| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kazzac Elentria
   |
Posted - 2009.02.09 17:40:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Pottsey
Navtiqessaid "Repeating for emphazis: You can and you will be attacked anywhere at anytime.
It's not a question of where, but when."
That's false as I gave an example where you cannot be attacked.
What in station?
Plenty of PvP happens in station though. The EVE market is one of the more robust market systems which allow plenty of room for PvP.
Just ask the hundreds that likely lost a mint on the ferrogel speculation of last week.
Unless you do absolutely nothing and just stay afk in game, you're subject to some form of PvP everywhere in the game. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 19:36:00 -
[62]
Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players. |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:10:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Pottsey
Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players.
*facepalm |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 22:03:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Pottsey on 09/02/2009 22:06:20
Why a facepalm? The definition of PvP has been player killing for years. PvP has stood for and been about Player killing for something like 20 years now. Player versus player stands for combat between players that resulted in the loser being penalized in some way. The key word being combat. |
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 06:12:00 -
[65]
But in EVE it can be argued that PVP is Player v.s. Player in a much broader sense than just directly attacking each other in direct combat because there is much more to the game than just locking & shooting each other which makes your definition seem archaic. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 06:37:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Pottsey
Well as I said before I don't count the market as PvP. To me the definition of PvP is players killing players. Not players changing market orders against players.
I think that argument is flawed.
So say that we have 4 people. 2 of them are shooting each other while the last 2 are doing market "PVP".
1 of the guys who's "PVP"'ing will lose a ship. That's what, 80mill max?
Then one of the guys doing market PVP could potentially lose 100s of millions if the other guy outsmarts him.
So in terms of risk, market pvp is entirely as much PVP as "pewpew" pvp. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 07:30:00 -
[67]
Joss Sparq said "But in EVE it can be argued that PVP is Player v.s. Player in a much broader sense than just directly attacking each other in direct combat because there is much more to the game than just locking & shooting each other which makes your definition seem archaic."
That's the thing people are forgetting what Player v.s. Player is short for. If you look up what it's short for and been used for as 20 years then it's very much combat related. Anyway all this is moot. In my post I was talking about the original and normal definition of PvP. When I said this game isn't PvP period and shouldn't focus too much on PvP I was talking about combat PvP. Not market trading or whatever else.
Yes there is more to Eve then just locking & shooting each other but that's the same as other games. I don't see it as archaic PvP being combat. It's more a case of a few people don't realise Player v.s. Player is short for something then they changed the meaning of PvP based on an assumption. Like I said before the only difference between a PvP game or PvP area is combat. The market is 100% the same in no PvP areas or in no PvP games so PvP cannot be about the market to me.From what I have seen 100% of games with a pvp switch or area always mean combat.
If you want to use a broader definition of PvP to mean more then combat that's fine. But my posts are made from a point of view of PvP as combat. There are many other areas of Eve I dont see at PvP. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 10:06:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Pottsey
combat
Quote:
combat
noun |ˈkSmˌbat|
fighting between armed forces : killed in combat | pilots reenacted the aerial combats of yesteryear | [as adj. ] a combat zone.
ò nonviolent conflict or opposition : intellectual combat.
Do you disagree that market "stuff" is a conflict?
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 11:03:00 -
[69]
Yes I disagree sort off. Most of the time the market is just traders with people bartering, buying and selling like real life. There is very little opposition or intellectual combat. Changing a few sell orders to sell a little cheaper then someone else is hardly intellectual combat.
I see the market like real life. Popping down to Jita to buy or sell a module is not combat. Just like popping down to the city centre to buy or sell something is not combat.
There are rare times when I consider parts of the market intellectual combat. But even so thatÆs still not PvP as youÆre not killing. PvP doesnÆt just stand for combat alone, PvP stands for killing another player.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 13:21:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Pottsey
I see the market like real life. Popping down to Jita to buy or sell a module is not combat. Just like popping down to the city centre to buy or sell something is not combat.
I'll tell you an amusing anecdote.
While in a pirate merc corp one of our directors convo'd me and let me know he just popped a Brutix in local, then got the guy again when he grabbed another ship and attempted revenge. He then went on to list some of the small named mods he got in the wreckage.
I asked the director what was the guys name.
I looked over my market records and sure enough, there was his name all over in my logs. Conveniently as well right after I had just manipulated the market and marked prices of most battlecruisers up 10%, and had been doing so to much of the named mod market for awhile now. To top it off, not only had he bought his first ship from it, but the second last ditch attempt one as well.
After I told my corpmate about it he said "And they call us pirates" |
RedFef
Minmatar
KDS Navy
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 23:41:00 -
[71]
X. Factional Warfare û Focus & Goals
I can't talk much about the Amarr/Minnie FW, so this is mainly for Gallente and Caldari.
Well, I think that CCP has the wrong idea of FW as an 'introduction' to PVP. I keep seeing CCP say that it's a great intro to PVP and basic fleet operations before the person sets out into 0.0. It scares me that it sounds like they will rip the rug right out from under me and act like it was intended.
I doubt I'll be leaving FW anytime soon. Nor will a lot of corporations involved, the ones that plan large Battleship fleets almost every weekend that go POS smashing, or the small T2 hunter/killer fleets that operate across the boundries of FW space. Nor will the industrialists who produce a lot of T1 mods/T2 ships to sell in Villore or Nourv. Nor will the pirates who make their living off of attacking the Caldari and Gallente militias. Nor will the 0.0 vets who have actually GONE to FW after spending YEARS in 0.0.
to me CCP has the wrong idea of FW because they think that once people play around for a few months they will go to 0.0. The only problem is that FW is drawing 0.0 people to it! It's targeted the wrong crowd on accident, as the people who play it the most are the ones that are supposed to leave after they 'get bored with it'!
Suggestion time. I would /love/ to see Empire-sponsered Alliances fighting in lo-sec. I'm tired of the militia channel, heck, the Militias have actually set up additional channels, forums, teamspeaks/ventrillos just so it has the feel/look of an Alliance without any of the perks. But I already know what the answer to that is: 'Just go into 0.0 with those corps and have at it.'. A noble idea but theres just one problem, the FW teams would get slaughtered. Not because they are lesser PVPers, not because they don't have the logistics, not becaus they don't have the will. But because they don't have the raw materials to survive in 0.0. They make enough ISK to replace the T2 ships they lose and fit brand new ones, thats about it.
There are even Capitals involved with FW, not just one, or two, but almost weekly there is a Capital fleetbattle involving 3 or more carriers/dreads. Granted it doesn't sound like a lot but I think CCP would be alarmed that their 'introduction to PVP' involves the purest PVP machines and the most expensive of ships on a weekly basis. I don't think they've realised the community they created and are now trying to kill the beast they've rought.
Only I don't want that beast to die, I want it to grow. My EVE career has been based around FW. Pure and simple. An Empire can't backstab you or your corp, and for the price of that you get no protection outside of highsec. So it is just your corp and your milita to defend the only thing worth defending in the FW losec: POSs. There are a LOT of POSs in FW space belonging to both the Caldari and Gallente. There are always attacks (At least on the Gallente side) on these POSs, resulting in large fleets of 70. Which I think CCP would want, to emulate the 0.0 factor, but they never look at the shiptypes. Over 30 of those ships are always Battleships fitted to the teeth with enough T2 to put a Capital ship to ruin in a matter of minutes. Noobies don't fly Battleships, and yet the majority of players in FW, at least the most active ones, always fly Battleships, HACs, AF, Intercepters, Hicters and even all the way up to Blackops and Carriers.
Now, this entire TL;DL has been based on the PVP element of FW. Plexing is next post because I have to >:
|
Red Cuse
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 23:45:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Red Cuse on 10/02/2009 23:45:33
Shoot the wrong character was selected. Anyways
Just to keep right at it:
Plexing would be useful if the system that was turned provided some sort of resource to the Owner of the System, ala, State protectorite or Federal Defense Union. In turn the Protectorate/FDU produces these materials/items that are given to the militiamembers. What are these items? Beats me. Faction loot? You can get that through LP, so. not really worth it. But how about something else. Faction ships would be a good start. Having the Militia seem like it's a living entity. Like, say, use this new AI to make roaming NPC gangs or something. Have 30 man NPC fleets patrolling the lo-sec sectors at random. And now that I think about it thats what the material/items are.
The systems could produce the raw materials to make NPC fleets that roam about their sector, enabling PVE for those that want it.
I'm no CSM, I'm no Dev, so thats as far as my brain can go. Thats as far as my brain wants to go right now. But there it is, an idea. Most likely a bad one, most likely something that could be exploited, most likely never to be read.
But I just hope someone reads this post and gains at least something about my opinion to either use as an example or how CCP should or shouldn't go about FW.
|
Evocationz
Amarr
Terra Nostra
SATRAPY
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:00:00 -
[73]
So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best
The point of the CSM is?
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 06:35:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Evocationz
So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best
The point of the CSM is?
I see that you haven't taken much time to actually read the minutes or even, *gasp* actually read them 
|
Jmanis Catharg
Caldari
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:05:00 -
[75]
Just a quick comment to run by about the minutes.
I was going to post a big huge reply, but I couldn't be assed. So here's the a slightly shorter version.
Reading the whole "Settler" concept led me to a few things.
A settler has a few attributes:
1. Wants to build stuff.
2. Wants to make their own rules.
In my experience trying to (unsuccessfully) sell myself as a 'settler' to alliances I've found a few things.
1. "Building stuff" (especially Outposts) is seen as a threat to 0.0 alliances sovereignity if they can't completely control it, control which a 'settler' won't relinquish.
2. 0.0 Alliances only protect "built stuff" as long as it makes them money.
The only way for alliances to make money off settlers at the moment is to eat into their profits.
Further, settlers really should be a population to be "conquered", not destroyed. As it is, to get sovereignity in a system you have to:
1. Blow everything up.
2. Put your own stuff up.
Zero incentive to "leave the infrastructure" and conquer through sovereignty, but unfortunately that's the mechanic as it stands now.
A few things need to happen for any form of "settler" role to work.
1. Alliances need incentive for *any* infrastructure to be placed in their territory.
2. Alliances need a way to take control of sovereignty without destroying structures.
3. Alliances need an incentive to have people *other than* themselves (i.e. neutrals) to set up infrastructure, and take the grind out of maintaining the empire while still reaping rewards.
Towards this end, while 'broad ideas', these are things that would help the situation.
- Separation of POS/Outposts from the sovereignity system. While I read the "pendulum" idea, one of the best ways to achieve that is a Factional Warfare style system.
- Whoever has sovereignty in a system is provided some "faucet" for the infrastructure (POS, outposts etc) developed by corporations. How this would get balanced is for argument. It *must* be an indirect faucet that does not impact the settler, otherwise either the settler gets no benefit from populating 0.0 because their efforts get eaten by the alliance, and they could simply turn a higher profit in high sec, or the alliance gets no benefit from the settler populating.
Meh, bit of brainless theory crafting. Sounded better a few days ago in the longer format.
---
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I went to the forums for special powers and all I got was a dancing padlock and a banhammer.
|
Armoured C
Gallente
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 01:34:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Evocationz
So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best
The point of the CSM is?
how about you open your eyes ?
This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
|
Citizen AQ670E14
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 02:13:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Jmanis Catharg
Just a quick comment to run by about the minutes.
I was going to post a big huge reply, but I couldn't be assed. So here's the a slightly shorter version.
Reading the whole "Settler" concept led me to a few things.
A settler has a few attributes:
1. Wants to build stuff.
2. Wants to make their own rules.
In my experience trying to (unsuccessfully) sell myself as a 'settler' to alliances I've found a few things.
1. "Building stuff" (especially Outposts) is seen as a threat to 0.0 alliances sovereignity if they can't completely control it, control which a 'settler' won't relinquish.
2. 0.0 Alliances only protect "built stuff" as long as it makes them money.
The only way for alliances to make money off settlers at the moment is to eat into their profits.
Further, settlers really should be a population to be "conquered", not destroyed. As it is, to get sovereignity in a system you have to:
1. Blow everything up.
2. Put your own stuff up.
Zero incentive to "leave the infrastructure" and conquer through sovereignty, but unfortunately that's the mechanic as it stands now.
A few things need to happen for any form of "settler" role to work.
1. Alliances need incentive for *any* infrastructure to be placed in their territory.
2. Alliances need a way to take control of sovereignty without destroying structures.
3. Alliances need an incentive to have people *other than* themselves (i.e. neutrals) to set up infrastructure, and take the grind out of maintaining the empire while still reaping rewards.
Towards this end, while 'broad ideas', these are things that would help the situation.
- Separation of POS/Outposts from the sovereignity system. While I read the "pendulum" idea, one of the best ways to achieve that is a Factional Warfare style system.
- Whoever has sovereignty in a system is provided some "faucet" for the infrastructure (POS, outposts etc) developed by corporations. How this would get balanced is for argument. It *must* be an indirect faucet that does not impact the settler, otherwise either the settler gets no benefit from populating 0.0 because their efforts get eaten by the alliance, and they could simply turn a higher profit in high sec, or the alliance gets no benefit from the settler populating.
Meh, bit of brainless theory crafting. Sounded better a few days ago in the longer format.
It still sounds good, I am agreeing wholeheartedly. The entire Sov system needs a full revamp
|
Armoured C
Gallente
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 02:18:00 -
[78]
abnd maybe sheild harnder while you at it ... vote against d2 pos's
This week EvE Life: Wormhole Wars 01/Feb
|
Leiara Knight
Gallente
The Oblivion Guard
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 12:48:00 -
[79]
How do I bump a thread? |
elric gallach
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 20:54:00 -
[80]
omber zombie that tank is a marine set up not tropical
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seems you guys had a good time
See no mention of THAT FUNNY POS THING  .
|
Gonada
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 23:18:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/02/2009 19:00:09
Gonada said " actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot.
the only pve part of this game is the missions"
Before calling me a noob again you should really go look up the history of the word PvP, it's all about killing not trading on the market. If you use the normal and original meaning of PvP then PvP stands for player killing. In other words two players V each other trying to kill each other. Buying and selling or competing against other players without killing is not PvP. Just because some people use PvP to broadly describe any or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other, it does not mean PvP stands for that.
Every game I have seen has PvP being about Player killing. The only difference between a PvP server, area or game is the PvP server, area or game has players killing players and the non PvP server, area or game does not have players killing players. Non PvP games and servers still have markets with players competing against players. If you go into a no PvP area you can still trade. If you play on a no PvP server you can still trade.
are you stupid?
PVP = player vs player
if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp.
I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 10:05:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Pottsey on 14/02/2009 10:05:27
Gonada said "are you stupid?
PVP = player vs player
if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp."
No I am not stupid. You appear to have forgotten whatPplayer vs Player is short for. You have gone and shortened Player vs Player down to PvP. Then extended PvP back to Player vs Player then extended Player vs Player to something different that what it originally stood for. For well over a decade PvP has meant killing other players. Not trading against other players. Yes some people now use it to broadly mean commodity trading against other players but considering the history of the word I don't agree with that use.
Go look up the history of the word. Show me some examples from full commercial retail games where PvP is not about killing. Show me a full commercial game where the difference between the PvP and no PvP servers, area or game is anything but killing. Every single game I have seen has the only difference between PvP and no PvP as killing. In the no PvP areas or servers you still have players competing in commodity trading. If every single case has commodity trading still going on in no PvP areas or on the no PvP servers then commodity trading is not PvP.
I am pretty sure in 100% of cases when boxs or game features talk about PvP they talk about killing and combat. It's true for the first decade of the use of the word PvP as far as I can tell. Only recently have some people started using PvP for none combat means and its mostly the younger new players who don't realise player vs player is short for something so they make up their own meaning which is not the same as the old meaning.
Gonada said " I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means."
Don't lie I know for a fact you where not PvPing when I was a grunt in my father throat.
If you have been PvPing that long you must remember that PvP was coined sometime in the 1980s to refer to players killing other players and being penalized in some way. player vs player is short for killing another player to cuase loss.
|
Evocationz
Amarr
Terra Nostra
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 11:10:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Armoured C
Originally by: Evocationz
So bascially ccp shoots down every idea u give them pretty much n then makes it look like you tried your best
The point of the CSM is?
how about you open your eyes ?
How about you stop posting in absolutley everythread thinking u must have your opinion
THE CSM minutes an if u to stupid to see thats not my problem, that CCP agree with whatever they want to n say **** the rest, the CSM exists to serve CCP, not the player base, your a ****ing fool
Shamelessly Stolen Sig - it Owns All |
Evocationz
Amarr
Terra Nostra
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 11:11:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Gonada
Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/02/2009 19:00:09
Gonada said " actually noob, 90% of the pve aspect is also pvp, in the form of competing with others in buying selling and whatnot.
the only pve part of this game is the missions"
Before calling me a noob again you should really go look up the history of the word PvP, it's all about killing not trading on the market. If you use the normal and original meaning of PvP then PvP stands for player killing. In other words two players V each other trying to kill each other. Buying and selling or competing against other players without killing is not PvP. Just because some people use PvP to broadly describe any or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other, it does not mean PvP stands for that.
Every game I have seen has PvP being about Player killing. The only difference between a PvP server, area or game is the PvP server, area or game has players killing players and the non PvP server, area or game does not have players killing players. Non PvP games and servers still have markets with players competing against players. If you go into a no PvP area you can still trade. If you play on a no PvP server you can still trade.
are you stupid?
PVP = player vs player
if players compete with eath other , wether in commodity trading, or fighting its still pvp.
I was "pvping" when you were a grunt in your fathers throat, so I am pretty sure I know what PVP means.
Could u a bigger chav?
Shamelessly Stolen Sig - it Owns All |
Reven Cordelle
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 11:53:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Evocationz
Could u a bigger chav?
You appear to have failed at recognising what a "Chav" actually is. That and your lack of basic typing skills seems to make you look more like a Chav than Gonada, but thats neither here nor there is it.
|
Delkin
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:30:00 -
[86]
I was wondering if any more information on the amount of minerals claimed to be from recycling.
"Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE"
Without any further details this is sort of meaningless, was the snapshot taken as the Orca was first in game? or some time back. i.e. was it before or after mineral compression was adjust becasuse the Rorqual needed a proper role.
Anyone moving minerals to 0.0 may well have used recycling to move minerals, the demand to be the first with an Orca may well have accounted for many "recycled minerals" the vast volume of low ends required to build capital ships will have some effect in this figure?
Seems to me its just a throwaway comment used to justify the removal of something (mission loot) there is a healthy market for T1 items and named, most I know who salvage collect all items with a value and gain every isk they can.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:44:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Delkin
I was wondering if any more information on the amount of minerals claimed to be from recycling.
"Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE"
Without any further details this is sort of meaningless, was the snapshot taken as the Orca was first in game? or some time back. i.e. was it before or after mineral compression was adjust becasuse the Rorqual needed a proper role.
Anyone moving minerals to 0.0 may well have used recycling to move minerals, the demand to be the first with an Orca may well have accounted for many "recycled minerals" the vast volume of low ends required to build capital ships will have some effect in this figure?
Seems to me its just a throwaway comment used to justify the removal of something (mission loot) there is a healthy market for T1 items and named, most I know who salvage collect all items with a value and gain every isk they can.
Here's a breakdown of the minerals.
The CSM has taken an active approach to try and figure out a good solution to this "issue". We have requested for CCP to try and expand on the data so we can address the very valid concern you do have to the numbers. While we are limited certain data, we are looking to get the data broken down so much that we can make an educated suggestion for how any problem with the supply of minerals.
If you have any opinion, please add your opinions to this thread.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |