These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Prototype: Dojos

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#701 - 2014-09-26 17:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Mike Azariah wrote:


A prototype is not something shipping in the next release, it is just a test for concept.


A concept that as a CSM (ie those we elected to encourage CCP to stay true to the Idea called "EVE Online" because of a history of CCP swirving a little bit) you probably should have voiced concerns about. That you haven't and think that unprobable ships in space on tranquility (the current iteration of the prototype and it's concept that this thread suggest could become a reality on tranq) is a good idea is what's concerning.

Quote:

Oh and as for 'boot from CSM' that mechanism exists. It is called an election. Next one is coming up in the New Year . . . remember to vote.

m


You can count on it.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#702 - 2014-09-26 17:02:07 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:

me

m


Steve Ronuken wrote:

Most of us, actually.

OKed in the form of "Here's a prototype for players to look at, to gauge the overall reaction"

As you can see from the wide variety of responses to this thread, it's far from monolithic, one way or another.


Two carebears. This is hilarous =)

We definitely need a way to boot people from the CSM at any time, depending on their support of proposed features. This is one such case, where two CSM members have shown to have no understanding of EVE mechanics, purpose, and attraction.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&topic=prototype%3a+dojos&forumID=270&csmbadge=1

(you may need to copy and paste the url)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#703 - 2014-09-26 17:03:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
so they can spend time building something fun for people that stays within EVE's established lines.


Oh I'm sorry, Jenn. I didn't realize you were an expert on what constitutes "fun" for everyone, nor was I aware that you were there when Hilmar & Friends created the concept of EVE and what it is or isn't based on.


Show me where I said, Fun for EVERYONE. I said "fun for people", yet in your zeal to watch CCP violate their own principles you lost the ability to read English.

I'm simply saying (and I'll type slow so yo can understand this time...) that CCP doesn't need to introduce things that go counter to their clearly established game concept to eveole and grow the game. They did that with incarna (seeking to take EVE from "spaceship game" to "more in depth sci-fi simulation") and overall that was a mistake.

For 12 years, EVE Online has had as a FACT the principle that ANY ship in space that was not cloaked and was not a newb piloted ship in a noob system (or in the SOE Arc) could be tracked down and attacked.

These Dojos add a new exception, they say "you can be in space in a special deadspace pocket that no one else can get to and the worst thing you have to worry about is someone shooting your dojo". That's wrong for this game, BASED ON it's 1st 12 years of existence and it's developers constantly saying that you should not be safe unless docked or cloaked.

New exceptions should not be added to a games rules except in special circumstances (like how the "no noobs getting shot in nob systems came about). Exceptions should NEVER come from mere content additions if one wants to maintain the integrity of their own development process.


FFS, get that stick out of your ass. It's for a finite time that changes locations at all times. 5mins, maybe 10 tops, and you're getting your panties all in a bunch. Really, you feel it's necessary to ruin someone's 5-10mins of organized gameplay...selfish prick is what you are when you can't accept that some people would okie to play a different way

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#704 - 2014-09-26 17:07:30 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Also you did not read Steves comment carefully.

OKed in the form of "Here's a prototype for players to look at, to gauge the overall reaction"


I read it perfectly fine, hence my reply

Marian Devers wrote:

We definitely need a way to boot people from the CSM at any time, depending on their support of proposed features. This is one such case, where two CSM members have shown to have no understanding of EVE mechanics, purpose, and attraction.


If you cannot judge the merit of certain feature without forum (player) input, then you're useless, and so is the CSM.

Or did you forget what the CSM is for?

Hint: it's not to damage control CCP on the forums mumbling "we'll, maybe they won't implement it".

Next stop: The CSM and CCP will "gauge the overall reaction" regarding plex-ammo! It's awesome, you load your launcher with PLEX, and one-shot any ship in game.


Bamboozlement
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#705 - 2014-09-26 17:08:50 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


A concept that as a CSM (ie those we elected to encourage CCP to stay true to the Idea called "EVE Online" because of a history of CCP swirving a little bit) you probably should have voiced concerns about. That you haven't and think that unprobable ships in space on tranquility (the current iteration of the prototype and it's concept that this thread suggest could become a reality on tranq) is a good idea is what's concerning.


You are way too self-entitled, just because CSM members were elected by us doesn't mean they have to agree with you.

I showed you over and over that consensual pvp exist in eve since 2005, yet you still think consensual pvp is alien to eve at this point you are just trolling.Cool

I have a Ph.D
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#706 - 2014-09-26 17:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Jenn aSide wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
A lot of people want to PvP - specifically they want to 1v1 - but don't bother to try because it's a sea of neutral logi and offgrid boosts and anything except actual 1v1.

A lot of people will say "then bring your own neutral logi and your own offgrid boosts" but that's a lame cop-out answer and doesn't make for 1v1. 1v1 shouldn't require multiboxing or friends. It's 1v1.


Some of those same people think you should be able to mine or do PVE sites without 'interference". I don't , because as a pve player (that doesn't suck) i accept that EVE is the sort of game where you don't get hand held like that. If I want pve riches I have to deal with the possibility (and in many cases reality) of human interference.

PVPrs shouldn't be hand held either. It doesn't matter that they 'just want 1v1 without interference'. That's what makes EVE great, the GAME doesn't do things for you (it doesn't even protect you, CONCORD kills your aggressor in high sec, it' doesn't REP you back to full hull and armor and send you on your way with a lolipop) the game says "if you want this, do it for yourself".

That's why these dojo things break a principle that shouldn't be screwed with.


When the core principles of EVE are resulting in people logging off and playing other games, roaming for three hours and finding no fights or not even undocking because everyone else's ability to interfere completely kills your own ability to do what you want in the game in the first place, perhaps it's time to revisit those core principles.

I too agree that the ability to ruin another's day is the foundation upon which EVE was built, but there's a line between "what makes EVE great" and "what makes EVE frustrating and unfun". For those who are into 1v1, the omnipresence of neutral logi and offgrid boosts make EVE frustrating and unfun. Why should it take a fleet to accomplish what should only require two ships to achieve? Why is it so terrible that someone somewhere might actually be able to get the enjoyment they're paying CCP for?

People just want to have fun. The trolls and asshats get to run rampant over 95% of space, and that's fine. To say "**** you" to the 5% who want to set up something fun with their friends? No, that's not fine.

Jenn, please unsub. You're part of the change-averse cancer that is suffocating and killing EVE.
Bamboozlement
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#707 - 2014-09-26 17:12:56 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:

If you cannot judge the merit of certain feature without forum (player) input, then you're useless, and so is the CSM.

Or did you forget what the CSM is for?

Hint: it's not to damage control CCP on the forums mumbling "we'll, maybe they won't implement it".

Next stop: The CSM and CCP will "gauge the overall reaction" regarding plex-ammo! It's awesome, you load your launcher with PLEX, and one-shot any ship in game.


Nice logical fallacy : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Not only that but there is a huge difference between pay2win features and dojos, only nullsec grunts like you think dojos are a bad idea (boo wooo I can't blob AT teams).

HTFU and adapt like we say in eve online.Cool

I have a Ph.D
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#708 - 2014-09-26 17:13:38 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:

If you cannot judge the merit of certain feature without forum (player) input, then you're useless, and so is the CSM.


What if a lot of players DO see merit in that feature.

Every day I'm wafflin!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#709 - 2014-09-26 17:16:02 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:


FFS, get that stick out of your ass. It's for a finite time that changes locations at all times. 5mins, maybe 10 tops, and you're getting your panties all in a bunch. Really, you feel it's necessary to ruin someone's 5-10mins of organized gameplay...selfish prick is what you are when you can't accept that some people would okie to play a different way


1st of all, my back side itches and needs a slight bit of kissing to solve that problem

2ndly. I'm not a ganker. I wouldn't try to scan down folks to kill if i could, unless their name as "Dread Guristas".

We are talking about the SPIRIT , the concept, the purpose of this game and it's rule set, not some selfish need to screw with frig duels. Some of us CARE about what EVE Online ( is and want it to be something that is consistent and of high quality.
Regnag Leppod
Doomheim
#710 - 2014-09-26 17:20:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Some of us CARE about what EVE Online ( is and want it to be something that is consistent and of high quality.


Wait, let me guess. Your definition of "high quality" just happens to align perfectly with your personal play style, right?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#711 - 2014-09-26 17:20:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

You can count on it.


Did you vote for him this time? If not, why should you not voting for him next time, either, have any dire portent attached to it?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#712 - 2014-09-26 17:23:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:


FFS, get that stick out of your ass. It's for a finite time that changes locations at all times. 5mins, maybe 10 tops, and you're getting your panties all in a bunch. Really, you feel it's necessary to ruin someone's 5-10mins of organized gameplay...selfish prick is what you are when you can't accept that some people would okie to play a different way


1st of all, my back side itches and needs a slight bit of kissing to solve that problem

2ndly. I'm not a ganker. I wouldn't try to scan down folks to kill if i could, unless their name as "Dread Guristas".

We are talking about the SPIRIT , the concept, the purpose of this game and it's rule set, not some selfish need to screw with frig duels. Some of us CARE about what EVE Online ( is and want it to be something that is consistent and of high quality.


Who are you, that eschews PvP utterly and refuses to engage in it, to comment on the "spirit" and "purpose" of EVE Online?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#713 - 2014-09-26 17:23:49 UTC
Bamboozlement wrote:

Yes they are just making dojos to put invisible walls, it's not like there is a need for tournament training tools


There isn't, the test server has worked fine for that for a while now.

Quote:

or that people solo pvping are asking for something like this for years


Heh, no, not true. Pretty sure very few people have asked to have their sandbox broken with instanced, WoW style PvP matches. People want more solo fights, yes. As in out in the actual game, without things like off grid boosts ruining it before it begins.


Quote:

or that people are getting bored of having to roam for hours to find decent fights


Buff lowsec, obviously. And nerf highsec, the population distribution is at fault here, and highsec being skewed in risk/reward is the cause of that.

Quote:
it's just to annoy you with "you can't touch me" walls. Roll


Such a thing is blatantly against anything that even is going to pretend to be a sandbox game, after all.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#714 - 2014-09-26 17:27:28 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
For those who are into 1v1, the omnipresence of neutral logi and offgrid boosts make EVE frustrating and unfun.


And the solution is not "break the sandbox", it's having the spine to actually take a look at broken mechanics. Off grid boosts needed to die in a fire five years ago, and making some cute new deployable like this not only fails to solve that problem, it screws with a bunch of other things into the bargain.

If you want to be "safe" from other people, be docked. There should be no exceptions.

"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.
Priscilla Project
Doomheim
#715 - 2014-09-26 17:29:13 UTC
Veers... the TL.DR alone goes beyond one post
and actually addresses not the dojos, but the whole direction of the game.
I overshot a little. XD

Anyhow, it is most likely that Dojos will hit TQ simply because it makes sense
from a profit standpoint. In the end, CCP only needs to wait for the current
generation of people to be old enough to play and the hardcore gamers
to die off and be replaced.

It's inevitable.

Wondering if I should put the huge TL.DR up to GD.

But what's the point anyway...
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#716 - 2014-09-26 17:30:05 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


When the core principles of EVE are resulting in people logging off and playing other games, roaming for three hours and finding no fights or not even undocking because everyone else's ability to interfere completely kills your own ability to do what you want in the game in the first place, perhaps it's time to revisit those core principles.


EVE is no where near the stage of revisiting what's kept it alive for all this time. Personally I'd rather see EVe die an honorable space-death than morph into something 'the masses' would like. I (like many players) started when EVE was much harsher and that was only 7 years ago. Yet the current EVE has much lower barriers and STILL isn't super 'popular'.

CCP can make an excellent niche game or a mediocre and soon to die mass appeal game, and i hope they stick with what works.

Quote:

I too agree that the ability to ruin another's day is the foundation upon which EVE was built, but there's a line between "what makes EVE great" and "what makes EVE frustrating and unfun". For those who are into 1v1, the omnipresence of neutral logi and offgrid boosts make EVE frustrating and unfun. Why should it take a fleet to accomplish what should only require two ships to achieve? Why is it so terrible that someone somewhere might actually be able to get the enjoyment they're paying CCP for?


EVE is the game that says "if you don't like it, DO something about it, outthink the enemy you can't outfight". Dojos say "screw it, don't worry, just screw around a bit". If implemented on TQ it would be CCP surrendering to the instant gratification masses.

C'mon CCP, don't be France.....

Quote:

People just want to have fun. The trolls and asshats get to run rampant over 95% of space, and that's fine. To say "**** you" to the 5% who want to set up something fun with their friends? No, that's not fine.


A challenge, and earning victory and rewards is 'fun' for real EVE players. That 5% can already find a wormhole and invade 1 of THOUSANDS of currently empty systems to 1v1 all day in.

Quote:

Jenn, please unsub. You're part of the change-averse cancer that is suffocating and killing EVE.


With this level of maturity, it's no wonder you support anti-EVE instant gratification game mechanics.
Bamboozlement
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#717 - 2014-09-26 17:30:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


There isn't, the test server has worked fine for that for a while now.


Yep totally true, using the same logic we don't need to fix POS management and the industry UI change were stupid. /s Roll
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Heh, no, not true. Pretty sure very few people have asked to have their sandbox broken with instanced, WoW style PvP matches. People want more solo fights, yes. As in out in the actual game, without things like off grid boosts ruining it before it begins.


Heh no, not true except all the solo pvpers that posted in this thread, you know you should join bringing solo back channel and see what people think about solo pvping against people with links/friends/gatecamps/blobs.

Spouting your opinion against factual data is embarrassing, please research your subject before posting. Roll

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Buff lowsec, obviously. And nerf highsec, the population distribution is at fault here, and highsec being skewed in risk/reward is the cause of that.


You don't understand how buffing lowsec is irrelevant when the game mechanics are making solo pvp tedious, at this point it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, are you asking CCP to remove gatecamps/links/cynos/blobs somehow? Please, this isn't about isk/hour or the appeal of lowsec but broken game mechanics for solo pvp.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Such a thing is blatantly against anything that even is going to pretend to be a sandbox game, after all.


Just like missions, just like indestructible assets in stations (hi nullsec), just like alts to metagame the pvp, just like stations, etc etc

Eve is a sanbox only when we are playing your way. RollRollRoll

Please try to focus.

I have a Ph.D
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#718 - 2014-09-26 17:34:09 UTC
I'm almost completely sure that CCP can't financially afford for their sole product to die simply because a few bittervets are offended.

Just saying.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#719 - 2014-09-26 17:34:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

If you want to be "safe" from other people, be docked. There should be no exceptions.


Because God knows, when I'm cloaked up, I'm totally not 100% safe while I...

...watch your staging system movements to report intel...
...angle in behind you in the ice belt as a warp-in for a gank fleet...
...creep around nice and safe in the w-space system I scanned out 3 hours earlier to get into position for my buddies to warp in with their brawler Proteii and shred your triaged carrier in the anom you're clearing...


... and a host of other thing. Totally not safe at all.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#720 - 2014-09-26 17:34:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Bamboozlement wrote:

Please try to focus.


the thread is now actually comprised more of him^^ being obtuse and belligerent than anything else
http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/375485-1

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=