These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where's Red Frog an Push on this nerf NPC thing?

Author
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#221 - 2013-02-05 09:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored.
I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart.


The PvE exclusive lifecycle is unrelated to the "nerf the crap out of my hisec mission running ISK farming alt" argument.

No it isn't. But at least unlike the other guy you're able to admit Incursion and Tyrannis were PvE-centric expansions. Maybe it's because you actually know what was in them, unlike Vaeras, or something else crazy.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#222 - 2013-02-05 09:56:50 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored.
I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart.


First of all it makes me boggle the "carebear" vs "PVPer". Like in EvE one can avoid being a PvPer, all become PvPers the second they undock and there are no "private instances" to farm PvE in. So the game already enforces being ALWAYS a valid target and that's the appeal of EvE.

Second, Tyrannis sucked as whole expansion. I mean WHO in their mind, be it a carebear or PvPer could like some greenish circlets? Who, carebear or PvPer can justify 6 months to implement circlets? Even your worst nemesis of carebear would have at least expected Tyrannis to look like Civilization or like a RTS... to look like something decent.

But no, that was such a massive downer, I am surprised players did not drop *more* because of how lackluster it was.

Still, does not make that terrible expansion PvE.


Incursions, is the ONE enforced-social feature in the whole hi sec and you classify it like it's the evil? Social = content = interactions and even pew pew. Seriously, you have some very very odd views about game features.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#223 - 2013-02-05 09:57:32 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I would suggest you frequent more mission hubs.
Why?


Because I assure you, suicide ganking is alive and well in there.

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord.


Or, you could suck it up and pay the price to kill those you cannot kill legally. Why is that concept so abhorrent to you?.

How else would you term inescapable wardecs people don't want? It might be an over-dramatic turn of phrase, but what about it was inaccurate?

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
They could actually play the game


Yeah, that about sums up all I need to know about your attitude. Everyone else is doing the sandbox wrong. Shame.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#224 - 2013-02-05 09:58:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Where did you see me saying "they implemented POCOs in Tyrannis"?

I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible.


I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to compete on planets resources.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to get a freighter with 2B worth of PI popped.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to sell PI at Jita.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to find the structure camped in low and null.

Color me seriously impressed!


Edit: feel free to find my totally PvE fund raised in Market Discussion forum (Oct-Nov 2012) where I have made 5B for my investors and 3B for myself in 2 weeks. Guess what? One of the four funds, called PIBSK (PI Basket) was guess what, entirely based on market pew pew of PI. Clearly impossible until 2012!
So much PvE, those guys who I profited from, clearly did not want those 5 + 3 = 8B anyway.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#225 - 2013-02-05 09:59:00 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
The PvE exclusive lifecycle is unrelated to the "nerf the crap out of my hisec mission running ISK farming alt" argument.

No it isn't.


You don't need to add new PvE content to keep the ISK farming alts happy.

Adding new PvE content is the central theme of the PvE exclusive lifecycle of 'attract new players, lose them when they get bored.'

Thus they are unrelated. The ISK farming alts are only there to earn "safe" ISK for their nullsec mains. They aren't engaged in PvE for the joy of it. The new players attracted by new PvE content are engaged in PvE for the joy of it.

Please show me how I'm wrong.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#226 - 2013-02-05 10:01:07 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
how you interpreted that as 'success' requires a true gift, the kind only pro-NPC corp posters have.


I'm not establishmentarian, I'm antidisestablishmentarian. There's a difference.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2013-02-05 10:03:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord.


Or, you could suck it up and pay the price to kill those you cannot kill legally. Why is that concept so abhorrent to you?.
No problem with it at all - it's called a wardec. It should just work properly. What's so abhorrent about someone paying the price to kill those they cannot kill legally?

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
How else would you term inescapable wardecs people don't want? It might be an over-dramatic turn of phrase, but what about it was inaccurate?
I would describe it as nonconsensual PvP, something you say you have no problem with (because you support suicide ganking), and I have no problem with either. Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#228 - 2013-02-05 10:09:16 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Incursions, is the ONE enforced-social feature in the whole hi sec and you classify it like it's the evil? Social = content = interactions and even pew pew. Seriously, you have some very very odd views about game features.
It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#229 - 2013-02-05 10:11:25 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

I would describe it as nonconsensual PvP, something you say you have no problem with (because you support suicide ganking), and I have no problem with either. Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest.


TBH I joined EvE because it was a PvP game and I seriously expected it to not have any "hi sec" at all (yes I did not read about EvE at all, I joined EvE as "disgust" reaction after playing the umpteenth PvP game that failed and tanked. Even today I am still boggling at why it exists at all, you would not have to "choose" if EvE was as I thought it should have been. Pirate
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#230 - 2013-02-05 10:11:54 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord.


They are playing the game, by the rules established by the people who developed the game.

In fact, wardec evasion is a very canny form of PvP. It generates more tears than any hulkageddon, suicide gank or corporate theft.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#231 - 2013-02-05 10:13:35 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that.


There is still an active incursion community. They engage in PvP too, with various groups shutting down Incursions as a means of disrupting other people's game play. Your argument about "noone" continuing to play Incursions is easily falsified.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-02-05 10:15:40 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest.


Any time you buy a sell order....you're paying prices other have set. Or have you NEVER done that? Roll

Be able to 'opt out of the player driven market'? You already can. You do know manufacturing exists right? And that, if you were suitably motivated you could be completely self sufficient.

I get it, I do: You want to shoot bears for the minimum possible cost to yourself and that's fine - but that is absolutely not a reason to screw with the NPC corps, imo. You're simply refusing to meet the costs of the higher barrier of entry to killing one who doesn't want to die and is making sacrifices (even if you think they are not good enough) to pay for that privilege. You want to kill the most protected people possible, you go ahead and knock yourself out, just don't whinge that it's costing you money - their protection is costing them money too.

But like I said before, you hold a "You're doing the sandbox wrong" attitude and therefore, there is absolutely no point in continued debate.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2013-02-05 10:17:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Quote:
Quote:


I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible.


I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to compete on planets resources.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to get a freighter with 2B worth of PI popped.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to sell PI at Jita.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to find the structure camped in low and null.
You should have gone back to pretending POCOs were released in Tyrannis, these are somehow even worse attempts to claim that Tyrannis was a "PvP expansion".
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#234 - 2013-02-05 10:17:36 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Incursions, is the ONE enforced-social feature in the whole hi sec and you classify it like it's the evil? Social = content = interactions and even pew pew. Seriously, you have some very very odd views about game features.
It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that.


Well, it's not like CCP never delivered a borked imbalanced expansion before.
Once they fixed the income (feel free to find me as first day nerf caller on it on this very forum) it became what it should have been: a feature catering to a subset of players. Incursions are still done, they just skip the truly craptastic bits of it.

What CCP still failed (and fails and WILL fail) is to make Incursions, missions and even PvP scale organically with the number of players doing them. If the income shrunk doing incursions in few guys, if PvP did not reward the largest "skill less warm body" blob then EvE would be the perfect game.

I came to EvE for the spaceships PvP, left deluded. I always played in small groups of highly tight companions who want to push the limits... but EvE really prizes those with most RR / links alts and blobs.
Since finding worthwhile (10 men for me is tops) PvP takes so long - it's almost a damn job - then I quit EvE skill less PvP and am just trading any more (a PvP where nobody can blob me and my group).
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#235 - 2013-02-05 10:18:34 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Quote:
Quote:


I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible.


I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to compete on planets resources.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to get a freighter with 2B worth of PI popped.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to sell PI at Jita.
I did not know I had to wait for 2012 to find the structure camped in low and null.
You should have gone back to pretending POCOs were released in Tyrannis, these are somehow even worse attempts to claim that Tyrannis was a "PvP expansion".


Still waiting for your link showing where I said POCOs were released in Tyrannis. Roll
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#236 - 2013-02-05 10:21:47 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
It was simply a new ISK fountain, nothing more. Once it no longer became the goto ISK fountain for everyone in EVE, noone seemed to find the alleged 'social bonds' formed during Incusion worth continuing. Funny that.


There is still an active incursion community. They engage in PvP too, with various groups shutting down Incursions as a means of disrupting other people's game play. Your argument about "noone" continuing to play Incursions is easily falsified.

oh okay I'll edit my post to say "except for 10 guys" or whatever, good point
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#237 - 2013-02-05 10:26:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
oh okay I'll edit my post to say "except for 10 guys" or whatever, good point


Just like nullsec is entirely Alex Gianturco and his thousand alts, right?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2013-02-05 10:31:28 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Let me ask you, should I just not feel like paying whatever price the isk farmer sets and feel like I should pay him what I feel his work is worth? Where did I consent to paying prices someone else has set? Should I just be able to 'opt out' of the player-driven market the way some feel people should be able to 'opt out' of player driven combat? I find one as absurd as the other to be honest.


Any time you buy a sell order....you're paying prices other have set. Or have you NEVER done that? Roll

Be able to 'opt out of the player driven market'? You already can. You do know manufacturing exists right? And that, if you were suitably motivated you could be completely self sufficient.
You know defending yourself exists right? And that if you were suitably motivated you could win wars. Likewise, I feel I should give the manufacturers what I feel is a fair price for their wares for my catalysts, which I will use to shoot them, because I want to opt out of the player driven market without opting out of playerd driven combat. As I see it, this position is just as valid as your "opt out of PvP" stance.

Quote:
I get it, I do: You want to shoot bears for the minimum possible cost to yourself-
wrong
Quote:
and that's fine - but that is absolutely not a reason to screw with the NPC corps, imo.
It absolutely is. Suicide ganking is not intended to be the only form of nonconsensual PvP in highsec, sorry.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2013-02-05 10:33:37 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
oh okay I'll edit my post to say "except for 10 guys" or whatever, good point


Just like nullsec is entirely Alex Gianturco and his thousand alts, right?

Nullsec has more PvP ship losses then the rest of EVE combined. The "incusion community" has dropped off the face of the earth since 140m ticks were no longer available.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2013-02-05 10:33:43 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

I have nothing to gain materially from an adjustment of the npc corp scheme (i'm not a ganker, i don't even really pvp that much), other than the philosophical satisfaction that the game I play would have improved internal constancy.

I wish people like the OP would somehow come to understand that sometimes, things that are good for the game (in this case, a player driven game NOT having an npc based safe haven for veteran players) might not be the same as things that are good for their own narrow personal interests.

The worst people in the world is those who think: i understand what is better FOR ALL. These people always hurt and kill more people than any other disaster.

The truth is: you can't be 100% sure you KNOW WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD outside of your small piece of the World. It is because you see only small part of it.
To see whole picture you need to be OVER it. Not be part of it.

That's why i never trust to some "0.0 warrior" or "professional ganker" or "fulltime carebear" or whatever when they speak about "game as whole".

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"