These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How BF3's turn for the worse resembles EVE's

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#281 - 2012-11-26 06:11:12 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:

You've picked up a heavy PVP videogame, decided you want to PVE in it, and complain that you get blown up too easy.
Do you see me in Hello kitty online complaining that all the PVE'ers are ruining the game? No. I didnt join a PVE game, because i want to PVP. Why did you join a PVP game to PVE?


Perhaps CCP realized that there are simply not enough hard core PVPers to make the company highly profitable, and that they need to make the game have different areas, to appeal to different player types, with different play styles. Perhaps EVE is no longer a highly PVP oriented game, and is a more balanced game which accommodates more people with a wider variety of play styles.



There are PLENTY of PVPers that want to PVP. So, go PVP with each other.

What I do not understand is why those that want to PVP insist on being able to PVP against those players that have no interest in PVP. What's that matter? You really suck at PVP, so can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking for a fight... so you prefer to only PVP against those with no interest in PVP, that are not ready for or looking for a fight?


I have not heard that CCP plans to remove your ability to PVP against other players that want to PVP against you. If two people want to fight, CCP is very PRO them fighting.

What I've seen is CCP reluctant to let the people that want to PVP again non-PVPers, force the non-PVPers out of the game.


So, if you want to PVP, go PVP against other players that want to PVP, and stop trying to push all the non-PVPers out of the game.

I wonder why we always manage to find people who simply do not understand piracy.
Lutin Ballista
Ballista Investment Corp
#282 - 2012-11-26 08:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lutin Ballista
baltec1 wrote:
Lutin Ballista wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
The old fans are the reason the franchise has lasted to make the sequels you now enjoy. The old fans know the legacy the franchise has built. They know what makes the series unique and have certain expectations based on previous entries.



Ive played on and off since Beta. I'm a carebear. How does that fit in your argument?

The OP seems to think that this game is a PVP space ship game. The fact that the majority of the game is built around pure economics rather than Pew Pew seems to be lost on most people.

To say people playing in high sec aren't playing the game right is to totally ignore the fact that they are playing the game as CCP created it.

And some people forget pvp drives the market which is itself a pvp activity.


Are you trying to suggest I am one of those people? How did you come to that conclusion?

My view, if I am allowed one on here, is that we need a balance (!) between the PVP'ers and the carebears. Things need to go pop (for the reasons you say) but at the same time the PVP'ers need to appreciate that the little carebears are playing their own game (a game created by CCP) which allows the PVP'ers the multiple ways to go pew pew. I'm against the balance of power going too far either way. I hope that makes sense.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


CCP needs to shuffle and redo stuff in nullsec, it's that place that can make EvE inviting again.
CCP needs to implement mechanics that make the huge blue balls break and conflict born again.


Here here!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#283 - 2012-11-26 09:06:21 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
What I do not understand is why those that want to PVP insist on being able to PVP against those players that have no interest in PVP. What's that matter? You really suck at PVP, so can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking for a fight... so you prefer to only PVP against those with no interest in PVP, that are not ready for or looking for a fight?


it's very simple, you see, those who are ready and looking for a fight can take a loss so they don't make a pleasurable squeal when they do get killed, and they're not normally autopiloting haulers loaded to the brim with the entirety of their life's worth

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-11-26 09:10:34 UTC
Risien Drogonne wrote:
CCP understands: gankers want guaranteed, easy profit with no risk other than losing your cheap ship, like a car trade-in.


yeah uh the cost of a failed freighter gank is upwards of a billion, thanks for playing

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2012-11-26 09:39:43 UTC
Andski wrote:
Risien Drogonne wrote:
CCP understands: gankers want guaranteed, easy profit with no risk other than losing your cheap ship, like a car trade-in.


yeah uh the cost of a failed freighter gank is upwards of a billion, thanks for playing

which some alliances compensate to it's failed players. Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-11-26 09:42:23 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Andski wrote:
Risien Drogonne wrote:
CCP understands: gankers want guaranteed, easy profit with no risk other than losing your cheap ship, like a car trade-in.


yeah uh the cost of a failed freighter gank is upwards of a billion, thanks for playing

which some alliances compensate to it's failed players. Cool


yeah not being poor is great Cool

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2012-11-26 11:04:01 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Andski wrote:
Risien Drogonne wrote:
CCP understands: gankers want guaranteed, easy profit with no risk other than losing your cheap ship, like a car trade-in.


yeah uh the cost of a failed freighter gank is upwards of a billion, thanks for playing

which some alliances compensate to it's failed players. Cool

Thats still a billion lost.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#288 - 2012-11-26 11:05:12 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:
I know plenty of "Carebears" and high-sec risk adverse dwellers that aren't new players.

Since this is generally what your comparison is based on, it's not a valid comparison in my eyes.


Again, sorry for my generalizations. Im not talking about the players who are happy with highsec, or want extra highsec features etc. thats all great and wonderful. I'm 100% in favor of CCP adding more highsec content and features. I'm absolutely not asking for highsec to be nerfed.

I'm simply pointing out that pirating/low/null is actively being nerfed in favor of the vocal whiners who hate pirates/low/null. Most of these whiners are in fact newer players (i admit there are probably some older ones as well). The game is being catered to a different group of player. A group that isnt exactly PVP-oriented. EVE was originally designed to be a heavy PVP game. They are nerfing the PVP in favor of PVE players who hate PVP.

My original point was that EA/DICE are doing the same thing, and the older Battlefield crowd feels alienated much like many older PVP players in eve do.(i said many, meaning not all, dont yell at me for generalizing again)

If you read the full bf3 post, you'll see that many of the hardcore features that made battlefield a household name have been removed to make it easier to understand for new players. One obvious feature is the Commander mode. Gone.

CCP is doing something similar, changing the entire game mechanics in order to make the game friendlier to those who dont like PVP. Alienating many PVP players who were the reason EVE is alive today.


actually in fact, a key part of the incursion community (mostly highsec) is due to cop a hit due to ceetain low/null seccers shortly. That is the ones who park thier boosters inside a pos shield for unkillable fleet boosts. Incursion boosts will soon have to waste an ongrid dps/logi slot or 2 that or have no boosts anymore. All because of the actions of a few "risk adverse" low/null folks. Whats to be said about that?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#289 - 2012-11-26 11:10:13 UTC
Aramatheia wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:
I know plenty of "Carebears" and high-sec risk adverse dwellers that aren't new players.

Since this is generally what your comparison is based on, it's not a valid comparison in my eyes.


Again, sorry for my generalizations. Im not talking about the players who are happy with highsec, or want extra highsec features etc. thats all great and wonderful. I'm 100% in favor of CCP adding more highsec content and features. I'm absolutely not asking for highsec to be nerfed.

I'm simply pointing out that pirating/low/null is actively being nerfed in favor of the vocal whiners who hate pirates/low/null. Most of these whiners are in fact newer players (i admit there are probably some older ones as well). The game is being catered to a different group of player. A group that isnt exactly PVP-oriented. EVE was originally designed to be a heavy PVP game. They are nerfing the PVP in favor of PVE players who hate PVP.

My original point was that EA/DICE are doing the same thing, and the older Battlefield crowd feels alienated much like many older PVP players in eve do.(i said many, meaning not all, dont yell at me for generalizing again)

If you read the full bf3 post, you'll see that many of the hardcore features that made battlefield a household name have been removed to make it easier to understand for new players. One obvious feature is the Commander mode. Gone.

CCP is doing something similar, changing the entire game mechanics in order to make the game friendlier to those who dont like PVP. Alienating many PVP players who were the reason EVE is alive today.


actually in fact, a key part of the incursion community (mostly highsec) is due to cop a hit due to ceetain low/null seccers shortly. That is the ones who park thier boosters inside a pos shield for unkillable fleet boosts. Incursion boosts will soon have to waste an ongrid dps/logi slot or 2 that or have no boosts anymore. All because of the actions of a few "risk adverse" low/null folks. Whats to be said about that?

About damn time.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#290 - 2012-11-26 11:23:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aramatheia wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:
I know plenty of "Carebears" and high-sec risk adverse dwellers that aren't new players.

Since this is generally what your comparison is based on, it's not a valid comparison in my eyes.


Again, sorry for my generalizations. Im not talking about the players who are happy with highsec, or want extra highsec features etc. thats all great and wonderful. I'm 100% in favor of CCP adding more highsec content and features. I'm absolutely not asking for highsec to be nerfed.

I'm simply pointing out that pirating/low/null is actively being nerfed in favor of the vocal whiners who hate pirates/low/null. Most of these whiners are in fact newer players (i admit there are probably some older ones as well). The game is being catered to a different group of player. A group that isnt exactly PVP-oriented. EVE was originally designed to be a heavy PVP game. They are nerfing the PVP in favor of PVE players who hate PVP.

My original point was that EA/DICE are doing the same thing, and the older Battlefield crowd feels alienated much like many older PVP players in eve do.(i said many, meaning not all, dont yell at me for generalizing again)

If you read the full bf3 post, you'll see that many of the hardcore features that made battlefield a household name have been removed to make it easier to understand for new players. One obvious feature is the Commander mode. Gone.

CCP is doing something similar, changing the entire game mechanics in order to make the game friendlier to those who dont like PVP. Alienating many PVP players who were the reason EVE is alive today.


actually in fact, a key part of the incursion community (mostly highsec) is due to cop a hit due to ceetain low/null seccers shortly. That is the ones who park thier boosters inside a pos shield for unkillable fleet boosts. Incursion boosts will soon have to waste an ongrid dps/logi slot or 2 that or have no boosts anymore. All because of the actions of a few "risk adverse" low/null folks. Whats to be said about that?

About damn time.


they could have just had the pos shield block ALL effects from passing in either direction. There was no need to remove off grid boosting, why is is so hard for people to scan down ships? I trained scanning skills for like 3 days and have done plenty of scanning easy, in a t1 frig. Im sure a cloaked frig with a warp scram and a t3 bc would be able to bounce and kill an opposing fleets booster hiding in empty space.

I always got the impression that things were done like pro's in low/null and thats why they saw themselves as being better than high seccers. But guess not and cause of that a high sec activity is also going to be affected. Go figure!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#291 - 2012-11-26 11:30:29 UTC
Aramatheia wrote:


they could have just had the pos shield block ALL effects from passing in either direction. There was no need to remove off grid boosting, why is is so hard for people to scan down ships? I trained scanning skills for like 3 days and have done plenty of scanning easy, in a t1 frig. Im sure a cloaked frig with a warp scram and a t3 bc would be able to bounce and kill an opposing fleets booster hiding in empty space.

I always got the impression that things were done like pro's in low/null and thats why they saw themselves as being better than high seccers. But guess not and cause of that a high sec activity is also going to be affected. Go figure!

You cant even catch a plated abaddon thats hopping safes with probes. No, much like isurance for gankboats the idea of off grid boosters is a silly thing. If you want those bonuses then you are going to have to risk the ship.
Kurt Saken
Star Cluster Wanderer
#292 - 2012-11-26 11:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kurt Saken
BF? Is that a game where you can kill someone without aiming at all?
That would be the perfect choice for a nerdy eve bobbler.
Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2012-11-26 12:16:51 UTC
Kurt Saken wrote:
BF? Is that a game where you can kill someone without aiming at all?
That would be the perfect choice for a nerdy eve bobbler.


Yeah, that game where 1 foot soldier can take down a tank and a team of 2 people in a chopper can dominate the round as long as they press x at the right time.
Kurt Saken
Star Cluster Wanderer
#294 - 2012-11-26 12:24:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kurt Saken
sorry. wrong post
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2012-11-26 13:28:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Andski wrote:
Risien Drogonne wrote:
CCP understands: gankers want guaranteed, easy profit with no risk other than losing your cheap ship, like a car trade-in.


yeah uh the cost of a failed freighter gank is upwards of a billion, thanks for playing

which some alliances compensate to it's failed players. Cool

Thats still a billion lost.

Andskii doesn't agree with you Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-11-26 13:29:13 UTC
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Kurt Saken wrote:
BF? Is that a game where you can kill someone without aiming at all?
That would be the perfect choice for a nerdy eve bobbler.


Yeah, that game where 1 foot soldier can take down a tank and a team of 2 people in a chopper can dominate the round as long as they press x at the right time.

looks like 0.0 sec blobs.....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Lord Rixus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#297 - 2012-11-26 13:31:33 UTC
A better interface would do more for new players than CONCORD ever will.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#298 - 2012-11-26 13:47:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I wonder why we always manage to find people who simply do not understand piracy.



I understand piracy perfectly.

The point is that if piracy is too easy, then it will cause those players with no interest in PVP to quit the game. This will cause CCP revenue to go down. This will cause CCP to make piracy less easy and profitable.

The OP seems to be lamenting that CCP is ruining the game by making piracy more difficult. I'm saying that CCP is saving the game by making it profitable to operate the game, by increasing the number of active subscriptions, by making it welcoming to players with no interest in PVP, by making piracy more difficult.


OH... if CCP would just make piracy easier, I'd have more fun killing carebears. WRONG! If CCP made piracy easier, the carebears would stop playing. Then the only people that would be in game are the other people that want to PVP.

So, you can PVP against other players that want to PVP now, and leave the carebears alone. Or, CCP could let you pick on the carebears, drive them all out of game.... then you could PVP against only the other people that want to PVP because that is all that is left in game.


What CCP lacks, is the ability to make it easy for you to pirate caerbears AND for there to be lots of carebears for you to pirate from. Since CCP lacks the ability to force people to play, they lack the ability to force them to be easy targets for pirates. CCP can have one of the other(lots of carebears OR easy to pirate carebears), but CCP can not have both. CCP has chosen to have lots of carebears, by making it harder for PVPers to pirate from them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#299 - 2012-11-26 14:41:33 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I wonder why we always manage to find people who simply do not understand piracy.



I understand piracy perfectly.

The point is that if piracy is too easy, then it will cause those players with no interest in PVP to quit the game. This will cause CCP revenue to go down. This will cause CCP to make piracy less easy and profitable.

The OP seems to be lamenting that CCP is ruining the game by making piracy more difficult. I'm saying that CCP is saving the game by making it profitable to operate the game, by increasing the number of active subscriptions, by making it welcoming to players with no interest in PVP, by making piracy more difficult.


OH... if CCP would just make piracy easier, I'd have more fun killing carebears. WRONG! If CCP made piracy easier, the carebears would stop playing. Then the only people that would be in game are the other people that want to PVP.

So, you can PVP against other players that want to PVP now, and leave the carebears alone. Or, CCP could let you pick on the carebears, drive them all out of game.... then you could PVP against only the other people that want to PVP because that is all that is left in game.


What CCP lacks, is the ability to make it easy for you to pirate caerbears AND for there to be lots of carebears for you to pirate from. Since CCP lacks the ability to force people to play, they lack the ability to force them to be easy targets for pirates. CCP can have one of the other(lots of carebears OR easy to pirate carebears), but CCP can not have both. CCP has chosen to have lots of carebears, by making it harder for PVPers to pirate from them.

We have been doing piracy for the last decade and EVE has done nothing but grow year on year. We do not need another nerf because some people want to fly stupid. We are infact killing but a fraction of the freighter traffic out there.
Regis Solo
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2012-11-26 14:43:50 UTC
Does anyone else find baltec1 's smirk annoying? Well done baltec1, if it's intended it ******* works.