EVE General Discussion

I disagree, the cot/benefit balance is fine.

And I love game balance, I just don't agree with your views on it where you seem to think that balance means you have an easy time killing whoever you wish at next to no cost regardless of how the game is for others.

I can just picture the meeting at CCP, everyone's heads smoking as they're trying to come up with a compromise between the sociopath-friendly nerdy absolute-niché-yet-somehow-successful game structure that they created and what absolute strangers (read: never-going-to-play-EVE people) actually want: social media sites.

Social corps was the outcome. Really? Hey guys, if that's the best thing you came up with, maybe your original goal of combining social media with Eve Online was simply undoable.

How about you take a break and come back when you can see your project from a bit further away?

Or when you get an idea of social networks. They aren't about "socializing" with people, they are about expressing yourself in one-directional ways - one-to-many, without responses; monologues instead of dialogues - and about proudly displaying your own narcissism.

If you really want the social media crowd in Eve, you don't want social corps, but webcams streamed on those big billboard that currently display the bounties. You want pewdiepie on there telling everyone how great him playing Frog Adventures 2 is, or a girl brushing her hair and talking about how she's so indie no really xD - ok no CCP already tried that one.

Hm.

Infact seeing people on there would actually be fun.

Do that.

I'll show you what I make for dinner.

Actually I think they looked at the better forms of player interaction saw that NPSI groups were gaining popularity even though they were very adhoc and thought "how can we make this process smoother". These are being "social groups" and the like, but what they really are is interest groups. People who enjoy playing in particular ways can set them up and they are loose enough on membership ties to allow for casual players or hardcore ones, for newbies and vets. It's certainly not about turning EVE into social media. I think you've read too much into the word "social".

A deployable to decrease Concord response speed in the system.

A module to fool d-scan, give off a fake ship profile. Alternatively, a pseudo cloaking device that mimics the profile of a different ship of the same class, until aggression is under way.

Wardecs that actually work.

A bounty system that actually gives incentive to hunt people down, without being exploitable with alts.

Faction warfare that is actually warfare, not 80% farmers.

Missions for pirate factions in more places, with more depth of rewards. In general, the opportunity to side with the pirate factions of New Eden.

OH OH OH

Making it so we can do MOAR with wardecs!


Like Give the PVE more content with benefits that doesn't increase the ISK income but makes it easier to operate. I dunno like what. But something that helps with with mining/missions/POS'es

Make so that a corp can fight over these things that assists them. Kinda wanting a Moon that a POS is anchored on. Instead these things are more like D-scan stations that extend D-scan range by like 2.5 to 5AU, or something that won't completely break the game. But YEAH!


That way not just moons but entire systems become wanted.

Like Mini-Sov for Highsec I suppose. But rather then Ownership of the system you are simply getting favors from the local Faction. But make it so only corps with the Highest faction standing in that system can use these benefits.


Then Mercs can contract to wardec these corps which have these favors and destroy those things. When those benifits are pewpewed, the owning corp lose standings with that system, so that means that another corp can maybe pass them up and reap the benefits for themselves.. So that means they are being contracted out more, which is more content for them, and PVE corps get awesome possum things they can do in home systems, that can help protect that system.

That way to 'War" is not judged on Isk/ship losses it judged by if the Defended keeps his system or not!



Personally I would love that,

I'd like to see that "CONCORD doesn't protect ships with offensive modules or drones fitted" thing I mentioned a while back. Seems like a great balance to me. Combat ships can engage any other combat ship without repercussion. Miners can bring Hobs to fight off rats but would then be freely engageable - so they'd need to think of other ways to protect themselves. Like a nearby player in a combat ship, which promotes teamwork and social connections. Freighters would retain their full CONCORD protection - which I'm fine with as I'm of the opinion that the economic engine is of vital importance to EVE gameplay, and the movement of goods is important to the economic engine. (And can still be suicide ganked anyway.)

It's the perfect balance, IMO - ships that can shoot can be shot back, and we can all be villains. Ships that can't protect themselves get CONCORD protection, but can still be suicide ganked which takes some coordination and math but has zero risk since the outcome is predetermined.

This might be the solution to highsec Incursion running, perhaps?

Newbie security mission runners will have a hard time of it, though. Maybe give players 60 days old or younger CONCORD protection no matter what they fly?

It opens up a whole new style of highsec gameplay, too - player-based security enforcement and protection rackets.

ps - if I had the time I'd go through a few threads and pick out all the "EVE is a game of..." statements. EVE apparently is so many things!

See? Now this is what I like and I agree with more than one of them although if there is a module to slow down Concord would it make sense to also have one that sped it up? A bidding war for the service positive or negative.

Wardecs need work, no doubt about it and worthy of another thread in and of themselves

I have seen a few ideas for bounties and damn I would like to see Boba Fett lifestyle be possible. (I would die a lot and often given my current bounty)

Faction Warfare is not something I have ever done. I really need to rectify that some day soon.

I have asked for this before. The working for/with pirates.

Thank you, I know this is a derailment of the original thread topic but that horse has been beaten to death,. hooves made into glue.

Everybody is focused on fozziesov as though there is nothing else that needs changing/fixing/doing in eve.

I am a reasonable man who likes to see additions to all parts of the game, not just one side (though some will tell you I am a dyed in the wool carebear) But I like to see many types of play possible in the game so if you think yours is the only way the game is meant to be played you are going to find me standing in your way as you try to push ideas through. That also means I have flat out told people NO when they demanded that gankers have to pay their victims a fine up to 80% of the value of the ship lost.

To swing back to the threads topic.

Social corp . . . no . . . it is not what I have been pushing for

Societies/clubs? Yes. It benefits people in npc corps, wardeccing corps or organizations, wormholes, null and low. I disagree with the people who make it out to be a boon to JUST npc corp risk averse players.

m

Gotta point out, that's basically a strawman. Especially since it's about high time that conflict starts being promoted and made more accessible, in highsec especially, unless we're going to start putting newbies into lowsec. EVE has been going in mostly one direction for the past few years, and it's due for a move in the other direction.

That does mean that some relatively one sided things will happen while rebalancing the game back towards the middle, like the banning of ISBoxer. Just because it's one sided doesn't mean it's not for the better of the game as a whole.

There is no point promoting something that yields no rewards. Even if the players do undock they will be faced with a slew of mechanics that are balanced against them. (Neutral Boosts, Neutral RR, neutral scouts are all used to the advantage of the wardeccer. Why should anyone play the game on anyone's terms but their own?

Hence why you nerf NPC corps. Income and purchasing power is relative, and by nerfing one thing, you de-facto buff everything else.




Oh, my goodness! I had absolutely no idea that people who were defending a wardec were forbidden from using scouts and reps! That will not stand?

Wait, what? You mean scouts are available to everyone, and "neutral" reps are a thin advantage at best? By Jove!



Because risk vs reward should be a thing, and it should dictate that those who refuse to accept risk have their rewards commensurately lowered. Since wars are about half the possible risk in highsec, by rights NPC corps should be unquestionably the inferior option in terms of personal individual income generation.

If that happens? Then there's a good reason to be in a player corp.