|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
   |
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:49:00 -
[1]
Well that (Greyscale's Comments) pretty much clear things up..
Killing for "lulz" is not where CCP Wants(wanted) to go..neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here). Unfortuanltely they have not been able to (as of yet) come up with a system that get rid of both. So the situation we have now today is the result.
Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...) in any event we now have a good idea of what is "Not" a good reason so the Sandbox psychos will be very unhappy.
Psychopaths (in-game not RL though some is going to misconstue my context) are going to get dealt with harshly (cold harsh world indeed but it usually is for crazy people).
So those who like to kill "because they can" can contract me their stuff on their way out the door that leads to Counter Strike... (LoL) Those who wanted clarification on What CCP's goal is, well now you got it.. Time to put your money where your virtual mouths are. (in my wallet preferably)..
----------------------------------------
Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:03:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Threv Echandari
neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here).
Where does he state this? I think it would be quite obvious by now that exploiting mechanics to avoid combat (loggoffski, corp hopping etc...) is a-ok, but exploiting mechanics to initiate combat is not.
I'm Refering to this...
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
....the fact that the wardec system does exist and that what's being discussed is a modification to remove just the undesirable side-effects and to try and avoid making substantive changes to the feature in the meantime I think speaks volumes about how serious we are about enabling the type of gameplay permitted by the wardec system as used according to its above-described purpose.
All that said though, the ability to easily create conditions where a player corp can arbitrarily bypass the penalties for non-consensual combat in highsec space is unjustifiable as a design goal (My Intepretation..Refers to Suicide Ganking), and indeed flatly contradicts core design elements (the existance of highsec space) for no good reason. This applies doubly so while the mechanics necessarily compel players to leave social structures (corporations) in order to avoid becoming victim to such mechanics. (My Intepretation..Refers to corp hopping)
----------------------------------------
Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
....then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system....
Thanks for clearing that up, It is a tall order, we'll just have to see where that road takes us, though it clearly will upset the apple-carts of those who would wish to be able to do what they will on people who can't do anything reasonable about it (except unreasonable actions themselves).
Its typical how extreme action by some force extreme action by others, EG GoonSwarm with their Jihad, it forced CCP's hand.. thus ruining the party for everyone. Given an inch the players take several miles. That's the side effect of the sandbox, and once people have ****d the mechanic for all its worth (and CCP has the data to prove it) Down comes the nerf-bat. It's an inevitable action-reaction.
(This for Ki An.. who doesn't think my understanding of what you said as valid) So would you consider Corp- Hopping and NPC Corp Hiding some of those undedesirable elements?
----------------------------------------
Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari
K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:34:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Threv Echandari on 02/09/2008 18:35:11
Originally by: Malcanis
This. Apparently "Your stuffs: I want them  " is now no longer a sufficient reason to be hostile to someone.
Thats actually a Reason! And would seem to be OK by CCP. It's the "I don't care if you have Stuffs..as a matter of fact I'll blow up your stuffs once I've podded you and your noob ship"
Now this gave me an idea....concerning Wardecs and what not its "Reasonable Reasons" that CCP would prefer so people could go killing each other.
"Your stuffs: I want them " is actually the most common reason people would kill others.. However in Eve no one really dies. They will just quit in frustration if they can't get anywhere. So how about an "Indentured Servitude" mechanic for Wardecs.
Back of the napkin version..
Corp A says to Corp B "Your stuffs: I want them "
Corp B says - FU
Corp A Wardecs.
insert some fighting
Corp B loses X% of its player resources over the Week that the Wardec is active.
Corp B cannot sustain these losses and Accepts "Defeat"
Corp A may now institute a Tax on Corp B's Earnings until
A. the cost of the Wardec(s) +75% is paid. (how ever long it takes).
or
B. Corp B. Wardec's Corp A (@50% reduction in Wardec Cost) to try an regain their "Freedom".
(Note if Corp A Wins the War and extracts all the money it can out Corp B it may not Dec them again for a set period of Time.)
Yes, there are alot of holes in this and it is a fairly rough sketch. For example if Corp B Hides in Stations and does not engage at all it automagically has "lost". Corps may not have members Quit(drop to NPC Corp) until their Debt is paid though they can add members to help pay off the debt faster. (all members share in the Corp War debt). If players dont login or play to avoid paying, after a period of time then Winning Corp then assumes total control of the Corp and may close it down. (though all members will STILL have to pay their share of their war debt.)
Any way, since most everything revolves around ISK in this game, why not make wars revolve around isk and economic control? You could also make War Decs like contracts, instead of Payouts in Isk the loser may be required to produce/accquire Items like ships and modules...
In this way there will always be a rationale for Deccing someone, the Winner will gain something tangible and the losers won't be forever under the boot of a deccing corp.
POSt edit I see Someone else post altenative Wardec Scenario Wile I was typing....
|
|
|
| |
|