Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Wow, what a stretch. They stated carriers were making too much isk, i.e carriers found it too easy to make isk in null. You've stretched that to mean "all null PVE is low risk". Nobody at CCP suggested that.

So what you are saying is we are not allowed to suggest it simply remains as is?
Says who, you? And who are you? A nobody.

The fact is, it's worked fine as is all this time, and there are several very real concerns that any serious change to it would too heavily damage nullsec. Nobody has yet been able to articulate what the problem is they want to resolve beyond "I want to gank more" and "I want to live in a wormhole, but have a station". So it's a completely pointless change that at best will leave the game exactly as it is now, and at worst will bring null down to WH population levels.

Ya, you certainly don;t see the number of carriers ratting nowadays. And he's referring to the minutes from May 2012 CSM Meeting.
See below:

Just curious, was that 100 million isk/hour in bounties alone or bounties plus loot/salvage?

FWIW, I think the tackle frigates is kind of a bad way to do it. It is like "pre-tackling" the carrier for those looking to kill them.

Neither is it a solo game, by design, yet they allow it to become one as needed.

The intended style is with other players, not solo, and as you point out not quick either.

Since we are effectively not suggesting something that makes the game friendlier to solo or quick play, this is not a conflict.
My own personal play is simpler the way it is now.

Not better, just simpler.

Look man, I'm really bored of arguing with you.
At the end of the day, you can already get the gameplay you want, with ease. But you'd rather ruin null PVE to get what you want just so you can travel less.
It's a dumb, selfish idea that would not improve gameplay for the majority of people and thus, with no reasonable explanation of the problem that is trying to be resolved and no reasonable explanation of how null would continue with the changes in place, I'm going to be against the idea.

Honestly, I don't think you have enough knowledge about null to truly understand the implications of the changes you want. It's a knee-jerk reaction to your situation with no regard for the people it affects.

EDIT:
Oh, and the only reason I object to clicking the button is that it's a pointless change. It adds nothing. It's not because it's too much effort to click on a button, you tend to be clicking buttons anyway. It's just there is absolutely no point adding in a button for the sake of it.
I doubt you'd be happy with just a button too. It wouldn't get you what you want with your "exciting PVE".

First off, while the results of this type of idea, IN YOUR OPINION, is bad for null, it is still only your opinion.

Suggesting I can "already get the gameplay I want", plows over with the ridiculous notion that people wanting more challenges should all leave, because some players are uncomfortable with changes.

It's dumb and selfish: Opinion which implies those suggesting change do so for impure reasons. You seem to be falling short except for the surplus stock of opinions you use.
Add to this the suggestions that those seeking change must be ignorant. We don't have enough knowledge about null.
Great, now we are selfish AND stupid.

Are we evil too?

You are not doing anything more productive here, beyond telling the players in this discussion to go away.

And as to the clicking / button part, all you are doing is suggesting that players would either be overwhelmed by the effort, or alternatively perform the task so perfectly that noone would ever forget or make a mistake.
The funny thing is, those suggesting the change agree both will happen.
Some players will do it perfectly, and get even more intel as a result, while others screw up and are overwhelmed because of it.

If it was only one part of that, it would be bad, but since it can go both ways, that makes it interesting.

Yes, it's my opinion. And it's just as valid as yours. That's what you don;t seem to get. You are telling us that we SHOULD have to have to be pushed by PVP challenges while PVEing. It's what you want, it's not what the majority wants. And the fact that you can already do it means exactly that. You can already do it. Why should other people be forced to do it you way just because you think everyone should? If a carebear came along saying it should be a lot easier and concord should be everywhere because that's what THEY like, you'd soon be telling them that you like it your way and they should go to high sec. This is exactly the same thing.

I never said anyone would be overwhelmed. I sated there would be NO POINT.

If the only change was a button IT WOULD BE A POINTLESS BUTTON. It's got nothing to do with the effort of clicking it, it would be like adding a "stay logged on" button or removing autocycling from turrets. It would be a totally pointless waste of time to add which add NO BENEFIT TO THE GAME.

See what you are missing here is a REASON FOR THE CHANGE, which you are unable to articulate.

there, plenty of capitals for you to hopefully actually read, since it seems you are struggling with that.

There is nothing "interesting" about killing null. If you actually knew anything about null mechanics, you'd realise why it's a dumb idea to simply nuke it to make people like you happy.

See the absolute mass of protest against the idea in all the other millions of times it's been raised. Or ask people who actually live in null.

All you are quoting here is that you say that different players play differently, which we know. I assume you are still sticking with you claim then that because local provides you a list of names, that there is NO OTHER part to PVE. No other choices to be made, no other potential room for error or improvement. So I'll continue to state that what you want already exists, in one form in null, in a different form in WH space, and in a third form in lowsec.

What you are saying is that lowsec and null should effectively be WH space, making a single method by which to play, thus going starkly against what you are claiming here.

lol, Null and high sec are nothing alike. No matter how much you claim otherwise. If anything, lowsec is closer to nullsec that highsec is.


Won't duplicate it, but it will have pretty much the same effect on it's population.

Good selective quoting by the way. Totally ignore the bit you can't dispute and all that.

I'm sorry, but could you point that out please?