Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
498
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:28:00 -
[91] - Quote
Rellik B00n wrote:Awesome post
QFT. Imagine that, and educated opinion that makes sense. Asuri Kinnes, you should take notes from this man. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
165
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:49:00 -
[92] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I invite you to go back, read better and then come back when you actually have a commentary on my ACTUAL points at hand. Or, don't. Either way no one cares. But it would seem that you do, so never stop posting, because I just don't know how I would entertain myself without people like you And I invite you to go back and inform yourself of everything that PS's blog post (and the whole issue) has been about for... four years.
Don't quit posting?
Right back at'cha bro!
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Humidor Cigarillo
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:05:00 -
[93] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: When Hi-sec was introduced (along with war-dec mechanics to begin with). When Privateers Alliance was war-dec'ing anywhere from 20 to 60 corps a week, war-dec mechanics were changed, and I believe the record they set (which still stands, to the best of my knowledge) when the "priveteers nerf" came in was 260+ corps (hi/low/null) wardec'd in one week. When (and since) CCP have said a previously established exploit (using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war-dec'ing a corp) was tacitly acknowledged because CCP didn't wish to spend any more GM time to investigate reports of it.
No need to go any further because you either don't understand the question or fail at trying to elucidate this doomsday scenario. These are the wardec changes, but what makes them indicative of the game mechanics as a whole or of CCP policy as a whole?
Literally EN24. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
498
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:19:00 -
[94] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:I invite you to go back, read better and then come back when you actually have a commentary on my ACTUAL points at hand. Or, don't. Either way no one cares. But it would seem that you do, so never stop posting, because I just don't know how I would entertain myself without people like you And I invite you to go back and inform yourself of everything that PS's blog post (and the whole issue) has been about for... four years. Don't quit posting? Right back at'cha bro!
I guess this is you bowing out then? Since you did not accept my invitation.
Weak... Bro. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't.
Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
708
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:37:00 -
[95] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: "bellweather" It is actually BELLWETHER ... in the event people think I cannot spell. :)
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
167
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:56:00 -
[96] - Quote
Humidor Cigarillo wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote: When Hi-sec was introduced (along with war-dec mechanics to begin with). When Privateers Alliance was war-dec'ing anywhere from 20 to 60 corps a week, war-dec mechanics were changed, and I believe the record they set (which still stands, to the best of my knowledge) when the "priveteers nerf" came in was 260+ corps (hi/low/null) wardec'd in one week. When (and since) CCP have said a previously established exploit (using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war-dec'ing a corp) was tacitly acknowledged because CCP didn't wish to spend any more GM time to investigate reports of it.
No need to go any further because you either don't understand the question or fail at trying to elucidate this doomsday scenario. These are the wardec changes, but what makes them indicative of the game mechanics as a whole or of CCP policy as a whole? Literally EN24. Those were "game changing" changes, i.e. - the examples you asked for.
Nothing was a bigger change than the introduction of hi-sec/war-dec mechanics. (changing the direction of the game as it had existed for 2 years? Three? I'm not sure, as that was before my time).
Probably the 2nd largest change (and CCP changing the game as a whole) was the Alliance "P" (Privateers Alliance) nerf, when the current (borked) war-dec changes were implemented (costs scaling with the number of declared wars, instead of a flat rate, reducing, overall, the absolute number of wars anyone could have at a time - thereby making hi-sec safer - still not *safe*, but *safer*).
Now by removing the war-dec-shield as an exploit - this makes it possible to make hi-sec wars extremely prohibitively costly, reducing again, the number of wars declared. Making *all* activities safer (again, not entirely safe, but *safer*).
The upcoming changes/tweaks/restructuring of war-dec mechanics has a *lot* of people worried about the future direction of the game and whether or not pvp / non-consensual player interaction will continue to be supported...
I don't know why that's so difficult ?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Humidor Cigarillo
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 20:08:00 -
[97] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: Those were "game changing" changes, i.e. - the examples you asked for.
Nothing was a bigger change than the introduction of hi-sec/war-dec mechanics. (changing the direction of the game as it had existed for 2 years? Three? I'm not sure, as that was before my time).
Probably the 2nd largest change (and CCP changing the game as a whole) was the Alliance "P" (Privateers Alliance) nerf, when the current (borked) war-dec changes were implemented (costs scaling with the number of declared wars, instead of a flat rate, reducing, overall, the absolute number of wars anyone could have at a time - thereby making hi-sec safer - still not *safe*, but *safer*).
Now by removing the war-dec-shield as an exploit - this makes it possible to make hi-sec wars extremely prohibitively costly, reducing again, the number of wars declared. Making *all* activities safer (again, not entirely safe, but *safer*).
The upcoming changes/tweaks/restructuring of war-dec mechanics has a *lot* of people worried about the future direction of the game and whether or not pvp / non-consensual player interaction will continue to be supported...
I don't know why that's so difficult ?
You're still have yet to explain the overall effect on the game that is being touted in the article. I would have assumed, based on the pitch of squealing I have read here, that there was an obvious corollary and examples to be given. Instead we get "possible," "safer," and "worred about the future." Which is indicative of absolutely nothing that has occurred.
tldr; If the claim is that wardecs set the standard for the game via how safe it is to operate in empire, you will have to make the case that this is true and use examples from the past to illustrate that point. Not just gloss and generalize as though it were an obvious truism.
And frankly, I find it absolutely priceless that the cowardly OP has yet to address this point himself. *german giggles* |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
708
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 20:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
Humidor Cigarillo wrote:And frankly, I find it absolutely priceless that the cowardly OP has yet to address this point himself. Because you're boring. And a blowhard (which may bring up pot-kettle comments ... fair enough.)
I don't need to rationalize my post to you. You want to break it down on your own, feel free.
I think Asuri did a fine job of reeling off to you the history of highsec and wardecs.
There are no metrics available to support or not support my post. It's a sociological, not scientific. We only have movement in certain direction the past year by CCP. Whether they continue to move in that direction, Summer Expansion will tell us. I believe the war declaration mechanics to be a bellwether of that direction.
You may not believe that. That's fine. That's cool. I don't care. :)
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Humidor Cigarillo
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 20:43:00 -
[99] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Humidor Cigarillo wrote:And frankly, I find it absolutely priceless that the cowardly OP has yet to address this point himself. Because you're boring. And a blowhard (which may bring up pot-kettle comments ... fair enough.) I don't need to rationalize my post to you. You want to break it down on your own, feel free. I think Asuri did a fine job of reeling off to you the history of highsec and wardecs. There are no metrics available to support or not support my post. It's a sociological, not scientific. We only have movement in certain direction the past year by CCP. Whether they continue to move in that direction, Summer Expansion will tell us. I believe the war declaration mechanics to be a bellwether of that direction. You may not believe that. That's fine. That's cool. I don't care. :)
You don't need to rationalize it, but it would do with, you know, explaining how the hell you came to your conclusion. Being that your (assumed) intention was to convince others that you were indeed correct. Of course, that is presumptuous indeed given the content within.
Asuri did rattle off a bunch of factoids about empire and wardecs; however, he mentioned nothing remotely close to the nexus/lynch-pin relationship you were constantly alluding to.
Being that we agree there are not metrics that can support or refute your position one could only assume you would have, as I earlier suggested, extrapolated at least through a few vivid anecdotes why you felt such a broad causal relationship was there. Instead you duck the burden of proof and continue to trumpet a doomsday prophecy.
I invite you to rectify this because I agree in some part, but think you're doing an absolutely horrendous job of making the point. |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
708
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
Humidor Cigarillo wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Humidor Cigarillo wrote:And frankly, I find it absolutely priceless that the cowardly OP has yet to address this point himself. Because you're boring. And a blowhard (which may bring up pot-kettle comments ... fair enough.) I don't need to rationalize my post to you. You want to break it down on your own, feel free. I think Asuri did a fine job of reeling off to you the history of highsec and wardecs. There are no metrics available to support or not support my post. It's a sociological, not scientific. We only have movement in certain direction the past year by CCP. Whether they continue to move in that direction, Summer Expansion will tell us. I believe the war declaration mechanics to be a bellwether of that direction. You may not believe that. That's fine. That's cool. I don't care. :) You don't need to rationalize it, but it would do with, you know, explaining how the hell you came to your conclusion. Being that your (assumed) intention was to convince others that you were indeed correct. Of course, that is presumptuous indeed given the content within. Asuri did rattle off a bunch of factoids about empire and wardecs; however, he mentioned nothing remotely close to the nexus/lynch-pin relationship you were constantly alluding to. Being that we agree there are not metrics that can support or refute your position one could only assume you would have, as I earlier suggested, extrapolated at least through a few vivid anecdotes why you felt such a broad causal relationship was there. Instead you duck the burden of proof and continue to trumpet a doomsday prophecy. I invite you to rectify this because I agree in some part, but think you're doing an absolutely horrendous job of making the point. Only a possible doomsday prophecy. The jury is out until Summer Expansion.
Why do I believe what I believe. Because the war declaration system is the one system where CCP can easily open up conflict or shut it down almost completely. It's the one system that can simulate PvP-flagging and consensual PvP. The whining has been growing increasingly loud over highsec and the entitlement over risk-free reward. Will CCP continue to offer that to highsec dwellers, or will the once again open up conflict to that area of space.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
|
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
195
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 04:56:00 -
[101] - Quote
CSM Trebor wrote: [There'll be] a significant redesign and rewrite of Crimewatch, the code that handles all the agression timers, Concord and Police response, and so on.
One thing I do hope that comes out of this rewrite is more emphasis on making it easier for people who want to fight to find fights, while at the same time making it harder for people to abuse war-decs to grief players who simply have no interest in PvP. I made this point at the summit, and quite frankly, I thought that some of the mechanics suggested at the summit would be invitations to organized extortion.
This is scary. Particularly the underlineiy parts.
I won't go so far to say it would be the end of eve, but it would certainly be the end of an era.
I would definitely make me :sadface:
What worries me more is if they will stop there or if they will take it further..
to ever let anyone run completely risk-free in eve is quite frankly, blasphemous to the very core of what eve has been since it's inception.
|
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
195
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 05:00:00 -
[102] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Xorv wrote:Interesting read. The problem with CCP is that they have never fully embraced the Sandbox concept. There's been too many times where they have intervened where they should not have done so, like buffing CONCORD after the blockade or nerfing Wardecs after the Privateer Alliance. I don't trust them to make the right choice with a new Wardec system. If they really want to make EVE a themepark type game they should just clearly say so and get on with it, Otherwise embrace EVE as it was originally conceived and marketed a Sandbox MMO built around spaceships and harsh unforgiving conflict. And if Eve truly is a sandbox, why do "l33ts" chose to keep the sandpit boundary so small? Why IS it neccessary to bash small, non fighting corps senseless? Why aren't you out killing **** in 0.0 where you can get a fight a minute if you know where to look? Seriously, "l33ts" claim the sandbox is sacrosanct while they keep their range so small it's not much more than a sandcastle.
adding limits does not preserve the sandbox.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
711
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 05:01:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:What worries me more is if they will stop there or if they will take it further. If they take that step, it will be a slow, steady snowball effect. The carebear whining will never stop, and CCP will feel the need to keep giving into it. CCP now has "Imma unsubscribe if you don't do what I want" syndrome. There's no easy cure, other than taking the gamble that all these whiners won't actually quit. Carebears have it pretty good right now ... they aren't going anywhere, even if they yammer that they are if not given PvP flags.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
195
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 05:14:00 -
[104] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Camios wrote:If they make highsec safer they MUST make it less lucrative.
There are some enterprising people out there that don't move from highsec just because, risk wise, they can make more money there.
This must end. It's this that makes me have a giggle. It boils down to you could too but won't due to some romantic notion of how a game should be played. Despite this, Highsec is by and large an industrial zone, not a warzone and to an indy style player, Nullsec has nothing to offer. They can't do anything better or make anymore money in Nullsec (with it's inherent risks) any better than Highsec. So why bother? And Highsec is safe for anyone that wants it to be that way. No amount of wardecs/ganks etc. bother most of the people there. It's such a benign action that it's laughable. Even with the "old" wardec system, simply logging or putting your gear away for a week is no big deal to people that actually have assets worth trying to break/steal etc. It's a shrug moment. For real, most of the fighting I see ocurring in highsec is between rabid dogs fighting over 2 bones. Throw in a bit of ego, a pinch of testoserone and you have volia, consensual PvP. They want to fight and it's their call if they wish to. This belief that Highsec must be a danger zone for Carebears or they should be capped is just plain silly.
the problem occurs when you create a high sec that is a complete safe-zone. These new war-dec rules could be a first step towards that. That's the real concern people have. I understand you're not concerned by it, but others are.
Carebears create stuff generally speaking.
PVPERS destroy stuff, generally speaking.
They need each other.
No place should be 100% safe, and if it is, it cannot offer the same or even close-to-the-same rewards and a riskier place. Otherwise, there's no reason to go there except to pew. If you don't live somewhere, there's less reason to pew, and the only folks left to pew will be few. ( pardon the rhyme )
few pewers means less stuff destroyed, which means less stuff needs to be bought, and less stuff needs to be built. So for the non PVE crowd, their work generates less isk, and their work is generally less needed.
Few pewers means pewers get less fights and log in less and ultimately leave from boredom
Less need for stuff, means miners, researchers, and builders have less and less of a purpose, get bored and ultimately leave.
Then you have left a group of folks that logs into an MMO to grind against computre controlled crap... but why? Then it's just a grind, and they'll move on to the next grindy mmo that doesn't have the steep learning curve and skill training necessary, like eve does.
Take away the risk, and you make the reward pointless.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
711
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 05:28:00 -
[105] - Quote
From a design/development perspective, it's easier for CCP to decrease rewards in highsec than to create a riskier environment. The former is simply adjusting database values. The latter requires writing code.
From a psychological perspective, it is much harder for CCP to reduce rewards (players don't like reward nerfs), than it is to create a riskier environment. Players are more capable of adjusting to a riskier environment, psychologically, than they are adjusting to receiving less for the same amount of work. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Blake Sarain
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:18:00 -
[106] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Ris Dnalor wrote:What worries me more is if they will stop there or if they will take it further. If they take that step, it will be a slow, steady snowball effect. The carebear whining will never stop, and CCP will feel the need to keep giving into it. CCP now has "Imma unsubscribe if you don't do what I want" syndrome. There's no easy cure, other than taking the gamble that all these whiners won't actually quit. Carebears have it pretty good right now ... they aren't going anywhere, even if they yammer that they are if not given PvP flags.
Just going to leave this here.... |
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
189
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:03:00 -
[107] - Quote
I'll say it again for the people on the bleachers:
"You are what your pwn."
If you pwn carebears, that's what you are and anyone whose afraid of these types of players needs to realise that.
Shoot back, and I guaruntee you they will run and hide.
AK GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
189
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:14:00 -
[108] - Quote
Blake Sarain wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Ris Dnalor wrote:What worries me more is if they will stop there or if they will take it further. If they take that step, it will be a slow, steady snowball effect. The carebear whining will never stop, and CCP will feel the need to keep giving into it. CCP now has "Imma unsubscribe if you don't do what I want" syndrome. There's no easy cure, other than taking the gamble that all these whiners won't actually quit. Carebears have it pretty good right now ... they aren't going anywhere, even if they yammer that they are if not given PvP flags. Just going to leave this here....
Try this one instead: Vicious circle
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
373
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 01:51:00 -
[109] - Quote
The OP is 100% correct. ANY reduction or limitation to PVP in Eve is a bad thing. The constant nerfs to suicide ganking? Bad. The ability to infinitely dodge wardecs? Bad. If anything, it should be made EASIER to inflict "unwanted PVP" on players in all areas of the game. Particularly high sec. I'm a pirate in a pirate's body. -á Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á-á-áMining, reloaded.
|
stoicfaux
732
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 03:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
Meh, bad article in that it focuses on only one change in Eve and then extrapolates it into doomsday.
What I see is that CCP is trying to create graduated levels of PvP in order to attract and keep new subs.
If you look at factional warfare, the "winner takes all" incursion mechanics, and the changes to insurance/war-decs, it would appear that CCP is trying to ease players into PvP at their own pace and at their own comfort level. Why make it "easier" to play Eve? For the simple reason that the HTFU portion of the MMO customer base is probably limited (aka a niche pool) and Eve isn't going to grow since it's maxed out the HTFU crowd. If CCP wants to grow, they need to make Eve more friendly to get into, but yet do so without undermining the "Eve is a harsh world" PvP paradigm.
For some reason this offends the "a PvP game should be harsh on newbies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff" and any attempt to make PvP easier/safer/consensual is seen as weakness. IMO, CCP is starting to take the view that carebears or casual PvP players can be trained into becoming HTFU PvP players if Eve's PvP mechanics weren't so clumsy and had less hazing/bullying a smoother learning curve.
What I see is: a) high-sec is being made safer to attract and keep fresh blood. Let's not scare off new players by letting them get ganked out of the box via arcane and obtuse non-consensual PvP mechanics.
b) rumors about adding sleeper AI to missions/exploration in order to acclimate carebears to flying with PvP fittings
c) competitive Incursions in high-sec to get people used to fighting with other players indirectly
d) Faction Warfare: low-sec without calling it low-sec. Make it social and easy to get into without the drama and headaches of finding a private corp.
e) Low-Sec: aka random, unbalanced "battlegrounds"
f) NPC-Null Sec: upgraded low-sec without the restrictions, but with "safe/neutral" bases.
g) Wormhole space: Like null-sec but friendlier for smaller, organized groups. Has NPCs that encourage PvP tactics and group coordination. Less likely to get steam-rolled by large corps/alliances.
h) Null-Sec: hard-core, empire building PvP requiring planning, logistics, strategy, spies, diplomacy, etc., and PvP that almost(?) spills into RL.
i) Dust: try to draw in the mindless deathmatch crowd of today FPS games with Eve's "losses that hurt make for a better PvP experience" paradigm.
The only PvP group that CCP doesn't seem to want to appeal to is the "mindless, immediate deathmatch with unlimited respawns" crowd that doesn't have to worry about losses, paying for ships, or downtime (e.g. Quake, TF2, Planetside.)
Future changes I expect to see: * cheaper clones * easier to jump into pvp - i.e. Put formal support/advertising into RvB. * Faction Warfare overhaul.
Future Changes That Would Go Too Far: * free or near free clones (i.e. Faction Warfare clones are subsidized by the faction.) * free or near free ships * balanced arenas/battlegrounds * instances locked to a fleet
tl;dr CCP needs new subs, and is changing the game to in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience without undermining Eve's PvP focus.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
Hainnz
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 04:12:00 -
[111] - Quote
Excellent post.
If only more players thought so clearly about trying to improve the game they claim to love. |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
717
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 03:54:00 -
[112] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:For some reason this offends the "a PvP game should be harsh on newbies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff" and any attempt to make PvP easier/safer/consensual is seen as weakness. IMO, CCP is starting to take the view that carebears or casual PvP players can be trained into becoming HTFU PvP players. How does making highsec safer turn players into HTFU PvP players? Magic?
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:04:00 -
[113] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:stoicfaux wrote:For some reason this offends the "a PvP game should be harsh on newbies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff" and any attempt to make PvP easier/safer/consensual is seen as weakness. IMO, CCP is starting to take the view that carebears or casual PvP players can be trained into becoming HTFU PvP players. How does making highsec safer turn players into HTFU PvP players? Magic? If I had to guess
stoicfaux wrote:If you look at factional warfare, the "winner takes all" incursion mechanics, and the changes to insurance/war-decs, it would appear that CCP is trying to ease players into PvP at their own pace and at their own comfort level. |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
717
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:10:00 -
[114] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:stoicfaux wrote:For some reason this offends the "a PvP game should be harsh on newbies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff" and any attempt to make PvP easier/safer/consensual is seen as weakness. IMO, CCP is starting to take the view that carebears or casual PvP players can be trained into becoming HTFU PvP players. How does making highsec safer turn players into HTFU PvP players? Magic? If I had to guess stoicfaux wrote:If you look at factional warfare, the "winner takes all" incursion mechanics, and the changes to insurance/war-decs, it would appear that CCP is trying to ease players into PvP at their own pace and at their own comfort level. FW is borked. Wardecs are avoidable. And what do incursions have to do with PvP?
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Not A Spankalt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:15:00 -
[115] - Quote
Suicide ganking will always be legit. Grow up you pathetic gaggled of cunts. You want risk vs. reward, right? What is the risk in wardecing 3 hapless miner newbs? You harvest a few kills for zero risk.
In the event you can no longer do that, you can still kill them, but you must take the risk of them not dropping enough to cover your gank loss. Of course, that won't stop you if you're out for tears.
The only bell-weather here is a giant mushroom cloud of asshurt protruding from the rectums of all you elite highsec pvpers. I look forward to your ragequit posts and would like to ask for your stuff in advance. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
942
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:How does making highsec safer turn players into HTFU PvP players? Magic?
Here are some ideas:
Sleeper AI in all missions, requiring more PvP-like fits, and fleets of 2-3 ships. That one step means that players flying in PvE will be learning how to use essential PvP tactics such as webs, remote reps, etc, just as Incursions have raised the bar. In addition, fitting for missions will no longer mean you will automatically fail at PvP.
Simplified aggression & permission to shoot mechanics would mean that you no longer have to memorize 50-odd situations in which you might or might not be visited by CONCORD for shooting or repping someone. Making the rules less arcane will reduce the level of fear that people have for wardecs. In a perfect world, repping someone who is at war should invite immediate CONCORD response. No more neutral reps for "one-man" wardec corps will encourage wardecced corps to fight instead of staying docked, playing alts, or playing Skyrim. By making hisec safer, you can, in fact, encourage more people out of their shell.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:43:00 -
[117] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:stoicfaux wrote:For some reason this offends the "a PvP game should be harsh on newbies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff" and any attempt to make PvP easier/safer/consensual is seen as weakness. IMO, CCP is starting to take the view that carebears or casual PvP players can be trained into becoming HTFU PvP players. How does making highsec safer turn players into HTFU PvP players? Magic? If I had to guess stoicfaux wrote:If you look at factional warfare, the "winner takes all" incursion mechanics, and the changes to insurance/war-decs, it would appear that CCP is trying to ease players into PvP at their own pace and at their own comfort level. FW is borked. Wardecs are avoidable. And what do incursions have to do with PvP? Obviously wardecs are in need of looking at; no one feels they are functioning as intended and CCP feels they aren't worth the effort to police. Better to just fix the system. Same with FW, but for different reasons. As far as incursions, interest collide constantly. Groups taking out the MS vs farmers. Fleets contesting sites and forcing other fleets out. It's a stepping stone as far as level of conflict, which is the concept I believe stoicfaux is getting at. |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
391
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 05:36:00 -
[118] - Quote
Dear Poetic,
Your Bosons give me a Hadron.
o/
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
194
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 08:55:00 -
[119] - Quote
lol tripple post :p |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
194
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 08:56:00 -
[120] - Quote
lol tripple post :p |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |