These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where's Red Frog an Push on this nerf NPC thing?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2013-02-05 09:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

The market was an EVE feature that existed before Tyrannis. The EVE release that introduced the market was a PvP feature, Tyrannis was not.


Tyrannis added products to the markets.
And? Markets are PvP, Tyrannis did not 'the market' to EVE online, it added the Planetary Interface - a particularly boring piece of PvE.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

POCOs were not introduced with Tyrannis. That was put in the Crucible expansion. That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$

hth


Tyrannis was a sheet expansion like WiS but it was not "PvE" and lol at crucible being succesful "because of POCOs". Crucible improved TiDi, frigates, changed timers, changed sky backgrounds, introduced T3 BCs just to say a subset of stuff. That's a bit "more" than POCOs.
I don't see "PvE" anywhere in that list. That's what I mean by 'that's why Crucible was successful', because it looked at PvE expansions like Tyrannis and Incursion, and concluded that the "silent carebear majority" that would threaten to leave if riskfree PvE was nerfed in anyway, didn't actually exist and wisely ignored the cries of their self-appointed champions. Incursions were nerfed, POCOs were added, lowsec and nullsec were given greater PI yields, etc. Competition and emergent content were recognized as the only future for EVE Online.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2013-02-05 09:22:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$


The only "care bear dollar" story that I'm aware of is the idea that if you take away too much PvE, players will drop their PvE alts.

I'm sure that if decent PvE was introduced to the game, there would be new players subscribing for the new PvE experience. Quantum Rise and Incursion caused a decent increase in active players.
Result:
Incursion: Failure

nice source
how you interpreted that as 'success' requires a true gift, the kind only pro-NPC corp posters have.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#203 - 2013-02-05 09:23:08 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


You miss my point - they are not declining PvP - they are declining PewPew. There is a difference.

Take a mission bear, what do they do? They convert LP to isk - that applied ratio is PvP. They buy ammo - those orders are PvP. You see where I'm going.
Correct, they're competing against other players who do take risks and lower the competitive bar towards ISK making in EVE to a level where wardecs or engaging in any nonconsensual PvP becomes a competitive disadvantage. This is bad for many reasons, mainly because the rampant devaluation of ISk and commodities harms casuals and newbies as cumulative risk-free wealth is endlessly cycled into generating more wealth, creating increasing barriers between rich and poor - the ability to predate on wealthy targets, or the wealthy having to purchase protection no longer a constraint on this.


It isn't risk free, mission hulls can and do pop - things can be ganked for jollies. You know the drill.

Those in player corps can get to less tax, that's up to an 11% advantage right there, they can also get better refining/etc for dealing with the mission loots.

Besides, what happens if you dec a mission bear corp? Typically one of two things:

1) The one man corp reforms: no PewPew.
2) They do not undock: No PewPew. Net effect on market? Less than a suicide gank, most likely.

Sometimes someone will screw up and get popped, but it's not that common.

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
You claim it is fine because of 'suicide ganking', but suicide ganking is not a risk so much as a calculation- anyone capable of basic math is able to avoid exceeding the ratio where ganking a ship becomes profitable. So "suicide ganking" is not an acceptable 'all the PvP needed in highsec".


I never said it was - I said it is an acceptable answer to forcing PewPew onto people who don't want it.

You are assuming all suicide ganking is done for profit. If you want to murder a mission bear and ruin their life, then you'll pay for it, but it can most certainly be done. There is nothing stopping you popping him every single time you see them, at every undock. Just you need to pay for it, but if you want them dead badly enough/drive them out of your area/whatever, then you can achieve that. You can even pay other people to achieve that if you're worried about sec status.

Look at the likes of Solstice Project, he's not making much money (from killing) but has racked up quite the tonnage of high sec bear corpses.
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#204 - 2013-02-05 09:23:48 UTC
Just put NPC corp tax up to 25%, that way if you want the safety of NPC corps you get it but at the price of isk. That way it is a valid choice rather than a default safety net.

Wouldnt really affect pure haulers but tbh who care about haulers.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2013-02-05 09:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Those in player corps can get to less tax, that's up to an 11% advantage right there, they can also get better refining/etc for dealing with the mission loots.
Doesn't effect mining yield or hauling cargo or manufacuring or research or logistics or any of the other countless things NPC corps confer advantages to other then charging a mighty 1% over the average player corp tax rate on shooting red crosses (ooo).

Quote:
Besides, what happens if you dec a mission bear corp? Typically one of two things:

1) The one man corp reforms: no PewPew.
2) They do not undock: No PewPew. Net effect on market? Less than a suicide gank, most likely.

1) Institute exponential corphop cooldown timers.
2) Less cost on the part of the aggressor and increased system control.

Quote:
Sometimes someone will screw up and get popped, but it's not that common
Getting suicide ganked is a much larger and easier prevented screwup, and you say it happens all the time.

Quote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
You claim it is fine because of 'suicide ganking', but suicide ganking is not a risk so much as a calculation- anyone capable of basic math is able to avoid exceeding the ratio where ganking a ship becomes profitable. So "suicide ganking" is not an acceptable 'all the PvP needed in highsec".


I never said it was - I said it is an acceptable answer to forcing PewPew onto people who don't want it.
Wardecs are also an acceptable answer to people who don't want it.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-02-05 09:30:19 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
Just put NPC corp tax up to 25%, that way if you want the safety of NPC corps you get it but at the price of isk. That way it is a valid choice rather than a default safety net.

Wouldnt really affect pure haulers but tbh who care about haulers.


I don't think it would satisfy those with this particular axe to grind. They want to shoot people who dont want to fight and they want to pay as little as possible for the privilege.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#207 - 2013-02-05 09:33:59 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
And? Markets are PvP, Tyrannis did not 'the market' to EVE online, it added the Planetary Interface - a particularly boring piece of PvE.
hth


You seem to assume that everything without missiles is PvE. PI is first and foremost a (lackluster) industry add on and then a markets (excellent, I have made tons of ISK on it) add on. Industry is not PvE, adding to it is still not PvE.
Markets are not PvE, adding new markets is not PvE. Actually PI have zero intrinsic value so the only way to profit off them is to "interact" and eventually beat a trading counterpart.

Repeat with me:

"no missiles to shoot and lackluster <> PVE"

"no missiles to shoot and lackluster <> PVE"

"no missiles to shoot and lackluster <> PVE"

It might indeed have caused a drop in playerbase (I did not check) but because of *lackluster* (and only feature) not because of *PvE*.


Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

I don't see "PvE" anywhere in that list. That's what I mean by 'that's why Crucible was successful', because it looked at PvE expansions like Tyrannis and Incursion, and concluded that the "silent carebear majority" that would threaten to leave if riskfree PvE was nerfed in anyway, didn't actually exist and wisely ignored the cries of their self-appointed champions. Incursions were nerfed, POCOs were added, lowsec and nullsec were given greater PI yields, etc. Competition and emergent content were recognized as the only future for EVE Online.


It's you who mentioned POCOs addition like it was ~Crucible~. Not me.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#208 - 2013-02-05 09:34:29 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
That's why Crucible was a successful expansion and Tyrannis was a riskfree PvE expansion that exposed the "carebear dollar" myth that riskfree PvE = $$$


The only "care bear dollar" story that I'm aware of is the idea that if you take away too much PvE, players will drop their PvE alts.

I'm sure that if decent PvE was introduced to the game, there would be new players subscribing for the new PvE experience. Quantum Rise and Incursion caused a decent increase in active players.
Result:
Incursion: Failure

nice source


Look at the +60D numbers. Quantum Rise, Incursion and Trinity were the biggest winners at the two month mark. They got more players into the game. What lost the players? Was it as simple as "shiny wore off" or was it that there was nothing left to do? Perhaps it was the people shutting down incursions early just to **** others off? Or was it CCP nerfing the payout? The PvE expansions brought more players into the game. Next is trying to figure out what keeps players around longer.

Empyrean Age, a PvP focussed expansin Major Failure: even in the 60D numbers. It failed to attract people, failed to maintain numbers.

Another feature of Quantum Rise was a PvP nerf in the form of reducing the speed of nano ships. That retained more players than any other expansion. So apparently when PvP becomes "more fair", people will stay around to do more PvP.

What if encouraging people PvP by narrowing the gap between "good" and "best" works, and forcing people to PvP doesn't?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2013-02-05 09:35:07 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Just put NPC corp tax up to 25%, that way if you want the safety of NPC corps you get it but at the price of isk. That way it is a valid choice rather than a default safety net.

Wouldnt really affect pure haulers but tbh who care about haulers.


I don't think it would satisfy those with this particular axe to grind. They want to shoot people who dont want to fight and they want to pay as little as possible for the privilege.

The privilege of PvP in a PvP-driven game.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2013-02-05 09:37:34 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:


Look at the +60D numbers.
Look at the overall "failure" conclusion Mara.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#211 - 2013-02-05 09:37:59 UTC
[quote=Nicolo da'Vicenza]1) Institute exponential corphop cooldown timers.
2) Less cost on the part of the aggressor and increased system control./quote]

All you will achieve by making it harder to evade wardecs is forcing more people to evade wardecs by not logging in.

That you cannot understand this simple point suggests that you are far too sheltered in your "everyone around me wants to PvP all day" ivory tower that you don't understand that nullsec is a self-selecting crowd.

The way to get more people to PvP is to make it fun for them, not to make it hell for them.

Here's an idea for making wardecs fun: the declaring party posts a bounty on themselves, or an ante on the wardec. If by the end of the wardec the victims have caused more damage than the instigators, they get the bounty.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-02-05 09:39:51 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Getting suicide ganked is a much larger and easier prevented screwup, and you say it happens all the time.


I would suggest you frequent more mission hubs.

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Wardecs are also an acceptable answer to people who don't want it.


So you want a way to force your gameplay on other people and give them no recourse to object/evade the mechanic? Yet are unhappy that people are currently able to prevent you from shooting them at a profit?

Why is your way right, and theirs wrong? And please don't say its the nature of Eve, we've already long established that they do PvP at various levels, just not so much PewPew.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with non-consensual PvP, but giving people no way to avoid it at a minimal/laughable cost to the aggressor, is a mistake imo.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#213 - 2013-02-05 09:40:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

It's you who mentioned POCOs addition like it was ~Crucible~. Not me.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Tyrannis a PvE expansion?...

Outside hi sec it's possible to shoot the PI structure, to make people pay "rental" and so on. Actually those structures are "PVP enablers" like gates and stations so I can't really see what you are trying to say. (lol)

Oh so you were just arguing that Tyrannis "wasn't a PvE expansion" because of features put in place with Crucible becauuuse....
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#214 - 2013-02-05 09:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:


Look at the +60D numbers.
Look at the overall "failure" conclusion Mara.


Incursion had the highest concurrent user count ever, probably attributable to the live events.

Look at what brought players into the game. Those players then left when they realised that they had completed all the content. Neither the PvP nor PvE side of the game was attractive enough to keep them.

What kept players around at the end of Dominion? I would suggest that despite the poor revamp of Sovereignty, that small portion of players that actually stayed around found a community that they could appreciate. They found something to do that was fun, and the fun thing was the community despite the tear-inducingly bad sovereignty warfare. Though I wouldn't call it a stretch to suggest that the null blocs found that Sov 2.0 was so unbearably painful that they reached out to "retired" members and asked them to pretty please come back and help, culminating in a major conflict sometime during the Winter holidays, then everyone starting to let their accounts lapse again because Sov 2.0 was just that boring.

Then look at the outcome for Apocrypha: those players found a community that they could appreciate and they were doing something that was fun.

Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored.

Still if you want to stick to the end-of-cycle numbers, the best expansions for player retention were PvE expansions: Revelations I, Trinity, Quantum Rise.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#215 - 2013-02-05 09:42:56 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?

Yes, but the devs toolset to this is limited. If you put 60b worth of cargo in your freighter or fit an officer level tank on your mack, you make youself a potentially profitable target. Regardless what the devs can do within reasonable limits.

Remove standings and insurance.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#216 - 2013-02-05 09:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Getting suicide ganked is a much larger and easier prevented screwup, and you say it happens all the time.


I would suggest you frequent more mission hubs.
Why?

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Wardecs are also an acceptable answer to people who don't want it.


So you want a way to force your gameplay on other people and give them no recourse to object/evade the mechanic?

They could actually play the game, or make friends and allies, or hire mercenaries, or pay protection money, or move to a region where wardecs don't apply. "Force my gameplay", good lord.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2013-02-05 09:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Mara Rinn wrote:
Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored.
I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#218 - 2013-02-05 09:48:36 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

It's you who mentioned POCOs addition like it was ~Crucible~. Not me.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Tyrannis a PvE expansion?...

Outside hi sec it's possible to shoot the PI structure, to make people pay "rental" and so on. Actually those structures are "PVP enablers" like gates and stations so I can't really see what you are trying to say.

Oh so you were just arguing that Tyrannis "wasn't a PvE expansion" because of features put in place with Crucible becauuuse....


Where did you see me saying "they implemented POCOs in Tyrannis"?

I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#219 - 2013-02-05 09:53:12 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Where did you see me saying "they implemented POCOs in Tyrannis"?

I mention them because POCOs are a natural Tyrannis "finish up" / follow up, not something that fell out of the sky and required who knows what hops to be activated within Tyrannis gameplay.
Oh okay, in your opinion Tyrannis, a 2010 expansion, wasn't a PvE exansion because of actual PvP content that was added in 2012 with Crucible.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#220 - 2013-02-05 09:55:15 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Don't ignore the 60D results just because the numbers peter off after people get bored.
I don't ignore it; I gladly point out Incursion and Tyrannis as the exposure of the 'carebear dollar' myth every chance I get - that catering to carebears is fiscally unwise - and that threats of some 'mass unsub' if riskfree iskfarming was impeded in anyway are hollow because the "PvE-exclusive' gains has a lifecycle of 3-4 months tops. Thankfully, CCP has taken this lesson to heart.


The PvE exclusive lifecycle is unrelated to the "nerf the crap out of my hisec mission running ISK farming alt" argument.

Day 0 Advice for New Players