These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gevlon=Carebear Extraordinaire?

First post
Author
Big Lynx
#41 - 2014-05-14 09:05:59 UTC
Big smile gevlon pubie. discovers eve from his tiny isolated world's view. i like him. Must be great fun to meet that guy in rl. he seems to know everything.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2014-05-14 09:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Kyonhe
Well, in fact, if Concord protected only total newbies, those staying in npc corps (but those had significant fees placed on them, not just 10% and not only from bounties and mission rewards) and those, who joined some corp (including protection from awoxing), and allowed unconditionally attack those who haven't, even that would have much more sense. And fees for upkeeping corporation was high enough to make it pointless to make one just for yourself.

Edited:
I mean, if it was possible to not enlist in any corp at all, even npc ones, and save some money and effort by doing so. But it would make you a valid target even in highsecs. So, if such "true neut" attacks you, concord bangs the crap out of him. But if you attack him, you are in limited engagment with him and any other "true neut".

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#43 - 2014-05-14 09:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Dex Lysia wrote:
I'm Dex Lysia, and I'm a carebear. No need to read any further if that offends you.

There are many ways to slice the difference between "the real Eve players" and "the carebears who should go back to WoW", Gevlon's latest definition being one of the best IMO.

The message I take from his post is that CCP should give the 40% the mechanics they need to enable social interaction, rather than trying to force them change their personal nature to match that of the 10%. I'm pretty sure this would also help to retain some of the 50% who came looking for cooperative MMO play.

Would it really destroy the whole fabric of Eve if you couldn't wardec tiny, unwilling corps that had no structures? As he says, those people just end up safe in NPC corps anyway.

Would it really destroy the whole fabric of Eve if CONCORD punished non-consensual shooting between corp members? Bad men could still gank anyone they wanted in highsec.

Accepting "WoW players" doesn't reduce the NUMBER of people who like gudfites, it just reduces the PROPORTION of them. In the meantime, CCP makes more money and we all get more devs and a better game.


WoW Mudflation is so bad, that Blizzard does not actually "advance" the game of Wow, they spend the year replacing the scenery, shuffling the dance moves required to complete the bosses, and replace the items with multiplied stats on new ones.

Once the items are collected the game is toast and the blizzard work has to be done again and that work is fixed, extensive and all consuming and all important. it is just a train track and all you do by cooperating is attach more engines to the train to get to the current track end faster, however everyone is on the same train line.

EVE being a consumption and rarity model, is far more insulated against time, and slowly builds up to having a larger working set of things to do. ie I pay rent to holders, avoid roamers, kill ninjas, cooperate with allies run stuff to market etc, all things that there are really no parallel in the raidfinder->dungeon->purple model, and people are defined by what they do, not by choosing priest 5 years ago on the first logon screen.

You can't add the WoW model to this game without having either an irrelevent Wow treadmill, or having the resources flood this game model.
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-05-14 11:27:19 UTC
Lot's of assumptions there - I doubt that all of those 40% of players "want to play in a group". But, EVE does discourage group play. Which is odd, because it touts itself as a group game and some of the best parts of the game are done in groups.

Fixing wardecs could be a start. One week of wardec? OK. Two weeks? Pushing it. Three weeks or more and this is indicative of a problem. There are plenty of indy corps to pick on and gank guilds should be highly discouraged from singling one out. It should also be a bit easier to trust others in EVE. Remove Concord-sanctioned combat in fleets, at least by default. Then add more mid-"level" group content before Incursions.

Also, on his note about WoW raids - I have played WoW in the past in both tank and dps roles and can confidently say that dungeons and raids in that game are far more fun than any PVE content in EVE.
Audrey UntzUntz
Doomheim
#45 - 2014-05-14 12:03:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Audrey UntzUntz
Dave Stark wrote:
he has no concept of reality.

good at making isk, but beyond that he just steals oxygen. an unworthy trade, imo.

Gevlon is quite intelligent and far less of a waste of space than, say, you are. Even the Goons would agree on that.

Sure his concept of reality can be a bit distorted, but he's smart enough that he adds a lot back to the community with this grand plans and yes - epic fails.
Audrey UntzUntz
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-05-14 12:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Audrey UntzUntz
On the topic of AWOXing and wardecs, Gevlon is correct.

There should be two classes of corps:
"1" has high NPC tax, no structures, limited hangars, taxed mining, etc etc etc.... and it cannot be wardecced/AWOXed
"2" is like a corporation is today - perhaps with even more benefits - but it can be wardecced/AWOXed AND if you drop corp during a war you are still part of the engagement until the end of the week :).

Of course the EVE-O regulars will disagree. If you like a stagnant game, please do keep it as is.
Khador Vess
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2014-05-14 12:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Khador Vess
Audrey UntzUntz wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
he has no concept of reality.

good at making isk, but beyond that he just steals oxygen. an unworthy trade, imo.

Gevlon is a lot more intelligent than you are. Even the Goons would agree on that. Hence why you feel the need to make posts like this, while Gevlon has actual people agreeing with him.



You will find a lot of people agreeing with Dave's POV here, i'm one of them and yes i am an actual person... Gevlon has a very narrow minded view of the world, and while he is in some ways quite smart, he demonstrates a complete disconnect with reality on a regular basis, ascribing particular motives to individuals actions making assumptions to their drivers and motivations that are simply not true precisely because of this disconnect. Frankly it makes him look deluded.
Dave Stark
#48 - 2014-05-14 12:17:56 UTC
Audrey UntzUntz wrote:
Gevlon is quite intelligent


where can i see your stand up comedy show?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#49 - 2014-05-14 12:29:23 UTC
Audrey UntzUntz wrote:
On the topic of AWOXing and wardecs, Gevlon is correct.

There should be two classes of corps:
"1" has high NPC tax, no structures, limited hangars, taxed mining, etc etc etc.... and it cannot be wardecced/AWOXed
"2" is like a corporation is today - perhaps with even more benefits - but it can be wardecced/AWOXed AND if you drop corp during a war you are still part of the engagement until the end of the week :).

Of course the EVE-O regulars will disagree. If you like a stagnant game, please do keep it as is.


What the...

You do realize that is EXACTLY what is going on right now, right?

NPC corps have high taxes, etc.

Player corps can actually do things. In fact they're getting far more incentive to be in a player corp in the near future, once the economic rebalances start hitting with the Greek Mythology releases.

He's just parroting Seagull (pun very much intended) and calling it his own idea. He probably thinks it's his own idea, too.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#50 - 2014-05-14 12:30:28 UTC
Khador Vess wrote:
Ray Kyonhe wrote:
Khador Vess wrote:

It is set by a flag... the flag is the undock button.

You still haven't got a reasonable explanation why a corp member should be granted unconditional right to shoot his corpmate, while being denied of such right with regard to any other player of highsec (except fo outlaws, war targets etc), have you?



Without this Player corps become effectively low tax NPC Corps. If you want concord protection, stay in an NPC corp.

Choose to join a player corp and accept the consequences of your decision. Choose to stay in an NPC corp and be snuggly warm and 'safe' but pay for the privilege.


Or if you want to shoot people in hi sec, learn to suicide gank or wardec them? You can't wardec NPC corps, and NPC corps can't erect POSes or POCOs for you to shoot.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#51 - 2014-05-14 12:30:55 UTC
Audrey UntzUntz wrote:
On the topic of AWOXing and wardecs, Gevlon is correct.

There should be two classes of corps:
"1" has high NPC tax, no structures, limited hangars, taxed mining, etc etc etc.... and it cannot be wardecced/AWOXed
"2" is like a corporation is today - perhaps with even more benefits - but it can be wardecced/AWOXed AND if you drop corp during a war you are still part of the engagement until the end of the week :).

Of course the EVE-O regulars will disagree. If you like a stagnant game, please do keep it as is.


Your idea would make for an even more stagnant game.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#52 - 2014-05-14 12:33:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Let me guess: since it's a Gevlon post, he's slowly and painfully worked out something that was blindingly obvious to everyone else, and then drawn some batshit insane conclusion from it.
yes, but he accidentally stumbled upon a good point about the fact that eve's pve generally discourages player interaction co-operation (as does most pve in eve but yeah)
Everybody already knows this though. He's "accidentally stumbled" onto what has been stated quite literally hundreds of times in the pas. We know that PVE doesn't work well for groups, and I'm certain CCP knows that too. The question is, is that something they should devote more time to than anything else?

The thing is, it's a core system, so it's not something that can be easily swapped out, so it would take considerable work to change. With EVE being a niche game, more about the meta than the mechanics, putting so much focus on building better PVE would bring in more players, sure, but it would also water down what EVE is about. It's not WoW, you don't come to EVE to grind endless amounts of isk and aim to reach an inevitable end game where you will loop over content for eternity gathering gear. It's a sandbox, where what players do and how the interact is the content.

Sometimes it just seems like people come to EVE, then want nothing but to change it, to force it into the type of game that they like, rather than just moving on to games they do like.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#53 - 2014-05-14 12:38:54 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
he has no concept of reality.

good at making isk, but beyond that he just steals oxygen. an unworthy trade, imo.


Have you seen some of the fits He's posted or videos he's made. I applaud him for trying things, but he's simply not very good at PVE at all. Like his '2 ship mission blitzing' video where he wastes an entire alt on a logistics ship and wastes isk on an expensive DPS ship when twin domis or twin FoF missile/Drone Armageddons would have been both cheaper and more effective....
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#54 - 2014-05-14 12:45:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Let me guess: since it's a Gevlon post, he's slowly and painfully worked out something that was blindingly obvious to everyone else, and then drawn some batshit insane conclusion from it.


yes, but he accidentally stumbled upon a good point about the fact that eve's pve generally discourages player interaction co-operation (as does most pve in eve but yeah)


Stumbled is right.

CCP actually fixed it with incursions. Incursions don't punish people for grouping up like (as an example) null sec anomalies. you group up in a null sec anomaly and at least ONE of you is going to make less isk than if you did those anoms solo lol. It's because of how the bounties are paid out. I've known many an incursion runner who didn't understand this (because they did incursions before they ever moved to null and did anoms) and would be all "WTF is happening with my bounty payouts" lol.

CCP could fix that by making all bounties scale like incursion pay outs do (per site rather than per npc killed divided by numbers of players on grid). The reason that don't do that (IMO) is because it would make all PVe content as farmable as incursions while requiring fewer participants.

If anoms had the incursion pay out system 2 things would happen: My 3 FoF missile boat "anom cleaning" doctrine would make me super rich in a single week and Dinsdale would have a stroke as he saw what happens to the economy when null sec gets as unbalanced as high sec (lol) .
Dave Stark
#55 - 2014-05-14 12:45:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Let me guess: since it's a Gevlon post, he's slowly and painfully worked out something that was blindingly obvious to everyone else, and then drawn some batshit insane conclusion from it.
yes, but he accidentally stumbled upon a good point about the fact that eve's pve generally discourages player interaction co-operation (as does most pve in eve but yeah)
Everybody already knows this though. He's "accidentally stumbled" onto what has been stated quite literally hundreds of times in the pas. We know that PVE doesn't work well for groups, and I'm certain CCP knows that too. The question is, is that something they should devote more time to than anything else?

The thing is, it's a core system, so it's not something that can be easily swapped out, so it would take considerable work to change. With EVE being a niche game, more about the meta than the mechanics, putting so much focus on building better PVE would bring in more players, sure, but it would also water down what EVE is about. It's not WoW, you don't come to EVE to grind endless amounts of isk and aim to reach an inevitable end game where you will loop over content for eternity gathering gear. It's a sandbox, where what players do and how the interact is the content.

Sometimes it just seems like people come to EVE, then want nothing but to change it, to force it into the type of game that they like, rather than just moving on to games they do like.


when after a month, 40% of players are still doing the 'terrible' pve, or the other 50% who have canceled their accounts completely... yes, it probably might be a good idea to stop the pve being so horrible, encourage them to meet other players, and maybe accidentally stumble in to the other 10% of players doing player driven stuff that might keep them in the game and generate some content.

it's not even about 'better' pve, it's simply about the whole "split rewards with fleet" formula being horrible. it sincerely doubt it'd take much to change that, and it's arguably one of the biggest reasons why people go "**** this, imma play in a bubble and pretend it's a single player spaceship game".

it's a sandbox meaning earning stupid amounts of isk by grinding all day is a perfectly valid play style; as is ganking them when they spend stupid amounts of isk on officer modules. you use the term 'sandbox' as if it's an excuse to ignore things you don't personally like. sandbox doesn't mean you have to pvp, it means you can do whatever you want; including boring yourself silly to pimp your raven to bore yourself silly faster. the issue isn't with how "fun" or "boring" pve is, it's the glaring fact that it promotes avoiding any social interaction with players as it's never a benefit to socially interact with people, it always results in a loss of isk/hour.

nobody is forcing their type of game on anyone here; there's a fundamental flaw that goes against the entire point of having a MULTIPLAYER game. it needs addressing, especially since ccp seem to finally want to fix the issue with the beginning of the game, quite frankly, being ****.
Dave Stark
#56 - 2014-05-14 12:47:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Incursions don't punish people for grouping up like (as an example) null sec anomalies

being pedantic; they do. you take more than 40 people to a hq site, you don't get the full payout. same with under 30, i think (but you'd never go in with under 30 anyway really)
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#57 - 2014-05-14 12:52:18 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Incursions don't punish people for grouping up like (as an example) null sec anomalies

being pedantic; they do. you take more than 40 people to a hq site, you don't get the full payout. same with under 30, i think (but you'd never go in with under 30 anyway really)


Incursions punish you for bringing to few or to many, yes. Anomalies (and to a lesser extent, missions) punish you for brining anyone else period lol.

In fact, 'traditional bounty" content (anomalies and to a lesser extent complexes and missions) not only discourages real player interaction, in encourages alts. I use 3 ships to sweep anoms because even though individually each one is making less than they would if I were using them in separate anoms, it doesn't matter much because I still get all the isk generated (and the upside is that using all 3 together clears anoms faster thus upping my 'escalation chances per hour') .
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#58 - 2014-05-14 12:57:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


when after a month, 40% of players are still doing the 'terrible' pve, or the other 50% who have canceled their accounts completely... yes, it probably might be a good idea to stop the pve being so horrible, encourage them to meet other players, and maybe accidentally stumble in to the other 10% of players doing player driven stuff that might keep them in the game and generate some content.


What you just described is the best part of EVE. Where some see 'unpopular' I see 'exclusive'. It's good that EVE chases away the weak at heart types who can't break through the boring stuff to get to the good stuff.

Let these folks play WoW or CoD, or even EVE:Legion or EVE:Valkyrie. But changes to EVE (the real, one and only EVE) that make it more accessible to people who wouldn't have liked it the way it was for it's 1st 11 years is a crappy idea to me.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#59 - 2014-05-14 12:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
This was exactly the thing that odyssey exploration should have been, which has been good to newbies but totally failed to encourage grouping, even though that was the stated intention. When it was clear that 90% of the loot could be had from a site solo then obviously bringing anyone who wants any more than the remaining 10% will punish your income, and the design was broken. Unfortunately the usual tippia troll/fanboy crowd shut down that debate and sites were left and never iterated and the spew is now being removed totally back to square one.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-05-14 13:01:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
CCP actually fixed it with incursions. Incursions don't punish people for grouping up like (as an example) null sec anomalies. you group up in a null sec anomaly and at least ONE of you is going to make less isk than if you did those anoms solo lol. It's because of how the bounties are paid out. I've known many an incursion runner who didn't understand this (because they did incursions before they ever moved to null and did anoms) and would be all "WTF is happening with my bounty payouts" lol.

CCP could fix that by making all bounties scale like incursion pay outs do (per site rather than per npc killed divided by numbers of players on grid). The reason that don't do that (IMO) is because it would make all PVe content as farmable as incursions while requiring fewer participants.

The whole discussion is around new players to the game. New players have no access to incursions. Any fix in incursions doesn't address the point that Gevlon is making about PVE co-op rewards for low to mid-level players.

I don't think a solution is a simple multiplication or division solution. It needs to be a re-tooling of co-op PVE play and payout that doesn't also turn into farming.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.