EVE General Discussion

Again (again, again, again, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall) that is their choice and there is no reason for CCP to change the foundation of EVE Online because of their choices.



This does not necessitate that game mechanics need to be changed to.......... cater to this special group of players.

You said I was wrong before with my inductive reasoning of your position, but with each post you all but confirm my original assertion.



Living in an NPC corp does not ensure avoidance of combat/PvP. And what's with the double standard, Lucas? WarDecing industrial corps is bad, but living in an NPC corp and avoiding combat is a "valid choice" because sandbox?



They "should"? Says who? And why?

What is a "content filled" fight? And how is killing someone during a war a "gank" and not content? CONCORD does not intervene in wars, so I don't know where you're pulling this "gank" word from. And you seem to be throwing buzzwords around without really understanding what these words mean.



But you did say "actual content". In order for something like that to exist it has to have an opposite, no? "Actual" content vs "non-actual" content, I chose the word "fake" because it makes more sense.

There is no such thing as "good" content and "bad" content. This is actually a reflection of pure arrogance on your part - there is only content that is either enjoyed by people or not enjoyed by people. You do not enjoy a certain type of content, so you dismiss it as "fake" and "bad". If people are enjoying the content, then who are you to say it should be removed? Nobody. You're not suggesting "good content" be introduced to the game - you're suggesting changes to WarDec mechanics based on some misguided sense of "space bushido" which has no place in EVE and is in fact merely your opinion.

I would argue that "bad content" is content or game mechanics which reduce fun. Now, in order for your position to be valid you have to show that HiSec wardecs reduce fun more than they produce it. Ready, set, GO!

Sounds so similar to my own experience, although the timeframes are different. Here, have a like, I regret that I have but one to give.

Something that's been suggested before would be that once you finish the tutorial and/or enough time has passed and/or you reached a certain amount of sp (which also loosely reflects time passed), you get booted from the university corp into a corp of your choosing (so even if you make a Minmitar character, you can join an Amarr corp). This automatically places you into faction warfare.

Combine this with players not being able to doc in stations controlled by the enemy factions and you still maintain some 'relative' safety by operating well within your faction's territory but not near the safety NPC corps provide currently.

Level missions can slowly nudge players towards the edges of their faction's space. (Risk vs Reward)
Belts would have more variety closer to the edges of their faction's space. (Risk vs Reward)
Ice Belts would only be in systems at the edge of their faction's space. (Risk vs Reward)

There is now an incentive to be in a player corp. As a player corp you might be able to operate in any faction's territory (depending on you standings). As a player corp you can operate at the edges of faction territory and potentially not have any risk. I say potentially because it depends on not having a war dec against you. The risk is that you can be war dec'ed at any time for any reason and you won't have your faction's navy as aid against these targets.

As for the cost of war dec'ing. When was the last time the price of declaring war increased?

While inflation is bad, a healthy market will have a small amount of inflation. The idea is that while people have more isk, the cost of goods are higher. In other words, as the nominal wage rate increase and the price level increase, the real wage rate stays the same. The problem is that if the nominal wage rate increases, and the cost to declare war stays the same then the real cost to declare war becomes cheaper.

If the cost to declare ware along with all other costs that remove isk from the game (isk costs in the LP store, NPC corp taxes, market taxes and fees, etc.) were to also inflate in step with the game's economy, then this would actually be an automatic stabilizer.

Wow an OP who LEARNED something!

Times really are changing.

So therefore, no reason to remove NPC corps, so people can continue to avoid wardecs entirely in a nice, effort free way.

And it's not the changing the foundation of EVE online to change the balance of power between classes of players. That's done all the time. The problem is, when someone suggest anything that makes the tiniest reduction in risk to a carebear, you hear "MAKE ALL HIGHSEC RISK FREE", evidently because you have comprehension issues, and therefore you rush to incorrect judgements.

It doesn't have to, no, but then it's my opinion that it should a little. I believe there room for change without damaging the fundamental mechanics but opening up the game to a slightly wider range of players. Considering how many layoffs CCP are going though, more players are going to become a necessity at some point, and I'd rather see them in a smaller trickle from small changes now than in waves from panic changes later down the line. It's perfectly OK for you do disagree with that opinion, but it doesn't make me automatically wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean you can go ahead and misrepresent my opinions to give you ways to attack them.

See what I mean about misrepresentation? I never say wardeccing industrial corps is "bad" as in not a valid choice. It's a perfectly acceptable choice, I just don't think it has the right impact on the game. Much like how drone assist was removed because it was making null fights boring as sin, I think the wardec mechanics have become stale and need to be looked at.

There's a difference between one sided and two sided content. One sided content, which ganks are, only entertain one side, with the other not being entertained. The whining about the "blue doughnut", that's a response to one sided content, and it's why sov mechanics need a good beating. To be honest, most of the older mechanics need a good looking at, and wardec mechanics are not an exception.

Lol, well you can take words to mean whatever you want, that doesn't change the context in which I used it. It's your issue if you can't understand, I really couldn't care less, since I'm not writing in this thread solely for a troll like you to respond to.

And of course there's bad content. It doesn't mean that there has to be an imbalance in how much fun there is overall in a mechanic, but if there's all the fun on one side of it, and no fun on the other, it's a bad mechanic. Like sov, for one side, it's pretty fun. For the other it's boring as sin. It's probably a lot more fun for the people that enjoy it than the boringness of the other, but one side has next to no fun. Thus the mechanics is bad and needs to be reviewed.

Wardecs are no different. A bunch of corps that engage in aggressing have loads of fun, they get to gank industrial ships and miners and noobs fitting with small guns and dual tanks on solo battleships, but for the targets, it's boring. It would be better to reward wardeccers for taking on a challenge which pits them against people that also enjoy the mechanic than what it's like no which practically rewards them most for picking the weakest possible targets.

Except for the part, Lucas, where Falcon came down and said that that kind of scaremongering bullshit doesn't fly.

"EVE needs new players right now!" is clearly not a genuine concern.

And as for shutting down extraneous offices previously dedicated to wasteful side projects. So what? DUST is dead, WoD is dead, they were both bad ideas plagued with bad ideas, bogged down with bad ideas.

It is not a bad thing to trim the fat, nor does it reflect on the health of the company in general.

What? The only "losses" they have posted were for research and development for things that are now justifiably scrapped.




Yeah, DUST is dead. Whether the fools on that forum realize it or not, their time is numbered.

Valkyrie's development is really a rather different beast from WoD, as well. They're not trying to force their own 3D engine through five different rounds of reworks. And Legion is being made with currently existing assets anyway, from all accounts.

There is no gigantic net loss to eat from trying to invent the wheel over again, like with WoD.

Osmosis, ftw :P

Well, I'd point out that Valkyrie is already more or less done, and if Facebook doesn't manage to kill the Occulus Rift then Valkyrie, as it's flagship launch, is likely to get a lot of attention.

And by all accounts it's actually pretty cool.

Nevermind that Valkyrie's engine is done, not in the production phase, not going through endless reworks, done. Something that WoD had never managed. Pity, too, because if they had actually managed to make a "EVE Online; Vampire Style", it would have been an interesting thing to play.

Even if the rift isn't killed by facebook, it's still questionable whether it's going to be succeesful anyway. Sure, it's interesting tech, but then so is Kinect, and yet that has found itself falling away from mainstream games. I for one won't be spending hundreds of pounds for the opportunity of replacing my right analog stick with my head.