These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Sandbox is Becoming a Themepark

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2014-02-28 16:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Buck Futz
This is my new favorite thread.
Why didn't I see it until page 9?

Edit: Oh wait, page 10. What?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2014-02-28 16:36:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

because 0.0 lords ordered their peasants to not report?

a certain corp makes all their alliance corps continually fraps their game and upload the footage to certaincorp.com to be checked for bot reports


Both of these are myths and given that CCP scalps most bots without reports also pointless.

it's not a myth one of the oldest players in npc corp chat told me
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#183 - 2014-02-28 16:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: BrundleMeth
Kimmi Chan wrote:
BrundleMeth wrote:
I do not want Hi-Sec to be 100% safe in any way shape or form. But High-Sec should be safer than it is for the people who want to play there full time.


How much safer?

I understand what you're saying but it needs a quantifier. How much safer does HighSec need to be, in your opinion?

Truthfully?

Not a real whole lot I guess. Since I am the first one to say just now much I hate, hate hate, nerfing, I don't want to see any more nerfs. Maybe faster Concord action, and/or more penalties for doing "bad stuff" in hi-sec. Simply, bigger consequences...

OR

How about this. Make Null so much better so most won't WANT to bother ganking in Hi-Sec. In my humble opinion, Null should ALWAYS have the biggest and best rewards...
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2014-02-28 16:41:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

They have lost seven million in two years while EVE grows.

it would be great if all those millions became Eve players.

Before this i wish EVE could even AFFORD to lose "seven million in two years". Last time several thousands said they will leave CCP kicked 20% of its staff. And noone really knows how many of these 'several thousands' actually left.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#185 - 2014-02-28 16:47:53 UTC
BrundleMeth wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
BrundleMeth wrote:
I do not want Hi-Sec to be 100% safe in any way shape or form. But High-Sec should be safer than it is for the people who want to play there full time.


How much safer?

I understand what you're saying but it needs a quantifier. How much safer does HighSec need to be, in your opinion?

Truthfully?

Not a real whole lot I guess. Since I am the first one to say just now much I hate, hate hate, nerfing, I don't want to see any more nerfs. Maybe faster Concord action, and/or more penalties for doing "bad stuff" in hi-sec. Simply, bigger consequences...


Your ideas have no more or less merit than the OP. Where the issue, at least for me, comes is when changes are done and then someone points out that more changes are needed, and then more, and then more, etc. Where does it end?

For example faster CONCORD action - let's say it gets cut in half so PvP enthusiasts bring twice as many guns to bear. Undoubtedly, people would again come here to request/demand/suggest further changes.

In short, it is not up to CCP to make HIghSec safer or less safe. It is up to players.

Wouldn't you agree?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ulasdair Macauselan
Doomheim
#186 - 2014-02-28 16:50:09 UTC
VicturusTeSaluto wrote:
I see that most folks are just attacking the OP's playstyle... It's just not just any one playstyle that has been affected.


Noob-PvE'er-killing Scammer Pirate Liar, wonder why anyone might object to that, eh? He's right up there with Jita Contact Scammers in popularity, I'm sure.

The great thing about EVE is he CAN do such things, unlike almost any other game out there. Thats a good thing.

But others don't have to like that he does it or respect him for it or support his cause to make his style easier and his target list longer.

OP has an easy existing solution if his trickery-scamming style of tricking new players to let him kill them no longer works so well, it's called the War Declaration. If that fails, he could always go to low-sec or null-sec and fight players there, although many of them might not be as new or gullible as his preferred targets.

EVE, adapt of die. If his style no longer works, perhaps he is the problem, not the game.
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#187 - 2014-02-28 16:54:38 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
In short, it is not up to CCP to make HIghSec safer or less safe. It is up to players.

Wouldn't you agree?

You know, yes, you are absolutely right...

I never really thought about that much, unfortunately I can't see that happening though. Can't get 3 people to agree on anything sometimes...
hellokittyonline
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
The Conference
#188 - 2014-02-28 17:10:07 UTC
I'm still completely confused as to how you guys continue to take my "this is how my game has been effected and these are some of the things (THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH MY GAME) that I've noticed need some work" post as a "U DON PLAY THE WAY I LIKE SO GTFO" post.

Even when I try to post something constructive, the slightest suggestion of fixing broken incentives (FOR THE BETTER OF EVERYONE BECAUSE **** 630mil PLEX) immediately incites blind, mindless, hate for myself and what I do.

Did I say they need to make it easier for me to kill you? No. Would you be bitching 10x harder if you had to train extra accounts because of changes they made to your "more legitimate" profession? Yes.

It's a problem that CCP is constantly trying to leave us content creators less and less of a place in the game we have helped to create. They shut us out, constantly nerf us, and never EVER throw us a bone.

There are so many amazingly awesome (and hilarious) ways to make a living in this game, I'd hate to see everyone bottlenecked into a few very boring, linear professions that require no creativity as the staple of this game is the fact that you DONT have to grind mindlessly to make a buck, but instead that you can create your own profession and find your own niche.

Everyones niche isn't (and can't be) shooting at space rocks and helpless AI.

Many seem to think that by making the bears actually have to play the game we'd be somehow shooting ourselves in the foot because "O NOES THERE WONT BE ENUF FARMERS". I can assure you, that will not be the case. The REAL problem is that there may not be anymore players willing to take risks. There may not be a low-sec, or a null-sec, or even a high-sec content creator if CCP continues to favor the risk-averse and back unsustainable incentives.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#189 - 2014-02-28 17:16:14 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

because 0.0 lords ordered their peasants to not report?

a certain corp makes all their alliance corps continually fraps their game and upload the footage to certaincorp.com to be checked for bot reports


Both of these are myths and given that CCP scalps most bots without reports also pointless.

it's not a myth one of the oldest players in npc corp chat told me


Spies at every levelShocked
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#190 - 2014-02-28 17:19:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrus Blackshell
Divine Entervention wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
Because if you are doing it right, you will never lose your ship.

let me guess: if you are god-like pvp-er and never lose your ship you do "pvp without risk"? Shocked


http://kb.pointblankalliance.com/index.php/pilot_detail/90148175/losses/


I will say, I am impressed that you're willing to publicly link such a mediocre kill board.

u wot m8 il rek u i sware on me rifter

When I get home tonight, hellokittyonline is getting a corp title and medal for this spectacular thread. Not only is it quickly exploding but it has invited some butthurt the likes of which I have not seen in GD for a while.

I know better than to argue in threads like this, but here's the argument broken down into little bits for those who seem to have trouble understanding, and instead accuse people of wanting "easy kills":

A) The base assumptions:

  1. Eve is a multiplayer game
  2. Eve touts itself as being driven by player conflict ("sandbox")
  3. PvE should not be exempt from the above two things
  4. "Theme park gameplay" = gameplay exempt (or close to it) from risk of player conflict
  5. Shooting people is not the entirety of player conflict


B) Risk/effort/reward balance is off in certain areas of PvE in Eve. Some perceived examples of this (may be inaccurate, but this is what people perceive as being broken):

  • Faction warfare plexing: Risk = losing a t1 frigate; Effort = Create zero-day alt, fit cloak, push "orbit"; Reward = 50-100+ mil ISK/hr
  • Faction warfare missioning: Risk = losing a bomber; Effort = Train bomberl, push "orbit", push F1; Reward = billions and billions of ISK
  • Incursions: Risk = low, as Incursions have been "solved" in the meta, no PvP risk; Effort = fit battleship, shoot primary; Reward = billions and billions of ISK
  • L4 Missioning: Risk = little to none, very low PvP risk (stolen loot? lol.); Effort = so simple and formulaic literally anyone can do it; Reward = steady high income.
  • Mining: Risk = getting bumped/ganked; Effort = virtually none, to the point it's hard to tell real players apart from automated bots; Reward = steady low income


Some people accuse mechanics like these of being "theme park gameplay".

C) CCP has recently applied changes to many/most of these mechanics which either decrease risk, decrease effort, or increase reward.

D) People like hellokittyonline complain about this.


At no point in the above did "I want easy kills" come into it. While the "lazy ganker" label certainly applies to some people, it does not accurately represent everyone who is unhappy about the direction PvE risk/reward is going. Some examples of changes to risk/effort/reward that do not involve lazy gankers getting easy kills are:


  • (FW, increase effort) Degrading plex capture status (i.e. if you run away and abandon a 90% captured plex, it slowly degrades back to 0% captured)
  • (FW, increase risk) Disable cloaks in FW complexes
  • (FW, increase risk/effort) More competent rats in complexes
  • (FW/L4, increase effort) "Failure" conditions for missions, or other ways to fail a mission than running out of time
  • (FW/L4, increase risk/effort) Much shorter mission timers, e.g. 0.5-1 hour to complete from moment of acceptance.
  • (All PvE) Varied spawns and tactics for NPCs, scaling successive spawns to player resistance.


Not all of these are good ideas, but they all offer changes to risk/effort/reward, without the effect of anyone getting shot up by a lazy PvPer.


If you are opposed to this type of change, that's fine, but you should really make a real argument as to why the current balance and balancing direction is going, rather than shouting "easy kills" and "play my way". Ad hominem accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making you look like a fool. Just like most people who like the current risk/effort/reward balance aren't bots, most people who oppose it are not raving lunatics who do what they do to crap on others' gameplay. Believe it or not, risk/effort/reward balance affects everyone in Eve, and the health and integrity of the sandbox depends on finding a good balancing point.

So please, be civil. *******.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
hellokittyonline
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
The Conference
#191 - 2014-02-28 17:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: hellokittyonline
BrundleMeth wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
BrundleMeth wrote:
I do not want Hi-Sec to be 100% safe in any way shape or form. But High-Sec should be safer than it is for the people who want to play there full time.


How much safer?

I understand what you're saying but it needs a quantifier. How much safer does HighSec need to be, in your opinion?

Truthfully?

Not a real whole lot I guess. Since I am the first one to say just now much I hate, hate hate, nerfing, I don't want to see any more nerfs. Maybe faster Concord action, and/or more penalties for doing "bad stuff" in hi-sec. Simply, bigger consequences...

OR

How about this. Make Null so much better so most won't WANT to bother ganking in Hi-Sec. In my humble opinion, Null should ALWAYS have the biggest and best rewards...


I'm sorry sir but you can't have your cake and eat it too. I do not want to go to null sec, I quite like it here in high-sec. I have as much right to do what I do as you do to bear around mindlessly. You call for nerfs to "bad stuff" without even understanding the precautions you can take against it (which are infinite, and render you 99.9999% safe). This is the main problem, bears were just as safe before, as they are now, except now the bar for entry into the "bad stuff" is very high, while the bar for entry with "bear stuff" equates to being able to sit in a battleship (or just stabbed, cloaked, t1 frig plex farming in low).

We have noobs too you know? and less and less by the day because of the larger initial investments required to do the "bad stuff". Low-sec is full of plex farmers instead of new PvPers trying to get a feel. A new PvPer has little place to go but broke, and are often FORCED to PvE to make isk (edit: this is largely due to the bounty system in the first place as it injects raw isk into the economy, making isk less effective, and ships and plexes more expensive).

Now if we're going to force a PvPer to contribute to the PvE community in order to play in their sandbox, why shouldn't the converse be true in a PvEers case?

And if that's NOT going to be the case then where is my PvP content patches, because the only thing I've seen in the patch notes is endless carebear nuthugging.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#192 - 2014-02-28 17:31:16 UTC
That's a great post Petrus. I think there are really some good ideas in there.

I think the issue with HKO's OP is that people have conditioned and obviously passionate responses to these kind of posts. I have no reason to question HKO's motivations, but if the changes are designed to improve everyone's game then he hasn't adequately articulated what benefit everyone gets from it.

At any rate, I like a lot of the ideas that you shared here. I think improved AI in Missions, failure conditions, and dynamic spawns is better than "Read Eve Survival and profit".

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#193 - 2014-02-28 17:41:08 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


I can appreciate that. What I'm failing to understand I guess is why a claim that had not been made in this thread needed to be refuted.


What Baltec was saying is that if Null is this land of milk and honey like the guy he was replying to seems to think, why are most botters found in high sec.

because 0.0 lords ordered their peasants to not report?


No one ever told me not to report a bot. IO've been in Atlas, IT, AAA, Radien, NCDot, INIT and TEST over a span of 6 years.

I've killed a few bots, but I honestly haven't seen a belt ratting bot (the easiest to spot) in years. Even when I couldn't catch the bot, I used to visit ever belt because in the past bots were so unsophisticated they'd kill faction and even officer npcs and leave the wrecks loot sitting there lol.

That siad I'm pretty sure someone is botting somewhere in null.

We know you don't like null and have a prejudice against the mythical null lords, but what you are suggesting just doesn't happen.
Josef Djugashvilis
#194 - 2014-02-28 17:47:43 UTC
CCP should place a limit on the number of, nerf hisec, nerf missions etc threads allowed in the forums to one per month.

This is not a signature.
Azara Light
Generic Tax Shelter Conglomerate
#195 - 2014-02-28 17:56:04 UTC
I find it odd that with all the talk of how we need more player-driven content, and the complaint of how risk-free hisec is, that there aren't more people coming to the simple conclusion that CCP doesn't even need to nerf hisec.

You want player-driven content? You want a riskier hisec? Create it yourself! This is a sandbox! There is absolutely nothing at all stopping you from ganking the carebears. Concord is not an immediate response. Most missioners can only make decent isk in known mission hubs running for high isk/lp corps in lower security systems. Concord response time is half a minute in a .5 system. Their fits are rarely, if ever, capable of any form of PvP. Which means it's incredibly easy to get in and get out before Concord even shows up.

In fact I'd say if anything, to create more interesting and diverse interactions between players missions need to be redesigned to where PvP-fits are more viable in them. In return, make concord response time longer in lower sec systems.

If all the OP is looking for is more player interaction, this should suffice no?

And as a missioner myself I'd jump for joy at the idea of being able to PvP-fit my ship and fight more advanced (Somewhere between normal AI and sleeper AI, not quite either) AIs.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2014-02-28 17:58:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

I've killed a few bots, but I honestly haven't seen a belt ratting bot (the easiest to spot) in years. Even when I couldn't catch the bot, I used to visit ever belt because in the past bots were so unsophisticated they'd kill faction and even officer npcs and leave the wrecks loot sitting there lol.

i've killed 1 belt ratting bot personally. Second time they changed program so this tengu became impossible to catch for us (angry carebears).

Jenn aSide wrote:

That siad I'm pretty sure someone is botting somewhere in null.

We know you don't like null and have a prejudice against the mythical null lords, but what you are suggesting just doesn't happen.

exactly.

There was big war in Droneland in 2012. It was time when SF started to lose this war and we (LoD and some members of SoD) were roaming around their territory. We had neighbours - botters. We investigated their bot program. It was belt ratting tengu + looter-execuror. We trapped them and killed both ships. Next day owners changed bot program and we weren't able to catch it again. Then we killed their POS. And reported them (we hoped to kill them again Twisted but it wasn't possible to us anymore).

Some time after i have checked these chars and found that this corporation joined some 0.0 alliance. I mailed alliance CEO about this corp. Guess what? Nothing changed. Month after we (LoD+SoD) lost Droneland and this corp were still alive and active inside some 0.0 alliance.

So you are right: noone even hides bots inside their territory. True story.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#197 - 2014-02-28 18:02:31 UTC
hellokittyonline wrote:
You call for nerfs to "bad stuff" without even understanding the precautions you can take against it (which are infinite, and render you 99.9999% safe).
99.9999% safe? Rediculous. Unless you stay docked...
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#198 - 2014-02-28 18:18:09 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
That's a great post Petrus. I think there are really some good ideas in there.

I think the issue with HKO's OP is that people have conditioned and obviously passionate responses to these kind of posts. I have no reason to question HKO's motivations, but if the changes are designed to improve everyone's game then he hasn't adequately articulated what benefit everyone gets from it.

At any rate, I like a lot of the ideas that you shared here. I think improved AI in Missions, failure conditions, and dynamic spawns is better than "Read Eve Survival and profit".

Not that I agree with everything you say, but I think you'd make an excellent CSM representative, due to your ability to discern through issues from both sides. Just sayin'. I'd love to see a CSM ticket from you Oops.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#199 - 2014-02-28 18:29:02 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
At any rate, I like a lot of the ideas that you shared here. I think improved AI in Missions, failure conditions, and dynamic spawns is better than "Read Eve Survival and profit".

I just wish GW2's dynamic open world PvE (or something similar) was in Eve, minus instances of course. Conventional "quests" are old hat. More info here if you're curious. The renown heart and event systems are the real "big thing", and they both promote player interaction and cooperation, moving around a lot, and doing a variety of mostly non-repetitive tasks. Adding Eve's open world PvP sandbox on top of that would create what I see as a sort of "Holy Grail" of open world MMO gaming.

Unfortunately GW2 will definitely not have open world sandbox PvP, and Eve will almost definitely not get rid of its "quest" system.

One of these days I'll stop being so addicted to Eve and code my own MMO. You'll see. YOU WILL ALL SEE! *shakes fist*

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
hellokittyonline
Hellokitty's Online Adventure
The Conference
#200 - 2014-02-28 18:33:25 UTC
BrundleMeth wrote:
hellokittyonline wrote:
You call for nerfs to "bad stuff" without even understanding the precautions you can take against it (which are infinite, and render you 99.9999% safe).
99.9999% safe? Rediculous. Unless you stay docked...

You are completely wrong, in your initial post you were talking about getting suicide ganked (because that is the only thing changes to concord would effect)... the way to not be suicide ganked is to not fly something fitting with modules that cost 2x+ the amount of isk it would take to blow you up (besides, that x-type shield booster doesn't actually make you run missions any faster).