These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1041 - 2014-09-28 21:01:16 UTC
One line bad idea thread winner of the year goes to CCP Veritas.


The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Chirality Tisteloin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1042 - 2014-09-28 21:17:20 UTC
Here is some actual feedback (even if not sure any Dev will take over the prototype):

I tried again today and made small progress. This time I got the match making windows and could select a fit and click ready. However at that point I got a message claiming not enough guns were in the Dojo and I should complain to the Dojo Master. happened on both characters (different guns).
There were enough guns stocked in the Dojo, though. Could this have anything to do with stacking?

Cheers, Chira.

See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#1043 - 2014-09-28 21:58:14 UTC
You know, I seem to recall reading numerous threads where the idea of "instanced" combat was shot down numerous times, not only by players but also by dev's, as it breaks the sandbox concept. Why this is now on the table I have no idea, but I do know, I don't like it.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1044 - 2014-09-28 22:17:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bamboozlement wrote:

Eve is all about risk vs reward, I'm repeating myself because you elude this part over and over.


And you're arguing for a frankly enormous reduction in the risk of dueling.

For no tradeoff, and no drawback.


Well, except that people who want to duel risk-free can do so on Sisi w/no problem, and risk absolutely nothing, because the ships there don't come out of their pockets on TQ. This would provide a system where even 'risk free' duels cost someone money.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1045 - 2014-09-28 22:35:43 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bamboozlement wrote:

Eve is all about risk vs reward, I'm repeating myself because you elude this part over and over.


And you're arguing for a frankly enormous reduction in the risk of dueling.

For no tradeoff, and no drawback.


Well, except that people who want to duel risk-free can do so on Sisi w/no problem, and risk absolutely nothing, because the ships there don't come out of their pockets on TQ. This would provide a system where even 'risk free' duels cost someone money.



No one cares about Sisi.


Even allowing an idea like this to even be discussed starts Eve down the slippery slope of instances and pay 2 win. No.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1046 - 2014-09-29 01:03:39 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
sandbox means everyone can do what they want.


It actually doesn't mean that. It means that the players are given the tools to make their own content and shape the game world themselves, as opposed to themeparks where the content is provided for you and there is little or no player effect on the game world as a whole.

Sandbox doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want". It means "I can decide for myself what I want to do" and yes there is a very big distinction.


So why do you all keep saying it does?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1047 - 2014-09-29 02:35:56 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
sandbox means everyone can do what they want.


It actually doesn't mean that. It means that the players are given the tools to make their own content and shape the game world themselves, as opposed to themeparks where the content is provided for you and there is little or no player effect on the game world as a whole.

Sandbox doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want". It means "I can decide for myself what I want to do" and yes there is a very big distinction.


So why do you all keep saying it does?


I've never said that.
Captain Semper
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1048 - 2014-09-29 03:42:42 UTC
Session pvp on EvE...

What next? Button "battleground" and arena 5v5? Instance dangeons?

CCP build good sandbox (that mean i can affect at any player in space), and CCP ruin own sandbox with that module (i cant affect).

We have arenas with RvB. But 3rd side can join the battle at any time.
Solaris Vex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1049 - 2014-09-29 03:46:08 UTC
With a few changes like forcing participants to warp to the dual site, making them an npc owned service available to everyone, and limiting the total number of dojos to just one or two in all of new eden. CCP could create hot spots for solo pvpers and other glory seekers to gather, which would inevitably lead to fights as people from different alliance and corps gather in one system to use the dojo.
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions
#1050 - 2014-09-29 08:47:51 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:


  1. Fights need to be un-screw-with-able. We strongly feel that if what’s supposed to be a “fair” match given a set of predetermined rules is thrown off course by outside influence, it invalidates the whole premise.


Am i the only one who feels that this is un-eve?

3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications
Erin Crawford
#1051 - 2014-09-29 09:57:21 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
Am i the only one who feels that this is un-eve?

Shocked
uuuhhh... Blind much?
You see your post is no. 1050?
You see you're posting on page 53?
Maybe you should start from page 1?
Then ask yourself that question again...
Shocked

"Those who talk don’t know. Those who know don’t talk. "
PastyWhiteDevil
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#1052 - 2014-09-29 18:02:43 UTC  |  Edited by: PastyWhiteDevil
Bamboozlement wrote:
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:

The problem with you ridiculing him for using the slipery slope argument is that you too are engaging in conjecture. you're saying that our fears are unfounded and will not come to fruition and you have about as much if not less solid evidence that it won't happen as we do that it will. So get down off ur high ****ing horse. This is all CONJECTURE, so stfu about logical fallacies when nobody in here is engaging it structured sound logical argumentation. I could just as easily call your argument the "Believes all content in eve is compartmentalized and will not effect other aspects" fallacy. All you are attempting to do is marginalize legitimate fears.

Btw. In debate an argument has to be both sound and logical to be considered valid. Also it's better to be sound and not logical than logical and not sound.


The burden of proof is on you, if you don't expect me to react when people with a meta-game agenda (aka I don't want to adapt my gameplay to this change) post doom and gloom comments with no logical basis then you should ignore my post, because I will, over and over.

As an example last time people were saying duels would kill eve : http://i.imgur.com/5v1zptC.jpg

Statements like "why go to lowsec/nullsec/x instead of pushing a button for a fair fight" imply that dojos will remove the incentive to go to nullsec/lowsec, which is plain wrong.

Stop trying to leverage fear with doom and gloom posts and be honest : you might have less easy targets to blob/gank if you don't adapt your gameplay to this change that's why most people are against this change.

Eve is all about risk vs reward.


I'm sorry, but how exactly is the burden of proof on me? I'm not the one who wants this added to game you are. It is up to you to justtify why this needs to be added. This is a needless feature and it's no different than a miner wanting one of these to protect him and his rocks. absolutely laughable. "oh you can still destroy it so it's in the spirit of eve" stfu you shouldn't need a bs or cap fleet to mess with a 1v1 or a miner and his rocks.

it won't remove incentive to go to low sec but it will most definitely lessen it and there is already very little incentive to begin with. If this involved some sort of rebalance that placed more emphasis on low sec as being a place you need to go to whether you pvp, pve, mine, industry etc. i'd be less inclined to kill this with fire, but as it currently stands KILL IT WITH FIRE.

"you might have less easy targets to blob/gank if you don't adapt your gameplay to this change[/b] that's why most people are against this change." Have you ever tried to legit pirate while trying to achieve true -10? I can't shoot rats, run sites or do missions. Loot and ransoms and the occasional loathsome bouts of exploration are my only sources of income. Any feature that will pull people away from the already painfully empty low sec is unacceptable. Additionally most of your average pirate corps don't have the resourses that would probably be needed to reinforce and destroy one of these dojos all while fighting off the ppl who don't want it blown up. Your taking what should be 2 targets of opportunity (the 2 ships fighting) and tuning it into a multi day fleet endeavor. Part of this games appeal is the ability to be a pirate and we are a disappearing breed. We get no love from ccp to begin with. We don't need this on top of it. This is not just an adaptation of playstyle thats focused on meta-game. I shouldn't need a cap fleet in order to mess with 2 ppl 1v1ing.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1053 - 2014-09-29 18:12:16 UTC
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Stuff about capfleets and poverty


It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet.

I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.
PastyWhiteDevil
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#1054 - 2014-09-29 18:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: PastyWhiteDevil
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Stuff about capfleets and poverty


It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet.

I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.


Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures...

So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high?

"Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1055 - 2014-09-29 18:51:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Stuff about capfleets and poverty


It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet.

I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.


Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures...

So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high?

"Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man.


It wasn't even a strawman. It was a snip for brevity because I didn't want to quote that whole wall of text. Get over yourself.

Anyway, if you can't kill - or at least reinforce - a mobile depot with a destroyer (to say nothing of cruisers) then I just don't know what to tell you.

However, you seem to have missed something in your butthurt shitpost: The entire point I was making is that it doesn't take capitals to attack these things. That's all I was saying, and anything beyond that is all you.
PastyWhiteDevil
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#1056 - 2014-09-29 19:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: PastyWhiteDevil
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
PastyWhiteDevil wrote:
Stuff about capfleets and poverty


It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that the structure has the HP of a mobile depot. Unless there's a reason for fielding dreads to kill those, you won't need a cap fleet.

I also suspect that if this prototype is developed further (that's a significant if), the reinforcement timer will be shortened significantly or the EHP will be significantly boosted (with some notice to the owner that "hey, someone's shooting your stuff, you should defend it") and the reinforcement removed entirely.


Yes, because thats exactly what eve needs. more shooting structures...

So what your saying is before when i was roaming around is my frig dessy or cruiser, if i want to mess with this, i now have to go reship, asseble some sort of fleet, go back, shoot this thing, and hope i don't get dropped on by a larger force, in order to mess with this 1v1 that i should have just been able to obliterate in the first place. all so you can have some sort or intangible space bushido? r u high?

"Stuff about capfleets and poverty" I hope you didn't overexert yourself building that straw man.


It wasn't even a strawman. It was a snip for brevity because I didn't want to quote that whole wall of text. Get over yourself.

Anyway, if you can't kill - or at least reinforce - a mobile depot with a destroyer (to say nothing of cruisers) then I just don't know what to tell you.

However, you seem to have missed something in your butthurt shitpost: The entire point I was making is that it doesn't take capitals to attack these things. That's all I was saying, and anything beyond that is all you.


no, it most definitely was a straw man because it was an oversimplification of my argument that you then proceeded to argue against. textbook straw man. my point was not simply about poverty. it was about an aspect of eve being further marginalized. It being harder to make isk is just a symptom.

and about hardcore players getting the short end of the stick because you want your "pvp now" - which is what im now referring to it as. how does u wanting your pvp now hurt me you ask? well, it stands to reason that if ur not out roaming because you have your "pvp now", i will not run into you in my roaming. now extrapolate this cause and effect throughout the player base of eve and ud have to have rocks upstairs to not see the problem. additionally, shooting structures, whatever the type, is not fun and it's certainly not what people are looking for when they r out out roaming.
Raquel Rova
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1057 - 2014-09-29 19:23:15 UTC
maybe if they didnt have to wait 2 days to desroy something deployed in under 1 min.

with no need to stront it or actually pay for the reinforcment ability
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#1058 - 2014-09-29 21:05:54 UTC
Raquel Rova wrote:
maybe if they didnt have to wait 2 days to desroy something deployed in under 1 min.
with no need to stront it or actually pay for the reinforcment ability


I DO agree with this. 2 days is a bit much. Thats a tweak to take to the next phase after this prototype.

Every day I'm wafflin!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1059 - 2014-09-29 21:14:35 UTC
Toriessian wrote:
Raquel Rova wrote:
maybe if they didnt have to wait 2 days to desroy something deployed in under 1 min.
with no need to stront it or actually pay for the reinforcment ability


I DO agree with this. 2 days is a bit much. Thats a tweak to take to the next phase after this prototype.



There will be no next phase. The guy who designed it in his spare time has left CCP, and as one last troll posted it here before he moved to work for Riot.

"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.
Eldwinn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1060 - 2014-09-29 21:21:35 UTC
Instanced pvp. I seem to remember another large MMO that did instanced PVP which utterly destroyed the game.