|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 16:48:11 -
[1] - Quote
Define riskier. Define Structure.
Anythings possible but ya gotta do some of the mental legwork yourself before anyone will remotely consider it. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 03:47:24 -
[2] - Quote
There is a myth that freighters getting ganked somehow harms the economy. In reality this is both correct yet incorrect.
It is correct in the sense that its a massive isk infusion to the game each time a T1 freighter get ganked in the form of insurance. This is actually bad. Insurance is actually a significant factor in inflation.
It is incorrect in the sense that minus the above effect any item destroyed during a gank (50ish%) is permanently erased. This eases over supply and increases margins. In EVE this is a GREAT thing. It's also a form of wealth redistribution. Half your crap isnt destroyed.. its just moved back to the market to provide an isk transference from the purchaser to the ganker.
Logistical immunity of any shape or form is a terrible idea. In the long view it just allows rampant inflation and risk free gameplay. EVEs design is RISK/REWARD. Risk free is not part of the game design.
In short you would have considerably more success and add considerably more health to the games economy if you discussed ways to make ganking less of a kludged system and more of an actual process within the game. Let people be bad guys... let people be heros. Discuss and try to find mechanics that let both sides have their cake without making either task to easy. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 17:03:44 -
[3] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Considering how many freighters make it through gank systems unscathed we should be trying to make it easier to bump and gank freighters. Obviously CCP disagrees with this assessment or it would be easier to bump and gank. ~snipsnip~.
CCP has never sided with "immunity" pleas. The only thing CCP has moved against in the ganking community is ensuring it takes people. Arguably they are doing this to ensure gankers have to put forth enough isk to gank a target profitably but without the metrics they used to decide this its just a guess.
IE 20 catalysts=Good 1 hyperdunker=bad according to CCP. Personal opinions are, of course, personal.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 21:04:58 -
[4] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Considering how many freighters make it through gank systems unscathed we should be trying to make it easier to bump and gank freighters. Obviously CCP disagrees with this assessment or it would be easier to bump and gank. ~snipsnip~. CCP has never sided with "immunity" pleas. The only thing CCP has moved against in the ganking community is ensuring it takes people. Arguably they are doing this to ensure gankers have to put forth enough isk to gank a target profitably but without the metrics they used to decide this its just a guess. IE 20 catalysts=Good 1 hyperdunker=bad according to CCP. Personal opinions are, of course, personal. My comment was posted as a simply rely to one made by Daichi Yamato, please review those and rethink. His comment was that CCP should make bumping and ganking easier, I simply pointed out the fact that CCP disagrees with that point of view an we know that to be true because CCP has never done anything to make ganking easier. Leads me to wonder about you, and why you chose to inject something into my post that was not there to start with?
In a debate it matters less who brings up a topic than it does that the topic was brought up at all. In this case your sentence clearly suggests(even if you intended sarcasm) that CCP has attempted in any way to prohibit bumping and ganking. This is a bad road to go down for discussions like this because it has no validity. I merely outlined that CCP is more interested in maintaining risk/reward even for activities such as ganking and thus consideration should be given to this fact for future points in the discussion.
To the idea behind structures being tossed around.. Its not exactly unprecedented. In nullsec we have mobile cyno inhibitors. These work much in the same way you want a highsec version to work. They dont stop "local help" but sure as heck stop the "hammer of god" from helping.
The question is cost ratios and if you really want highsec to be opened up to that level of warfare. To cost the structure cant be to inexpensive or it will be abused. This is eve.. we'd abuse a chicken sandwich if we could. With that extra cost comes the problem of limiting gankers to more expensive targets. This might not be optimal to their play style if that "expensive target" becomes insanely rare.
The other side of the coin is that you will be exposing the "safe" space to a mechanic that allows engagement without consent and possibly with little to no penalties(depending on the idea being referenced). Would highsec players actually enjoy this style of gameplay? Even if, like MCyno Inhibs, you could engage and destroy the "threat structure" before it activated or simply warp off grid to escape it? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 01:08:49 -
[5] - Quote
Considering the current development direction is less NPC and more Player.. that would be counter intuitive.
There is also reasoning behind this... In a sandbox making an NPC mechanic often slams the door on any other use. You use that one thing that one way.. no innovation.. no exploitation(yes this can be good sometimes).. and no immersion. Wormholes are a prime example of why PLAYER choice is always superior. Devs never intended them to be lived in.. yet now they develop them with dwellers in mind because players spent time, effort, and energy making it work and digging in.
With player controlled you get all these innovations though. Things like hyperdunking. Regardless of how you feel about it we can all agree a dev sat down after they heard about it and rubbed his head in wonder at the ingenuity of EVE players in using things in ways in which they were never conceivably intended. |
|
|
|