EVE Search - [ISSUE]Game direction and recent changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE]Game direction and recent changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 - [1] It has become obvious that CCP is in the process of taking this game in a whole new direction. Changes to nanos and suicide ganking might have been called for to some extent, but the way CCP has gone about it is completely contrary to everything they have stated in the past. It is almost as if all the old devs have moved over to something else and a totally new crew has taken over, a crew with an intent to make the game more main stream. This worries me. I play this game because it is a niche game, because it is a sandbox and because it is a PvP game. Is CCP now working on removing that niche? It certainly seems that way. I don't request any changes in the game here. I would simply like CCP to state their future aspirations with the game. I don't wanna hear details about fluff like ambulation and other crap, but what the vision is for the game. Is is to remain a PvP game? Is it going main stream? What will CCP do to increase PvP? Will anything be done to reduce blobbing? Will anything be done to boost piracy? I just want answers so that I can decide wether or not to invest more of my time in a game I used to love. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:36:00 - [2] i agree, to me it seems like ccp is intentionally trying to spoil this game Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:46:00 - [3] Edited by: Esmenet on 06/08/2008 12:46:18 Would like to hear something about the direction this game is going so i can decide if its worth my time. Its sad when the last mmorpg that tried to be different caves in. Vote against the nano nerf!
Toolbert GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:52:00 - [4] I'll cancel when we get 40 man raids with purple loot. But until then I too would like some sort of state of the union to the player base with CCPs vision for the future of Eve and where they want to truly take the game over the next 1 to 2 years. As it is right now CCP is very vague and unclear in what they are trying to accomplish. We can tell they have something in mind but we don't know exactly what it is they are trying to do and what they might do in the future. I'm concerned about how far CCP is going to go with all of these carebear buffs.
Kwa Kaine eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.06 13:21:00 - [5] They'd skirt around the question if asked anyway but it's worth a try. EVE Online Customer Support <- It would be nice if this actually existed.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 13:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Esmenet on 06/08/2008 13:27:20 Right now i'm just incredibly disappointed by CCP as these changes are the complete opposite of what i have heard of CCP's vision for EVE. And that vision was why EVE is the only mmorpg that i play. Vote against the nano nerf!
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.08.06 13:28:00 - [7] yea, they said they wanted to reduce blobbing - nano nerf is the opposite of this, and they actually said they didnt want to make empire completely safe, and again they are going in the wrong direction. Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:13:00 - [8] I think the significant number of posts concerning factional warfare gives a good insight into the dirrection they want to take the game and it's pretty similiar to what they have always said. They want null sec to be the PvP endgame and have people shooting each other in the face. Things that increase combat or encourage people into low/null sec are a general goal. Yes they are looking into the nano and wardec systems, but they are looking into them with the (in theory at least) goal of increasing fighting. The perceived problem with both of these aspects is they encourage not combat. I do not see that much of a change in what they have been saying. I think they have been somewhat floored by discovering that half their player base never leaves hi-sec though so perhaps they are trying to get their barings there.
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:01:00 - [9] Edited by: Draygo Korvan on 06/08/2008 15:01:31 Edited by: Draygo Korvan on 06/08/2008 15:01:18 Originally by: Nekopyat I think the significant number of posts concerning factional warfare gives a good insight into the dirrection they want to take the game and it's pretty similiar to what they have always said. They want null sec to be the PvP endgame and have people shooting each other in the face. Things that increase combat or encourage people into low/null sec are a general goal. Yes they are looking into the nano and wardec systems, but they are looking into them with the (in theory at least) goal of increasing fighting. The perceived problem with both of these aspects is they encourage not combat. I do not see that much of a change in what they have been saying. I think they have been somewhat floored by discovering that half their player base never leaves hi-sec though so perhaps they are trying to get their barings there. Read the latest dev blog, then respond again. Thanks in advance. here it is --
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Ki An It is almost as if all the old devs have moved over to something else and a totally new crew has taken over, a crew with an intent to make the game more main stream. CSM, anyone? We're Recruiting!

Fahtim Meidires GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:16:00 - [11] Wow. While it may make the criminal justice system more realistic, it is interesting what effect this will have. I'm not sure if I'm really worried about it though, except that this does give afk and macro miners more protection. There really should be a 'taskforce' for that as well.
Lia Gaeren Caldari Pole Dancing Vixens	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:28:00 - [12] Originally by: Draygo Korvan Read the latest dev blog, then respond again. Thanks in advance. here it is The irony here is that was posted by a dev with the name: Fear
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:31:00 - [13] Originally by: Lia Gaeren Originally by: Draygo Korvan Read the latest dev blog, then respond again. Thanks in advance. here it is The irony here is that was posted by a dev with the name: Fear Making part of me cling to the thought that it might all be just an evil prank. That would be the EvE devs we used to know. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:55:00 - [14] Originally by: Nekopyat I think the significant number of posts concerning factional warfare gives a good insight into the dirrection they want to take the game and it's pretty similiar to what they have always said. They want null sec to be the PvP endgame and have people shooting each other in the face. Things that increase combat or encourage people into low/null sec are a general goal. Yes they are looking into the nano and wardec systems, but they are looking into them with the (in theory at least) goal of increasing fighting. The perceived problem with both of these aspects is they encourage not combat. I do not see that much of a change in what they have been saying. I think they have been somewhat floored by discovering that half their player base never leaves hi-sec though so perhaps they are trying to get their barings there. But they are doing the complete opposite with recent proposed changes. Vote against the nano nerf!
Lia Gaeren Caldari Pole Dancing Vixens	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:14:00 - [15] Originally by: Esmenet But they are doing the complete opposite with recent proposed changes. I guess what it boils down to is, how many people play the game for the sandbox, and how many play the game in spite of it? I think Nekopyat hit the nail on the head by saying that CCP have been floored by how many of the player base are high sec huggers.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:15:00 - [16] The problem isn't the penalties imposed for killing people in hi-sec space outside of a Concord sanctioned war, but rather that people can totally avoid wars. I don't care if Joe Schmoe the solo carebear wants to live in an NPC corp and carebear his heart out, and I don't really have any desire to see him blown to bits for lulz. Unfortunately NPC corps are abused by players and organisation who want to protect what should be legitimately targetable parts of their gameplay, which ultimate upsets the balance of PvP, especially when it comes to logistics, resupply, and money earning. NPC corps need to be revised in some way. I am all for NPC corp protection, and even bonuses, but not immunity. Keep starter NPC corps as they are, but create new NPC corps which provide an advantage to joining them (inline with the RP backstory), and let those corps and factions provide NPC help to their members - but allow them to be war-dec'd at a high cost. If players in NPC corps lived in a little solo bubble with no possible interaction with other players, then I could care less if they were totally immune from any form of attack - but they don't live in a bubble, even if they think they do, and that needs to be taken in to consideration when making any changes to rules of engagement. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:36:00 - [17] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 06/08/2008 16:38:30 Loving the changes, all of them. Guys with good standings barely getting a slap on the wrist for wasting a fraghag in low sec, should've been in since -03. What took you so long CCP? About the NPC corporations, they should be linked to FW and the militas there tasked with their protection, opening them up as targets for the other militias. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:37:00 - [18] Originally by: Lia Gaeren Originally by: Esmenet But they are doing the complete opposite with recent proposed changes. I guess what it boils down to is, how many people play the game for the sandbox, and how many play the game in spite of it? I think Nekopyat hit the nail on the head by saying that CCP have been floored by how many of the player base are high sec huggers. Thats kinda the reason behind this thread. If they want to cater to the carebears, thats fine. But then i hope CCP stops lying to my face and tells me their plans have changed so i can stop wasting my time on something i wont like. Vote against the nano nerf!
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Esmenet Thats kinda the reason behind this thread. If they want to cater to the carebears, thats fine. But then i hope CCP stops lying to my face and tells me their plans have changed so i can stop wasting my time on something i wont like. Quite. Please take your gloating or whining to other threads. This is a request for clarification from CCP. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:44:00 - [20] Not supported.

Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:52:00 - [21] Originally by: J Kunjeh Not supported. So you don't want a clarification from CCP? Boy, you're SMRT. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:58:00 - [22] Pretty much.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:58:00 - [23] I think its just a re-balance. Look at Eve... its far too lopsided. Too many muppets doing the same thing over and over and over and over. Time's change... Eve needs a change. They are stirring the pot and letting things resettle into a new environment. We all adapted before. Don't feel like you can't adapt again. It doesn't worry me at all... they are doing some housecleaning. Too many ****roaches have accumulated. Time to use the bug bombs. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:06:00 - [24] Originally by: Pithecanthropus I think its just a re-balance. Look at Eve... its far too lopsided. Too many muppets doing the same thing over and over and over and over. Time's change... Eve needs a change. They are stirring the pot and letting things resettle into a new environment. We all adapted before. Don't feel like you can't adapt again. It doesn't worry me at all... they are doing some housecleaning. Too many ****roaches have accumulated. Time to use the bug bombs. Then why are they only exterminating the roaches in the kitchen while throwing crumbs to the roaches in the bathroom? I'm good at this analology thing, ain't I? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:14:00 - [25] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Pithecanthropus I think its just a re-balance. Look at Eve... its far too lopsided. Too many muppets doing the same thing over and over and over and over. Time's change... Eve needs a change. They are stirring the pot and letting things resettle into a new environment. We all adapted before. Don't feel like you can't adapt again. It doesn't worry me at all... they are doing some housecleaning. Too many ****roaches have accumulated. Time to use the bug bombs. Then why are they only exterminating the roaches in the kitchen while throwing crumbs to the roaches in the bathroom? I'm good at this analology thing, ain't I? Because they are tossing out new interesting crumbs, in new interesting areas, to try and entice new interesting experiences. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:16:00 - [26] I'd like to know too. BUT I aint spending RL cash or ISK on a sub thats gonna be wasted waiting to find out. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:17:00 - [27] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Because they are tossing out new interesting crumbs, in new interesting areas, to try and entice new interesting experiences. But still catering to only one particular kind of **roach. ** analogies. What CCP is doing is catering only to one play style. While PvP gets nerf after nerf, particular nonconsentual PvP of which Piracy is a part, High sec becomes increasingly safer. I want a clarification from CCP if their intention is to continue this trend. If it is, I will have to re-evaluate my decision to renew my subscribtion, because I don't want to play that game. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:59:00 - [28] Edited by: J Kunjeh on 06/08/2008 18:00:22 Originally by: Ki An Originally by: J Kunjeh Not supported. So you don't want a clarification from CCP? Boy, you're SMRT. Clarification on what? I read all of the dev blogs, every article/interview with CCP I can find, watch all of the fanfest video's and read every last word in every issue of EON. It's all there for the smart person to figure out, you just have to pay attention.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:28:00 - [29] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Pithecanthropus Because they are tossing out new interesting crumbs, in new interesting areas, to try and entice new interesting experiences. But still catering to only one particular kind of **roach. ** analogies. What CCP is doing is catering only to one play style. While PvP gets nerf after nerf, particular nonconsentual PvP of which Piracy is a part, High sec becomes increasingly safer. I want a clarification from CCP if their intention is to continue this trend. If it is, I will have to re-evaluate my decision to renew my subscribtion, because I don't want to play that game. You know, if hi-sec is supposed to be the nursery grounds where players can learn the interface and practice PvP in safety... OK fine, That's fine. It's not what I'd prefer, but it would at least be some kind of coherent architecture. But in that case, hi-sec should have MUCH lower possible rewards than lo-sec/0.0. It makes no sense for the safest space to be be the most profitable. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:28:00 - [30] Edited by: Malcanis on 06/08/2008 18:28:46 EDIT: duplicate. Why don't CCP fix their forums rather than mess with the game? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:33:00 - [31] Originally by: J Kunjeh Edited by: J Kunjeh on 06/08/2008 18:00:22 Originally by: Ki An Originally by: J Kunjeh Not supported. So you don't want a clarification from CCP? Boy, you're SMRT. Clarification on what? I read all of the dev blogs, every article/interview with CCP I can find, watch all of the fanfest video's and read every last word in every issue of EON. It's all there for the smart person to figure out, you just have to pay attention. Yeah never mind all the inference, interpretation and exegesis. What about a clear, unambiguous statement that we can refer to when making plans or giving advice or deciding whether we want to stay? If you know of one such,, please link to it in this thread instead of making condescending but content-free remarks. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:35:00 - [32] Originally by: Ki An Edited by: Ki An on 06/08/2008 18:28:13 Originally by: J Kunjeh Clarification on what? I read all of the dev blogs, every article/interview with CCP I can find, watch all of the fanfest video's and read every last word in every issue of EON. It's all there for the smart person to figure out, you just have to pay attention. Because if they are going to cave in to whiney carebears like you, I want them to tell me to my face. It's such a complete about-face that I'm having trouble believing it. Other than that, you are an alt who does not support a request from another person for CCP to clarify their stance on certain things. That makes you pretty stupid. It's amazing how 99% of the proponents of this last nerf are alts. Makes you wonder. First, you know nothing of my play style to call me a carebear (though I could really care less what you think). And second....oh, the irony! Me? Whining? Pot calling the kettle black here... Also, this isn't an alt...I don't have an alt.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:37:00 - [33] Originally by: Malcanis Yeah never mind all the inference, interpretation and exegesis. What about a clear, unambiguous statement that we can refer to when making plans or giving advice or deciding whether we want to stay? None of that is required for you to make your decision. It's simple, if you enjoy playing Eve, then stay. If you don't, then leave. It's VERY simple and requires no outside input.
Aenis Veros Alphaflight	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:38:00 - [34] I support this thread, it is somewhat similar to mine below: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=839601
Ki An Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:44:00 - [35] Originally by: J Kunjeh Originally by: Malcanis Yeah never mind all the inference, interpretation and exegesis. What about a clear, unambiguous statement that we can refer to when making plans or giving advice or deciding whether we want to stay? None of that is required for you to make your decision. It's simple, if you enjoy playing Eve, then stay. If you don't, then leave. It's VERY simple and requires no outside input. Then GTFO of this thread kthxplz Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:47:00 - [36]
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:37:00 - [37] Originally by: J Kunjeh Originally by: Malcanis Yeah never mind all the inference, interpretation and exegesis. What about a clear, unambiguous statement that we can refer to when making plans or giving advice or deciding whether we want to stay? None of that is required for you to make your decision. It's simple, if you enjoy playing Eve, then stay. If you don't, then leave. It's VERY simple and requires no outside input. Yes thanks for that advice, Captain Obvious. It's the future direction of this game I'm asking about. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Karentaki Gallente Maximum Yarrage	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:47:00 - [38] Yes - I too would like to know what direction eve will be taking. If it is becoming a carebear game like WOW, I won't nescesarilly quit, but I might just make a change of career. Maybe into L4 missions so I can farm billions of ISK a week, then once I have enough, I can use it to buy a few mining characters - have them farming ISK for GTC's in perfect safety, while I go around suiciding miners with faction fitted ships ============= RE: The piracy nerf Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say, Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:48:00 - [39] all the changes reported lately are crap
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Ki An What CCP is doing is catering only to one play style. While PvP gets nerf after nerf, particular nonconsentual PvP of which Piracy is a part, High sec becomes increasingly safer. I want a clarification from CCP if their intention is to continue this trend. If it is, I will have to re-evaluate my decision to renew my subscribtion, because I don't want to play that game. The only nerfs I see are re-balances to loopholes and exploits that have been abused and overused for too long. Someone mentioned having NPC corps redone to be war deccable... I find that probably opening up the bottle to way more abuse than good. It would only lead to people wanting to move their goods to resort to NPC corp hopping and maybe even creating alt after alt. So what if people are safe, I could care less. They are still never 100% safe unless they sit in a station all day. Here's an idea... if you want to implement NPC corp war decs, then perhaps those deccing the war would also have to deal with NPC ships. Not to mention, losing docking privileges at their stations --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:55:00 - [41] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Ki An What CCP is doing is catering only to one play style. While PvP gets nerf after nerf, particular nonconsentual PvP of which Piracy is a part, High sec becomes increasingly safer. I want a clarification from CCP if their intention is to continue this trend. If it is, I will have to re-evaluate my decision to renew my subscribtion, because I don't want to play that game. The only nerfs I see are re-balances to loopholes and exploits that have been abused and overused for too long. Someone mentioned having NPC corps redone to be war deccable... I find that probably opening up the bottle to way more abuse than good. It would only lead to people wanting to move their goods to resort to NPC corp hopping and maybe even creating alt after alt. So what if people are safe, I could care less. They are still never 100% safe unless they sit in a station all day. Here's an idea... if you want to implement NPC corp war decs, then perhaps those deccing the war would also have to deal with NPC ships. Not to mention, losing docking privileges at their stations Fine. I'll happily take on the Perkone ships I see. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:13:00 - [42] Originally by: Malcanis You know, if hi-sec is supposed to be the nursery grounds where players can learn the interface and practice PvP in safety... OK fine, That's fine. It's not what I'd prefer, but it would at least be some kind of coherent architecture. But in that case, hi-sec should have MUCH lower possible rewards than lo-sec/0.0. It makes no sense for the safest space to be be the most profitable. I agree with this completely. And while I think that it's a bit extreme to say that PvP is being nerfed... well... Anyway, people who want to **** with others will always come up with new and curious solutions. Like smartbombing Ravens/Geddons, new approaches to PvP that do not involve just nanoing...
Tesseract d'Urberville Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:42:00 - [43] I don't think the game is going in a new direction at all, I think it's just being fleshed out a bit more, gaps filled in, bridges built. One of EVE's biggest problems is its very steep learning curve. Factional warfare, and the upcoming security changes and nano-nerf, all make it easier for beginning and intermediate players to learn to play better in relative (but not complete) safety and with a little more structure, which they need. The huge 0.0 sandbox, which is what makes EVE unique, is still the endgame. No, it's not perfect, and more tweaks are surely on the way. 0.0 should be more desirable, for example, as has been suggested many times. Let's not get our panties in a twist though. --------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains.
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.06 23:07:00 - [44] Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville I don't think the game is going in a new direction at all, I think it's just being fleshed out a bit more, gaps filled in, bridges built. One of EVE's biggest problems is its very steep learning curve. Factional warfare, and the upcoming security changes and nano-nerf, all make it easier for beginning and intermediate players to learn to play better in relative (but not complete) safety and with a little more structure, which they need. The huge 0.0 sandbox, which is what makes EVE unique, is still the endgame. No, it's not perfect, and more tweaks are surely on the way. 0.0 should be more desirable, for example, as has been suggested many times. Let's not get our panties in a twist though. But the increasing safety of hi-sec is not being matched with decreased rewards. if hi-sec is supposed to be EvE with training wheels on, then it shouldn't have +20 L4 agents. tbh, hi-sec should top out with +0Q L3 agents - and i say this as someone who runs missions in hi-sec. What we have is a situation where players can accumulate vast sums in near absolute safety. I speak from personal knowledge, because I've done it. Leave an alliance, spend a couple of weeks L4 missioning while seeking for a new corp, make enough ISK to buy and fit a dread AND enough LP for a spare CNR - just in case. Seriously, I have a SPARE faction battleship, gained just from the LP I made while spending a few days working up the ISK to PvP for a month or two. With essentially zero risk. And zero competition (the biggest player-caused problem is that ammo is kind expensive... but not quite expensive enough to go 5 jumps to buy it at regional average). I would be interested to hear your case that the above is balanced, or good for the game. (market trading is a little different - mess up and you can lose your ISK. I have no issues with that.) CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Elhina Novae Amarr Destruction Reborn CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2008.08.06 23:22:00 - [45] The only issue I see if CCP enforcing teamwork. Wait... Aren't we playing a Massive Multi Player Role Playing Game? ------------ Somebody set up us the bomb
Antihrist Pripravnik Gallente The 13th Gallentean Armed Response	Posted - 2008.08.06 23:25:00 - [46] Originally by: Avon Unfortunately NPC corps are abused by players and organisation who want to protect what should be legitimately targetable parts of their gameplay, which ultimate upsets the balance of PvP, especially when it comes to logistics, resupply, and money earning. NPC corps need to be revised in some way. I am all for NPC corp protection, and even bonuses, but not immunity. Keep starter NPC corps as they are, but create new NPC corps which provide an advantage to joining them (inline with the RP backstory), and let those corps and factions provide NPC help to their members - but allow them to be war-dec'd at a high cost. If players in NPC corps lived in a little solo bubble with no possible interaction with other players, then I could care less if they were totally immune from any form of attack - but they don't live in a bubble, even if they think they do, and that needs to be taken in to consideration when making any changes to rules of engagement. Lol... Wait a second... You are talking about faction war, right? It's already there Special NPC corps, player not protected in empire space, special story line and rewards... Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar
Opertone Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.08.06 23:50:00 - [47] Edited by: Opertone on 06/08/2008 23:51:01 low sec is very unsafe... it is impossible to enter low sec system in a battleship, it is impossible to undock a battleship... PVP players (pirates) rip off carebears who actually create the wealth... if there are no carebears there will be no such thing as profit from PVP. PVP is about destruction of assets... carebarism is about creation of assets. PVP is not fun when you have no means to support it
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 23:56:00 - [48] Originally by: Opertone Edited by: Opertone on 06/08/2008 23:51:01 low sec is very unsafe... it is impossible to enter low sec system in a battleship, it is impossible to undock a battleship... PVP players (pirates) rip off carebears who actually create the wealth... if there are no carebears there will be no such thing as profit from PVP. PVP is about destruction of assets... carebarism is about creation of assets. PVP is not fun when you have no means to support it Eve is not as black and white as you think it is. There are some of us who will gladly fill the production void left by carebears if you chose not to produce. There are 0.0 producers in every alliance making a profit with space around them that has no consequences to blowing someone else up. --
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.07 00:22:00 - [49] Edited by: Esmenet on 07/08/2008 00:22:24 Originally by: Opertone Edited by: Opertone on 06/08/2008 23:51:01 low sec is very unsafe... it is impossible to enter low sec system in a battleship, it is impossible to undock a battleship... PVP players (pirates) rip off carebears who actually create the wealth... if there are no carebears there will be no such thing as profit from PVP. PVP is about destruction of assets... carebarism is about creation of assets. PVP is not fun when you have no means to support it If every single complete carebear left the game tomorrow the game would go an as before and probably be a lot better. If every single pvp'er left the game tomorrow the carebears that are left playing would soon see the game become extremely boring. If you think about it i'm sure you can understand why. Vote against the nano nerf!
Marcus Gideon Gallente Excessive Force	Posted - 2008.08.07 00:30:00 - [50] If either Care Bears... or Pirates... left tomorrow, then CCP would lose a huge profit. And they CERTAINLY don't want that. That's why PvP and PvE content will remain in play. Otherwise, they'll lose playerbase, and the almighty dollar (or whatever currency you use). --- Don't take my ranting personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. "Players don't want Variety. They want THE BEST"

Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.07 00:31:00 - [51] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Originally by: Avon Unfortunately NPC corps are abused by players and organisation who want to protect what should be legitimately targetable parts of their gameplay, which ultimate upsets the balance of PvP, especially when it comes to logistics, resupply, and money earning. NPC corps need to be revised in some way. I am all for NPC corp protection, and even bonuses, but not immunity. Keep starter NPC corps as they are, but create new NPC corps which provide an advantage to joining them (inline with the RP backstory), and let those corps and factions provide NPC help to their members - but allow them to be war-dec'd at a high cost. If players in NPC corps lived in a little solo bubble with no possible interaction with other players, then I could care less if they were totally immune from any form of attack - but they don't live in a bubble, even if they think they do, and that needs to be taken in to consideration when making any changes to rules of engagement. Lol... Wait a second... You are talking about faction war, right? It's already there Special NPC corps, player not protected in empire space, special story line and rewards... Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar I think you missed the point somewhat. The important part is that you have to penalise the players in the starter corps to encourage them to leave and join either new NPC corps, or player corps. Restrictions similar to trial accounts should apply to starter corps. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:59:00 - [52] I fully support this. In fact, I would like to get some answers to the following questions: What is CCP's vision of Eve for the next 18 months? Why does CCP want people to move to 0.0 when the only incentive is PvP? CCP's oft-stated desire is to get people out to 0.0 and the game has been around a few years by now. What, exactly, is the hold-up? Why is CCP dealing with suicide ganking in such a cackhanded manner? Is Eve being used as a testbed for ideas to be incorporated into their World of Darkness MMO? (If so, why is Harsh Universe in Space being used to testbed ideas for a 14-year-old emo kids with silly hair (e)MMO?) Why is CCP dealing with problems that the CSM presented from the middle - at best - of the prioritised list? What happened to ,y'know, the more important stuff? How hard is it to write a statement of purpose anyway?
Sylthi Coreward Pan-Galactic	Posted - 2008.08.07 05:01:00 - [53] Edited by: Sylthi on 07/08/2008 05:05:38 Man, its been a crappy day and I needed a good laugh. The OP's post fit the bill nicely. You actually think you are going to get a statement of accountability from a company like CCP?!?!? Yeah. And you can jet to other planet's on moonbeams too..... Seriously though. It sounds like the op, and many of the other people in this thread have been buying a little too much into the democratic illusion CCP has spun with the creation of the CSM. The CSM, tohugh democratically created have NO power. They only thing can do (more than us in the forums) is get developers (that choose to show up at the meetings) face-to-face and ask them questions and/or make suggestions. That's it. Nothing else. Wake up people. We (as players) live in a capitalism driven Totalitarian Dictatorship. That is the cold reality. You can demand accountability from CCP until your blue the face. You won't get it. But, what the hell.... I'll give you a support for having the deluded moxy to ask for it in the first place. * *
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.07 05:12:00 - [54] Originally by: Elhina Novae The only issue I see if CCP enforcing teamwork. Wait... Aren't we playing a Massive Multi Player Role Playing Game? Always good reasoning. The thing is just that even PvPing solo is interacting with people. So, in part, all this swarming and blobbing can be blamed on people finding soloing or small-ganging way too unprofitable.
Maijugs Arhueg	Posted - 2008.08.07 05:13:00 - [55] WAAH WAAH
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.08.07 07:29:00 - [56] Originally by: Draygo Korvan Read the latest dev blog, then respond again. Thanks in advance. here it is I'll admit the dev blog seems like serious overkill for the issue, but the idea of addressing it is in EvE's general nature. At the risk of repeating the rather BS 'EvE is a cold dark place', I think people tend to forget is it's supposed to be cold and dark all around, not just for targets. EvE's mechanics tend to heavily favor the attacker all around and sometimes this needs to be rebalanced a bit esp as attack ships have been getting cheaper and more powerful while defenders (esp industrial ships) have been pretty much unchanged for quite some time. Sounds like what they want to do is slap the gank-bares down a bit while still leaving the fundamental mechanism in place so the careless carebares can still get ganked if the target is worth while. Will the proposed changes do this? Eh, hard to say. I kinda doubt it though. Is the push behind them against EvE's history.. no.. not really. Pirates want easy targets (any rational attacker will), non PvP players want easy counter and escape. Right now the mechanic is heavily in the favor of the PvP player, and even with these changes it will STILL be heavily in their favor. Mission ships will be harder to take down but really they were being popped with way too much ease in the first place (due to the problems of PvE being so differnt then PvP) Carebares are not getting as much out of this change as people think. This isn't even parity.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:39:00 - [57] Edited by: Vaal Erit on 07/08/2008 08:38:53 I would like clarification too, this is old CCP devs attitude: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/528360/page/1#29 Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for. http://www.eve-search.com/thread/506848/page/2#57 Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so. I think we've been saying that the whole time. http://www.eve-search.com/thread/497778/page/1#23 Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world, I personally don't mind games with low or no penalty for death, but that wouldn't be EVE. The rule here is, if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it. http://www.eve-search.com/thread/483612/page/1#7 Originally by: CCP Wrangler But we are not making things easier simply because people complain, though constructive criticism does have an effect, simply saying "I don't like this" doesn't. I want my old Wrangler back. None of the new changes carry the weight of the above comments. Constructive criticism? Where was that? I see whine threads about suicide ganking and I do not see how making high sec even more safe and zero boosts to low sec/0.0 make EVE a tougher place. I believe there is a better Wrangler quote about EVE being a cold, harsh place in repsonse to suicide ganking but I can't find it, if someone has the link... -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Karentaki Maximum Yarrage	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:21:00 - [58] Originally by: Opertone low sec is very unsafe... it is impossible to enter low sec system in a battleship, it is impossible to undock a battleship... I've done both, repeatedly, while on my own, and so far I haven't lost a BS in lowsec. You just need to have a clue, and a scout tbh. By scout I don't mean an alt either - I mean either a friend, or just a covops ship in station which you can use to check for camps before jumping. As for undocking, not many people can kill you inside the 30 seconds it takes to redock in a properly tanked BS. ============= RE: The piracy nerf Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say, Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:58:00 - [59] I'd not mind clarification, but overall I'm seeing a lot of classic whining when particular changes affect particular people. The OP is particularly over-the-top in classic forum style, thrashing around as if the world is coming to an end. After these changes, EVE will still be a PvP game; it will still be as much of a sandbox as it was a year ago (you do know what a sandbox means right? that is: non-linear with no end-game, lets you do whatever you want), and given the current subscriber rate, I'd say we can still call it a niche game. What precisely has changed? The nano changes change PvP; I don't think you can argue it changes it to non-PvP. The suiciding changes only affect people in high-sec anyway, and if you're any kind of proper pirate, you'll already be at -10. That was, nay is, the goal of many a jolly-roger and a mark of someone to take seriously. In fact, if you'd read the blog, the penalty for fighting in low-sec is *lowering! How is this a 'nerf', for god's sake? So, seriously, what's changing? What is the big deal? What, pray tell, is causing the world to come crashing down and care-a-lot stars to explode in null-sec? So far I've missed this major change from EVE to Hello Kitty. Pirates have always had challenges. They get barred from high-sec, they get sentry gun fire, they get neutrals able to attack them without gaining GCC (I'm talking worst case here) - CCP clearly never intended piracy to be easy. You're still here after all those changes which were in long before I even joined the game, and yet this pretty minor suicide change suddenly has you throwing your toys out the pram? Bizarre. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...*
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:12:00 - [60] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth In fact, if you'd read the blog, the penalty for fighting in low-sec is *lowering*! How is this a 'nerf', for god's sake? What would the Real -10 Pirates care? You havent got a clue. immunity . a PVP free zone in ihighsec (unl;ess you sign up for pvp in trhe faction ware GO GO PVP FLAG ON BUTAN) Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371

Pheonix Kanan D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:32:00 - [61] I highly doubt CCP will even respond. It's rather obvious they don't really care at all. -----
Tecam Hund The Buggers	Posted - 2008.08.07 13:09:00 - [62] I share OP's opinion. Would be nice to know where this is all going.
T536 Unsafe Flying Ops Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.08.07 13:18:00 - [63] Agree with OP
The ChurchWarden	Posted - 2008.08.07 13:39:00 - [64] I'd like to paint you a picture. There is a game, it has changes and the maker of this game has requests for theirs reasons or demands for reconsideration all the time... do they A) Respond to a 3 page thread on the forums OR B) Respond via devblog like they should As for the direction of the game I'd like to point out several things as a 0.0 ratter on one account and an carebear on this one. I like pvp due to carebearness I can afford to have a 10 stack of Abaddon's in tash just take them out whenever to the wide open spaces of the world. There's a whole lot of gate camps and blobs infact I've never lost an Abaddon to less then 5 people ganging up on me... ever. So I fully support some mixing of the pot which is what CCP really seems to be doing... Oh and as a side note if you ever watch a devblog or a fanfest video the devs are probably the guys in nano's and gankboats roaming around lowsec laughing at the tears of their victims so I doubt they're carebears.
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.07 13:58:00 - [65] Originally by: The ChurchWarden I'd like to paint you a picture. There is a game, it has changes and the maker of this game has requests for theirs reasons or demands for reconsideration all the time... do they A) Respond to a 3 page thread on the forums OR B) Respond via devblog like they should That's all we ask for. Exactly the point of this thread. Glad you identified it. Oh wai... Originally by: The ChurchWarden As for the direction of the game I'd like to point out several things as a 0.0 ratter on one account and an carebear on this one. I like pvp due to carebearness I can afford to have a 10 stack of Abaddon's in tash just take them out whenever to the wide open spaces of the world. There's a whole lot of gate camps and blobs infact I've never lost an Abaddon to less then 5 people ganging up on me... ever. So I fully support some mixing of the pot which is what CCP really seems to be doing... Oh and as a side note if you ever watch a devblog or a fanfest video the devs are probably the guys in nano's and gankboats roaming around lowsec laughing at the tears of their victims so I doubt they're carebears. You ever saw CCP Fear or CCP Noxchcggsd or whatever his name is at the fan fest ganking carebears? I haven't. Before, Oveur would give us a dev blog full of "adapt of die n00b" where it was clear that CCP's vision still was a game that was harsh and unforgiving for lazy people. Recently Oveur has been replaced by no-name devs with no past record who suddenly speak of war decs being akin to griefing, and people having no way to avoid suicide ganks. Times have changed. The devs have changed. Has the vision changed? That's what we're asking here.
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:16:00 - [66] Wow, you guys are really going to freak out when they make low-sec safer than no sec. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:55:00 - [67] Those who have read my posts over the last 2 years will know that I have always been ready to give CCP the benefit of the doubt. I have always argued against hysterical abuse, been strongly supportive of the dev's right to guide the game according to their vision, been nothing but orthodox in my advocacy of personal responsibility, consequences for actions, risk vs reward: I loved what EvE stood for and defended that dogma passionately. Call me a fanboy if you will: I played the game, loved it, spread the word, got many friends to subscribe, started additional accounts, enjoyed winning, survived losing, helped new players, ganked old players, pirated, fought wars, mined, missioned, ratted, rose from the depths of PvP ineptness to the dizzy heights of PvP mediocrity, made plans for the long term - loved the possibility of making meaningful plans for a meaningful long term. By any meaningful measure, I have contributed a lot to this game. Without false pride, I say that I, and those like me, do deserve at least a clear, honest statement of where this game is going and what the devs' vision of the next couple of years is. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:36:00 - [68] Edited by: Nekopyat on 07/08/2008 19:36:58 Originally by: Malcanis Without false pride, I say that I, and those like me, do deserve at least a clear, honest statement of where this game is going and what the devs' vision of the next couple of years is. Regardless of differing opinions, balancing, and how one feels about any particular direction, I utterly agree with this statement. EvE is a long investment game. The CCP PR machine (if not devs, then at least some offical rep) should be involved in these kind of questions. A game like this lives or dies based off player retention, and uncertainty is NEVER good for such things. 9 time out of 10 even if people don't like the answer they get it is still a better situation then no answer or some vauge non-answer. (for referenc, I work at a game company and have found time and time again that giving customers honest bad news about the dirrection things are going always goes over far better then keeping them in the dark, even if the end changes are what they wanted in the first place.)
Aiden Bismuth Gallente Die Boeremag	Posted - 2008.08.08 07:48:00 - [69] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: J Kunjeh Originally by: Malcanis Yeah never mind all the inference, interpretation and exegesis. What about a clear, unambiguous statement that we can refer to when making plans or giving advice or deciding whether we want to stay? None of that is required for you to make your decision. It's simple, if you enjoy playing Eve, then stay. If you don't, then leave. It's VERY simple and requires no outside input. Then GTFO of this thread kthxplz Well, I was inclined to support this thread, the getting an idea of the direction of the game from CCP part, not the pirates want more noob bait part, until Ki An posted this. People are entitled to their opinions, such is life, get used to it. Sorry, now NOT SUPPORTED! ab
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.08 08:55:00 - [70] Originally by: Aiden Bismuth Well, I was inclined to support this thread, the getting an idea of the direction of the game from CCP part, not the pirates want more noob bait part, until Ki An posted this. People are entitled to their opinions, such is life, get used to it. Sorry, now NOT SUPPORTED! ab Are you 12 years old by any chance?

Tiphia Astrius	Posted - 2008.08.10 13:33:00 - [71] Edited by: Tiphia Astrius on 10/08/2008 13:35:37 I'd like to see a response, just because it'd cut down on the arguments.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.10 13:36:00 - [72] Originally by: Sorted immunity . a PVP free zone in ihighsec (unl;ess you sign up for pvp in trhe faction ware GO GO PVP FLAG ON BUTAN) Why does someone with corp name low-sec liberators want a PvP-free zone in EVE? Indeed why would we want one at all? Or am I missing your point somewhere in that argument lacking any depth... By lowering the penalty for fighting in low-sec, it takes longer to get to -5, meaning a starting pirate can spend longer having access to high-sec. Explain to me please how this makes a pirate's life harder? ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.