These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bears must destroy ISK

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#121 - 2013-01-20 17:44:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
If a ship gets blown up in Eve is it fair to say that it has been destroyed in game?
Yes, but no ISK has been destroyed in the process — only created.

Quote:
Perhaps you have worked hard to understand sinks and faucets and its difficult to shift back to non-metagame references.
It has nothing to do with meta-game but with fundamental game mechanics and game design. If you want to talk about assets, talk about assets. If you want to talk about ISK, talk about ISK. Don't confuse the two because it only makes your claims incorrect and weakens any argument based on those false claims because they make you seem deeply uninformed.

…oh, and everyone has the same means and opportunities to mess with their opponents.

deeply uninformed? Big smile I like that. Sort of like being superficially intelligent.

Anyway I changed ISK to assets on p1. Can you read over it and tell me if that is more clear to you?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#122 - 2013-01-20 17:48:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:


…oh, and everyone has the same means and opportunities to mess with their opponents.


That's no reason not to make more. In fact I bet CCP will continue to create more ways for people in Eve to attack one another for a long time to come.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#123 - 2013-01-20 17:51:13 UTC
Nick Asir wrote:
He is talking about the isk the hostile corporation has, not the overall level of isk in the game. They spent isk on that ship, the ship was destroyed, ergo the corporations isk worth has gone down.
Yes, I know. And it doesn't change the fact that no ISK is being destroyed — only created. The ISK spent on that ship left the corp ages ago.

Corey Fumimasa wrote:
That's no reason not to make more.
No, but it means your basic premise is wrong: this has nothing to do with carebears, and they will be the self-imposed victims of whatever new schemes are being implemented. It kind of comes with the territory of being a carebear.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#124 - 2013-01-20 18:22:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:


…oh, and everyone has the same means and opportunities to mess with their opponents.

I think this is the fundimental problem with high sec.

We can mess with, but it doesn't really have much impact.

Hulkagedon makes it pretty obvious that when you can interupt what's being mined to a large enough extent it can impact the market. I don't know the plans for the future, but I"m assuming that it might be possible to have a Mackigedon.

If we do ice interdiction on a large enough scale, and for long enough, we can have an actual impact on the market.

There's no sustainable means of impact though.


Would you bounty a high sec industrial corp?
I wouldn't.

They don't control high sec industry, and they disband or drop corp when they get wardeced.

Giving them more sov like control that would determine where production happened and what gets mined would be a much more dynamic EVE, and a more dynamic EVE is a better EVE.




I'm currently watching my production work in null get slowly destroyed.
Every day, for the last coupe of weeks, all profit I was making building and selling is starting to shrink to the point of pointlessness.

Material costs keep going up.
It won't be long before it's just not cost effective to build anything I currently build.

I'll be selling T2 BPC's in high sec soon.

Without functional high sec wardecs and player run corporate control of T2 production and mining, I have no means of contributing to stoping high sec from taking away all my production work. Which they're currently doing.


It's simply unfair that an entire area of the game is able to have such an impact on me. I have no means of righting the ship, I'm required to stand back and watch it sink.
Whitehound
#125 - 2013-01-20 18:24:28 UTC
A few days ago did I go into the supermarket as usual. I bought a pack of what I thought was apple juice. At home did I open it and drank some, and almost spat it out. Later did I empty the package into my kitchen sink.

What had happened?

Someone had the idea to combine apple juice with mint. The package did not say "mint flavoured" and only had a couple of apples and green leafs on it, which I mistook for leafs of an apple tree. I am sure that the food designer, who invented this mix, had good intentions and thought of it as a new taste. That's probably his job, to create something new, and to test if it sells. To me did it taste like sour toothpaste.

My point here is that combining RTS elements, like one can find in StarCraft and Command&Conquer, with EVE Online can end up being terribly bad. It may seem like something new, but it will only be a new combination of the old, and this creates a problem - it is not original.

EVE Online is an original game. You don't find anything much like it and combining it with existing types of PvP games is going to water it down and will taint its originality.

You may argue that DUST514 is doing just this, but it is not. DUST514 players cannot shoot at our spaceships directly, nor can we kill each single DUST514 player from space. It is a combination not only of two different game types, but also of different platforms and player groups, and the interactions between both games are extremely limited (making it a really cool combination). The future of both games will depend much upon the preservation of the games' originality.

It is imaginable to create a third title, a RTS PVP game, and to connect it with EVE Online and DUST514, but I doubt this is what OP has got in mind. It would need to be as limited in its interactions with EVE Online as DUST514 is.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2013-01-20 18:28:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
A few days ago did I go into the supermarket as usual. I bought a pack of what I thought was apple juice. At home did I open it and drank some, and almost spat it out. Later did I empty the package into my kitchen sink.

What had happened?

Someone had the idea to combine apple juice with mint. The package did not say "mint flavoured" and only had a couple of apples and green leafs on it, which I mistook for leafs of an apple tree. I am sure that the food designer, who invented this mix, had good intentions and thought of it as a new taste. That's probably his job, to create something new, and to test if it sells. To me did it taste like sour toothpaste.

My point here is that combining RTS elements, like one can find in StarCraft and Command&Conquer, with EVE Online can end up being terribly bad. It may seem like something new, but it will only be a new combination of the old, and this creates a problem - it is not original.

EVE Online is an original game. You don't find anything much like it and combining it with existing types of PvP games is going to water it down and will taint its originality.

You may argue that DUST514 is doing just this, but it is not. DUST514 players cannot shoot at our spaceships directly, nor can we kill each single DUST514 player from space. It is a combination not only of two different game types, but also of different platforms and player groups, and the interactions between both games are extremely limited (making it a really cool combination). The future of both games will depend much upon the preservation of the games' originality.

It is imaginable to create a third title, a RTS PVP game, and to connect it with EVE Online and DUST514, but I doubt this is what OP has got in mind. It would need to be as limited in its interactions with EVE Online as DUST514 is.

WTF are you talking about?

EVE has a shitton of "RTS" elements in it.
What game are you playing.


So you don't want to be able to have meaningful control within a system in high sec?

Every other area of EVE allows this, and it works, wonderfully. Yet, you'll come to the forums and tell us that what's already working in EVE won't work because it's high sec.

That's just absurd.
Whitehound
#127 - 2013-01-20 18:36:18 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
WTF are you talking about?

EVE has a shitton of "RTS" elements in it. ...

If you are saying you're a zerg of the GoonSwarm then you're right. I'll give you that.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#128 - 2013-01-20 18:41:42 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

....

So you don't want to be able to have meaningful control within a system in high sec?

Every other area of EVE allows this, and it works, wonderfully. Yet, you'll come to the forums and tell us that what's already working in EVE won't work because it's high sec.

That's just absurd.


I think the Actual whitehound takes a nap in the early afternoon and that post is from his wife or kids or something. He did something similar the other day and I thought he had been drinking. He said that he doesn't drink, and I believe that. But something shifts around this time of day for him.

Re system control; It works in null, but the players in null are a pretty small % of the active players. Most guys hang out in highsec and are happy to play the small game there.

Do you know why your production costs are going up? I often wondered if CCP wouldnt change the drop rates in certain area's over time to encourage volatility. Not that I think that is happening to you, just something I think about.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-01-20 18:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

....

So you don't want to be able to have meaningful control within a system in high sec?

Every other area of EVE allows this, and it works, wonderfully. Yet, you'll come to the forums and tell us that what's already working in EVE won't work because it's high sec.

That's just absurd.


I think the Actual whitehound takes a nap in the early afternoon and that post is from his wife or kids or something. He did something similar the other day and I thought he had been drinking. He said that he doesn't drink, and I believe that. But something shifts around this time of day for him.

Re system control; It works in null, but the players in null are a pretty small % of the active players. Most guys hang out in highsec and are happy to play the small game there.

Do you know why your production costs are going up? I often wondered if CCP wouldnt change the drop rates in certain area's over time to encourage volatility. Not that I think that is happening to you, just something I think about.

I'm guessing a bunch of people came back after retribution, that's my impression of what's happening.

Competition is fine.

Not being able to interact with high sec competition is the problem. The closer my costs get to high sec costs, the less sense it makes to build in null. I make more sense importing from high sec, when material costs get to high sec levels. Null has real bottlenecks because of mechanics, there's no bottleneck in high sec.



There are currently the equivilent of four high sec industrial blocks. The Gallente, the Caldari, the Amaar, and the Minmatar empire.

I would rather 4 player run blocks than 4 NPC ones. At least if it was 4 blocks the option is there to take one down, or fragment them. And lots and lots of little blocks is no better than the 4 NPC ones.

We should be able to go into Lonetrek, disrupt a couple of entities, and that should have an impact on the market in that region. Put a hundred small groups in control there, and removing one or two wouldn't be of any use. Expand that across all of empire space and there becomes no way to impact high sec industry.

We'd just be giving playera more control over space without actually solving anything.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#130 - 2013-01-20 18:57:40 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
*Discussion for actual implementation is now taking place on Features and Ideas. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=195821&find=unread


Bears need more options for directly destroying the Assets of their enemies.

PvPers make assets and then spend it on new ships which they destroy in combat. They interact with one another and create content.

Care bears accumulate massive fortunes with their mining and industrial play. They have few options to directly destroy the assets of their enemies with their playstyle.

The bears should be given options for the direct destruction of assets. For whatever reason they do not participate in PvP combat. But in a sandbox there can be other devices that will hurt your enemies. Gameplay that the empire builders will enjoy that directly destroys the ISK of their enemies.

By creating more options for attack and interaction Eve will become a more vibrant and living place.

*Skip to pg 4 post 70. The first 3 pages got taken up by Hickory, Dickory, and Stark babbling on about some nonsense.


While there is no actual ISK destruction involved, Bears can always buy stuff up and refine it. 
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Whitehound
#131 - 2013-01-20 18:59:54 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Not being able to interact with high sec competition is the problem. The closer my costs get to high sec costs, the less sense it makes to build in null. I make more sense importing from high sec, when material costs get to high sec levels. Null has real bottlenecks because of mechanics, there's no bottleneck in high sec.

So you are stuck in your ways, find it difficult to adjust and you excuse it by accusing the game mechanics for not working your way.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-01-20 19:01:40 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Not being able to interact with high sec competition is the problem. The closer my costs get to high sec costs, the less sense it makes to build in null. I make more sense importing from high sec, when material costs get to high sec levels. Null has real bottlenecks because of mechanics, there's no bottleneck in high sec.

So you are stuck in your ways, find it difficult to adjust and you excuse it by accusing the game mechanics for not working your way.

You don't undertand how the various areas of EVE are interconnected, that's fine.

But you should just not participate in the discussion until you actually know what the **** you're talking about.
Whitehound
#133 - 2013-01-20 19:04:32 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You don't undertand how the various areas of EVE are interconnected, that's fine.

But you should just not participate in the discussion until you actually know what the **** you're talking about.

My understanding is just fine, but you are right that it is better to stay out of this discussion, because you feel somehow threatened by my presence and I don't want you feeling bad.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2013-01-20 19:14:23 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You don't undertand how the various areas of EVE are interconnected, that's fine.

But you should just not participate in the discussion until you actually know what the **** you're talking about.

My understanding is just fine, but you are right that it is better to stay out of this discussion, because you feel somehow threatened by my presence and I don't want you feeling bad.

This null guy, a goon in particular, spends all this time going on and on about how he wants HIGH SEC player run corporations to have complete control over the industrial might of high sec.

And you're saying...

You don't actually say anything. You just demonstrate that you have an issue with PvP.

Because in the end all I'm saying is give high sec things to fight over that are meaningful, and you keep coming up with excuses that boil down to you not wanting to encourage an kind of PvP, even if it's just wardecs.

Don't join player run corps if you have a problem with wardecs. Staty in the NPC corp.
Nothing I'm suggesting would limit anyone in an NPC corp, they would only make you the worst industrialist in EVE; which is exacctly how it should be.


CCP spent a lot of time talking to the CSM's about ways to improve high sec warfare. Soundwave himself has said that they're considering a change to the way production is handled in high sec because CCP also sees a problem with the NPC corp guy being the best industrialist in EVE.

I believe this is exactly the sort of stuff that CCP is looking for.

And I think it bothers you that it's a goon making the suggestion.


If it was a notable high sec figure making this suggestion, you'd be patting them on the back right now.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#135 - 2013-01-20 19:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
I wonder what would happen if the goons opened up an area of null and invited any and all to use it. Enforce or at least encourage non-ganking in that space. The miners could mine in peace and they would be in better rocks. Get some of the production out of highsec.

From what I have seen null is safer than high if you are blue there.
Whitehound
#136 - 2013-01-20 19:33:25 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
If it was a notable high sec figure making this suggestion, you'd be patting them on the back right now.

Honestly, no, I wouldn't. I still don't think that it is good to come with unoriginal ideas.

I don't like the CQ and what WiS is/was trying to introduce. WiS was meant to make PvP more personal than before by moving fights into the stations. Sounds awesome, right? However, I dislike Walking in Stations, because it really is just another way of saying Not Flying Spaceships and it doesn't add to the game play, when it takes some of the EVE players out of their spaceships.

What is being discussed here goes pretty much into the exact opposite direction of WiS, to give docked players new tools and to make docking up more fun, and I find it equally meaningless.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#137 - 2013-01-20 19:35:14 UTC
lol, what do you say whitehound? would you go up to null if it was safer than high?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#138 - 2013-01-20 19:39:37 UTC
Hell, im ready to go right now! I'd pack my covetor up and be on my way =-) That would be a blast!
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#139 - 2013-01-20 19:52:06 UTC
It's interesting how some of these threads degenerate into arguments between 2-3 people. What?
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#140 - 2013-01-20 20:00:36 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
It's interesting how some of these threads degenerate into arguments between 2-3 people. What?


Oh thats not the case, your more than welcome to join our argument Big smile Re your earlier post about bears buying and recycling.
they can do that, but I was thinking that it would cool to have some options for direct attacks on your enemies stuff. So merc companies blow up some bear stuff and loot the wrecks, then the bears rather than be forced into a dogfight that they won't enjoy, will have some other options to hurt the mercs. Stuff like infecting their ships with nano-plagues that burn up modules or steal cargo. The bears could then get kill mails for destroying the assets of the enemy.