you Malt, provided you have something new and/or relevant to say.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
47
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 03:37:39 -
[278] - Quote
I'm still curious to know why a certain safe haven for, especially non-new, players is desirable in the context of trying to fix a system that they fully bypass. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Scope Works Dead Terrorists
1987
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 07:11:20 -
[279] - Quote
Avvy wrote:admiral root wrote:If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare? Is it that rare? Maybe because some players are paying for protection? Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier. Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve.
Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
|
Morgan Agrivar
Yamaguchi Holding LLC
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 07:22:54 -
[280] - Quote
I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.
So I live in highsec.
"Out of all the people who have tried to kill me, you are my favorite."
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1572
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 07:47:56 -
[281] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Avvy wrote:admiral root wrote:If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare? Is it that rare? Maybe because some players are paying for protection? Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier. Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve. CCP showed us how rare it is at fanfest: https://puu.sh/gGUZJ.jpg
This is the predictable outcome when you remove all profit from suicide ganking - only overloaded haulers and overfitted ships are viable targets.
Honestly, that is how it should be - profit should only come from catching players taking risks (like overloading a hauler, or AFKing an expensive ship/pod), not those just fitting ships and behaving normally.
But keep these numbers in mind when you see players coming to the forums and whining about how suicide ganking is out of control and ruining the game. Suicide ganking was much more profitable and prolific in the Eve's past, at times when the game was growing the fastest. Only a handful of players still do it, and those mostly on principle or for the love of the hunter-style gameplay as gankers typically make less than highsec mission runners.
Criminal gameplay in highsec could use a buff though. Some new mechanisms to drive conflict and better allow criminals and "law enforcement" players to interact with each other. Game mechanisms that encourage more players to take up a life of crime and the ability to give the "good guys" a real fight. |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1455
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 08:30:30 -
[282] - Quote
make incursions corp/alliance activities only ;) (meaning you need to be in a player corp, or in a temp corp for the incursions), im nullsec but your ideas sound pretty good and not biased. good luck
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2432
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:39:43 -
[283] - Quote
Zihao wrote:I'm still curious to know why a certain safe haven for, especially non-new, players is desirable in the context of trying to fix a system that they fully bypass. When I made the "safe haven" comment, I was referring to how NPC corps currently work, specifically how you can't be wardecced. I wasn't talking about somehow changing them to make them safer than they are now.
If EvE is truly to be a sandbox it must accomodate all styles of play, even those who want to play less aggressively and with less risk than your average C&P denizen. My goal isn't to increase their risk, because ultimately there is a large segment of players who, if they had more risk forced upon them, would simply leave the game. My goal is to reduce their reward relative to being in a player corp. If you want to stay in an NPC corp and run missions or mine rocks in a 1.0 system all day, you can still do that, but you won't be as profitable as someone in a mature player corp who's doing the same thing in a 0.5 system. The rocks would be worse, the missions would pay less, and player corps would get benefits that you don't.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2432
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:47:14 -
[284] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Avvy wrote:admiral root wrote:If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare? Is it that rare? Maybe because some players are paying for protection? Although, I take it from your comment you would welcome changes that made suicide ganking easier. Its pretty rare. I for one and constantly dissapointed that I have never been suicide ganked considering that I've lived in high sec for the vast majority of my time in eve. CCP showed us how rare it is at fanfest: https://puu.sh/gGUZJ.jpg This is the predictable outcome when you remove all profit from suicide ganking - only overloaded haulers and overfitted ships are viable targets. Honestly, that is how it should be - profit should only come from catching players taking risks (like overloading a hauler, or AFKing an expensive ship/pod), not those just fitting ships and behaving normally. But keep these numbers in mind when you see players coming to the forums and whining about how suicide ganking is out of control and ruining the game. Suicide ganking was much more profitable and prolific in the Eve's past, at times when the game was growing the fastest. Only a handful of players still do it, and those mostly on principle or for the love of the hunter-style gameplay as gankers typically make less than highsec mission runners. So much this. If people think suicide ganking is bad now...imagine what it was like before getting CONCORDED invalidated your insurance. With a cheap fit, virtually anything you ganked made a profit. (Of course, we didn't have ABCs back then, but still.)
Black Pedro wrote:Criminal gameplay in highsec could use a buff though. Some new mechanisms to drive conflict and better allow criminals and "law enforcement" players to interact with each other. Game mechanisms that encourage more players to take up a life of crime and the ability to give the "good guys" a real fight. I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game. These are both valid options and should remain, but something else in addition to those two options would be good. But the problem is coming up with some way to enable that interaction that doesn't invalidate the protection of CONCORD. Everything that I've seen proposed in this area would turn hisec into losec and I think that's way too far.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3271
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:15:26 -
[285] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game.
One of the many nerfs to ganking over the years was the utterly ******** decision to make Concord invincible. This leaves us with no option to stay docked between ganks and greatly reduces the opporunities for interaction. If undocking didn't mean certain death (I'd be fine with reasonably certain) we'd spend a lot more time undocked.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
3553
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:20:29 -
[286] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game. One of the many nerfs to ganking over the years was the utterly ******** decision to make Concord invincible. This leaves us with no option to stay docked between ganks and greatly reduces the opporunities for interaction. If undocking didn't mean certain death (I'd be fine with reasonably certain) we'd spend a lot more time undocked.
Im ok with CONCORD being invincible and untankable, but I think that the FACPO needs to go. They dont really DO anything but prevent interaction, and are very easily avoidable with the simplest of bookmarks. All they mean is that a gank boat isnt stopping anywhere to hang out... they definitely dont prevent any ganks from taking place.
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
3553
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:25:43 -
[287] - Quote
Morgan Agrivar wrote:I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.
So I live in highsec.
Thats your problem. Why are you trying to live solo anyhow? Do you not like people?
The game really wont let you go very far as a solo player. Can you? Yeah sure. Will you get much out of it? Likely not.
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3271
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 12:27:20 -
[288] - Quote
Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.
Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
50
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 14:48:29 -
[289] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:When I made the "safe haven" comment, I was referring to how NPC corps currently work, specifically how you can't be wardecced. I wasn't talking about somehow changing them to make them safer than they are now.
I was under no other impression.
Bronson Hughes wrote:If EvE is truly to be a sandbox it must accomodate all styles of play, even those who want to play less aggressively and with less risk than your average C&P denizen. My goal isn't to increase their risk, because ultimately there is a large segment of players who, if they had more risk forced upon them, would simply leave the game.
This seems to run contrary to the desires of your electorate.
Bronson Hughes wrote: My goal is to reduce their reward relative to being in a player corp. If you want to stay in an NPC corp and run missions or mine rocks in a 1.0 system all day, you can still do that, but you won't be as profitable as someone in a mature player corp who's doing the same thing in a 0.5 system. The rocks would be worse, the missions would pay less, and player corps would get benefits that you don't.
Is "they will quit," the only reason you support NPC war immunity as a desirable mechanic? If not, could you discuss other reasons why you feel it is desirable? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2434
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 15:01:28 -
[290] - Quote
Zihao wrote:This seems to run contrary to the desires of your electorate. I beg to differ. The impression that I get is that players living in NPC corps shouldn't be able to earn the kind of living that they are while players in player corps risk more without necessarily earning much more in return. One way to fix that would be, as you suggest, allow NPC corps to be vulnerable to wardec, thus increasing their risk. But this would reduce the viability of playing in an NPC corp too far I believe. I want to make NPC corps less profitable, not less useful. Living out your life in an NPC corp, safe from wardec and other such player entanglements, should absolutely be an option if EvE truly is a sandbox. If you eliminate that, then you make EvE less of a sandbox.
The number of options for playstyle isn't broken, the relative rewards for perusing them is.
Zihao wrote:Is "they will quit," the only reason you support NPC war immunity as a desirable mechanic? If not, could you discuss other reasons why you feel it is desirable? See above. Being a sandbox means keeping as many options open as possible. I feel that allowing wardecs against NPC corps reduces options, which I see as bad for the sandbox. Driving players away is more a consequence of human psychology and thus harder to quantify, but reducing options is pretty much black and white.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
50
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 15:30:30 -
[291] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:The number of options for playstyle isn't broken, the relative rewards for perusing them is.
The problem seems to be that, if you bypass whole mechanics, relative reward becomes unimportant as the cost of living in highsec is fairly close to zero.
Bronson Hughes wrote:See above. Being a sandbox means keeping as many options open as possible. I feel that allowing wardecs against NPC corps reduces options, which I see as bad for the sandbox. Driving players away is more a consequence of human psychology and thus harder to quantify, but reducing options is pretty much black and white.
So the only reason you support war immunity, or the only reasons you're willing to articulate, are:
1. Players will quit if we take that away. 2. Taking away options is bad.
Would it be fair to say that your answer to the "appropriate scope," question then is: Total war immunity is absolutely necessary. If so, would you (assuming nobody quit) explain what repercussions you imagine as a result of negated NPC war immunity? |
trufax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 18:02:51 -
[292] - Quote
I think allowing new players to be in an NPC corp for a limited time only may be a solution to this. There are a few options for this. Automatic player corp creation after a certain time limit (this would necessitate the removal of basic corp creation skill requirements). This could be a fixed period after character creation, or alternatively based upon time played.
Alternatively the player's tax rate could be raised to a high level after a certain time period. This would therefore allow alts that aren't engaged in missioning or trading to continue to exist in NPC corps. |
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
3555
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 20:04:45 -
[293] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.
Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games.
Naw. FACPO and the Navy arent the same, although sometimes both show up.
Feyd had a good CONCORD replacement idea in his blog. It involved players flying CONCORD ships to respond to ganks, you could accrue LP and obtain different level CONCORD ships and whatnot. Seemed like a good idea to me.
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3272
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 20:09:50 -
[294] - Quote
Some kind of beacon going up whenever a player goes GCC would be cool. I generally don't read blogs; are we talking about invincible Concord ships, or just a new line of ships that require Concord LP to source?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Morgan Agrivar
Yamaguchi Holding LLC
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 21:50:48 -
[295] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Morgan Agrivar wrote:I think it has to do with playing within your comfort zone. Loved wormholes but won't solo live in one and lowsec just wasn't for me. As in wormholes, it would not be easy to live in null trying to dodge the landlords.
So I live in highsec. Thats your problem. Why are you trying to live solo anyhow? Do you not like people? The game really wont let you go very far as a solo player. Can you? Yeah sure. Will you get much out of it? Likely not.
I think it has to do with trust. In Eve, you don't trust anyone. I did find a good group to run with but they live in lowsec, play Skill Queue Online and play League of Legends. I have opened myself to a new player who I have been mentoring but he seems to have the knack for PvP and will be going off to join a PvP corp here in a few days.
As for me, I have invested a lot of time and isk into my implants which in turn opens up more opprotunities. I would love for them to remove implants so I can jump in a frigate and go get blown up in explosive goodness without risking the training plan I have been meticulously following for a while.
I don't have an issue with CODE or the anti-gankers. I believe that highsec really, really, really needs an upgrade. Do I get bored of running level 3/4 missions? Oh hell yeah. My specialization (if I can call it that) is scanning. But in highsec, scanning is basically pointless. There is NO profit or initative in scanning in highsec.
If I can find a group of people I could TRUST, then I am all in for going and doing something else.
"Out of all the people who have tried to kill me, you are my favorite."
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14401
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 23:54:57 -
[296] - Quote
If you want to incentivize criminal AND law enforcement behavior, it's really quite simple.
The reason both of those things are so binary is because the NPCs do a better job of law enforcement than players ever could. Facpo shows up faster than any player ever could, with more precision too. So long as they exist at all, criminal style players will never expose themselves, because to do so would be folly. WIthout Facpo, crime and punishment content would be more prevalent, as in it would actually exist.
Secondly, Concord being both invincible and untankable devolves the mechanic into being something extremely binary on every level. It turns highsec aggression into a simple dps race. This has the effect of making numbers the only force multiplier involved in the mechanic. Either I bring enough dudes to get the kill, or I don't and I fail. Meaning gankers are 100% incentivized to go for overkill or creative means of holding a target in place, and to use ships that are nothing but the best isk/dps ratios. Things like bumping and hyperdunking/globbing exist solely because of Concord. Therefore, Concord should be made to be tankable, with increasing damage scaled over time. Basically like gate guns, but everywhere. Further, like real life police, they should only come when called. Say that they're busy with the Drifters and can't afford to watch our asses like hawks anymore.
If that were done, then ganking someone in a larger ship becomes more than a laughable concept. If my battleship can tank Concord for longer AND I'm not getting jumped eight seconds after I undock, then I would have more possibilty than zero of actually undocking in one.
Bingo, instant content, and buttloads of it as well, for both sides. Does this suck for miners and haulers? You betcha, but their lives are too easy as it is. Something has to give if you want meaningful criminal content in highsec.
"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.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
631
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 03:14:36 -
[297] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you want to incentivize criminal AND law enforcement behavior, it's really quite simple.
The reason both of those things are so binary is because the NPCs do a better job of law enforcement than players ever could. Facpo shows up faster than any player ever could, with more precision too. So long as they exist at all, criminal style players will never expose themselves, because to do so would be folly. WIthout Facpo, crime and punishment content would be more prevalent, as in it would actually exist.
Secondly, Concord being both invincible and untankable devolves the mechanic into being something extremely binary on every level. It turns highsec aggression into a simple dps race. This has the effect of making numbers the only force multiplier involved in the mechanic. Either I bring enough dudes to get the kill, or I don't and I fail. Meaning gankers are 100% incentivized to go for overkill or creative means of holding a target in place, and to use ships that are nothing but the best isk/dps ratios. Things like bumping and hyperdunking/globbing exist solely because of Concord. Therefore, Concord should be made to be tankable, with increasing damage scaled over time. Basically like gate guns, but everywhere. Further, like real life police, they should only come when called. Say that they're busy with the Drifters and can't afford to watch our asses like hawks anymore.
If that were done, then ganking someone in a larger ship becomes more than a laughable concept. If my battleship can tank Concord for longer AND I'm not getting jumped eight seconds after I undock, then I would have more possibilty than zero of actually undocking in one.
Bingo, instant content, and buttloads of it as well, for both sides. Does this suck for miners and haulers? You betcha, but their lives are too easy as it is. Something has to give if you want meaningful criminal content in highsec.
Didn't they make CONCORD invincible and untankable in the first place because players of your ilk effectively took over highsec systems and killed everything that moved?
I just don't see the highsec industrial/miner/PvE crowd ever being able to muster sufficient numbers of capable pilots to counter the forces of dedicated player killers/griefers. Players for whom PvP is a secondary concern will logically always be at a disadvantage. Why that is so or who is at fault is irrelevant, all that matters is the effect it has on the game.
If you return CONCORD to a state where it can be defeated, the players for whom PvP, specifically non-consensual PvP against easy targets, is a primary concern, will locate the threshold at which CONCORD can be neutralized, figure out what it takes to consistently surpass that threshold, and turn high-sec into a free fire zone for everyone that's not blue to them. And then you will start bleeding subs.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3175
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 04:15:44 -
[298] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:And then you will start bleeding subs.
The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP.
It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically.
Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
631
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 04:27:16 -
[299] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:And then you will start bleeding subs. The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP. It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically. Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates.
Faction Navy is irrelevant to dedicated highsec PvP'ers anyway as it can be pulled offgrid indefinitely via a well known exploit. So you DO have people who use FW as a means to farm kills in highsec in expensive ships. The thing is, most FW corps have many low sec status characters and beyond that aren't interested in playing station games with people who will just hide until we return to lowsec and then go back to blapping T1 industrials, frigates and pods with their instalock T3.
FW in lowsec is hardly a frigates only concern. My corp has been party to several fights in the past month where both sides brought battleship fleets and triage carriers were dropped, and some of the other GalMil corps are embroiled in a war with Snuff Box that sees regular use of battleships, T2/T3 cruisers and battlecruisers, and caps. The T1 frigate stuff is great regardless because it provides an entree into pvp for newer players who can't fly the shiny stuff.
As for CONCORD - it seems pretty binary to me. Either it's tankable or not. If a -10 fleet comp can stay on-grid with CONCORD, players will figure out what that requires and hilarity will ensue.
Mittens will be ruling the galaxy from Jita within a few days, I imagine. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14402
|
Posted - 2015.09.08 10:15:29 -
[300] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Mittens will be ruling the galaxy from Jita within a few days, I imagine.
And of course, there it is.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |