These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Response to New Order and James 315
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Velicitia
XS Tech
#261 - 2013-03-13 14:05:42 UTC
Jensaro Koraka wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually CCP has stated that they lose a lot of subscriptions to this. That is why Trevor is fighting to have them removed. Followed of course by the removal of your kind from hi-sec.


I'd be interested in seeing whatever statements, minutes, etc that was mentioned in (and even better, the actual statistics if they're known).

Either way, they can't be losing that many since subscriptions are at an all time high. Even with these "lost subscriptions", I don't see it as a justification to turn EVE into a god damned themepark. You cannot make a game that appeals to literally everybody. Some will try it out, find they don't like something, and quit. That's life. Seeing these "lost" sales/subscriptions and letting it (and a few idiot csm members like trebor) panic you into drastically changing the nature of the game (despite the ten years of growth and solid subscriber base you currently have BECAUSE of the current nature of the game) is just pants-on-head ********.

To make an analogy I'm sure has already been made: It would be like a developer of a triple A FPS game panicking about the lost or missed out sales as a result of the gamers who don't like getting shot at in a team death match FPS and considering turning it into a racing game instead

I agree completely. If you try to please everybody you're going to please nobody. Everyone has different taste and losing subscriptions is inevitable. For every subscription you lose because you have a feature, some other game lost a subscriber for not having that feature.



although, the converse can also be true. You can lose subscribers for having a feature whereas some other game gains a subscriber for not having it.

In my case, left with "greed is good" ... putzed around with other games, subbed a few for a month, because they seemed OK ... left all with "wait ... so I can't gank this guy, or steal his loot, or anything that I can do in EVE?" Was back with Crucible...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Primary Me
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2013-03-13 16:11:41 UTC
Pap Uhotih wrote:
I doubt James realises that it’s what he thinks but it is what he says and at some point in the future he will manage to pull all the parts he has together and realise that thought. Unfortunately his pace is little slow so I skipped ahead and put his disparate ramblings into that coherent point that he will eventually make directly. You only have to be familiar with what he has written to realise this.

He covers the whole 'subscriptions' argument quite well here:
http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/03/a-few-controversial-opinions.html
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2013-03-13 16:39:17 UTC
Jensaro Koraka wrote:

All it needs is a patch to close exploits just like the bounty system did. They need to make it so nobody can leave a corp during a war.

Corp lock patch followed by the undock patch and hot on the heels of that the much anticipated log on patch.

Patching the current war system doesn’t make sense as it is working as intended, it is not broken; the problem is its design. Changing other systems in the game to suite this one would go against sense and be far more complicated.

The love James has for the current system makes him blind to the possibilities starting over could offer. Currently war is more tedious than mining ice, opening up discussion on how it can be improved makes a lot of sense but it is impossible to do that whilst people are so tied to what is rather than what could be.

For example, I think an option of varying the length of a war would be interesting, 24hr long wars would allow for some fun for smaller corps, month long epics for large alliances might make sense. Certainly a Merc corp paid to take out a tower doesn’t need a week.
Perhaps a Merc corp could fight with a corp rather than for a corp in order that the defender knows who their enemy is and both sides suffer equal exposure.
So many more things could be on the table that would make war enjoyable and potentially even lead to fighting. Both Whores in space and The Marmite Collective have more than twenty recent wars where nobody got shot, in fact that seems to be the normal outcome for them both – I don’t mean that as an insult, they can’t force people to fight. The current system suites no one, it needs to be reconsidered and not defended.
Frying Doom
#264 - 2013-03-13 21:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually CCP has stated that they lose a lot of subscriptions to this. That is why Trevor is fighting to have them removed. Followed of course by the removal of your kind from hi-sec.


I'd be interested in seeing whatever statements, minutes, etc that was mentioned in (and even better, the actual statistics if they're known).

Either way, they can't be losing that many since subscriptions are at an all time high. Even with these "lost subscriptions", I don't see it as a justification to turn EVE into a god damned themepark. You cannot make a game that appeals to literally everybody. Some will try it out, find they don't like something, and quit. That's life. Seeing these "lost" sales/subscriptions and letting it (and a few idiot csm members like trebor) panic you into drastically changing the nature of the game (despite the ten years of growth and solid subscriber base you currently have BECAUSE of the current nature of the game) is just pants-on-head ********.

To make an analogy I'm sure has already been made: It would be like a developer of a triple A FPS game panicking about the lost or missed out sales as a result of the gamers who don't like getting shot at in a team death match FPS and considering turning it into a racing game instead

It came up in the December CSM minutes.

But as for the rest your opinion matters little as

Trebor Daehdoow - The Proven Performer

Will cast your kind back to where they came from, so enjoy that eternity in purgatory Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
NoCode 315
Doomheim
#265 - 2013-03-13 23:36:07 UTC
Like I tried to say, goons ganked and we got buffs to miners... keep this up and you know where its heading. Support my cause and we will fight back!
Frying Doom
#266 - 2013-03-14 00:41:03 UTC
NoCode 315 wrote:
Like I tried to say, goons ganked and we got buffs to miners... keep this up and you know where its heading. Support my cause and we will fight back!

Douglas Adams wrote:
The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought.


I suppose for you guys it is the coming of the big boot, you live in perpetual fear of.

Don't worry you will be out of your misery soon, "The end of your world is nigh"

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frank Doberman
7th Church of the Apocalyptic Lawnmower
#267 - 2013-03-14 01:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Frank Doberman
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Jensaro Koraka wrote:

All it needs is a patch to close exploits just like the bounty system did. They need to make it so nobody can leave a corp during a war.

Corp lock patch followed by the undock patch and hot on the heels of that the much anticipated log on patch.

Patching the current war system doesn’t make sense as it is working as intended, it is not broken; the problem is its design. Changing other systems in the game to suite this one would go against sense and be far more complicated.

The love James has for the current system makes him blind to the possibilities starting over could offer. Currently war is more tedious than mining ice, opening up discussion on how it can be improved makes a lot of sense but it is impossible to do that whilst people are so tied to what is rather than what could be.

For example, I think an option of varying the length of a war would be interesting, 24hr long wars would allow for some fun for smaller corps, month long epics for large alliances might make sense. Certainly a Merc corp paid to take out a tower doesn’t need a week.
Perhaps a Merc corp could fight with a corp rather than for a corp in order that the defender knows who their enemy is and both sides suffer equal exposure.
So many more things could be on the table that would make war enjoyable and potentially even lead to fighting. Both Whores in space and The Marmite Collective have more than twenty recent wars where nobody got shot, in fact that seems to be the normal outcome for them both – I don’t mean that as an insult, they can’t force people to fight. The current system suites no one, it needs to be reconsidered and not defended.




Only change I want to see in wars, is the ability for me to enter a station, and hunt down and mercilessly fillet those WT's who stay online 24hrs a day but never undock.

If I'm spending good Isk to Dec you, it's only polite that you present yourself to be blown up. Gods, we'd still be sitting in trenches in France and Belgium to this day if everyone just run and hid as soon as someone declared war. What's the world coming to?. Nobody has any manners anymore. It's just not Cricket.
Nithrolayeen
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#268 - 2013-03-14 04:19:17 UTC
Only 1 thing to say

Skiff for the WIN LOLs
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#269 - 2013-03-14 05:47:08 UTC
Frank Doberman wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Jensaro Koraka wrote:

All it needs is a patch to close exploits just like the bounty system did. They need to make it so nobody can leave a corp during a war.

Corp lock patch followed by the undock patch and hot on the heels of that the much anticipated log on patch.

Patching the current war system doesn’t make sense as it is working as intended, it is not broken; the problem is its design. Changing other systems in the game to suite this one would go against sense and be far more complicated.

The love James has for the current system makes him blind to the possibilities starting over could offer. Currently war is more tedious than mining ice, opening up discussion on how it can be improved makes a lot of sense but it is impossible to do that whilst people are so tied to what is rather than what could be.

For example, I think an option of varying the length of a war would be interesting, 24hr long wars would allow for some fun for smaller corps, month long epics for large alliances might make sense. Certainly a Merc corp paid to take out a tower doesn’t need a week.
Perhaps a Merc corp could fight with a corp rather than for a corp in order that the defender knows who their enemy is and both sides suffer equal exposure.
So many more things could be on the table that would make war enjoyable and potentially even lead to fighting. Both Whores in space and The Marmite Collective have more than twenty recent wars where nobody got shot, in fact that seems to be the normal outcome for them both – I don’t mean that as an insult, they can’t force people to fight. The current system suites no one, it needs to be reconsidered and not defended.




Only change I want to see in wars, is the ability for me to enter a station, and hunt down and mercilessly fillet those WT's who stay online 24hrs a day but never undock.

If I'm spending good Isk to Dec you, it's only polite that you present yourself to be blown up. Gods, we'd still be sitting in trenches in France and Belgium to this day if everyone just run and hid as soon as someone declared war. What's the world coming to?. Nobody has any manners anymore. It's just not Cricket.


When you click the "Log In" button, you are consenting to PVP. (almost said PCP lol)

They'd just hide in their CQ, curled up in a fetal position in a corner with soggy underwear.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Frying Doom
#270 - 2013-03-14 05:57:11 UTC
Lapine Davion wrote:
Frank Doberman wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Jensaro Koraka wrote:

All it needs is a patch to close exploits just like the bounty system did. They need to make it so nobody can leave a corp during a war.

Corp lock patch followed by the undock patch and hot on the heels of that the much anticipated log on patch.

Patching the current war system doesn’t make sense as it is working as intended, it is not broken; the problem is its design. Changing other systems in the game to suite this one would go against sense and be far more complicated.

The love James has for the current system makes him blind to the possibilities starting over could offer. Currently war is more tedious than mining ice, opening up discussion on how it can be improved makes a lot of sense but it is impossible to do that whilst people are so tied to what is rather than what could be.

For example, I think an option of varying the length of a war would be interesting, 24hr long wars would allow for some fun for smaller corps, month long epics for large alliances might make sense. Certainly a Merc corp paid to take out a tower doesn’t need a week.
Perhaps a Merc corp could fight with a corp rather than for a corp in order that the defender knows who their enemy is and both sides suffer equal exposure.
So many more things could be on the table that would make war enjoyable and potentially even lead to fighting. Both Whores in space and The Marmite Collective have more than twenty recent wars where nobody got shot, in fact that seems to be the normal outcome for them both – I don’t mean that as an insult, they can’t force people to fight. The current system suites no one, it needs to be reconsidered and not defended.




Only change I want to see in wars, is the ability for me to enter a station, and hunt down and mercilessly fillet those WT's who stay online 24hrs a day but never undock.

If I'm spending good Isk to Dec you, it's only polite that you present yourself to be blown up. Gods, we'd still be sitting in trenches in France and Belgium to this day if everyone just run and hid as soon as someone declared war. What's the world coming to?. Nobody has any manners anymore. It's just not Cricket.


When you click the "Log In" button, you are consenting to PVP. (almost said PCP lol)

They'd just hide in their CQ, curled up in a fetal position in a corner with soggy underwear.

Actually the only thing that you have agreed to when you press "Log In" is that your game time is limited and that you will have to pay CCP for more later.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#271 - 2013-03-14 08:50:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
It came up in the December CSM minutes.

But as for the rest your opinion matters little as

Trebor Daehdoow - The Proven Performer

Will cast your kind back to where they came from, so enjoy that eternity in purgatory Lol


I like the part where you ignored every point I made and just stated my opinion doesn't matter.

Your argumentative skills are on par with the pvp skills of highsec carebears
Velicitia
XS Tech
#272 - 2013-03-14 09:19:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
(other people's quotes here)
Actually the only thing that you have agreed to when you press "Log In" is that your game time is limited and that you will have to pay CCP for more later.


This, sort of.
I mean, once you open the market - PVP
Once you undock - PVP
ship spinning - not so mu.... oh wait, they have the counter now ... so that's PVP too.
space barbies -- I'm sure we could make this PVP somehow.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Athena Penken
Doomheim
#273 - 2013-03-14 11:44:41 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Isn't there an entire sub forum specifically for this RP stuff?

Why can't you people just ***** about the guy? Why do every one of you have to roleplay the entire thing in a novelette sized post?

And you guys are never going to do anything. You're to busy writting these long ass posts about the guy to actually work together.


Guess you missed the RP part of EVE being a MMORPG eh?

Goons outspoken about James 315? lol never, why would they speak out against their own puppet?

I understand that James 315 and the New Order are wreaking havok, but this is what CCP wants and the majority of eve players want. EVE has always been a sandbox, but the feel and play for the game has shifted from an industrial or 1v1 pvp into a gank or blob fest. Apparently this is the new and improved game known only as, Emergent Gameplay. However, the OP is right in the intent and setup of high sec.

The only difference here is that pvpers have stopped shooting each other and have turned their attention toward shooting those who cant shoot back, why? Well because a mackinaw kill looks pretty sweet on a killboard. PVP is no longer about fun, it is about killboards and isk inefficiency. It has been transformed from a game into a science. I guess that is the way of things. You can't fight it, you can only join in it....or quit the game. Industrialist have lost, EVE has been turned into a messy heap decorated in emergent gameplay.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#274 - 2013-03-14 11:56:59 UTC
Athena Penken wrote:
Guess you missed the RP part of EVE being a MMORPG eh?

Goons outspoken about James 315? lol never, why would they speak out against their own puppet?

I understand that James 315 and the New Order are wreaking havok, but this is what CCP wants and the majority of eve players want. EVE has always been a sandbox, but the feel and play for the game has shifted from an industrial or 1v1 pvp into a gank or blob fest. Apparently this is the new and improved game known only as, Emergent Gameplay. However, the OP is right in the intent and setup of high sec.

The only difference here is that pvpers have stopped shooting each other and have turned their attention toward shooting those who cant shoot back, why? Well because a mackinaw kill looks pretty sweet on a killboard. PVP is no longer about fun, it is about killboards and isk inefficiency. It has been transformed from a game into a science. I guess that is the way of things. You can't fight it, you can only join in it....or quit the game. Industrialist have lost, EVE has been turned into a messy heap decorated in emergent gameplay.


The game has not shifted "from an industrial" side, it was never that kind of game. It always had lots of pvp. If anything it's been recently shifting AWAY from that, as evidenced by CCP themselves stating that ganking is at an all time low.

As for bemoaning that we have turned our attention to those "who can't shoot back"... uh what? You have the exact same ships, modules and mechanics at your disposal. It isn't a case of "can't", it's a case of "won't".
Frying Doom
#275 - 2013-03-14 13:05:16 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
It came up in the December CSM minutes.

But as for the rest your opinion matters little as

Trebor Daehdoow - The Proven Performer

Will cast your kind back to where they came from, so enjoy that eternity in purgatory Lol


I like the part where you ignored every point I made and just stated my opinion doesn't matter.

Your argumentative skills are on par with the pvp skills of highsec carebears

Yes and your survival skills are equal to an ant being crushed by a boot. Lol

Why would I care for the opinion of someone who is about to be on the extinct list.

LolLolLol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#276 - 2013-03-14 13:38:18 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Yes and your survival skills are equal to an ant being crushed by a boot. Lol

Why would I care for the opinion of someone who is about to be on the extinct list.

LolLolLol


You want pvpers to be removed from EVE? Why are you even playing this game if that's the kind of thing you want, friend?
Frying Doom
#277 - 2013-03-14 14:03:30 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Yes and your survival skills are equal to an ant being crushed by a boot. Lol

Why would I care for the opinion of someone who is about to be on the extinct list.

LolLolLol


You want pvpers to be removed from EVE? Why are you even playing this game if that's the kind of thing you want, friend?

Let us not confuse those who pick on unarmed targets with pvpers shall we oh endangered species Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#278 - 2013-03-14 15:00:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Yes and your survival skills are equal to an ant being crushed by a boot. Lol

Why would I care for the opinion of someone who is about to be on the extinct list.

LolLolLol


You want pvpers to be removed from EVE? Why are you even playing this game if that's the kind of thing you want, friend?

Let us not confuse those who pick on unarmed targets with pvpers shall we oh endangered species Lol


I think you're the one confused. Why do you think PVP does not include shooting soft targets? PVP is PVP. There is no condition that it has to be an equal or fair fight for it to constitute PVP. There never has been. Why are you playing a game if for ten straight years the mechanics have been something you disagree with?
Kane Alvo
Doomheim
#279 - 2013-03-14 15:50:09 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I think you're the one confused. Why do you think PVP does not include shooting soft targets? PVP is PVP. There is no condition that it has to be an equal or fair fight for it to constitute PVP. There never has been. Why are you playing a game if for ten straight years the mechanics have been something you disagree with?


He must not be familiar with the 5 MMO PvP Rules of Engagement:

1) There's no such thing as a fair fight. Ever.
2) Superiority in numbers. If they bring 3 guys, you bring 20.
3) Dueling is for chumps. See #1 and #2.
4) Newbies aren't worth the time/effort/ammo. Just kidding, kill them too.
5) It's okay to cry. I have a hankey on the bottom of my boot.

Caldari Militia  ☜★☞ Psychotic Monk for CSM8

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#280 - 2013-03-14 15:52:15 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Let us not confuse those who pick on unarmed targets with pvpers shall we oh endangered species Lol

I think you're the one confused. Why do you think PVP does not include shooting soft targets? PVP is PVP. There is no condition that it has to be an equal or fair fight for it to constitute PVP. There never has been. Why are you playing a game if for ten straight years the mechanics have been something you disagree with?

CCP is working on it. Some pvp is more pvp than other pvp.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?