These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Can't believe how many CSM/CCP employees want a theme park

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-01-17 13:03:23 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
You know what, if they want to burn their game to the ground, so be it. I'm passed caring.


Are you simply paying CCP for the priviledge of complaining on their forums about the game they run, then?

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Whitehound
#22 - 2013-01-17 13:08:51 UTC
So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...

If it means more revenue for CCP then let's do it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-01-17 13:10:24 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Additionally, while a corp docking up is generally lame, at times that can be a desired result of a war dec - whether it's because you want to try and interfere with logistics by making them too scared to do logistic runs,

(almost)every smart logistics pilot uses NPC corp to evade all wardecs

TheGunslinger42 wrote:

or because you want to interrupt their ability to PVE and earn isk, or simply because you want to punish them for something by making it difficult for them to do what they want to do.

yea. you make people pissed and they make CCP pissed by logging off (bad server stats), unsubbing (direct voting by money), voicing they feelings (general opinion about EVe Online game), etc....

CCP wants more subscribers and more money. So they need to regulate game mechanic to ensure maximum balance between hardcore players and casual ones.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-01-17 13:11:48 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...

If it means more revenue for CCP then let's do it.


I think you missing the Point... With a completely Safe highsec.

Why go anywhere else where you can be killed and loose your things? Think about the markets man...

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Whitehound
#25 - 2013-01-17 13:13:39 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...

If it means more revenue for CCP then let's do it.


I think you missing the Point... With a completely Safe highsec.

Why go anywhere else where you can be killed and loose your things? Think about the markets man...

You want me to care about what now?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#26 - 2013-01-17 13:17:33 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...


What, exactly, would you do in a PvP-free highsec? You wouldn't be able to mission, mine, trade, build, invent, etc. Stop being mad that your ship and pod were recently confiscated and think about what you're actually advocating.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-01-17 13:22:35 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Claiming that wardecs are unfair, grief-play, claiming that there's no "risk" to the aggressor (how can they bemoan the lack of risk, then suggest removing all risk from highsec as a solution?), that they should only be mutual, etc...

when has eve ever been that kind of game?


Maybe if you want to do some PvP you should leave high sec, we're in Deklein.

Come find us.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#28 - 2013-01-17 13:24:11 UTC
Mister S Burke wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec.


Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests. It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.


Sorry, no, I won't call it griefing because it isn't griefing. Is it griefing to snipe a guy in call of duty because he wanted to only use pistols? You only want to mine or mission, but maybe the other guy wants to use all the mechanics, including ones that end up with you getting shot
Whitehound
#29 - 2013-01-17 13:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
admiral root wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...


What, exactly, would you do in a PvP-free highsec? You wouldn't be able to mission, mine, trade, build, invent, etc. Stop being mad that your ship and pod were recently confiscated and think about what you're actually advocating.

Cry me a river.

I'd probably watch the tears of ex-high-sec PvPers and get me some bling-bling and fly around to make you jelly. *lol*

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mister S Burke
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-01-17 13:26:22 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
[quote=Mister S Burke]

And ten years of griefing later, EVE is still growing.

There's something wrong with your argument here. People are attracted to EVE because it is one of the very few games left that has not eschewed all meaningful player interaction in the name of stamping out griefing.


Thanks for calling it griefing at least. Now I think you are confusing death penalty with griefing. I say again that you won't hear people say "man remember when EVE online had to be shut down when they removed some ganker alts ability to suicide gank someone." I would add that if suicide ganking in hisec is such a big part of your EVE play then you are doing it wrong.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#31 - 2013-01-17 13:27:37 UTC
Mister S Burke wrote:
Thanks for calling it griefing at least. Now I think you are confusing death penalty with griefing. I say again that you won't hear people say "man remember when EVE online had to be shut down when they removed some ganker alts ability to suicide gank someone." I would add that if suicide ganking in hisec is such a big part of your EVE play then you are doing it wrong.

You're suggesting that I'm playing a sandbox wrong?
Merouk Baas
#32 - 2013-01-17 13:28:51 UTC
Two opinions:

1. If one side would rather not have anything to do with a war, instead of forcing them to dock for a week, set up a surrender mechanism where they can pay a sum and get the guarantee that they won't be declared again for a week, with the war ending immediately upon payment. People can evade wars right now, it's just a hassle, but the fact that it's a hassle won't make them fight in the war. So it's a pointless hassle. I'd be pro letting the extortionist get his stuff right away and move on.

2. Have incentives for undocking even if you're clearly going to lose. Not monetary, obviously, but medals for valiant effort, something that can also be used as a coin in the NeX shop, or rent-free office space for the corporation, or NPC standings, accellerated skill training for the combat participants, something.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#33 - 2013-01-17 13:28:54 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Mister S Burke wrote:
Thanks for calling it griefing at least. Now I think you are confusing death penalty with griefing. I say again that you won't hear people say "man remember when EVE online had to be shut down when they removed some ganker alts ability to suicide gank someone." I would add that if suicide ganking in hisec is such a big part of your EVE play then you are doing it wrong.

You're suggesting that I'm playing a sandbox wrong?


Yup. You're not playing it his way.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#34 - 2013-01-17 13:31:24 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Two opinions:

1. If one side would rather not have anything to do with a war, instead of forcing them to dock for a week, set up a surrender mechanism where they can pay a sum and get the guarantee that they won't be declared again for a week, with the war ending immediately upon payment. People can evade wars right now, it's just a hassle, but the fact that it's a hassle won't make them fight in the war. So it's a pointless hassle. I'd be pro letting the extortionist get his stuff right away and move on.

2. Have incentives for undocking even if you're clearly going to lose. Not monetary, obviously, but medals for valiant effort, something that can also be used as a coin in the NeX shop, or rent-free office space for the corporation, or NPC standings, accellerated skill training for the combat participants, something.


See, that's all I'd ask of ccp and the csm - trying to come up with ideas like this rather than entertaining the idea of removing non-consensual interactions entirely
Mister S Burke
Doomheim
#35 - 2013-01-17 13:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister S Burke
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Sorry, no, I won't call it griefing because it isn't griefing. Is it griefing to snipe a guy in call of duty because he wanted to only use pistols? You only want to mine or mission, but maybe the other guy wants to use all the mechanics, including ones that end up with you getting shot


You don't even understand what griefing is I think. Here is a definition. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals. If you want to go suicide gank an AFKer or a miner you just want to be a douche, you're hardly going to rake in the isk, you want to **** someone off in hisec.
I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null. I'm ALL about some player interection my man, now leave the safetly of hisec you stud and come play with the big kids. You are just as safe in hisec as the carebears as you use the safety of concord to keep you safe until no one can do anything when you strike.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#36 - 2013-01-17 13:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
Mister S Burke wrote:
I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null.

Diddums? Tears are what make the economy run. And if someone is more interested in that than ~honourable showdowns~, then more power to them. EVE is where you're supposed to do whatever you're interested in.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#37 - 2013-01-17 13:38:52 UTC
Mister S Burke wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Sorry, no, I won't call it griefing because it isn't griefing. Is it griefing to snipe a guy in call of duty because he wanted to only use pistols? You only want to mine or mission, but maybe the other guy wants to use all the mechanics, including ones that end up with you getting shot


You don't even understand what griefing is I think. Here is a definition. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals. If you want to go suicide gank and AFKer or a miner you just want to be a douche, you're hardly going to rake in the isk, you want to **** someone off.
I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null.


That's a load of crap. You're basically saying all pvp in highsec is a result of someone wanting to childishly irk someone else. That's a silly statement and you know it. Even if it wasn't though, you haven't provided any reason why doing that shouldn't be mechanically possible, other than saying you don't want it to be.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#38 - 2013-01-17 13:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Mister S Burke wrote:
You don't even understand what griefing is I think. Here is a definition.


Your definition doesn't matter within Eve, only CCP's does. What he was talking about is not griefing.

Mister S Burke wrote:
I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null. I'm ALL about some player interection my man, now leave the safetly of hisec you stud and come play with the big kids. You are just as safe in hisec as the carebears as you use the safety of concord to keep you safe until no one can do anything when you strike.


Anything where a player competes with another player fits that description, whether it's you shooting armed ships in lowsec, or a glorious Knight of the New Order racing to destroy a mining ship before that pilot can escape to safety. As for playing with the big kids, plenty of highsec suicide gankers are nullsec residents.

BTW, I realise you're just trying to live up to your name, but Concord don't protect suicide gankers; they shoot them.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#39 - 2013-01-17 13:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
When CONCORD gets a few days off, either by deliberate plan or some "Tuxfordian Effect"... can't wait for the Youtube parodies. BlinkBlinkBlink

And you guys thought that "Big Red Button" we got in the Xmas goodies was just a useless prop.... TwistedTwistedTwisted

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Mister S Burke
Doomheim
#40 - 2013-01-17 13:49:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister S Burke
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


That's a load of crap. You're basically saying all pvp in highsec is a result of someone wanting to childishly irk someone else. That's a silly statement and you know it. Even if it wasn't though, you haven't provided any reason why doing that shouldn't be mechanically possible, other than saying you don't want it to be.


I think things are out of whack. PVE people want to PVE and not be ganked, you want to go gank them. I want to PVP people like you but you want to hide in hisec hypocritically under the same Concord protection that the PVE people enjoy that you bemoan. I know what you are doing in a hisec belt in your Thrasher but I can't jack you because you are just as safe as the carebears until you decide at your safe leisure to LOLOVERHEATPEWPEWW.
PVP is like spinach, if you are forced to have it when you are young you don't want it when you grow up. Let the PVE people skill up, mine, make isk in peace in hisec and then let them get rich and bored and come to low null and play. You griefers cause your own problem, you turn noobs off to PVP from the start and they just never want to get into PVP.