| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
212
   |
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions
Q: Price of war
A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed
Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it
Everything is great except for pricing as it relates to the quotes above.
Why did you decide that it was a good idea that large player entities could wardec small ones at trivial costs, but small player entities to wardec large ones would equate to astronomical costs? What's the motivation for this?
If you think you're going to drive High Sec players into power blocks like Eve Uni or Null Sec alliances I think you'll be disappointed, most are in High Sec precisely because their too independent minded or casual to fit in with large organized player structures. You may get some giant warshield alliance, but there won't be any meaningful social aspect to it that adds to gameplay
Wardecs cost should be based on the number of attackers not defenders. Fees should be just enough that going to war isn't overly trivial, but it shouldn't be used as a means to restrict players from declaring war, especially the current system which empowers blob entities and the very rich while completely disenfranchising small corps, casuals, and the ISK poor
To avoid gaming the system I offer you a solution
When a War is declared or renewed the wardecing party must purchase a war declaration contract based on how many members it wants to be allowed to participate. When purchased this cannot be lower than the current members of the wardecing party. If during that week the Wardecing party exceeds the number purchased through recruitment the defender may if they choose end the war at any time up until the war is renewed the following week
So this system allows flexibility in the payment scheme, is based on number of attackers, and the defending party can drop the war at no cost should the attackers abuse the system. In my view it's a much more balanced payment system than the one proposed by you (CCP)
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 00:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
desintox wrote:The war declaration costs should be much higher!?
In RL a war between countries could cause a country to go bankrupt.
In EVE a bunch of homeless people collecting space scrap could easily fund a corporation war or even an alliance war.
Why not increase the war dec costs or the cost per pilot?
Really?   
In a RL war there are no fees to some third party like the UN to be able to wage the war. The costs come in the materials, personnel, and logistics to wage and sustain the war. So, if your crappy analogy were to be used wardec fees would be removed altogether.
You should also read a little about who Pod Pilots are in EVE, because "Homeless people collecting space scrap" would not accurately describe the meekest most feeble Pod Pilot.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 23:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
GiveMeISK wrote:
From point of view the current big problems with wars are
1) Agressor NOT undocking - hiding in mains or the war dec is done by Alts
That seems a very selective view on the problem of alts. What about people using alts to haul, scout, run PvE, to avoid the aggressor? Never mind NPC corps which are immune to wardecs.
My point being the use of, and problems of alts is definitely not restricted to the "aggressor" or wardecer, but a universal problem in avoiding consequences that is at least as applicable, if not significantly more so, to the defender or receiver of a wardec.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 04:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
Instead of this stuff may i suggest to work on an automated team tournament system. That will be way more fun, fair and create plenty of destruction.
You're trolling right?
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 05:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:The proponents of wardec/grief whoever i want are far more vocal than thousands of hisec dwellers who don't even read this stuff so the feedback you are getting here is very disproportionate and is skewed towards hardcore players.
Prove it!
While perhaps not a casual forum poster, I do consider myself to be a casual player, and all my characters live in High Sec atm, you do not represent me Dream Five, but as it happens on many issues Alekseyev does. It would be charitable to call your statement that your opinion is the majority view in EVE as conjecture, most would call it bullshit. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
223
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 17:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
Proof by statistical inference - only small fraction of people posted in this thread (only 29 pages with duplicate posts). 70% plus of people live in hisec. Ergo most people either didn't read or didn't bother to post in this thread to voice their opinion.
While it is obviously true only a small percentage of all the players of EVE have replied in this thread, that wasn't what I was saying to prove. You're claiming that the majority of players share your view of EVE, and that you have not proven by any stretch of the imagination.
That 66% (or was it 67) of characters live in High Sec is not proof either. All that shows is there's motivation for players to have a character( or alts) in that part of space, not what that motivation happens to be, and certainly not that they want EVE turned into space WoW as you seem to believe. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
232
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 00:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Coolsmoke wrote: But the message I'm trying to put across is that War is a horribly complex thing, and the current mechanics are too simple to make it work properly.
It doesn't need to be complex. The reason it is complex is because CCP makes lots of rules around it trying to control the results way too much for a Sandbox game.
If simplicity was the goal I would just roll back the Wardec system to what it was pre P. alliance nerf and do away with NPC corps for non newbies. That would solve the majority of the real issues.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
232
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 01:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Carl Von Causewitz.
What that policy happens to be isn't a defining point of war, only that the use or threat of force is used to achieve it.
All the proposals that suggest tournaments, arenas, dueling systems, or try to narrowly define what they believe is justified policy to be pursued by war are not valid suggestions for this thread, they are not "War Declaration" proposals. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
232
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 05:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Just to clarify it to you.. your point is, you just want to engage whoever you want anywhere you want on your terms.
No, my underlying point is and always has been on these issues that I want a game driven by players and lore. I want EVE to be a Sandbox game built around a simulation of futuristic world of strife and opportunity where spaceships travel the virtual stars. Basically what I was sold on by CCP.
Players like you don't understand the game you're playing, you come up with suggestions that would suck the life out of these games and make them boring stale affairs like all the rest of WoW/EQ type MMORPGs. Your a disease within the playerbase that if can't be cured is better removed. I would welcome your departure from EVE.
You have no basis to claim 100k subs would vanish if CCP let War really take place in High Sec. If as many as 100 thousand gamers came to a Sandbox MMO built around player conflict expecting a Themepark MMO experience built around safe PvE then there's far more stupid people in this world than I thought.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
237
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 08:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:I absolutely love it. So concise, so much to the point: being harrassed is part of the game. Game, set and match. See you in next MMO. 
Hopefully not! At least not if you bother to take the time to read and comprehend what the game is about before playing it.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
241
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 21:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If your ability to defend yourself or funds to surrender/hire help are becoming exhausted faster than can be replenished then what is you recourse? If the answer similarly is there is none because "it's part of the game" then Indahmawar's conclusion is pretty much correct. It has nothing to do with ignoring a feature and everything to do with being hindered from enjoying the game at which point one must ask, "Why am I spending money and/or wasting time and effort on this?" Nothing wrong with saying this game isn't for me. Especially THIS game sometimes.
There's always choices or at least they're ought to be, but yes sometimes there's no recourse to a desirable outcome. That's what separates posters on these issues, not PvP vs PvE, but acceptance of the Sandbox game model, the desire for infinite possibilities including failure. Game's like WoW don't really have an losers, they don't let you fail. A good Sandbox MMORPG has to have the possibility of failure, or there being losers. It's what makes the game exciting and challenging vs stale and predictable. I've been at the receiving end of losing in these games like in Shadowbane where my Clan (corp) and alliance got zerged off the server, we made a fight of it, but really we had no chance and knew it. However, that still ranks as one of the most memorable gaming experiences I've had. In some ways it definitely sucked seeing the city you built razed to the ground, but ultimately I had a good time. There needs to be an investment in the game and the real possibility of loss, and sadly some gamers here just don't get that and likely never will.
And before someone says well that's fine for you, but we just want to do our own thing and be left alone.. or words to that effect. You're either part of a gaming world like this or you're not. There's no middle ground, by allowing you to PvE and PvP on the markets but be immune from combat PvP your asking to have the cake and eat it, to affect other player's gameplay but demanding immunity from others affecting your own.
Saying "this game isn't for me" would be the most sensible thing Indahmawar ever posted on these forums. There is indeed nothing wrong with that. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
242
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 08:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Amun Khonsu wrote:
PVP game or not, the game is billed as a game where you can be a combat pilot, pirate, merc, trader or industrialist. This proposed system singlehandedly wipes out industrialism in eve as it leaves them hostage to the pvpr, esp if they are a small corp or alliance and cannot afford mercs. Even if they can afford mercs they have to stay docked, not playing the game.
That's like saying PvPers are hostage to Industrialists because without buying what they produce they can't PvP.
You can't divide things like that in a game like this, everything is interconnected and ought to be. I'm sorry but your comments are just ignorant.
Also irrespective of what people call themselves you can't really be either a Pirate or a Merc atm, I very much doubt there are many players that truly sustain themselves exclusively from either.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
243
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 07:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
There's only one way to allow players to completely opt out of PvP in way that isn't screwing anyone else over and unbalancing a game that otherwise remains a Sandbox built around player conflict. That way is to completely isolate them from the rest of the game, to quarantine them in their own little Themepark bubble.
An example of this would be missions, it rewards them with a new unique currency that can only purchase all new mods and ships that only function in these same missions and similar content and remain completely useless to the larger pre-existing game. Basically everything they loot, make, and earn only has a purpose in their own themepark quarantine zone.
Asking for immunity from unwanted PvP in any other form basically comes down to people wanting their cake and to eat it too, or to radically change the game for everyone. That's not acceptable. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
243
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 22:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:
[...]
I commend you Thunk, it's no easy task to argue with stupid, delusional, and possibly mentally ill people on the forums... Actually it's pretty much impossible since reasoned debate isn't possible. That said, you can poke fun at them for your and the rest of our amusement.
CCP should just lock this thread now until something new comes out on Wardecs, nothing worthwhile is being said that hasn't already been said many times before. Mostly in the last few pages it's just the repeated ramblings of a couple of people complaining about PvP in a PvP game, and that's worse than useless.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
246
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 19:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Pretty much disagreed with most of it. Article pushed what appeared to be EVE Uni's awful ideas for wardecs. Gives all the power to big blob entities and is another blow to small gangs and guerrilla warfare.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
247
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
bornaa wrote:
What wars?
EVE don't have wars.
EVE only have legal griefing mechanics.
Explain to me how your idea of "griefing mechanics" differs for your idea of War mechanics?
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
249
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 06:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career.
It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds. And maybe he just played some other, actually fun and entertaining MMO.
Maybe he and the rest of you that support such ideas should GTFO of EVE and go play those MMOs. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 05:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Let me say it again just to be clear: Cost scaling is a stupid, CCP needs to come up with an isk sink doesn't give people automatic dec shields.
Yes, wars are not the place to put an arbitrary ISK sink.
Some good Alternatives for ISK sinks:
Massively increase NPC corp tax
Remove Insurance for everyone
Better yet hit the faucets that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Remove Incursions from High Sec, or remove CONCORD from Incursion systems.
Remove lvl 4 Missions from High Sec or tie them into FW somehow.
Remove Local Intel from Null, to make it risky to farm out there.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 21:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.
Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:
Yes, CCP should completely drop the idea of Isk fees as some sort of barrier of entry for declaring war. Isk plays a role naturally in terms of ships costs etc, and price of mercenaries if they're used. I know CCP wants to add ISKs sinks into the game, but wardecs and other PvP activities are really not the appropriate place.
lol, i hope ya'll are being sarcastic... so the current plans to make war cost billions to dec an alliance is ok?
No, and no.
Ideally the fees if there are any fees at all should be a token amount. Where CCP needs to put their attention on is issues of avoidance in terms of alts, NPC corps, corp hoping, and things like Dec shields... and that's for all involved. Those issues of course aren't simple fixes, but they're the fixes that need to made.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 23:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:
No, and no.
Ideally the fees if there are any fees at all should be a token amount. Where CCP needs to put their attention on is issues of war and risk avoidance in terms of alts, NPC corps, corp hoping, and things like Dec shields... and that's for all involved. Those issues of course aren't simple fixes, but they're the fixes that need to made.
Oh, ok, so all the benefits of the new war dec system should be solely for the sake of the aggressor and the target should have absolutely nothing in their favor, and if fact, it should be easier and cheaper to war dec them and they shouldn't have any means of being able to get out of it besides paying, but of course even if they pay the aggressor should be able to just simply take their money and keep them wardecced anyway. Dude, seriously... You're crazy
I suppose for those that come from mostly PvE Themepark MMOs my point of view would seem crazy. However, for those that cut their teeth on early UO, Shadowbane, or more recent games like Darkfall, it's your position that seems crazy, not mine. Also, EVE being declared a Sandbox and a PvP orientated game by CCP, puts it firmly in the company of those games, not EQ, WoW and their respective clones.
Now down to the rest of what you said...
You seem to have confused my position as one that favors only the declarer of a wardec, or as you described it the "aggressor". This is incorrect I favor those who are willing to fight for what they have or what they want, and when I listed issues that CCP needed to address they apply to the "aggressor" as well as the defender.
Your whole notion of an "aggressor" though is flawed. Consider the hypothetical example a CCP dev gave of a mining corp declaring war on another mining corp because the second mining corp have pushed into the first's market and cutting their mineral production and their profits. Who's the aggressor? Now mining corp 1 may declare war on mining corp 2 but there's a risk in that the second corp may have way more ISK reserves and in response to the wardec hires Mercenaries to push the war heavily in their favor, or they might have strong allies that will do it for free.
Now the problems isn't that these corps can wardec each other for free or little ISK, it's that they can wardec with PvP alts while their resource gathering and Isk generating characters remain free from hostilities and anonymous. Or either can corp hop, or that they can simply disband their corp and join an NPC corp, and short of suicide ganking there's little to be done about that.
If you're not willing to defend yourself or fight for resources you deserve to be bottom of the barrel or someone else's peon. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 03:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
Your assumption though is that the wardec system is actually being used for intended purposes like what you descibed.
HOWEVER, we all know that the wardec system is quite commonly more utilized by players who are simply attempting to get kills from players whom they assume to be weak.
No that isn't my assumption as I don't even attempt to define other players intentions for declaring war. Warfare is merely a means to an end, and it isn't for me, you, or CCP to define that end for others in a Sandbox game. The second part is working as intended, it's a wardec system not an arena or duel system where only "fair" fights are had. Again this is you trying to define other players goals and misunderstanding what war means. I don't think you really understood what I said in my last post or you wouldn't have said those thing.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
268
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 00:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Xorv wrote:
No that isn't my assumption as I don't even attempt to define other players intentions for declaring war. Warfare is merely a means to an end, and it isn't for me, you, or CCP to define that end for others in a Sandbox game. The second part is working as intended, it's a wardec system not an arena or duel system where only "fair" fights are had. Again this is you trying to define other players goals and misunderstanding what war means. I don't think you really understood what I said in my last post or you wouldn't have said those thing.
Actually it's not for you to decide whether you can arbitrarily grief other people or not. It's for CCP to decide whether it's in their best interests to allow to arbitrarily grief other players. Obviously they are not allowing individual wardecs so they see an issue with that, ie they will never follow your suggestion to allow arbitrary engagements anywhere for anybody vs anybody.
You're assuming peoples motivations, condemning it, and pleading to CCP to act on your wishes based on the unsubstantiated belief that EVE would make more money as a PvE focused Themepark game. I didn't define EVE as a Sandbox or a PvP game, CCP did, and with that come some legitimate expectations. The day CCP stops calling their game a Sandbox and market EVE on it's awesome PvE experience you'll have an argument to make. Until then your someone who wondered into the wrong game and rather than have the good grace to leave, you make demands for the game and everyone in it to change to suit your displaced style of gaming.
Dream Five wrote:One of the purposes of hisec is it was created as means for new players to safely grow and learn the game in a relatively safe fashion.
If true that's fine, I didn't have a problem with Shadowbane's starter island with no PvP for that same purpose. The difference is there was no point for players to stay on Shadowbane's newbie island beyond a short stay to get a grasp on controls and gain some levels and a token amount of gold, whereas in EVE Highsec can be very lucrative and productive place for players no matter how long they've played. With Incursions it's actually become the place to be for many players throwing risk vs reward balance on it's head.
If High Sec is only a place for 2 week or less newbies to get a grip on the basics of the game, then, and only then, will it be reasonable to also remove non consensual PvP from that part of the game. But despite your using that example it isn't what you and those like you are asking for is it? You want access to all the goodies without having to fight for it and defend it like everyone else, you want your cake and to eat it too. That Dream Five is completely unacceptable, and if CCP is reading these posts and has any sense at all they will ignore everything you say because of this. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
269
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 05:46:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
[...]Most likely the reason hisec is so big is because CCP looked at the data and decided that since most people prefer to operate in hisec in a relatively risk-free fashion
That you can gather Isk in relatively risk-free fashion and most players choose that option over the greater risk options is not an indicator that most people want that risk free gameplay as an option in the first place.
If you get a billion Isk for walking around the Captain Quarters for a minute just about everybody would be doing that for the majority of their game time, but few if any would want that to actually be part of the game. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
274
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 17:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
This also applies to reducing the rewards in high sec.
Remove level 4's, and players will quit, remove incursions and unless you replace them with lvl 5's, players will quit.
Good, those people should quit, EVE would be better off in the long term without them.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:53:00 -
[26] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
This also applies to reducing the rewards in high sec.
Remove level 4's, and players will quit, remove incursions and unless you replace them with lvl 5's, players will quit.
Good, those people should quit, EVE would be better off in the long term without them. If it wasn't for high sec carebears, than the vast majority of what you consider Eve wouldn't be able to exist. The only trade hubs you would know of would be specific to the major alliances they belong to.
Nonsense, EVE would get on perfectly fine without any High Sec Incursion and lvl 4 mission runners. In fact it would be much better off without them.
Imagine a game of football (or rugby) where a few players insist that although they're playing the game with everyone else, they will be playing touch football only. They still want to be able to play with everyone else, impact the gameplay and score points, but no one can tackle them, nor will they need to tackle anyone else. Do you think that would be a good game or do you think it would be totally dysfunctional as I do? Because your Highsec "Carebears" are the touch football people. If it was two separate games no one reasonable would begrudge those that wanted to play touch football, but that is not what they're asking for in this case they want to impact the game where others are playing full contact.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:
Nonsense, EVE would get on perfectly fine without any High Sec Incursion and lvl 4 mission runners. In fact it would be much better off without them.
Imagine a game of football (or rugby) where a few players insist that although they're playing the game with everyone else, they will be playing touch football only. They still want to be able to play with everyone else, impact the gameplay and score points, but no one can tackle them, nor will they need to tackle anyone else. Do you think that would be a good game or do you think it would be totally dysfunctional as I do? Because your Highsec "Carebears" are the touch football people. If it was two separate games no one reasonable would begrudge those that wanted to play touch football, but that is not what they're asking for in this case they want to impact the game where others are playing full contact.
You're comparing apples to oranges. High sec is more like little league football. Low sec is semipro football. Null/wh is pro football. [...] There are several forms of the game, but just because they're all the same game and they eventually effect each other doesn't mean that they should all be on the same field.
No I'm not. This is what posters like you are missing, it's all one game on one server. It isn't separate "leagues" or "fields" to carry on with the analogy.
Let me put it another way, if you want PvE completely free from interference from other players in EVE including non consensual PvP I will raise no objection assuming it has no impact on the rest of the game. You could earn LP to buy mods, implants, and ships that only function in that PvE environment and nowhere else! No ISK would be earned directly. That would be separate "fields" that would be in keeping with your stated desires while also being balanced with the rest of the game.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:37:00 -
[28] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:
No I'm not. This is what posters like you are missing, it's all one game on one server. It isn't separate "leagues" or "fields" to carry on with the analogy.
Let me put it another way, if you want PvE completely free from interference from other players in EVE including non consensual PvP I will raise no objection assuming it has no impact on the rest of the game. You could earn LP to buy mods, implants, and ships that only function in that PvE environment and nowhere else! No ISK would be earned directly. That would be separate "fields" that would be in keeping with your stated desires while also being balanced with the rest of the game.
Reguardless of analogies, if you don't appease the "carebears", and the pvp'ers, then you're pissing off the vast majority of eve players.
I offered you a theoretical solution for your beloved "carebears" (which I would personally call Themepark players). Now you seem to want to brush it off. Other than wasted developer time it gives you safe PvE and doesn't impact ruin the rest of the game. I bolded the relevant part of the quote for you so you don't miss it.. Your response?
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Xorv wrote:
No I'm not. This is what posters like you are missing, it's all one game on one server. It isn't separate "leagues" or "fields" to carry on with the analogy.
Let me put it another way, if you want PvE completely free from interference from other players in EVE including non consensual PvP I will raise no objection assuming it has no impact on the rest of the game. You could earn LP to buy mods, implants, and ships that only function in that PvE environment and nowhere else! No ISK would be earned directly. That would be separate "fields" that would be in keeping with your stated desires while also being balanced with the rest of the game.
The league analogy makes sense tbh. Not exactly but it does. And dude you've criticized a lot and almost everybody but i haven't heard a cohesive or meaningful proposal from you so far. You want to wardec individuals? What are you proposing?
You talk as though the only Wardec discussion that matters has been in the last 10 pages of this thread, I've criticized a lot in the last few pages because it's mostly anti PvP and anti Sandbox players in a state of denial that are posting now in the dying embers of this thread. I've made lots of proposals on these forums, if it is of interest to you then go seek them out, but I have no need to post them here again.
Joe and Ind-what ever her name is, essentially want an opt out from PvP in a Sandbox game built around PvP. I have offered a theoretical solution. That their PvE gameplay is opted out of everything related to PvP in EVE, which is to say pretty much all the game. I would like to hear a non evasive response from them if that would satisfy them, because if it does that would largely end the disagreement right now.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 07:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Xorv wrote:
Joe and Ind-what ever her name is, essentially want an opt out from PvP in a Sandbox game built around PvP. I have offered a theoretical solution. That their PvE gameplay is opted out of everything related to PvP in EVE, which is to say pretty much all the game. I would like to hear a non evasive response from them if that would satisfy them, because if it does that would largely end the disagreement right now.
I am not wanting to opt out of pvp. I however don't want the alliances to be protected from wardecs through hyper expensive fees because they don't like to be annoyed by small corps. I also don't think that it should be so cheap to wardec someone because it influences players to take advantage of the system to pad killmails as opposed to going into low/null/wh space and earning them. [...] I'm not trying to protect these corps from pvp, but I am suggesting a more balanced war system that actually would appear to be fair for the target corps.
Glad to hear your not wanting an opt out of PvP, and I agree that alliances shouldn't be able to make themselves near immune to wardecs just by sheer numbers.
Where I see problems is in your wishes for mechanics to make it fair and balanced. Wars themselves are not going to be fair and balanced, that would be the pretense of duels and arenas. If there's anyway to make it fair in a gameplay sense it is not to put lots of rules on wardecing in the first place. No arbitrary fee to declare a war and no limit on how many wars. It's those things that have given us wardec shields in the first place.
Your also going down the wrong path IMO by trying place judgements on other players reasons for war. If players declare war to pad their killmails then so be it that's their choice. War shouldn't be limited to pre set motivations, that isn't sandbox and it isn't what War is about. ..and before you say killmails aren't what real wars are about, consider tribes going to war for trophies, for some that was simply their rivals heads. Killmails are very much in that spirit. Although I do agree it would be nice to see reasons for war beyond killmails and lols. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 08:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
I read that one actually. I think that proposal was far too unrealistic to be considered a real proposal. I kind of see where you are going with it though and even independently had a passing idea along those lines about a different currency in hisec.
It wasn't meant to be a proposal in that sense. I already know most of those people wanting to opt out on non consensual PVP wouldn't agree to what I said, and that none of them would likely answer it directly because it shows them for what they are, people that want to have their cake and eat it too. Their demands are simply unreasonable in a game like EVE... and for anyone reading this asking "well why?" go read my football analogy a few posts back.
Dream Five wrote:
Would you agree that its possible that lets say you and your friend gathered some capital, setup a lowsec pos, then your corp got wiped out, you lost all caps, you lost your poses, everything. You are down to 5m isk in your wallet and you can't upgrade your clone. Now you are also wardecced and hunted in hisec. Or you are a new player and you get wardecced and can't get off your feet. The only solution is to either quit EVE or to drop out to NPC corp so you can't play with your friends.
[...]
A safe recovery/permagriefing protection mechanism is REQUIRED in order for the game to function.
Now, why exactly should you be allowed to be griefed out of a player corp and forced to recover solo? That makes no sense.
I would not agree. It's that very real possibility of losing everything that makes games such as this really exciting and interesting. There must be the possibility of failure to give the times when you succeed any real value. Now we can get down to the minutiae of what degree of loss ought to be, and no doubt someone would also bring up permadeath as an extreme example; but yes I generally think the level of loss games like Shadowbane, Darkfall, and EVE without a safe High Sec is about right.
Dream Five wrote:Now, why exactly should you be allowed to be griefed out of a player corp and forced to recover solo? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense in a Sandbox PvP game like EVE. As I said before there has to be the possibility of failure and defeat. For there to be a winner there must be a loser. ..and don't think I speak from only ever being the winner, I and the guild I played with were zerged off the Treachery server in Shadowbane. Likewise in Darkfall in the early days of the EU server eventually the city we had since day 2 I think it was got sieged and taken from us, and that's not like a POS or an Outpost, A LOT of work went into making that place and it was our virtual home. The thing is even in defeat and loss, these were exciting times. I still think back on the Shadowbane example as something almost real that I participated in, The Battle for Nakuru, and that was several years ago. I can still recall the moment in Darkfall our city gone and my clan all but disbanded, and thinking "well what next? .. I don't know"... that's exciting! Who's going to remember the Incursion or lvl 4 mission they did today 10 years from now? No one. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
288
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 19:21:00 -
[32] - Quote
EVE is a Sandbox MMORPG built around PvP, it is totally inappropriate to have separate zones for PvP and PvE. High Sec must be made more dangerous or converted into a trade/newbie zone. Fools asking for otherwise should STFU and go play a Themepark MMORPG. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
308
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 02:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Xorv wrote:EVE is a Sandbox MMORPG built around PvP, it is totally inappropriate to have separate zones for PvP and PvE. High Sec must be made more dangerous or converted into a trade/newbie zone. Fools asking for otherwise should STFU and go play a Themepark MMORPG. Ad hominem. Xorv's credibility just took another big hit.
Dream Five has called my credibility into question, by latching on to a single part of my post like a starving dog to a scrap of meat, I'm ruined! How many more "big hits" do I have before I reach 0 credibility like yourself?
And what exactly would you call someone that showed up to a baseball game and insisted on playing cricket, or wrestling competition and insisted on rock, paper, scissors... when you come to Sandbox PvP game demanding Themepark PvE that's the equivalent of what you are doing. I would say calling those people fools would be very charitable. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
316
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 03:04:00 -
[34] - Quote
Captain Thunk wrote:Dream Five wrote:
Some people just don't want to be in 0.0 alliances (gosh, 72% of them). It's a big time commitment, some people want more casual gameplay.
Do you misquote people intentionally or do you just have difficulty following English? Understandable if it's not your first language. I was speaking about 0.0 alliances who rely on alts in "safe" space to prop up their terrible empire. Which accounts for a large portion of that 72% you're talking about.
Thunk you can't argue with stupid, save yourself the trouble and just let them talk among themselves in the dieing embers of a 50 page thread. I'm just glad some of these posters aren't arguing for things I support, their own words are enough to sink any argument they make, straw men made flesh! |
| |
|