These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Retribution of Team Super Friends

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#901 - 2012-10-16 18:35:05 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
No, seriously, do you really think that the number of carebears out there, just looking to fly a ship, do missions, mining and industry, without ever wanting to touch PvP is lower than the number of scammers?


I couldn't tell you numbers because :internetstatistics:, but I don't think EVE is the game for these hypothetical carebears. Why should it be? If they don't want to ever ever ever have to think about PvP in any way, shape, or form, then why on earth would they play EVE? There is no PvE server. I believe there was even a time when hisec did not exist. It's okay to have a product that some people don't like. I will lay good odds that plenty of people in this thread don't like WoW because of the game mechanics, and yet the world keeps turning.
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#902 - 2012-10-16 18:35:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:


The simple fact remains: there's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would you? Why would I? Why would anyone? If you say that everyone does it, you are lying by default since you're spewing nonsense with no basis in reality.


Come on now, i mean i understand where you are coming from in your post, but if you are gonna dig in here I gotta say my BS meter is lighting up red big time.

Everybody who plays eve regularly has put a low amount of attention into travel at one time or another... It happens a lot, and we all do it.

If you are asking for reasons i'll give you some... You have to pee, your dog has to go out, you simply must look at an email you just got, or a text or the doorbell rings or a play happens in the football game you had in the background, you want to get some food out of the oven, a drink anything... I mean come on, these are all things that happen to normal people, not bots, that would compel the average user to go attend to during the middle of a warp, or at a gate etc.

Sure, their are times where you simply shouldn't do it, and people know better and don't, while other times, they know better and do, and die because of it, but Travel in EVE is just one of those features that can be utilized while other cylinders of your brain are firing elsewhere...

If you are arguing, that you give 100% of your attention to EVE all the time, every time, I just cannot get on board with you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#903 - 2012-10-16 18:40:22 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
Come on now, i mean i understand where you are coming from in your post, but if you are gonna dig in here I gotta say my BS meter is lighting up red big time.
Tough. Your meter is broken.

I don't travel AFK. There's no reason to do it, so why would I? So no, we don't all do it and as such, the categorical claim is false by default. Anyone using it is lying.

Quote:
If you are asking for reasons i'll give you some... You have to pee, your dog has to go out, you simply must look at an email you just got, or a text or the doorbell rings or a play happens in the football game you had in the background, you want to get some food out of the oven, a drink anything.
…and none of those would make me travel AFK, because there's no reason to (whereas there are plenty of reasons not to).

Quote:
If you are arguing, that you give 100% of your attention to EVE all the time, every time, I just cannot get on board with you.
I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that I don't travel AFK.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#904 - 2012-10-16 18:42:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No, it's neither. It's made up nonsense.


Why are your market facts better than mine?

Quote:
It's not a reason to remove or even reduce the main draw of the game.


Assumption, arrest yourself. The "main draw" today could be turned into a different, 3x better "main draw" tomorrow. No one knows.

Quote:
if you want to keep the sandbox, why do you want to remove gameplay and take away play styles?


By your logic, lets remove highsec from the game.

Quote:
There's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would you? Why would I? Why would anyone?


What about this reason: boring 20 jumps from one system to another. It's a lot of fun having to click 'jump" 20 times and have to watch a ship go from one gate to another. Increasing penalties will allow more players to autopilot in highsec to transport some goods.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#905 - 2012-10-16 18:49:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Well Villani, if you are stating this:

Quote:
Why are your market facts better than mine?


You need to back it up. What is your research material. How did you come to your conclusion? That sort of thing. Blindly stating something without proper evidence is kind of what Tippia said: nonsense. A lot of politicians are good at that.

Anyway, in regards to the topic at hand. I'm still against a bounty on everyone. I mean. Suppose some yokel puts it on newbies. The newbies won't get shot as they can't fly anything valuable. But the problem is that the bounty remains. So in order to remove it, we are going to ask new players to "oh sorry, some idiot put a bounty on you, fly to low-sec and have your ship destroyed X amount of times to remove it again"

It's just weird. Wouldn't it be acceptable for everyone to put a timer on the bounty just like on a kill right?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#906 - 2012-10-16 19:02:52 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
Why are your market facts better than mine?
Because yours is nonsense with no basis in reality and nothing to back it up.

Quote:
Assumption
Nope.
And again, trying to change your customer base has been tried (and failed) before.

Quote:
By your logic, lets remove highsec from the game.
That's not my logic so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Quote:
What about this reason: boring 20 jumps from one system to another. It's a lot of fun having to click 'jump" 20 times and have to watch a ship go from one gate to another. Increasing penalties will allow more players to autopilot in highsec to transport some goods.
Not good enough. Clicking jump 20 times is a minute investment that reaps massive benefits — not worth giving up for the minimal gain of being AFK.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#907 - 2012-10-16 19:05:53 UTC
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:
ergherhdfgh wrote:

....... The risk reward thing needs to work on both ends of the scale. So instead of bringing more victimization to high sec why not bring more carebears to low/null ?


I agree very much. This is especially true for lowsec. From my (limited) experience it can be very comfortable from a security perspective to carebare in null if you are in a well organized alliance. Having said that, one has to keep in mind what a big effort it is to errect such a haven, though. So here the social aspect of the game is extremely important. Nullsec is nothing for solo carebears (and that is ok). It is thus most important to get noobs in touch with player corporations as soon as possible. It is here that the new bounty system might shine by offering improved ways of interaction between players and now even player organizations!


You're completely wrong. I solo PvE in null all time, the problem is that so many think they need a blob to do so so they stay in null, form blobs, or join existing blobs. Blobs have massive issues taking and holding space without interaction with other blobs.

If they knew it was alot easier to live in null as a small entity, we'd boost nullsec carebearing AND smallscale PvP.

Look at my killboard, I'm not very active, but I kill the occational beltratter/plexer with this alt (which I rarely play at all). In null. And I never do blob combat, ever. I don't have any blues. I am in a 20man corp. And I PvE where I PvP.

This is what EVE used to be in the early days, it's perfectly possible now as well. The problem is player mentality.
"But I can't hold a station without X people!" - you don't have to
"But I can't upgrade sov and/or take moons!" - you don't have to
"But I can't PvP without a blob behind me!" - have you tried? the more you do it, the better you get, the more fun it gets etc

It's just poor insults from lazy players, and some might be honest guys who want to do this but are just scared. I was too for a wee bit, before I tried it. It's not hard at all. You need some basic scouting, and preferably a blockade runner with anchoring 1 so you can put GSC (but that part is not necessary). That is all. It helps with POS, Capital, etc, but isn't necessary.

Look at the guys in WH's, they're an example for all the rest of EVE tbfh.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#908 - 2012-10-16 19:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
Tippia wrote:
Clicking jump 20 times is a minute investment that reaps massive benefits — not worth giving up for the minimal gain of being AFK.


So you actually do it right? You are the mythical poop socker. I never really believed they did actually exist. Bodily functions are simply not worth the odd risk of something unforeseeable up ahead.

15 mins into your 20 minute travel plan, you have to pee, you go in a bottle. I get it, it makes sense to me now. The perfect EVE player, by the book on everything.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#909 - 2012-10-16 19:11:17 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Well Villani, if you are stating this:

Quote:
Why are your market facts better than mine?


You need to back it up. What is your research material. How did you come to your conclusion? That sort of thing. Blindly stating something without proper evidence is kind of what Tippia said: nonsense. A lot of politicians are good at that.

Anyway, in regards to the topic at hand. I'm still against a bounty on everyone. I mean. Suppose some yokel puts it on newbies. The newbies won't get shot as they can't fly anything valuable. But the problem is that the bounty remains. So in order to remove it, we are going to ask new players to "oh sorry, some idiot put a bounty on you, fly to low-sec and have your ship destroyed X amount of times to remove it again"

It's just weird. Wouldn't it be acceptable for everyone to put a timer on the bounty just like on a kill right?


Please, read the previous posts and follow the flow. I was just been sarcastic about some "market facts" that was posted previously.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#910 - 2012-10-16 19:14:47 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:


15 mins into your 20 minute travel plan, you have to pee, you go in a bottle. I get it, it makes sense to me now. The perfect EVE player, by the book on everything.


This is just in: all players have docking rights to almost every station along the route, not just the starting point and the destination. Temporary docks for bio-breaks / phone-breaks / my wife is in labor-breaks. Coming to a station near you!

More news at eleven.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#911 - 2012-10-16 19:16:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bodega Cat wrote:
So you actually do it right? You are the mythical poop socker.
No socks or pooping is required, so no. If something comes up, there are plenty of options: dock up, safe and cloak, log off. Flying AFK is simply not a necessary tool in the toobox since it offers no benefits (or rather, the “benefits” add up to a negative, which is actually much worse).

Fun fact: I'm taking a freighter from Jita to home as I'm writing this (using custom warp-in bookmarks to boot).
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#912 - 2012-10-16 19:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Bodega Cat wrote:


15 mins into your 20 minute travel plan, you have to pee, you go in a bottle. I get it, it makes sense to me now. The perfect EVE player, by the book on everything.


This is just in: all players have docking rights to almost every station along the route, not just the starting point and the destination. Temporary docks for bio-breaks / phone-breaks / my wife is in labor-breaks. Coming to a station near you!

More news at eleven.


Ahhh see but this is where it gets interesting.

Naturally you are right, the safe play is to dock up, and go pee. Thats obvious.

But at what cost?

The guy I quote never see's a reason to travel AFK, thus is it safe to conclude in the above bio-centric scenario, our user in question docks up, cloaks, every time at a safe spot or station to relieve himself?

If the answer is yes, can we all relax a moment and think about what could be at stake?

Could there be anything in EVE where you might just take the risk to get up and get the burning pizza out of the oven mid travel?

Maybe you are flying in a fleet, and you'll get left behind if you do so? Would that be reason enough? Cause Tippia plays a particular way that he cannot even FATHOM a reason ever to go AFK, even in a 20 jump destination.

And I call BS unless he levels with me on that.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#913 - 2012-10-16 19:20:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Villani Capelli
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Assumption
Nope.
And again, trying to change your customer base has been tried (and failed) before.


So, you use statistics that were extracted using the current game mechanics to justify that we don't alter the game mechanics? How can you guarantee that new mechanics won't bring new players and change the statistics?

There are important data missing: "Why did you stop playing EVE", "What aspect of the game would you change if you could".

Some nice data: 45% of the players mostly play solo.

Quote:
Clicking jump 20 times is a minute investment that reaps massive benefits


A minute investment? BS alert!
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#914 - 2012-10-16 19:21:08 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Of course we read the devblog feedback threads. To suggest otherwise is kind of insulting. We reply to some things to clarify, we reply to other things to have a back and forth discussion, but mostly we just read the discussion that is happening between players. It does help us a lot, so please keep posting even when you don't see devs replying.

I wanted you to clarify which "loopholes" you were referring to, because several things have been called out as "loopholes" in the thread (most of them wrongly so).

First off, the intent was not to insult, but rather bring attention to a communications disconnect between CCP devs and the paying players, that being the definition of what constitutes a "loophole".

CCP Tallest wrote:
Transfering kill rights directly is still on the agenda, but we could not fit both into the winter expansion.

That's fair, but if you hadn't noticed there is a lot of skepticism regarding iteration on this feature, so maybe that needs to be addressed in big, bold letters with multiple assurances and possibly even a time-frame. The feature as it stands is very poor.

CCP Tallest wrote:
We are using the suspect flag for 2 reasons: One is to allow your fleet to help you with your revenge. Two is that we are trying to move away from single player to single player aggression flags, as you can see with the new crimewatch mechanics.

In other words, we should be raging against the CW mechanics and the "let's do it as simply as possible" thinking behind them? Why not fleet to individual LEs? What bounty hunter in his right mind would pay for a kill right activation in order to collect a bounty in high-sec while at the same time providing the target a chance, however miniscule, of escaping and clearing the kill right on the bounty hunter's dime while at the same time providing some other rando in-system the chance, however slim, of collecting that bounty before the bounty hunter could?

Suspect flagging and paying for activation is the problem; it's a terrible mechanic. Better to scrap it and go straight for transferable kill rights.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#915 - 2012-10-16 19:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Villani Capelli wrote:
So, you use statistics that were extracted using the current game mechanics to justify that we don't alter the game mechanics?
No. I'm using statistics collected from the current players to show what the biggest draw of the game is, since you tried to claim that it was based on assumptions.

Quote:
A minute investment?
Yes.
↓↓↓D — a number of keystrokes that can usually be counted on the fingers on one hand. It takes less than a second to execute. Depending on the ship, an F1 (or even an F1 F1) might be appended as well after a tiny pause, bringing the investment up to, oh, 1.2 seconds instead. That's about as minute as they come.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#916 - 2012-10-16 19:27:31 UTC
I still think that the idea of a Kill Right in a form of an activable, tradable item (and considering ISK lost) would bring nice dynamics to the game. Even activating the global suspect flag, since bonty hunters could wait for the perfect time to activate the item.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#917 - 2012-10-16 19:30:17 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
What bounty hunter in his right mind would pay for a kill right activation in order to collect a bounty in high-sec while at the same time providing the target a chance, however miniscule, of escaping and clearing the kill right on the bounty hunter's dime while at the same time providing some other rando in-system the chance, however slim, of collecting that bounty before the bounty hunter could?



I don't know about you, but I would probably give my kill-rights free to anyone who wishes it. The problem is the alt blowing up the main to get rid of the kill-right though. Come to think of it, I have a question to the devs or anyone that knows more on this.

Suppose a target with multiple killrights is being smacked on and is destroyed. Are all kill-rights gone then? Or just one?
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#918 - 2012-10-16 19:34:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
So, you use statistics that were extracted using the current game mechanics to justify that we don't alter the game mechanics?
No. I'm using statistics collected from the current players to show what the biggest draw of the game is, since you tried to claim that it was based on assumptions.

Quote:
A minute investment?
Yes.
↓↓↓D — a number of keystrokes that can usually be counted on the fingers on one hand. It takes less than a second to execute. Depending on the ship, an F1 (or even an F1 F1) might be appended as well bringing the investment up to, oh, 1.2 seconds instead. That's about as minute as they come.


So, you take a fictional game that 90% of the players are PvPers and conduct a pool. And you are surprised to know that the "main draw" for those players is PvP.

A better statistics will be: from a sampling from all potential online players (not only EVE), who likes this or that?

About AFK, master BS alert. You have to stay in front of the computer for the 20 jumps. Nice. Well, I don't think that the vast majority of online gamers enjoy doing that. CCP knows that and created autopilot.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#919 - 2012-10-16 19:37:13 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Clicking jump 20 times is a minute investment that reaps massive benefits — not worth giving up for the minimal gain of being AFK.


So you actually do it right? You are the mythical poop socker. I never really believed they did actually exist. Bodily functions are simply not worth the odd risk of something unforeseeable up ahead.

15 mins into your 20 minute travel plan, you have to pee, you go in a bottle. I get it, it makes sense to me now. The perfect EVE player, by the book on everything.

95% of the time I also travel manually, but there are the occasional time where I autopilot my freighter while I play xcom or victoria 2 instead. Sometimes I even initiate AP and go to sleep and see if I'm still alive when I wake up.

But most of the time travelling manually makes too much sense not to.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#920 - 2012-10-16 19:38:06 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
I don't know about you, but I would probably give my kill-rights free to anyone who wishes it. The problem is the alt blowing up the main to get rid of the kill-right though.

That's the problem with public kill rights.

Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Suppose a target with multiple killrights is being smacked on and is destroyed. Are all kill-rights gone then? Or just one?

Just the cheapest one, as I understand it.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.