These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vigirr
#41 - 2016-10-30 11:16:41 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Yes EvE has always been a PvP sandbox. That however does not alter the fact I and many others started playing to different rules than those that exist now.


Feel free to point out the differences.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2016-10-30 11:23:42 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Yes EvE has always been a PvP sandbox. That however does not alter the fact I and many others started playing to different rules than those that exist now.


Feel free to point out the differences.

Here is a link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansions_of_Eve_Online

Go nuts.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Vigirr
#43 - 2016-10-30 11:27:20 UTC
Which means what, exactly?
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2016-10-30 11:28:39 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
Which means what, exactly?

See comment relating to crayons and finger paints.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Vigirr
#45 - 2016-10-30 11:33:02 UTC
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2016-10-30 11:42:59 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
permion
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2016-10-30 11:44:15 UTC
You do realize that capsuleers are legally above the law in many aspects in lore. Even the freedom loving gallente literally have separate courts for the normal population, and the baseline rich(non-capsuleer rich)... There is a difference of scale between between baseline rich and capsuleer rich, starting at that most planets don't even have the GDP to even make a frigate.

Likewise the empires themselves have signed away most of their ability to enforce laws against capsuleers to concord.
Vigirr
#48 - 2016-10-30 11:55:00 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2016-10-30 11:56:34 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now.

Learn. Education of any kind is beneficial. Even if it is the history of an online game.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#50 - 2016-10-30 12:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops.

Roll yeah sure.

No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well.

Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption.

That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.
Vigirr
#51 - 2016-10-30 12:04:08 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now.

Learn. Education of any kind is beneficial. Even if it is the history of an online game.

Ok so nothing but BS then. Duly noted.

Thank you for your useless contribution to this useless thread.
Asmodai Xodai
#52 - 2016-10-30 12:11:58 UTC
Jagd Wilde wrote:
Yup, another one.

So OP,

Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.

If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.

gtfo


I don't agree with the guy's proposed change in any way whatsoever, but no need to be a douchebag either. You are no doubt just as much a carebear as anyone else, tough guy. You show me any gang of low-sec pirate gate-campers who consider themselves doing 'elite PvP' *cough* and I'll show you a bunch of tree-hugging carebears. In real life low-grade scrubs who operate in gangs and jump individuals they outnumber 5 or 10 to 1 aren't considered tough guys, they are considered cowards. You never see these guys taking actual risks, or taking fights they could potentially lose. Nope, it's either they jump unsuspecting individuals they outnumber and outgun 10 to 1 at the most creative and ingenious of all gameplay devices this game has ever seen - the gatecamp - or they don't play. Cowards and carebears, the lot of them. A high-sec miner takes more risk.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for outlawing it, nor regulating it. Play the game however you want, and do what makes you happy. Just don't be under the illusion that you are any less of a carebear than anyone else.
Vigirr
#53 - 2016-10-30 12:13:57 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
Jagd Wilde wrote:
Yup, another one.

So OP,

Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.

If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.

gtfo


I don't agree with the guy's proposed change in any way whatsoever, but no need to be a douchebag either. You are no doubt just as much a carebear as anyone else, tough guy. You show me any gang of low-sec pirate gate-campers who consider themselves doing 'elite PvP' *cough* and I'll show you a bunch of tree-hugging carebears. In real life low-grade scrubs who operate in gangs and jump individuals they outnumber 5 or 10 to 1 aren't considered tough guys, they are considered cowards. You never see these guys taking actual risks, or taking fights they could potentially lose. Nope, it's either they jump unsuspecting individuals they outnumber and outgun 10 to 1 at the most creative and ingenious of all gameplay devices this game has ever seen - the gatecamp - or they don't play. Cowards and carebears, the lot of them. A high-sec miner takes more risk.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for outlawing it, nor regulating it. Play the game however you want, and do what makes you happy. Just don't be under the illusion that you are any less of a carebear than anyone else.


Most people hide in numbers or behind support alts and whatnot. A gate camper really isn't that different from a miner. Only people who are fine with, and perhaps even seek, to be the underdog aren't carebears.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#54 - 2016-10-30 12:34:34 UTC
Xander Jade wrote:
no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy.

Yes, but New Eden is set in a distopian future and the capsuleers are semi-gods who are not bound by the restrictions of the empires. The "realism" you are asking for has nothing to do with the setting we play EVE in. You think the empires are similar to our RL countries and apply this to the game, that's not what they are. Please make yourself familiar with the lore before you try to use it as an argument to make silly game changes

Evil RatKid
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#55 - 2016-10-30 13:26:04 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Link Lossmail plz

I think I found it.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/51746341/
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#56 - 2016-10-30 13:31:12 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Xander Jade wrote:
no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy.

Yes, but New Eden is set in a distopian future and the capsuleers are semi-gods who are not bound by the restrictions of the empires. The "realism" you are asking for has nothing to do with the setting we play EVE in. You think the empires are similar to our RL countries and apply this to the game, that's not what they are. Please make yourself familiar with the lore before you try to use it as an argument to make silly game changes

Apart from that, I doubt he's thinking of the sort of realism we can find in quite some countries across the world right now.

Remove standings and insurance.
Keno Skir
#57 - 2016-10-30 13:53:34 UTC
EvE is supposed to be dangerous, everywhere. That's why it's so fresh.

Without resorting to flaming the OP, i bet his cornflakes are wet n floppy..

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2016-10-30 14:07:07 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
EvE is supposed to be dangerous, everywhere. That's why it's so fresh.

Without resorting to flaming the OP, i bet his cornflakes are wet n floppy..

Not entirely true.

EvE was designed on a basic model. High sec was supposed to be "relatively safe" - google that with Oveur, the original lead developer and the developers worked initially to make that so - they repeatedly buffed concord, ships and mechanics to ensure that highsec remained relatively safe.

Low sec was supposed to be unsafe but not terribly so. Gate guns were a viable deterrent to all but the most dangerous criminals.

Null sec was supposed to be lawless and very unsafe.


As time went on CCP dropped the ball on highsec, dps creep went up and CCP didn't respond well to that.

In lowsec dps creep and tankability went up and the gate guns that used to be functional became pretty much worthless.

In null we got cynos, jump bridges, wormholes to high, jump freighters, and clone jumping.

The end result

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#59 - 2016-10-30 14:20:49 UTC
Xander Jade wrote:
it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

followed by wacky maths formula aimed at making hisec a better place for him to live in forever


Just No.




Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2016-10-30 15:13:16 UTC
EvE is a more complex game than just a pvp sandbox. If it was just a pvp-sandbox there wouldnt be any carebears around. Pvp is though the most important feature, without it the game wouldnt be as interesting. In the game design the relative safety of hi-sec is balanced with the low outcome of each effort, while the high danger of low- and null-sec is balance with the higher rewards. In everything in EvE except hi-sec ganking. So literaly for little effort you earn billions. Why CCP supports this deviation from the usual game mechanics is beyond me.
There is no issue with the hi-sec safety, the issue is with the high reward of the ganking activity in high sec and I would support a change towards that.