Jita Park Speakers Corner

Why?

Why is it that players of one playstyle feel they can dictate the playstyle of a different group of people, especially in a sandbox? No rightful place? Unless your name's on the door of the corner office at CCP I don't think you get to decide that a large number of paying customers don't belong here. Of course, it might just be that you don't really know what the term 'sandbox' means...in which case carry on.

The game is not a themeparked sandbox that takes a new player by the hand initially through risk-free PvE then forces progression into higher risk activities. It's simply not designed that way. It could have been, but it wasn't. In a sandbox the players make the game...or games...from within a framework implemented by the devs. That one of the developments within this sandbox has been the rise of a carebear culture is not a bad thing in and of itself...that's what happens in sandboxes; a framework is developed and players make of it what they choose to.

The OP is on the right track by incentivizing higher risk activities as a way to draw people into them without penalizing those who choose not to. I would disagree with the piece that penalizes industrialists in hisec by lowering their margins unless they move to lower sec systems, but overall it's a good starting point for discussion.

Note that I said those that want Consensual PvP only along with high reward PvE, This does not include Industrialists, players that like work the market, or for that matter players that principally enjoy PvE but nonetheless accept risk of PvP interaction as cost of access to good paying PvE.

Why? Because their style of gaming isn't Sandbox, it's Themepark. You can't have a competitive Sandbox MMO then place remotely good resources in safe PvP free areas without throwing the whole game out of balance, even the worst Sandbox MMOs out there get that part right, but it's something EVE seems to struggle with. No one in EVE is completely disconnected with everyone else and the game world at large, everyone's actions impact the game world, that is Sand Box. What these players I object to are in essence demanding is to be connected to the game world and to impact it like everyone else, but to opt out of having that same game world or anyone in it impact them. That I say again has no place in a Sandbox MMORPG!

Might I trouble you two gentlemen to continue the "bears vs gankers" discussion in one of the ~30,000 or so threads already dedicated to the subject?

Docking games are lame on both sides. Docking aggression timers haven't been changed in a long time, yet we have a more skilled playerbase, EHP rigs with no stacking penalty etc. On the other hand we have better fitted, more co-ordinated gangs in larger numbers.

At the end of the day the solution to lame docking games is not to play them. If someone calls you a "coward" or a "noob bear" or whatever for not engaging his triple-plated & trimarked Navy Mega 15Km inside docking radius, then set your personal standings to him to -10, make a note on Notes sheet of his bio that he's a worthless timewaster, and carry on about your business.

As I said, docking games are lame, but then so is station camping people who can't see what's waiting for them outside. Neither are really hi-sec specific issues. At the end of the day if someone doesn't really want to fight, then they won't. Trying to force them to will only bring you dissatisfaction. That said my experience with people playing station games is that sooner or later they screw up.

What was you question on mining?

My response would be: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/7358-1/page/1#26

Heh. It's exactly the same proposal, except that it's worded differently.

Malcanis posted "My response would be: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/7358-1/page/1#26

+1 Malcanis ....... Why can't we get this type of good solid proposal before the CSM & CCP? I think this approach of making the size of systems feel as big as they are virtually supposed to be would greatly enhance gameplay. It would make ganking miners more skill based because you'd have to first find the belts then find the miners. In null where the number of miners seems to not be as large as it could be this could be a real invitation to migration, bigger systems with less competition for more valuable ores and a greater difficulty for being hunted down swiftly. I would think things like being behind a planet should and could help hide ships from scans, which gives advantages to both hunters and hunted.

I wholeheartedly agree that moons and planets should be able to sustain more then one pos and a system should be able to support more then one outpost. That would make for some great combat opportunities i think. Power to the Players!

No, not unless you think "giving more to people who do X" and "taking away from people who don't do X" are the same thing. I am just going to operate under the assumption that you're smarter than that. Reward for desired action =/= penalty for not performing desired action.

In the former case, people who don't change are in the same boat tomorrow that they are in today while people who do change are in a shinier boat. One approach is guaranteed to **** off people who choose the status quo while the other will only **** off some of them.

On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem.