These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#161 - 2012-11-23 07:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
My reply wasn't directed solely at you, though I view your attitude as part of the problem. This is not a single player game. In EVE, player actions have wide-reaching significance. Are you really going to tell me that EVE would be EVE if all everyone did was quietly mine and mission in the corner of their favorite systems? How long would people stay when they realize that they can get the same thing, with a much greater sense of depth, by switching to X3 for a one-time payment of about 20 bucks on Steam, instead of dropping 15 every month per account?

Most bears don't even realize that the only reason they play this game longer than three months is because some hardman at some point blew up their boat and, by instilling a sense of worth, gave them something to strive for. Go ask a miner who's never been killed and never shot at another player whether he enjoys what he's doing. I have, many times, throughout my adventures. You'll be really surprised.


That's hogwash. Players quit because they lost ships. That is a question they ask you when you quit your EVE subscription.

Null-Sec, Low-Sec, Hi -Sec or any-sec... People Rage quit because they lose a ship and CCP knows it. Doesn't matter if you are a care bare or a PVP player. People quit because they a lost ship.

Now CCP keeps subs because people can afford to replace ships. In fact that keeps them in business, but the fact of the matter is that people keep playing EVE because they know how to keep ships not how to lose ships. If losing ships meant playing EVE more then our ships would automatically explode when we undocked.

LOL

Uh, even for the beariest of the bears, only a modest percentage quit directly over ship losses.

PVP players quit over losing ships? Really, bro?

Wait I just got trolled, didn't I?

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#162 - 2012-11-23 07:44:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:


Going to agree about the barge buffs. Mining vessels having comparing ehp values to combat ships simply makes little sense and is utterly lacking immersion...


In the case of the mack its actually better than a lot of the t2 cruisers now. It used to be around the same as a curse and never had an issue with tanking other than a need for slightly more fitting room.


I could agree for the Hulk, but saying that Macks tank was fine is totally dumb. With an Hulk you could sacrifice all the efficiency to get some tank and hope to survive, with a Mack it was just an exercise of frustration and also explained why almost half of the ice mining ships were not Macks.

As for the "tank around same as a curse", it's not like a Curse has a transatlantic sized signature, 80m/s top speed, 17s align time and is tied to a rock.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#163 - 2012-11-23 07:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I haven't recruited anyone into EVE since 2010.

Today, I can count the amount of people I know who still play on one hand, and most of them barely log in. The average new player I speak to does one of two things: he missions, or he mines. Most do it only to the extent that it allows them to buy a PLEX in order to keep their accounts going. Most don't last a year, though at least CCP's aggressive marketing makes sure that they get replaced quickly.

Progress, right?


You can repeat the same mantra for most "hard core" games.

I have played most of them, even less known stuff like Darkfall Online and they all lost punch through the years.

When I played text mode MUDs, I was regarded as "casual" because I played less than 8 hours a day (2 of which spent farming ingredients for buffs to fight dungeon bosses with).
At beginning of WoW I was regarded as "casual" because I played less than 12 hours a day (2 of which spent farming ingredientd for pots).


Today? In GW2 I am regarded as "too hard core" because I'd want to blow people for more than 1 hour a day, in WH I am too hard core because I want people in my WB to pot up and fight 2 vs 1.

The whole "hard core" / committed player meter has changed across all the games, both PvE and PvP.

Dinosaurs don't adapt. Dinosaurs got extinct. I am glad CCP don't have a Dumbosaur as CEO.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#164 - 2012-11-23 07:53:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
A Curse is also a combat boat. A mining barge is a ship built for a singular purpose: to mine ore. Combat should be left to the escorts. Barges should at most have enough health to bail when trouble knocks, and they pretty much did. Boosting their fitting resources a bit to allow cruiser-sized buffer mods would have been a better solution, but CCP chose to give them a built-in super-tank instead.

If that's the path they chose to follow, then how about giving all combat ships built-in mining bonuses as well? Why should miners have ships that can both tank and mine without having to train for combat, but other players can't have ships that can both tank and mine without having to train for mining? Such game design amounts to dumbfounded chop logic.

In reference to your second post above:

I can't make the association between pvp combat and being hardcore. Plenty of people (myself included) play solely for pvp, but don't spend a whole lot of time in the game. On the other hand, there are bears who drop double-digit hours every day, and spend that entire time stripping .9 Veldspar. Being hardcore has nothing to do with how you play a game, and everything to do with how seriously you take it.

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

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#165 - 2012-11-23 08:11:28 UTC
BF3 sucked because you touched yourself, while you played it.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#166 - 2012-11-23 08:13:44 UTC
The new crimewatch should be awesome.
People will be paying isk to come to you and die because you killed someone earlier. No more boring roaming. Delivery to the door.

The more you gank/kill - the more chance of some idiot buying the kill right and coming to die and give you free loot.

I don't know how many time ive said this when nerfing/ganking/piracy/general nastyness/fun is asked for - Be careful what you wish for.
Too late now - the wish has come true and now it will bite your asses if you actually act upon it.

99% of pilots in Black Rise will have a field day with anyone who comes to try and claim bounties on them.
If you do come - I recommend fitting lots of expensive faction modules to increase you chances of winning.

OR
It could work out that kill rights will rarely be sold or acted upon(just like now) so a lot of the bickering about it might be pointless.

But I predict lots of dead ships and pods that belonged to 'bounty hunters'.

CCP has given the carebears a wolf in sheeps clothing.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#167 - 2012-11-23 08:17:52 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Warning: This link is like 5 posts worth of information about bf3.
http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE

The part i'm interested is near the end, i'll quote:
Quote:
If you are new to the Battlefield franchise (Bad Company 1 through Battlefield 3) you are part of the new audience. Players that have enjoyed Codename Eagle up to 2142 are part of the old fan base.

First let me say this to the new guard, if you are enjoying Battlefield 3… great. I’m glad that you are and I wouldn’t try to convince you that the game is not fun or that you shouldn’t be playing it. That being said, the new guard has absolutely no right to tell the old guard, “if you don’t like it, leave” or “quit complaining.”

Hear me out. I’ll tell you why I think so. 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.

More than that though is the following point that I posit to you in a hypothetical. You enjoy Battlefield 3 for its insane amount of unlocks, the destruction, the vehicles. Let’s suppose Battlefield 4 removes all of those things. Whatever you liked about Battlefield 3 is removed from Battlefield 4 and a bunch of people new to the series end up loving it. It’s great, fun, better than anything else out there. Battlefield 4: Barbie’s IRS Lecture Seminar has nothing resembling your beloved Battlefield 3 but the fans won’t allow you to criticize because they love it. If you don’t like it, leave.


This right here is exactly how i've felt about the direction EVE has been taking regarding Highsec/Carebears.

We've got the oldschool eve pvp'ers who are the reason EVE is so successful, who know EVE is all about the ruthless PVP risk.
And then we have the newer players, who enjoy collecting things in highsec and doing their mining/missioning thing.

CCP has basically done what EA/Dice has done, and catered to the new crowd. Every patch increases CONCORD response times and limits pirating options. Players will shout "HTFU AND ADAPT" but this doesnt change the fact that PVP is being nerfed repeatedly in favor of carebear safety. The new players even say things like "but this is what i want to do", "pirates are ruining the game" etc...

How many PVP'ers have joined Hello Kitty Online and complained that the lack of PVP is destroying HKO? None. Because you dont play a game like HKO for the PVP. Its absurd to join it and then complain that there isnt pvp. Over at eve this is exactly whats going on though. We have a bunch of players who want to do nothing but grind for their 'best lvl 70 armors' for their highsec Golem and thats all they want to do, and they complain to CCP (successfull) to make fundamental mechanics changes to nerf PVP so that they can play WOW-in-Space.




Wow! Arrogant post is arrogant!

CCP are responsible for the success of Eve, not the 'Old Guard'. The old players can all leave and the game would carry on without them quite happily.

Oh, and as this is the first chance a Care Bear has had to stick it up you - if you don't like the lack of PVP then feel free to try another game. Cry me a river etc. P

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#168 - 2012-11-23 08:24:10 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
CCP has given the carebears a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I agree with this 100%. My reason for arguing against these changes isn't because I'm scared of consequences, but because I see just how flawed and futile this system is going to be. At the end of the day, the majority of its usage will come from people who derp around with the system to scam others for cash and kill mails. Ganking will continue because gankers don't care about being shot on their -10 alts. And of course, the bears will whine ever more, because the changes they put so much faith and hope in will prove to be deadly for the very people they were made to protect. And that last bit is the important one, because it will lead CCP further down the path of nerfing empire pvp.

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

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#169 - 2012-11-23 08:25:05 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Wow! Arrogant post is arrogant!

CCP are responsible for the success of Eve, not the 'Old Guard'. The old players can all leave and the game would carry on without them quite happily.

What if those old players left back when they were new?

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#170 - 2012-11-23 08:30:07 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:


Going to agree about the barge buffs. Mining vessels having comparing ehp values to combat ships simply makes little sense and is utterly lacking immersion...


In the case of the mack its actually better than a lot of the t2 cruisers now. It used to be around the same as a curse and never had an issue with tanking other than a need for slightly more fitting room.


I could agree for the Hulk, but saying that Macks tank was fine is totally dumb. With an Hulk you could sacrifice all the efficiency to get some tank and hope to survive, with a Mack it was just an exercise of frustration and also explained why almost half of the ice mining ships were not Macks.

As for the "tank around same as a curse", it's not like a Curse has a transatlantic sized signature, 80m/s top speed, 17s align time and is tied to a rock.

The base ehp was close to a curse and both would die to a single gank catalyst if they fitted no tank. The mack could fit a tank that made it unprofitable to kill and still had the room for for an mlu.
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#171 - 2012-11-23 08:35:06 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:


So, Orca corp hangars being scannable and dropping loot is a nerf to pirates/low/null? I thought certain groups of "pirates" if you want to call them that would rejoice at these changes.

I would call that more of a long-needed BUG FIX, not an added feature.

If you want an example of what im talking about, consider that ganking freighters in highsec will be a thing of the past after the new crimewatch system is in place.

I guess i should elaborate. Being a highsec ganker, many people have killrights on me. After the new crimewatch system, anyone anywhere will be able to rightclick me > activate killright. I'm now killable by anyone/everyone. Consider a fleet of suicide battleships waiting for their freighter to jump through the gate. Players can safely rightclick>activate kill right, and gank our ships before the freighter is even decloaked. Highsec ganking is becoming harder and harder.




So actually you are shedding tears that YOU can be setup and ganked by an overwhelming force intent on ruining YOUR day just because THEY can.... sounds like the system just got fair to me...

-CJ
Indo Nira
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2012-11-23 08:38:38 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Wow! Arrogant post is arrogant!

CCP are responsible for the success of Eve, not the 'Old Guard'. The old players can all leave and the game would carry on without them quite happily.

What if those old players left back when they were new?



but they didn't. saying that now is irrelevant. unless you have a time travel machine
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#173 - 2012-11-23 08:41:57 UTC
So players are in no way responsible for the success of a game? Am I understanding that correctly?

If everyone quits today, the game will still be successful, right?

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

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#174 - 2012-11-23 08:44:03 UTC
The 'highsec problem' isnt caused by low or high being too lucritive, or not enough.

The problem is players are trained from the moment they join the game that NPC's are there to save them. They view 0.0/low as 'where the assholes are' and they completely avoid it, because, they say to themselves, "i'm not an *******, im a nice person". CONCORD is there to save them all, and when it fails, its because CCP hasnt fixed them yet.

Making 0.0 or highsec richer or poorer wont change any of this. The problem needs to be approached at a social/cultural level.
If we could train highsec bears that they need player combat support to protect their mining ships, they would be exposed to this reality early on, and not simply wonder why CONCORD didnt show up in time.

I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish this in a way that would be 'best for everyone', but i have a few suggestions.
1) Significantly increase concord's response time, making them get there much much later. Like 2 or 3 minutes later.
2) Add CONCORD ships that spawn immediatly that do nothing but lock down the situation, perhaps pointing any criminal ships in the area
3) Buff exhumers with a massive tank, on par with battleships perhaps.

What this would do is eliminate 'suicide ganking' with catalysts yes, however it would increase the oppertunity for 'real' pirating with 'real' ships. It would also give the bears a chance to defend themselves via remote repairs, falcons, etc.

Again, i havent exactly thought this suggestion out much, but this is the angle in which this problem needs to be approached. Not simply buffing CONCORD some more and making pirates killable by anyone any time.

OR

1) REMOVE CONCORD.
2) Allow all players to shoot anyone with bad security
3) NPC police to spawn to support after x ammount of time if criminals have not left the area.

This would give pirates the ability to commit crimes without CONCORD to punish them, but it would also make room for white knight players to engage them.
At first, this will probably be rough for the bears i admit, however once the white knights organize themselves, i think we would see a very dynamic justice system, carried out by the players alone. NPC's could always be thrown in if the system detects an imbalance, but not CONCORD NPC's.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Le Badass
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-11-23 08:45:49 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:

How many PVP'ers have joined Hello Kitty Online and complained that the lack of PVP is destroying HKO? None. Because you dont play a game like HKO for the PVP.


What do you play HKO for, then, oh wise one? Lol

Sorry, couldn't help myself, you just seemed so in the know about HKO. Carry on :)
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#176 - 2012-11-23 09:01:02 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
The 'highsec problem' isnt caused by low or high being too lucritive, or not enough.

The problem is players are trained from the moment they join the game that NPC's are there to save them. They view 0.0/low as 'where the assholes are' and they completely avoid it, because, they say to themselves, "i'm not an *******, im a nice person". CONCORD is there to save them all, and when it fails, its because CCP hasnt fixed them yet.

I'm going to go ahead and openly admit that you're the first person I've met who can say this stuff better than I can.

Terminal Insanity wrote:
Making 0.0 or highsec richer or poorer wont change any of this. The problem needs to be approached at a social/cultural level.
If we could train highsec bears that they need player combat support to protect their mining ships, they would be exposed to this reality early on, and not simply wonder why CONCORD didnt show up in time.

I've done this with some people I've met throughout the years. An interesting thing happened with a good chunk of them. They become awesome pvpers, and awesome EVE players in general. Some of these people became, and still are, my most-trusted EVE friends and corp members. They would have quit otherwise.

To be fair, the success rate for this type of strategy is very low. I've tried to help countless people after destroying them during wars or ganks. Only a very small percentage responded positively. Most were dismissive, and some hateful. I think it says a lot about modern gamers in general.

PS: The second idea is superior, in my eyes. Players should police players. Heck, I think even missions rats should be replaced with actual players, in the sense that missions send you off to collect a kill mail and/or bounty of some criminal player. Of course it will never happen, but I think it would do wonders for evolving player interaction in this 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

Risien Drogonne
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2012-11-23 09:15:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Risien Drogonne
LujTic wrote:
Great thread.
I'm glad CCP is taking its first baby steps to bring some real PvP to hisec. Transferrable kill rights are a nice first step. The general direction however should not be to make ganking more difficult, but rather a shift from PvE (concord, faction police) to PvP as a means to maintain order. CCP should facilitate and enable players to maintain order: let players take over the role of faction police (with npc backup where needed), provide warp-in beacons at crime scenes, but as a compensation reduce security penalties and/or Concord response (time).

Players are inevitably corrupt and power-hungry, and can't be trusted with police powers. It's better in the hands of AI.

Terminal Insanity wrote:

1) REMOVE CONCORD.
2) Allow all players to shoot anyone with bad security
3) NPC police to spawn to support after x ammount of time if criminals have not left the area.

This would give pirates the ability to commit crimes without CONCORD to punish them, but it would also make room for white knight players to engage them.
At first, this will probably be rough for the bears i admit, however once the white knights organize themselves, i think we would see a very dynamic justice system, carried out by the players alone. NPC's could always be thrown in if the system detects an imbalance, but not CONCORD NPC's.

Ummmm

That's how low-sec currently is, and it hasn't resulted in what you say it would. At all. There are no white-knight players running around saving everyone. There are no mining ops with security. There is no player-based justice, just piracy.

Your idea doesn't work.

Mallak Azaria wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Why should barges have to fit tanks when ganking ships don't have to fit tanks? It is a nonsensical double standard that CCP is fixing.


How is it a double standard? Ganking ships are guaranteed to be destroyed, therefore fitting a tank is pointless as it does not increase the amount of time it takes Concord to kill you. The mining ship has a chance at survival due to multiple factors & fitting a tank increases that chance. Fitting a tank is just one of the many things a miner could do to avoid being suicide ganked.

And now other players will be able to attack you instead of only you being able to initiate the attacks. Fit some tank to defend yourselves. Isn't that what you tell your victims they have to do?

Seems fair to me. Unintended PvP for everyone!
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#178 - 2012-11-23 09:43:11 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So players are in no way responsible for the success of a game? Am I understanding that correctly?

If everyone quits today, the game will still be successful, right?


Don't be a tool - that's not what I said and you know it. Unless you don't understand English...

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#179 - 2012-11-23 09:46:53 UTC
Risien Drogonne wrote:
Ummmm

That's how low-sec currently is, and it hasn't resulted in what you say it would. At all. There are no white-knight players running around saving everyone. There are no mining ops with security. There is no player-based justice, just piracy.

Your idea doesn't work.

That is because right now people have the choice of alternatives. They can go to low-sec and do those things you mentioned, or they can stay in high-sec and not have to put in extra effort or worry about coordinating with others. If there was no choice, then those people would be forced to adapt.

Granted, it's probably way too late to do something like this. If the game began with that type of mindset, then things would be different, but doing this after ten years would just lead to a massive exodus.

Risien Drogonne wrote:
And now other players will be able to attack you instead of only you being able to initiate the attacks. Fit some tank to defend yourselves. Isn't that what you tell your victims they have to do?

Seems fair to me. Unintended PvP for everyone!

Other players can already attack gankers, because the grand majority of them are already outlaws, and new gankers reach that point very quickly. Trust me, it doesn't take a whole lot of kills to get to -5.

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#180 - 2012-11-23 09:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A Curse is also a combat boat. A mining barge is a ship built for a singular purpose: to mine ore.


There's not a single EvE ship that is not a combat ship. Combat happens.


Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Combat should be left to the escorts. Barges should at most have enough health to bail when trouble knocks, and they pretty much did. Boosting their fitting resources a bit to allow cruiser-sized buffer mods would have been a better solution, but CCP chose to give them a built-in super-tank instead.


I have tried the "escorts" thing. Do you know why it does not work? It's EFFING BORING! You got to stand there like an idiot for 8 hours for the attack that never came. Who is going to waste their pass-time to sit in a belt corner waiting for possible attacks? Even at the top of the GS sponsored Hulkageddon (the best time to earn by mining) their attack would happen max twice a day (KBs talk) per system.


Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Why should miners have ships that can both tank and mine without having to train for combat, but other players can't have ships that can both tank and mine without having to train for mining? Such game design amounts to dumbfounded chop logic.


Last time I checked, I had to train appropriate non-mining skills for tanking.
Also, your sentence is a bit odd. It's like wondering how unfair is for truck drivers to also carry stuff, when car drivers had to learn how to drive in a road. Both need the "common" stuff, if the car drivers don't come with a 20 tons trailer it's not because truck drivers are imbalanced.



Destiny Corrupted wrote:

I can't make the association between pvp combat and being hardcore. Plenty of people (myself included) play solely for pvp, but don't spend a whole lot of time in the game. On the other hand, there are bears who drop double-digit hours every day, and spend that entire time stripping .9 Veldspar. Being hardcore has nothing to do with how you play a game, and everything to do with how seriously you take it.


It comes sorts of natural, because the PvP peeps tend to be competitive and in order to compete they train more and put more effort than the others.

However what I only see in EvE is some players being fanatic at imposing onto the others "the right way" to play, any other option equals to bad names.