These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#881 - 2012-10-16 17:38:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
As I never played WoW, I will assume that the learning curve of both games are the same.
…and that is relevant, how, exactly? Aside from showing that you're fond of making assumptions that don't quite pan out, I mean…

Quote:
Sorry, I don't have a source
So that's even more assumptions then, and pretty silly and uninformative ones at that. Goodie.


Harder learning curve = few players.

Its not an assumption, its a fact. WoW revenue is higher than EVEs. I even searched some material for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/02/world-of-warcraft-guild-wars-2-and-vivendi-activisions-achilles-heel/
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/55135.html

I think this new changes, with some tweeks, are good for the game and bringing (and keeping) new players / $.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#882 - 2012-10-16 17:48:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
3. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would want other people able to shoot the target they're trying to collect a bounty on.

3. Because he is in a fleet.

Let's pretend I'm Joe ******* who shot a guy to death in his mackinaw. Let's pretend Joe Space Popsicle put up his killright for public sale. Let's pretend I go to Jita. I undock, some lone guy activates the killright.

Are you going to tell me that everyone else who's now suddenly shooting me are "in a fleet" with "the bountyhunter"?


I don't know about that, but if you shot a guy to death in his mackinaw, you deserve this kind of treatment. Go find a true PvP target.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#883 - 2012-10-16 17:49:40 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
As I never played WoW, I will assume that the learning curve of both games are the same.


I take it you've never seen this, then.


Very nice :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#884 - 2012-10-16 17:53:14 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
Harder learning curve = few players.
So? The fact remains: like all games, you have to learn how EVE works rather than base your playing on assumptions. People operating on incorrect assumptions is not a reason to change the game — it's a reason for them to stop assuming things.

Quote:
Its not an assumption, its a fact. WoW revenue is higher than EVEs. I even searched some material for you.
This is called cherry-picking, and is pretty meaningless. So here's a counter-fact for you: compared to other games out there, EVE revenue is high. So high (and, more importantly, so consistently high), in fact, that it's soon celebrating its 10th year and having outpaced and outlasted numerous contenders.

Quote:
I think this new changes, with some tweeks, are good for the game and bringing (and keeping) new players / $.
New changes are occasionally good, depending on what they are. Completely changing the game to try to replace your customer base is not. It has been tried and it meant fewer players and no money. For instance, removing the sandbox from EVE would have the servers shut down in very short order. Reducing gameplay and supporting fewer play styles is not a good way to go for this kind of game.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#885 - 2012-10-16 17:53:41 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
3. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would want other people able to shoot the target they're trying to collect a bounty on.

3. Because he is in a fleet.

Let's pretend I'm Joe ******* who shot a guy to death in his mackinaw. Let's pretend Joe Space Popsicle put up his killright for public sale. Let's pretend I go to Jita. I undock, some lone guy activates the killright.

Are you going to tell me that everyone else who's now suddenly shooting me are "in a fleet" with "the bountyhunter"?


I don't know about that, but if you shot a guy to death in his mackinaw, you deserve this kind of treatment. Go find a true PvP target.


To you, Joe Space Popsicle was a target of opportunity that had little or no warning.

For 30 days afterwards (less if you die sooner) you become a target of opportunity, with little or no warning.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
mkint
#886 - 2012-10-16 17:53:49 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
mkint wrote:
Bodega Cat wrote:
mkint wrote:
Have you not been reading this thread? Is every post here a waste?

THE PERSON WHO HAD KILLRIGHTS AGAINST HIM HAS MORE INCENTIVE TO BUY THEM THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME.

The first rule of economics is 'people respond to incentives.' The incentives in place mean killrights are broken already.


90% of them are a waste, including yours. Thats why its nice 40 pages in to do a gut check, and get a good list going of the REAL issues (cause their are plenty).

If you price your killright accordingly, It makes zero sense for the ganker to buy off his own rights ever.

That's stupid. It does not change that the single person with the absolute MOST incentive to claim that killright is the guy it's against. The MOST a 3rd party can gain is a miniscule bounty, maybe 10 mil isk. The target stands to lose a couple hundred mil if he doesn't erase the killright. There is no price you can set the killright at to make 10 mil be worth more than hundreds of mil. Lrn 2 math.


Your wrong. You price your kill right with a respectable amount within the contexts of the loss that spurred it.

If kill rights are flat and cheap, then you are not pricing it accordingly. All you are going to do is promote hack job trigger fingers to try and do it and fail, and let the pirate clear it himself with an alt, or flat out let the pirate buy it off himself.

If the kill right is priced too high, thats fine, it means the pirate has to fly around for 30 days with a cap on how attractive he flys.
Or a rich Ace just might pay 60 mil or so to take a stab at your tech3 you are buzzing around in...

Consequences.

why would I, hypothetical renowned bounty hunter and killer of men, EVER pay for an expensive kilkright? I can just look for cheap ones against stupider people. Or I can look for cheaper hunting grounds, or even just wardec my target

Why would I, hypothetical holder of a killright ever sell it? if it's affordable to hunters, it's affordable to the target. If it's expensive it will never be used. It would function better as blackmail better than a tool to get a legitimate kill and revenge. If I intend to use my killright legitimately, I sure as hell wouldn't let someone else waste it, I'd use it myself.

Yes there will be stupid people who will try to use the system as intended. On rare occasions, those people will meet up. But mostly stupid people try to use the system as it is now. That doesn't mean the system has the intended results.

Really, ccp doesn't even acknowledge the problem with the futility of the new system, making me think there is no way they will budget resources to make it work.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#887 - 2012-10-16 17:55:29 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
I don't know about that, but if you shot a guy to death in his mackinaw, you deserve this kind of treatment. Go find a true PvP target.

That wasn't even remotely the point, but thanks for your valuable input.

Don't you worry, I'll be making sure there's a few ships going boom soon enough because of this thread. 11 hours and change until I'll start growing my new hisec career alt.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#888 - 2012-10-16 17:55:42 UTC
WoW is an exception to everything. Every MMO that has tried to be like WoW, or "like WoW, but better!" has failed, or at least settled for a modest success. Every MMO that has tried to do something different has failed, or at least settled for a modest success. WoW is just not a good example. It's the industry freak.

I don't terribly mind the front-loading of consequences in high sec, but I don't think that should extend to lowsec. Sure, ransoming a pod is technically a criminal act, but it's not as bad a criminal act as podding. The problem there is that your criminal status marker is a Boolean flag, so that distinction is lost. If you only flag people Criminal for pod-killing then you encourage actual piracy, as opposed to just random killing. The hostage has an incentive to accept a bounty because the pirate has an incentive to honor it--but not an obligation to. Either way, the bounty system introduces a way to get payback, if the ransomed capsuleer is so inclined.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#889 - 2012-10-16 17:58:15 UTC
Quote:
For instance, removing the sandbox from EVE would have the servers shut down in very short order. Reducing gameplay and supporting fewer play styles is not a good way to go for this kind of game.


Please, if you are the assumption police, don't post assumptions.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#890 - 2012-10-16 17:59:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
3. Please explain why a "bounty hunter" would want other people able to shoot the target they're trying to collect a bounty on.

3. Because he is in a fleet.

Let's pretend I'm Joe ******* who shot a guy to death in his mackinaw. Let's pretend Joe Space Popsicle put up his killright for public sale. Let's pretend I go to Jita. I undock, some lone guy activates the killright.

Are you going to tell me that everyone else who's now suddenly shooting me are "in a fleet" with "the bountyhunter"?

"Some lone guy" who activates a killright outside Jita is not a bounty hunter, or at least not a very good one. A bounty hunter is someone who waits for you at a much less crowded locale where its just you and him with his fleet (if any) before activating the killright.

And he will not be waiting for just you, but anyone who happens to fly by with buyable killrights.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Reticle
Sight Picture
#891 - 2012-10-16 17:59:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Reticle wrote:
Anyone who tells you that they never AFK travel is a liar.
I never AFK travel. There's no reason to do it so why on earth would you?

you're a liar.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#892 - 2012-10-16 18:00:09 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

I don't terribly mind the front-loading of consequences in high sec, but I don't think that should extend to lowsec.


I agree with you on this point.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#893 - 2012-10-16 18:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Villani Capelli wrote:
Please, if you are the assumption police, don't post assumptions.
Top tip: “assumption” is something that is accepted as true without anything to suggest or prove that it might.

A game with a sandbox as its main selling point losing its customers if it cuts down on the sandbox:iness is not an assumption — it's just the market. Reductions in gameplay and available play styles are exactly that: cutting down on the sandbox:yness of the game. You are basically suggesting that, in order to make chocolate candy more popular, it's a good idea to remove the chocolate.

Reticle wrote:
you're a liar.
Nope. Again, there's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would I?
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#894 - 2012-10-16 18:13:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
Please, if you are the assumption police, don't post assumptions.
Top tip: “assumption” is something that is accepted as true without anything to suggest or prove that it might.

A game with its sandbox as its main selling point losing its customers if it cuts down on the sandbox is not an assumption — it's just the market. Reductions in gameplay and available play styles are exactly that: cutting down on the sandbox:yness of the game.


I did some market research and found that for each scammer, highsec suicide bomber and "baiter", EVE loses 3 other carebears. It's not an assumption, it's just the market.

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 have friends that I introduced to EVE who left the game because of this "dark" aspect.

I want to keep the sandbox, players still need to get freedom of action. Just not freedom from consequences (at highsec). And I hope this new changes help to improve highsec playing.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#895 - 2012-10-16 18:14:49 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Reticle wrote:
J Kunjeh wrote:
What the...? Yeah, you should NEVER be AFK travelling...period. So any mechanic that makes it easy to do so should be canned immediately.

Anyone who tells you that they never AFK travel is a liar.

Here are my criteria for AFK travel:

1. Am I at war?
2. Is my security status less than -2?
3. Am I flying anything larger than a shuttle?
4. Am I carrying anything?
5. Does anyone have kill rights on me?

If the answer to any of the above five questions is "yes," then I don't AFK travel.

In the entire time I've played EVE, I've never considered #3, unless said ship was rare (e.g. Adrestia), fit with tasty/gank inducing mods, or was a target of some larger operation (e.g. Hulks for Hulkageddon). I have never, ever, ever been ganked. The rest of your list makes perfect sense, and I too follow those rules.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#896 - 2012-10-16 18:15:42 UTC
Villani Capelli wrote:
I did some market research and found that for each scammer, highsec suicide bomber and "baiter", EVE loses 3 other carebears. It's not an assumption, it's just the market.

Do us all a favor and link this "market research."
Reticle
Sight Picture
#897 - 2012-10-16 18:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Reticle
Tippia wrote:
Nope. Again, there's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would I?

I can't read your mind, so I don't know why you would or wouldn't. I just know that you're lying.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#898 - 2012-10-16 18:18:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
All the discussion on actions having consequences, and players being able to get retribution on each other leaves out one player: The -10 gank alt.

This is a pilot who suicide ganks in high sec over and over, using cheap throwaway ships. The penalty given to this pilot is rather small: Loss of a cheap ship. There is not security status loss once you are -10. Killrights are irrelevant as his ship will die to CONCORD seconds after he logs in. (The method is wait for friends to tell you to log in, e-warp takes you to the gate being watched for gank targets where you shoot the target and die.) Ditto with bounties. OK, a gank alt can be caught by a player. But what does he care? He knows his ship is lost in any case. Killrights and bounties placed on him are inconsequential.

What would be a consequence? I propose:

1) If you kill a ship while flagged criminal, you pay the insurance payout on that ship.

2) If your wallet is negative, you may not board any ship other than a shuttle.

Will that stop -10 alt suicide ganks? No, it will not. But it will provide consequences for doing them.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#899 - 2012-10-16 18:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Villani Capelli wrote:
I did some market research and found that for each scammer, highsec suicide bomber and "baiter", EVE loses 3 other carebears. It's not an assumption, it's just the market.
No, it's neither. It's made up nonsense.

Quote:
I have friends that I introduced to EVE who left the game because of this "dark" aspect.
So? They didn't like the game. So what? How many people have tried CS and left it because they didn't like the “being shot in the face” aspect? How many people have tried farmville and left it because they didn't like the “farm” aspect? People not liking a game is normal. It's not a reason to remove or even reduce the main draw of the game.

Quote:
I want to keep the sandbox, players still need to get freedom of action. Just not freedom from consequences (at highsec).
Even more good news: there is no such freedom beyond what the players (specifically the victims) themselves create. By the way, if you want to keep the sandbox, why do you want to remove gameplay and take away play styles?

Reticle wrote:
I can't read your mind, so I don't why you would or wouldn't. I just know that you're lying.
No, you're just clueless. Also, you don't need to read my mind to answer the question — you just have to come up with a reason and you can't, so you have to resort to personal abuse to hide your massive cognitive disabilities and your utter and complete lack of anything that could be remotely considered as even being close to something that might, with a bit of luck, be construed as a shred of an argument.

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.
Villani Capelli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#900 - 2012-10-16 18:34:40 UTC
Reticle wrote:
Villani Capelli wrote:
I did some market research and found that for each scammer, highsec suicide bomber and "baiter", EVE loses 3 other carebears. It's not an assumption, it's just the market.

Do us all a favor and link this "market research."


Do us all a favor, read the previous posts and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm