These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#841 - 2012-10-16 14:54:09 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Kagumichan wrote:
Just a quick question...

Will this system also operate with Dust players? If my Khanid sniper is in a match with someone who's EVE corp or alliance has a bounty on it, then do I get a small ISK payout every time I blow their head off?

New bounty system sounds awesome btw <3 Makes people more conscious of who they're shooting at.


At this moment in time, no. You also won't be able to place Bounty on DUST characters. I can't speak for the future however.

Can we get a response to the blatant loopholes in the killrights system? Or is that something that needs to be discussed more in-house?


List them in bullet format please?
CCP Tallest
C C P
C C P Alliance
#842 - 2012-10-16 15:06:47 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:

Can we get a response to the blatant loopholes in the killrights system? Or is that something that needs to be discussed more in-house?

List them in bullet format please?

That would be wonderful!
Karl Hobb, please list the loopholes that you find blatant in the killrights system. I will answer you the best I can.

[b]★ EVE Game Designer ★ ♥ Team Super Friends ♥[/b]
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#843 - 2012-10-16 15:15:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Your attitude is literally poison for this game.


Highsec ganking, suicide bombers, bait, scams, you name it.

I sense a little bit of worry by you, if this game ever eliminate theirs scams, baits and creates a more safe environment for non-pvp players.

I wanna see this game jumps for 50k active players to 200k active players. But for that to happen, CCP needs to support more play styles and get out of the underground stigma. The way it is today, the new player gets the felling that CPP fully support all of this.

Your attitude is literally poison for this game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#844 - 2012-10-16 15:24:04 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
I wanna see this game jumps for 50k active players to 200k active players.
Good news: it already has that many. It already supports all play styles, and CCP does indeed fully support all of them — ganking and scamming included. It is also a PvP game, so if non-pvp players are looking for a safe environment, they should probably look at the X series instead.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#845 - 2012-10-16 15:29:44 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Smartbombs are an exception for ganking barges, so I wasn't entirely accurate in my reply. I was really thinking of smartbombs in relation to gates and stations, where you can find profitable haulers.


You can say whatever you want, but we all know that highsec players keep losing ISK without almost any consequences for the attackers. You can name it different ways, but it happens a lot.

There are loads of players that (rage) quit after losing high vale stuff in high-sec after some months playing. This is bad for the entire game. And this game could and can support several kinds of players with some changes.

I lost several ships on null, lowsec PvP, but every one was a calculated risk. And I'll keep going for more PvP. Fine for me. I just don't agree that this game should continuing supporting can flipping, loot stealing, bombing of carebears with (almost) no consequences.
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#846 - 2012-10-16 15:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
Villani Capelli wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Smartbombs are an exception for ganking barges, so I wasn't entirely accurate in my reply. I was really thinking of smartbombs in relation to gates and stations, where you can find profitable haulers.


You can say whatever you want, but we all know that highsec players keep losing ISK without almost any consequences for the attackers. You can name it different ways, but it happens a lot.

There are loads of players that (rage) quit after losing high vale stuff in high-sec after some months playing. This is bad for the entire game. And this game could and can support several kinds of players with some changes.

I lost several ships on null, lowsec PvP, but every one was a calculated risk. And I'll keep going for more PvP. Fine for me. I just don't agree that this game should continuing supporting can flipping, loot stealing, bombing of carebears with (almost) no consequences.


Those high sec carebear players also sell their wares to people that in turn gank/exploit them with the very resources they profit and make their fun from.

Its 2012, and this just still won't ever die will it?

Everything in EVE is versus. Other Players in some capacity.

The beariest carebear bear bearing around in high sec, is in actuality, the shadiest, shady, shady arms dealer.

No body that logs on is an innocent and everybody catches a beat from time to time. It will never change, and it shouldn't. This game would be entirely different if it did.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#847 - 2012-10-16 15:36:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
I wanna see this game jumps for 50k active players to 200k active players.
Good news: it already has that many. It already supports all play styles, and CCP does indeed fully support all of them — ganking and scamming included. It is also a PvP game, so if non-pvp players are looking for a safe environment, they should probably look at the X series instead.


So EVE is at his maximum player amount? No room for more?

To bring and keep more players, we need to get out this nasty scamming stuff from the carebears. Compared to other games out there, EVE revenue is low. Lets bring more carebears and let then became PvP players when they want, if they want.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#848 - 2012-10-16 15:37:35 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb, please list the loopholes that you find blatant in the killrights system. I will answer you the best I can.

I thought you people actually read these threads...

I suppose there's only one real "loophole":
1. Please explain why, if I have gained a kill right, I can activate that kill right with an alt and shoot myself to clear it.

This whole issue would have not been if kill rights were handled through the contract system from the start rather than through some later iteration (FW, I'm looking at you).

The rest is merely "WTF was your thinking?":
2. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would pay to activate a kill right in order to collect a bounty.
3. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would want other people able to shoot the target they're trying to collect a bounty on.
3a. Why the Suspect flag rather than starting a "legal" LE, or some other mechanic?

The thinking behind the questions above being that a bounty hunter gets paid to kill someone (collecting a bounty) and, short of ganking them, is likely doing it through kill right mechanics which, if the cost is low enough, anyone can activate at any time and anyone can shoot the target at any time, potentially collecting the bounty.

It seems pretty damn silly.

4. Please explain why penalties are front-loaded in the new system.

This paradigm causes real problems for (anyone who still does) low-sec ransoming because merely putting a point on someone's pod gains a kill right. At that point, why not just pod someone anyway? That question probably goes in the CW 2.0, but it is pretty heavily tied in with how kill rights are generated.

That's all of my talking points for now (I actually have work to get to), others may be able to elaborate on their own.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#849 - 2012-10-16 15:42:55 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:

No body that logs on is an innocent and everybody catches a beat from time to time. It will never change, and it shouldn't. This game would be entirely different if it did.


You should write novels.

There are innocent beginner players. But they don't last very long, some of them quits after his fist highsec big ISK lose.

Why big games out there have non PvP areas? Because is good for the $. No one can argue with that. You really think that the same amount of players would stay in WoW, GW, Lotro (name it) if they lose half of their gear on a suicide kill in a "safe" zone?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#850 - 2012-10-16 15:43:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Villani Capelli wrote:
You can say whatever you want, but we all know that highsec players keep losing ISK without almost any consequences for the attackers.
If there are no consequences, it's because the victims choose to make it so. They have the power to enforce or void the consequences built into the system, and if they choose the latter, it's hardly the system's fault.

Quote:
I just don't agree that this game should continuing supporting can flipping, loot stealing, bombing of carebears with (almost) no consequences.
Of course it should. That's the whole point of the sandbox idea: that you choose the shape of the world. Not supporting it would be horribly restrictive for everyone involved. Why do you want to reduce the gameplay and make the game to support fewer play styles?

Quote:
To bring and keep more players, we need to get out this nasty scamming stuff from the carebears.
No, we really don't. What we need is for the carebears in question to stop assuming things that are not true and learn how the game works so they can start making intelligent and informed decisions. This game doesn't need to get rid of “nasty scamming stuff” any more than Counter Strike needs to get rid of “nasty face-shooting stuff”: just because there are fresh produce around on CS_Italy and just because farmville has a massive audience doesn't mean that CS needs to protect people from being shot in the face while they sort melons.

Quote:
Lets bring more carebears and let then became PvP players when they want, if they want.
This is already how the game works.

Quote:
Compared to other games out there, EVE revenue is low.
Source?
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#851 - 2012-10-16 15:47:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
I wanna see this game jumps for 50k active players to 200k active players.
Good news: it already has that many. It already supports all play styles, and CCP does indeed fully support all of them — ganking and scamming included. It is also a PvP game, so if non-pvp players are looking for a safe environment, they should probably look at the X series instead.

But you just said that EVE supports all play styles...which it does...uncluding non-PVP activities.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#852 - 2012-10-16 15:50:49 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
But you just said that EVE supports all play styles...which it does...uncluding non-PVP activities.
Yes? And?
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#853 - 2012-10-16 15:53:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If there are no consequences, it's because the victims choose to make it so. They have the power to enforce or void the consequences built into the system, and if they choose the latter, it's hardly the system's fault.


Sorry man, no new player is gonna read 100 wiki pages to avoid scams. A game is just a game for some people. If the game is harsh, they just quit. CCP still cares about new player experience, keeps updating and improving tutorials. And I like the new changes, not all, but most.

Quote:
Quote:
To bring and keep more players, we need to get out this nasty scamming stuff from the carebears.
No, we really don't. What we need is for the carebears in question to stop assuming things that are not true and learn how the game works so they can start making intelligent and informed decisions. This game doesn't need to get rid of “nasty scamming stuff” any more than Counter Strike needs to get rid of “nasty face-shooting stuff”: just because there are fresh produce around on CS_Italy and just because farmville has a massive audience doesn't mean that CS needs to protect people from being shot in the face while they sort melons.


That escalated quickly.

Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#854 - 2012-10-16 15:54:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
Villani Capelli wrote:
Bodega Cat wrote:

No body that logs on is an innocent and everybody catches a beat from time to time. It will never change, and it shouldn't. This game would be entirely different if it did.


You should write novels.

There are innocent beginner players. But they don't last very long, some of them quits after his fist highsec big ISK lose.

Why big games out there have non PvP areas? Because is good for the $. No one can argue with that. You really think that the same amount of players would stay in WoW, GW, Lotro (name it) if they lose half of their gear on a suicide kill in a "safe" zone?



What you don't seem to appreciate and where we diverge is, I believe a game cannot be both. It cannot be a systematically cyclical, open world, economically sustainable player interaction-centric (thus pvp) game, and also have nice little neat corners were people can feel warm and safe and not participate with the other in forever. You are asking lions to lay down with sheep.

The people that quit after their first big loss, cannot be successful EVE players, they know it, and we know it. Its not that big of a deal, they'll find other games that suit them.
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#855 - 2012-10-16 15:55:21 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb, please list the loopholes that you find blatant in the killrights system. I will answer you the best I can.

I thought you people actually read these threads...


To be fair, there's 43 pages in this thread already. Remembering all the issues from all the posts is not easy, so I think it's quite reasonable to ask for a simple list.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#856 - 2012-10-16 15:56:05 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
Compared to other games out there, EVE revenue is low.
Source?


Really? You really thing EVE revenue is higher than WoW and alikes?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#857 - 2012-10-16 15:59:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Villani Capelli wrote:
Sorry man, no new player is gonna read 100 wiki pages to avoid scams.
As luck would have it, they don't have to. They just have to know that scams exist and that they should check what they're buying before buying it.

Quote:
That escalated quickly.
…if by escalated you mean remained the same as ever, yes: EVE, like all games, is something you need to learn how it works. If you choose not to and then gets confused about it not working like you assumed for no reason whatsoever that it would work, then the problem lies with your assumption, not with the game. Your operating on incorrect guesswork is not a reason to change the game to make your guesses correct — it's a reason for you to stop guessing.

Quote:
Really? You really thing EVE revenue is higher than WoW and alikes?
No. I'm asking you for a source.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#858 - 2012-10-16 16:01:29 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:

What you don't seem to appreciate and where we diverge is, I believe a game cannot be both. It cannot be a systematically cyclical, open world, economically sustainable player interaction-centric (thus pvp) game, and also have nice little neat corners were people can feel warm and safe and not participate with the other in forever. You are asking lions to lay down with sheep.

The people that quit after their first big loss, cannot be successful EVE players, they know it, and we know it. Its not that big of a deal, they'll find other games that suit them.


Now I can agree with you. I don't want a 100% safe zone, I just want harder consequences for blowing away ISK in highsec. Or else we narrow this game down to a small slice of players that fully embrace its risks, like me.

For instance, I don't think that lowsec actions should grant a killright the way they are proposing.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#859 - 2012-10-16 16:04:38 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb, please list the loopholes that you find blatant in the killrights system. I will answer you the best I can.

I thought you people actually read these threads...

I suppose there's only one real "loophole":
1. Please explain why, if I have gained a kill right, I can activate that kill right with an alt and shoot myself to clear it.

This whole issue would have not been if kill rights were handled through the contract system from the start rather than through some later iteration (FW, I'm looking at you).

The rest is merely "WTF was your thinking?":
2. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would pay to activate a kill right in order to collect a bounty.
3. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would want other people able to shoot the target they're trying to collect a bounty on.
3a. Why the Suspect flag rather than starting a "legal" LE, or some other mechanic?

The thinking behind the questions above being that a bounty hunter gets paid to kill someone (collecting a bounty) and, short of ganking them, is likely doing it through kill right mechanics which, if the cost is low enough, anyone can activate at any time and anyone can shoot the target at any time, potentially collecting the bounty.

It seems pretty damn silly.

4. Please explain why penalties are front-loaded in the new system.

This paradigm causes real problems for (anyone who still does) low-sec ransoming because merely putting a point on someone's pod gains a kill right. At that point, why not just pod someone anyway? That question probably goes in the CW 2.0, but it is pretty heavily tied in with how kill rights are generated.

That's all of my talking points for now (I actually have work to get to), others may be able to elaborate on their own.

1. I see the concern there. If this is in fact true then perhaps it is a loophole that should be fixed.
2. Because a kill right on a certain person may be more valuable to one person than another. For example. If I specifically **** you off on the forums bad enough that you want to be able to kill me but I sit in High Sec too much and you don't want to get CONCORDED. Then you can pay that guy that I killed yesterday who has a kill right on me so that you can kill me instead. I think this makes perfect sense. Maybe it won't always be used...maybe it will...that will be left up to the players. I am sure there will be those that just make them free.
3. Bounties can't be limited to just one bounty hunter. The whole point is the competition of getting that kill. I am not sure what the issue is with this one really...
4. You are correct in that this is going to effect the way people ransom other players. I am still conflicted on the "point" issue. On the one hand you didn't shoot him but on the other hand you may have been directly responsible for his death by not letting him escape even though you didn't fire a shot...yeah...not sure there.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#860 - 2012-10-16 16:07:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
That escalated quickly.
…if by escalated you mean remained the same as ever, yes: EVE, like all games, is something you need to learn how it works. If you choose not to and then gets confused about it not working like you assumed for no reason whatsoever that it would work, then the problem lies with your assumption, not with the game. Your operating on incorrect guesswork is not a reason to change the game to make your guesses correct — it's a reason for you to stop guessing.


As I never played WoW, I will assume that the learning curve of both games are the same.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Really? You really thing EVE revenue is higher than WoW and alikes?
No. I'm asking you for a source.


Sorry, I don't have a source, but everyone knows, including you and CCP directors/managers that WoW revenue is bigger than EVEs. Send an e-mail to both companies asking the exact number.