These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Awoxing is no more

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#181 - 2015-01-16 15:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Tim Timpson wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because WoW is the exception, not the rule. Oh, and see the above, there is plenty of precedent as to what happens when you decide to betray your core playerbase to chase theoretical casual players.
LOL. The betrayal! Trying to bring in more players how dare ye! I know of plenty of veteran players that would be perfectly happy with CCP making highsec *completely* safe. Most of nullsec probably wouldn't care in the slightest for a start.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The funny thing is that it's quite the opposite.

They've already demonstrated thrice over that they can't remake the base game anymore. The people who could have done so have long since quit the company.

Unless they have EVE 2.0 waiting in the wings somewhere, the basic framework of the game isn't subject to change. That means that PvE is never going to be anything except shooting red crosses.
Well that's fundamentally wrong. They are already working on replacing old mechanics with new ones. As for shooting red crosses, what those red crosses do make all the difference. And they definitely can change the way they behave, or are you forgetting that burner missions now exist? More varieties of missions, more mission escalations and surprises, mission chains which you have to run as corp, these type of things are not out of reach. The tutorial missions also show they could have missions where you might need to run logi to repair an NPC, or specific modules like webs and points to trigger different events.

To be honest, it's ludicrous to suggest the developers are unable to develop the game, and doubly so to suggest that if the developers were unable to develop their game that it would be opening it up to a more diverse playerbase which would kill the game.


First part:

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

With a complete safe highsec...null-sec will crumble. They too don't want complete risk free high-sec. But if you fail to see why, it shows how little you actually know about EVE.

Then again, can't blame a mindless PvE guy that just shoot crosses or asteroids for not reading into all the stuff going on in EVE.


2nd part:

True, they could make PvE more fun. But that should not mean it should be made safer, which is what they are doing.

Though could have kept it as dangerous as it was, but expand on it.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#182 - 2015-01-16 15:21:44 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
J'Poll wrote:
Let's see.

Blizzard had to make WoW from a sub-based game into P2W, to keep people coming in.Lol

Yeah, solid point you have there.
It's still sub based, and it's still bigger than EVE will ever likely get. I love how people put down WoW so much, yet it's enormously successful. I'm not a Wow fan, I'm not particularly into it's style, but I'm not going to write it off as some epic fail simply because I don't like it.


Uhm, it is not sub-based.

You can play for free, but if you want to be anywhere near useful, you have to pay aka Pay 2 win.


And sure they are bigger, but size doesn't really matter.
In WoW, you don't all play on the same single shard server.

WoW targets a TOTALLY different audience as their customer. CCP stated before, they do not target the same type of player as WoW does, so surprise, they aren't even targeting to be as big / bigger then WoW.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#183 - 2015-01-16 15:22:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.

You mean like clone grades?

What? Clone grades have no impact on pve (NPCs don't pod), and only increased the amount of pvp everywhere, especially for players piloting smaller, less skill-intensive ships, which is a demographic mostly populated by the newer ones.

Which is an example of good change - like the one you are crying in this thread about.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#184 - 2015-01-16 15:22:55 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#185 - 2015-01-16 15:23:43 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.

You mean like clone grades?

What? Clone grades have no impact on pve (NPCs don't pod), and only increased the amount of pvp everywhere, especially for players piloting smaller, less skill-intensive ships, which is a demographic mostly populated by the newer ones.

Which is an example of good change - like the one you are crying in this thread about.

One has nothing to do with the other. Just because the removal of clone grades was good, doesn't mean that the removal of awoxing is good too, simply by effect of both being changes to the game.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#186 - 2015-01-16 15:24:29 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:
[quote=J'Poll]People are crying for good PvE AND less PvP, in a PvP game (look up the official New Player FAQ by CCP, they themself state that EVE is designed as a PvP game at its core).
It's funny how people like to claim that PVE isn't PVP at times like this, yet when it benefits them claim that PVE playstyles are also PVP as you compete with other players. Let me help you out. The game is PVP as in everything you do affects other players. Even though a trader never leaves a station he is constantly engaged in PVP. What you are referring to is *PvP combat*. EVE isn't all about combat, that's simply one aspect of the game..


Please enlighten me how YOU shooting a red cross is affecting my gameplay?

Please, try...

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#187 - 2015-01-16 15:24:56 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
You mean like clone grades?
What? Clone grades have no impact on pve (NPCs don't pod), and only increased the amount of pvp everywhere, especially for players piloting smaller, less skill-intensive ships, which is a demographic mostly populated by the newer ones.
I think his point was that clone grades have been a gameplay mechanic and are now gone, thus the removal of gameplay mechanics isn't always bad just because they are old.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#188 - 2015-01-16 15:24:58 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.

Except that so far, they haven't removed any rewards proportionately to the increases in safety they've implemented. High-sec has both become much safer, and much more profitable over the years.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#189 - 2015-01-16 15:27:36 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

One has nothing to do with the other. Just because the removal of clone grades was good, doesn't mean that the removal of awoxing is good too, simply by effect of both being changes to the game.


Don't be so dramatic. Awoxing is not removed. Easy-mode Awoxing is removed. Big difference.

Mr Epeen Cool
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#190 - 2015-01-16 15:27:41 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
Basil Pupkin wrote:

Take Bob for example, a guy who hates combat.
Here are 3 scenarios.
1. Bob comes to EVE and plays. He get's killed a lot, he quits.
2. Bob comes to EVE and plays. He plays in safety, is left alone and does PVE to the end of time.
3. Bob doesn't come to EVE as he is already aware it's not for him.

In none of these scenarios does Bob make any impact on me at all. Scenario 2 is the better choice for CCP as that's where they make the most income. It makes no difference to the rest of us whether he's playing or not. Many people seem to have a problem with the idea of someone playing a gameplay style they do not like, even though it doesn't make a difference to them.

J'Poll wrote:
btw, good luck doing AFK PvP...You clearly are one of those mindless peopel that sponsor CCP by a monthly payment and then don't actually play the game.
I do AFK PvP. I participate in fleet warfare (that stuff that makes the news headlines) and can generally run 2 characters in that, 2 character in anoms and play PS4.


I nominate myself to be used instead of Bob in your examples from now on, as you have described me perfectly.[/quote]

Replies:

1. Bob should find likeminded people and play together. Bob should learn that in EVE there is no absolute safety, but with correct precautions and knowledge, it can be pretty damn safe.

2. Bob farms ISK upon ISK upon ISK. Bob devalues the currency by being able to gain ISK with ZERO risk. This not only affects himself, but EVERYBODY else.

3. Best option.

People that read about EVE and find out that it doesn't suit them and don't play...great.
People that try EVE and find out that it doesn't suit them and quit...good
People that try EVE and find out that it doesn't suit them and then whine that it should all be changed to suit them...wrong.



p.s.

Now, try to not be a F1-monkey and do some solo-PvP...while doing 2 anomalies and play your PS4.

Anybody can be a F1 monkey.

Would also be a little bit more believable, with a killboard to state your claims.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#191 - 2015-01-16 15:28:05 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:


What anger? I know CODE propaganda is a joke, and a funny one, but I'm talking about the serious explanations offered in this thread about "protecting EVE from fail hisec corps by awoxing them".


I can see the truth of that argument. Some of the worst people (for the game) are people runing high sec carebear corps , taking in new people and training them to NOT partake in the game. Anything that makes those kinds of people mad is good in my opinion.

Quote:

But tell me again why tear harvesting is a desirable game feature? If someone enjoys carebearing, why is it important to ruin that enjoyment? Is the pleasure a ganker gets from the tears something worth nurturing and cherishing?


THERE it is. If you talk to someone long enough, the underlying thinking and motivation will show up.

EVE mimics real life in that it doesn't matter what you 'want', it matters what you can ENFORCE. I enjoy 'carebearing' I play multiple types of PVE (missions, incursions, 0.0 ratting and plexing, lvl 5 missions and other things, hell i used to farm COSMOS sites). I do these things despite the fact that people want to make my ships explode. For the REAL EVE PVE player, learning how to keep people from making you explode while you gather riches Indiana Jones Styles IS the game.
 They are free to come at me (bro), i am free to PVE while dodging them and still make isk.

The fact that some dude wants to come in to EVE and ignore everyone else while also having an affect on everyone else (every unit of ore they mine lessens the value of everyone else's ore) doesn't mean the game works that way. The thing that i despise about such people is that rather than learn how to exist in the current system, they try to 'metagame' CCP into eliminating opposing playstyles. That's weak. I don't need CCP to beat gankers and Awoxxers for me, I do that on my own all day.

While you may not realize it, what you just asked was "Why is FREEDOM in a sandbox game a desirable game feature?".

Quote:

I'm now discussing the motive, not the methods, you brought up an interesting sideline.


The 'motive' of people trying to kill me is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is "did they succeed". The answer for the last 7 years of playing EVE has been "no, at least not in high sec".

On the street, if someone starts shooting at you, do you stand there and ask "why are they shooting at me" or do you take cover (or , like in my neighborhood, return fire with one hand while dialing your hommies on your cell phone for back up on another while talkin smack about the mommas of they guys shooting at you #Texas)?
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#192 - 2015-01-16 15:29:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.

Except that so far, they haven't removed any rewards proportionately to the increases in safety they've implemented. High-sec has both become much safer, and much more profitable over the years.

Oh yeah, they totally didn't gut the loot value with reprocessing changes, totally didn't nerf reprocessing in hisec, and LP totally doesn't inflate.
And stating that hisec income goes anywhere near null is plain lies.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#193 - 2015-01-16 15:29:33 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.


Yea, that totally worked with Trammel, why not here?

Sorry if I exploded any sarcasm meters.
Solops Crendraven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2015-01-16 15:29:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Solops Crendraven
Mr Epeen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


I (player, not character) was a nullsec line member for nearly three years, and spent the better part of a year living in a wormhole in recent days.


And crying EVE is dying the whole time.

The weird thing is that you and the rest of the whiners are still here. Many posting their usual drivel in this very thread. What this tells me, and more importantly CCP, is that that you can be safely ignored since the threats, ultimatums and tears are for naught.

You all are still here. Still dropping a PLEX or a sub every month.

Like fluffy little kittens, you bat ineffectively at your owners hand and then line up at the food bowl waiting for that same hand to feed you.

Mr Epeen Cool
Actually Moved to Thera (Wormhole System)I love it. Griefing is a Joke because everybody is COVOPS actually a SafeHaven I wouldnt worry to much about the awoxing anymore but do be concerned about The Sleepers appearing in high sec and scanning things and vanishing .

Moving To Las Vegas Watch Me Play Poker! enter link description here
Sugar Smacks
Khanid Royal Navy
Khanid.
#195 - 2015-01-16 15:30:54 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:


I'm not "crying" for better PVE, I'm stating that PVE also exists and is also a part of the game that needs to be looked at.


AKA crying about it. PVE is fine. I spent all of last night doing some while listening to (honest to God) DISNEY SONGS on EVE Radio.

EVE-Radio, you guys owe me isk for that plug btw.

Quote:

The assumption Kaarous was making is that PVE leads to people leaving and PVP doesn't therefore all focus should go on improving PVP. What I was pointing out is that more player join seeking PVE therefore improving the PVE experience can also be a good thing.


And that is misguided. If people go into an expensive resturant 'seeking' dollar menu items does that mean the expensive resturant should add them to the menu? NO, it means "go to freaking McDonalds you broke mother ******" lol.

Quote:

And no, nobody "belongs" in any game. If they want to play EVE,they can play EVE. If you don't like them because you want everything your way, tough. Go make your own game if you want creative control. In EVE, CCP will make decisions based on what is best for their business even if that means reducing risk, and if you don't like it you know where the biomass button is.


Lol, you're the one who doesn't like current EVE, yet somehow I'm the one who should biomass.

Classic

Quote:

By the way, the truth is that EVE doesn't require much thought so let's put that one to bed. Most activities can be performed almost completely AFK.


This is actually a good example of a misfit in EVE. In the same way that they think EVE pve is bad because it's not 'more interesting, they don't understand that EVE's actual 'gameplay' isn't the part where you need to do the thinking..... The thinking happens before you log in, or before you undock, or before your fleet forms.

This kind of game just isn't for you bro, sorry.


Isn't there a certain degree of irony when you are discussing bringing new players and your solution is to chase the current ones out?
This really drives your "i dont give 2 fucks attitude" home.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#196 - 2015-01-16 15:31:28 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Scenario 2 can only be achieved at the expense of gameplay mechanics that have made EVE what it has been over the past 12 years.
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.

Except that so far, they haven't removed any rewards proportionately to the increases in safety they've implemented. High-sec has both become much safer, and much more profitable over the years.

Oh yeah, they totally didn't gut the loot value with reprocessing changes, totally didn't nerf reprocessing in hisec, and LP totally doesn't inflate.
And stating that hisec income goes anywhere near null is plain lies.

Those changes impacted the entire game, not just high-sec.

Meanwhile, the ability to do high-sec incursions under the protection of CONCORD has made it the most lucrative area of space in terms of the risk/reward equation.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#197 - 2015-01-16 15:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: J'Poll
Tim Timpson wrote:
Not really. they could convert 1 region to complete safety for example, reduce the reward given from activity in that region considerably, ban scamming from that region and have the higher end activity encourage people to move out of it. That wouldn't be at the expense of existing gameplay, since the existing gameplay would still exist. It would probably make a bunch of people foam at the mouth at the idea of people being safe, but we get that anyway.

Ooh, you mean like CCP did.

By making Null-sec aswel as Low-sec more profitable.

Yet NO big migration of PvE players has happened.

Why, because the vast majority of PvE players is completely risk-adverse.
They rather spent twice as long in low paying safety then better ISK for a bit more risk.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#198 - 2015-01-16 15:33:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
@Basil That whole taking-down-posses only happens because people aren't planning to defend them. People don't plan to defend because that would involve spending ISK instead of making it. The PITA you describe happens because people keep building stuff they can't defend, and no matter how many times they get decced they will not invest in actual defenses out of sheer greed. And thus, the Bobs of Eve keep toiling and complaining that the deccers have more "advantage". They don't, apart from the attitude that allows them to lose stuff and still have a good time.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#199 - 2015-01-16 15:33:07 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Please remember that if you are so concerned about these hisec failcorps, you still have methods to cure them by gunpoint diplomacy. Or make better corps, this is a sandbox game, and the culture is what we make it.

If these failcorps are more able than you, assuming here that you don't represent a failcorp, in recruiting new players. Maybe they are in some ways better than you then.

This isn't about me - I have found my way in New Eden - it is about the "think of the newbie" argument I am making.

Ending up in a failcorp, especially one specifically trying exploit new players is bad for player retention.

This change, increases safety for these failcorps and thus will create more of them meaning more new players will end up in them.

It's not up to me to prevent this from happening - that is CCP's job. I am just pointing out a predictable consequence from this change. I hope that the good highsec corps up their recruitment numbers because of this change to compensate for this obvious negative consequence. What I wish is that CCP has timed this change with some sort of new mechanism to help get new players into good corps - perhaps like a certification system where approved corps are offered first to a new player rather than whatever shyster gets to them first by spamming invites.

Whatever though, I am just a player, new player retention isn't my primary concern. As to gameplay, this will have little to no effect on anything. I may philosophically oppose this change as will reduce conflict and make things more boring, but awoxing is so rare and this flag is optional so there will be no noticeable effect to my game experience.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#200 - 2015-01-16 15:34:51 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
With a complete safe highsec...null-sec will crumble. They too don't want complete risk free high-sec. But if you fail to see why, it shows how little you actually know about EVE.
Uhhh, no, it really wouldn't. I barely even remember what highsec looks like. I've seen the inside of a few stations, but that's about it. The only difference a safe highsec would make is we'd lose slightly less freighters.

J'Poll wrote:
Then again, can't blame a mindless PvE guy that just shoot crosses or asteroids for not reading into all the stuff going on in EVE.
You got me! I mean other than the fact that I'm not a mindless PvE guy. I mean how dare I speak about nullsec. I only live there, so clearly I know nothing about it.

J'Poll wrote:
True, they could make PvE more fun. But that should not mean it should be made safer, which is what they are doing.

Though could have kept it as dangerous as it was, but expand on it.
That really depends on their motivations. At the moment they want to encourage people with corps to recruit newer players. People who run decent corps in highsec often require certain levels of SP, because inviting a day 3 players is asking to be awoxed. This change removes that meaning newbies are more likely to find a place in a well run corp before they get to the point of quitting.