These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A new EvE, and the old one too.

First post
Author
motie one
Secret Passage
#101 - 2014-04-28 22:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Problems with the proposed scenario:

Without nonconsensual wardecs, how do you remove POS's and POCO's from highsec locations?

Truth is, enough thought ************. This idea is not wanted by the majority of players. Non consensual PvP is a major part of EvE, and it is something all players need to accommodate for.

Interesting, who said that anything at all would change this side of the EVE Gate?

People who cross it, will have an entirely different view.

Could it possibly be that people will choose not to be farmed for tears and jollies? And cross over? What will you do then? Real PvP?

Heavens forbid. No fun unless they don't want to, is it?

You are making the mistake that nothing changes, well nothing changes this side of the gate, but a different world elsewhere would be very very popular.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#102 - 2014-04-28 22:08:10 UTC
motie one wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Problems with the proposed scenario:

Without nonconsensual wardecs, how do you remove POS's and POCO's from highsec locations?

Truth is, enough thought ************. This idea is not wanted by the majority of players. Non consensual PvP is a major part of EvE, and it is something all players need to accommodate for.

Interesting, who said that anything at all would change this side of the EVE Gate?

People who cross it, will have an entirely different view.


So what.. no bumping and no suicide ganking?

I hardly see why we need an alter-eve-verse for this. You can simply discuss the value of bumping and suicide ganking, although we both know that most players find these mechanics fundamentally acceptable and appropriate for the eve-verse.
motie one
Secret Passage
#103 - 2014-04-28 22:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
motie one wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Problems with the proposed scenario:

Without nonconsensual wardecs, how do you remove POS's and POCO's from highsec locations?

Truth is, enough thought ************. This idea is not wanted by the majority of players. Non consensual PvP is a major part of EvE, and it is something all players need to accommodate for.

Interesting, who said that anything at all would change this side of the EVE Gate?

People who cross it, will have an entirely different view.


So what.. no bumping and no suicide ganking?

I hardly see why we need an alter-eve-verse for this. You can simply discuss the value of bumping and suicide ganking, although we both know that most players find these mechanics fundamentally acceptable and appropriate for the eve-verse.


You are missing the point, you enjoy it , stay this side, you loath the idea, come on over, Eve this side is fine without.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2014-04-28 22:18:07 UTC
motie one wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
motie one wrote:
The only difference between the two sides of the EvE gate is the starting concept, positive and cooperative against negative, order versus chaos and selfishness.


I have no idea what Eve you installed but mine has plenty of cooperation, friendship and overall good hearted spirit.

Maybe you should hang around better people?

Or stop carrying on with this moral indignation.
Might be if he stopped looking at his neighbors as scum they might treat him a little better.



Good fences make for good neighbours. Sometimes one just wants to move to a better part of town......


Leaving aside all of the "good" vs. "bad" issues... (And my personal distaste for the world you desire.)

The problem with your idea is that even if it was done, it's not feasible, while retaining any pvp. If you remove the pvp, you also remove the need for an economy (Destruction is needed to drive demand). That's what killed UO... (And yes, in UO, the subscriber count went up temporarily, then crashed, as the in-game economy tanked.)

Now, let's say that you retain pvp, but give a bunch of rules which are to be enforced. There are small server sandbox style games which have that setup. (SS13 comes to mind.) On most of those, you require 1 moderator for every 30 players or so, often 2-3 moderators, in practice. That is because, in a sandbox, there are always exceptions and interpretations to rules, and a hard and fast ruleset doesn't work.

1000 paid employees to watch over 50K players isn't profitable, and if you have player volunteers cover it, well, it can get nasty. Those games where that works have extremely small insular communities, where everyone knows everyone.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#105 - 2014-04-28 22:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I'm absolutely amazed by people who spout off about morality and rule sets to enforce it.

The problem with trying to apply morality to a game rooted in competition is that there are only "the mechanics" and "the players." Everything else is entirely and purely subjective.


"That gut undercut my prices!! He's not playing FAIR!!"

"That guy put up a POSs/POCOs where I wanted to and now I can't!! It's not RIGHT!"

"That guy said to 'get stuffed' when I asked him/her to stop what they were doing!!! I DON'T LIKE IT and find it MEAN! Ban him/her!"

"That guy put up a picture that made me sad!!! It was mean spirited!!!"



All these comments can work in either direction. There is no "bad" or "good"... only what YOU find "bad" or "good." And you already have to tools (and the self control) to filter out what is in the chat boxes.
However you are playing a competitive game with me and if I decide you have something I want you better be able to defend it! You have no more choice in the matter than I do.
Astroniomix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-04-28 22:20:33 UTC
motie one wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Problems with the proposed scenario:

Without nonconsensual wardecs, how do you remove POS's and POCO's from highsec locations?

Truth is, enough thought ************. This idea is not wanted by the majority of players. Non consensual PvP is a major part of EvE, and it is something all players need to accommodate for.

Interesting, who said that anything at all would change this side of the EVE Gate?

People who cross it, will have an entirely different view.

Could it possibly be that people will choose not to be farmed for tears and jollies? And cross over? What will you do then? Real PvP?

Heavens forbid. No fun unless they don't want to, is it?

You are making the mistake that nothing changes, well nothing changes this side of the gate, but a different world elsewhere would be very very popular.

What is "real PvP"?
motie one
Secret Passage
#107 - 2014-04-28 22:22:57 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
motie one wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
motie one wrote:
The only difference between the two sides of the EvE gate is the starting concept, positive and cooperative against negative, order versus chaos and selfishness.


I have no idea what Eve you installed but mine has plenty of cooperation, friendship and overall good hearted spirit.

Maybe you should hang around better people?

Or stop carrying on with this moral indignation.
Might be if he stopped looking at his neighbors as scum they might treat him a little better.



Good fences make for good neighbours. Sometimes one just wants to move to a better part of town......


Leaving aside all of the "good" vs. "bad" issues... (And my personal distaste for the world you desire.)

The problem with your idea is that even if it was done, it's not feasible, while retaining any pvp. If you remove the pvp, you also remove the need for an economy (Destruction is needed to drive demand). That's what killed UO... (And yes, in UO, the subscriber count went up temporarily, then crashed, as the in-game economy tanked.)

Now, let's say that you retain pvp, but give a bunch of rules which are to be enforced. There are small server sandbox style games which have that setup. (SS13 comes to mind.) On most of those, you require 1 moderator for every 30 players or so, often 2-3 moderators, in practice. That is because, in a sandbox, there are always exceptions and interpretations to rules, and a hard and fast ruleset doesn't work.

1000 paid employees to watch over 50K players isn't profitable, and if you have player volunteers cover it, well, it can get nasty. Those games where that works have extremely small insular communities, where everyone knows everyone.



Very very simple, standings let you stay the other side of the eve gate. Standings go one way podding back. End of story.
Regarding scamming etc, different ethics the other side, tear extraction, the same, need I go on?
Civilisation is self sustaining If the groundrules are accepted by the residents. So TL;DR different groundrules, different residents.
motie one
Secret Passage
#108 - 2014-04-28 22:25:13 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
motie one wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Problems with the proposed scenario:

Without nonconsensual wardecs, how do you remove POS's and POCO's from highsec locations?

Truth is, enough thought ************. This idea is not wanted by the majority of players. Non consensual PvP is a major part of EvE, and it is something all players need to accommodate for.

Interesting, who said that anything at all would change this side of the EVE Gate?

People who cross it, will have an entirely different view.

Could it possibly be that people will choose not to be farmed for tears and jollies? And cross over? What will you do then? Real PvP?

Heavens forbid. No fun unless they don't want to, is it?

You are making the mistake that nothing changes, well nothing changes this side of the gate, but a different world elsewhere would be very very popular.

What is "real PvP"?


The clue here is not dropping a fleet of tornados on a PvE fitted ship. Two lions fighting is one thing, a pack of hyenas ripping apart a baby antelope is not usually described as a fight. if one does not understand, then one will never understand.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#109 - 2014-04-28 22:25:34 UTC
Full disclosure;
I don't participate in 'ganks' and don't 'grief' as they are not things that I enjoy. I have better things to do with my time.

For someone who is leaving, has left or is pondering leaving and stated that they were done responding in this thread many pages ago OP seems pretty noncommittal. As such, you have probably not left, nor will you as then there would be no way for you to garner this much attention through simply whinging incessantly about what you don't like.
Furthermore, you imply that you, and you alone:
a. represent the silent and downtrodden masses of capsuleers who are too weary and cowed to self-advocate
b. know, without a shadow of a doubt, what causes players to give up or never try in the first place
c. have a foolproof vision of salvation
d. have perfect foreknowledge of impending doom if your vision of salvation isn't strictly implemented and adhered to

Hmmmm, now where have I seen this before......
(goes to the library and picks out any number of religious texts flipping through page after page of prophets predicting dire consequences on one hand while offering foolproof salvation on the other)
......hmmmm

Delusions of grandeur perhaps? I think it might just fit perfectly.

OP you might want to think about forming a group of like-minded individuals, as their spiritual leader and prophet, to lead them in holy battle against the horde of high sec griefers. Burn them out of the Holy Land of Kittens and Friendliness (Kor-Azor Prime) with the blazing justice of high energy particle beams carried into battle by valiant steeds (Zealots). Only through vigilance and fervor will you beat back the horde damaging the zeitgeist you so desperately seek to create.

All hail.......

Oh nevermind; Can I have your stuff? You won't need it since you're leaving and all because people have different ideas on how to participate in this game (a lot like how people have differing ideas on how to participate in life).

Anyway, enjoy "Not EVE" and be less insulting in the next community you land in.

I'm right behind you

motie one
Secret Passage
#110 - 2014-04-28 22:28:20 UTC
So in summation those who enjoy the ganking, tear harvesting, and scamming, do not want their prey to have a choice.
Why am I not in the slightest bit suprised.
motie one
Secret Passage
#111 - 2014-04-28 22:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Alundil wrote:
Full disclosure;
I don't participate in 'ganks' and don't 'grief' as they are not things that I enjoy. I have better things to do with my time.

For someone who is leaving, has left or is pondering leaving and stated that they were done responding in this thread many pages ago OP seems pretty noncommittal. As such, you have probably not left, nor will you as then there would be no way for you to garner this much attention through simply whinging incessantly about what you don't like.
Furthermore, you imply that you, and you alone:
a. represent the silent and downtrodden masses of capsuleers who are too weary and cowed to self-advocate
b. know, without a shadow of a doubt, what causes players to give up or never try in the first place
c. have a foolproof vision of salvation
d. have perfect foreknowledge of impending doom if your vision of salvation isn't strictly implemented and adhered to

Hmmmm, now where have I seen this before......
(goes to the library and picks out any number of religious texts flipping through page after page of prophets predicting dire consequences on one hand while offering foolproof salvation on the other)
......hmmmm

Delusions of grandeur perhaps? I think it might just fit perfectly.

OP you might want to think about forming a group of like-minded individuals, as their spiritual leader and prophet, to lead them in holy battle against the horde of high sec griefers. Burn them out of the Holy Land of Kittens and Friendliness (Kor-Azor Prime) with the blazing justice of high energy particle beams carried into battle by valiant steeds (Zealots). Only through vigilance and fervor will you beat back the horde damaging the zeitgeist you so desperately seek to create.

All hail.......

Oh nevermind; Can I have your stuff? You won't need it since you're leaving and all because people have different ideas on how to participate in this game (a lot like how people have differing ideas on how to participate in life).

Anyway, enjoy "Not EVE" and be less insulting in the next community you land in.



Hmm suggestion a offshoot of eve sharing the same server with the Eve gate separating the two universes.
The one as at present based on the distopian version of events.
The other side based on the positive that might have occurred, with civilised values that people might like to build in without the values of the old EvE. And this is your reaction?

So in short, you do not want your prey to escape?

A separate forum would be nice too.......
Alundil
Rolled Out
#112 - 2014-04-28 22:32:25 UTC
motie one wrote:
So in summation those who enjoy the ganking, tear harvesting, and scamming, do not want their prey to have a choice.
Why am I not in the slightest bit suprised.

I have no idea how that's your summation. Unless you failed to even inject Reading Comprehension and its companion tome, "I don't know everything, for realz" (working title).

But you are truly showing a stout failure to grasp concepts not your own.

I'm right behind you

motie one
Secret Passage
#113 - 2014-04-28 22:38:21 UTC
Alundil wrote:
motie one wrote:
So in summation those who enjoy the ganking, tear harvesting, and scamming, do not want their prey to have a choice.
Why am I not in the slightest bit suprised.

I have no idea how that's your summation. Unless you failed to even inject Reading Comprehension and its companion tome, "I don't know everything, for realz" (working title).

But you are truly showing a stout failure to grasp concepts not your own.



Tell you what, carry on as you are , enjoy your eve, Others might like a different take on the dark universe you enjoy? Then we may have a few, including me, come back.
You do understand that people pay for this game and not resubscribing is a time and date in the future? Don't you?

So yes, my subscription runs out shortly, and yes, the attitude that has grown recently is the reason why, i was on many years ago, and came back to see how the game had developed, I love it, but the one side that is like a cancer is growing. So I will come back when it is treated, or an area that is cancer free exists.

So enjoy
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2014-04-28 22:38:25 UTC
motie one wrote:


Very very simple, standings let you stay the other side of the eve gate. Standings go one way podding back. End of story.
Regarding scamming etc, different ethics the other side, tear extraction, the same, need I go on?
Civilisation is self sustaining If the groundrules are accepted by the residents. So TL;DR different groundrules, different residents.


No, civilization requires a court system, police force, legal system, etc. All that also requires funding & for people to make decisions. That is not free... It wouldn't work with pvp. And without pvp, it would be economically dead. Simple enough.

Like I said, those places where what you are suggesting works are small gaming communities of 30-50 people, who play together regularly. In terms of a civilization, they would be at the tribal level, a small number (a tribal council, to carry the analogy) of them ban members who are a problem. And many of those communities split over their interpretations of "fair"...

Doesn't work for a 500K player game.
motie one
Secret Passage
#115 - 2014-04-28 22:41:39 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
motie one wrote:


Very very simple, standings let you stay the other side of the eve gate. Standings go one way podding back. End of story.
Regarding scamming etc, different ethics the other side, tear extraction, the same, need I go on?
Civilisation is self sustaining If the groundrules are accepted by the residents. So TL;DR different groundrules, different residents.


No, civilization requires a court system, police force, legal system, etc. All that also requires funding & for people to make decisions. That is not free... It wouldn't work with pvp. And without pvp, it would be economically dead. Simple enough.

Like I said, those places where what you are suggesting works are small gaming communities of 30-50 people, who play together regularly. In terms of a civilization, they would be at the tribal level, a small number (a tribal council, to carry the analogy) of them ban members who are a problem. And many of those communities split over their interpretations of "fair"...

Doesn't work for a 500K player game.


There is already a crimewatch system. It just needs a different base scenario to work with on the other side, standings drop, you are permanently podded back. Really quite simple.

Or are you saying that PvP is only ganking? And Eve cannot exist without Ganking? Because there is plenty of PvP that happens you know where people actually fight.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#116 - 2014-04-28 22:43:39 UTC
motie one wrote:
Hmm suggestion a offshoot of eve sharing the same server with the Eve gate separating the two universes.
The one as at present based on the distopian version of events.
The other side based on the positive that might have occurred, with civilised values that people might like to build in without the values of the old EvE. And this is your reaction?

So in short, you do not want your prey to escape?


The problem is, you are advocating for an entirely different ruleset that, by definition, canNOT be managed in any objective manner because it would require "policing" actions that are purely subjective in nature. What one finds horrid and unfair and evil in their perspective might not be thus in another's perspective. Who then is the arbiter of that truth? CCP? Some Council of Societal Management (CSM), You? I would say "Surely, you can see the problem with this" but I am very certain that you do not and that is the ultimate downfall of your idea.

You have no authority to manage thoughts and perceptions and no one else does either. Absent hard and fast rules prohibiting certain actions there is no way to maintain this Utopia you desire. Because once created, there would be an ever increasing list of things that are "wrong" for one arbitrary reason or another and the population there would dwindle to nothing and it would cease to be worthwhile for CCP to maintain it. Fin.

But, you don't get it. You can't evaluate the holes in your plan because you can't admit that there might be in the first place. Everyone else can see them though ("The Emperor's New Clothes" is a good and poignant example of this phenomena).

I'm right behind you

motie one
Secret Passage
#117 - 2014-04-28 22:46:57 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Alundil wrote:
motie one wrote:
Hmm suggestion a offshoot of eve sharing the same server with the Eve gate separating the two universes.
The one as at present based on the distopian version of events.
The other side based on the positive that might have occurred, with civilised values that people might like to build in without the values of the old EvE. And this is your reaction?

So in short, you do not want your prey to escape?


The problem is, you are advocating for an entirely different ruleset that, by definition, canNOT be managed in any objective manner because it would require "policing" actions that are purely subjective in nature. What one finds horrid and unfair and evil in their perspective might not be thus in another's perspective. Who then is the arbiter of that truth? CCP? Some Council of Societal Management (CSM), You? I would say "Surely, you can see the problem with this" but I am very certain that you do not and that is the ultimate downfall of your idea.

You have no authority to manage thoughts and perceptions and no one else does either. Absent hard and fast rules prohibiting certain actions there is no way to maintain this Utopia you desire. Because once created, there would be an ever increasing list of things that are "wrong" for one arbitrary reason or another and the population there would dwindle to nothing and it would cease to be worthwhile for CCP to maintain it. Fin.

But, you don't get it. You can't evaluate the holes in your plan because you can't admit that there might be in the first place. Everyone else can see them though ("The Emperor's New Clothes" is a good and poignant example of this phenomena).



Let me be clear, when you destroy a freighter in HS you see the little icons telling you that you are a naughty boy for doing so.
It is not hard to know when you are doing naughty things.
This side, the consequences are minimal.

That side do it too many times and your standings drop and you get podded out and never come back. Your home is the dark side of eve forever more.

It tends to focus one's attention.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2014-04-28 22:55:39 UTC
motie one wrote:



Let me be clear, when you destroy a freighter in HS you see the little icons telling you that you are a naughty boy for doing so.
It is not hard to know when you are doing naughty things.
This side, the consequences are minimal.

That side do it too many times and your standings drop and you get podded out and never come back. Your home is the dark side of eve forever more.

It tends to focus one's attention.


You are asking for more than that... Scams don't lower sec status. (In fact, they are normally done 100% within the rules of EVE.) Hunting helpless ratters in null-sec doesn't lower sec status. Bumping miners doesn't lower sec status. You want subjective rules. That doesn't work in a sandbox without moderation by a person.

Try a small server sandbox - SS13 would be my suggestion. You'll see how much work is required to maintain your ideal. (And how cliquey it can become, as very often, the people who interpret the rules feel free to break them.)
Alundil
Rolled Out
#119 - 2014-04-28 22:59:15 UTC
And yet there, in many cases, are perfectly valid reasons to destroy someone's freighter that have nothing to do with "tearz". Economic reasons in a competitive game of resources, chief among them.

So taking away the ability to damage a rival economically by placing that action in the realm of "naughty" things slowly, but surely, removes any incentive to compete in this game about competition.

Nb4 "....but wardec mechanics" - IF, and ONLY if, Wardecs were impossible to evade by the player/corporation being dec'd would this ever be even remotely possible. IF it were impossible to evade the Wardec and it's consequences by shifting assets and contracts to out of corp/NPC corp pilots would this be even remotely possible.

That is another abject failure in the model you propose. Without war, how is any group supposed to truly have a rivalry with another group and force them out of a certain industry/area/etc. Because the current Wardec mechanic in this "Dark EVE" (as you put it) is exceedingly easy to "carebear" out of and avoid any and all negative aspect/impact. This ability, possibly more than any other in all of EVE, is what gives rise to players attacking NPC Corp pilots and assets. It is the only option left in a competitive market where high sec bot mining in NPC corporations with unassailable stations would make for completely risk free industry.

This is anathema to EVE Online.


And out of curiosity, what pilot did you play on "way back when" since this one is freshly minted and still has the new car smell. I only ask because some of your questions in other areas shows some evident naivete about player motivations (this topic does as well mind you).

I'm right behind you

Esteban Dragonovic
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2014-04-28 23:01:18 UTC
So OP is literally asking for a wormhole to WoW, while continuously spouting that it isn't what it blatantly obviously is.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.