These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Sandbox is Becoming a Themepark

First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#301 - 2014-02-28 22:23:49 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.


So, someone actively and competently trying to inflict it means nothing, then?

That's the problem. Competent defense > competent offense. Every time. There are no little tricks I can use to beat you (or even tackle you) if you know what D-scan is, and don't fit and fly your ship like you're mentally handicapped.

The fact that only competent offense > incompetent defense is another aspect of this problem.

Highsec is too safe. It promotes stupid gameplay because you can be doing it wrong and still be alive.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#302 - 2014-02-28 22:25:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.


Trying to avoid dying or trying to avoid the "sandbox"?

Trying to avoid dying.


I may be misinterpreting the discussion here but I don't think anyone goes out with the intention of dying. I think we also need to change dying to explode since we're all immortal. \o/

I think what Kaarous is trying to say is that some people are just terrible at fitting their ships appropriately.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#303 - 2014-02-28 22:28:43 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

Also because pandas are cute.


Grrr pandas! *shakes fist vigorously

I. love. pandas. um, I just (fans self) ..Sorry I’m getting emotiona;. I love pandas, I love every kind of panda (fans herself) …Sorry, I just, I REALLY LOVE PANDAS. I just want to hug all of them but I can’t ‘cause that’s crazy. I can’t hug every panda. I just want to, I want to, I want to. I’m sorry, I just, I get, anytime I hear panda, I just, I love pandas um, WHOO! Promised myself I wouldn’t cry, um, so anyway, I AM A PANDA LOVER. Um, and I, love to run tears up, pauses um, I’m sorry, I’m thinking about pandas again I just, I think about how many don’t have a home and how I should have them and how cute they are and their ears and the whiskers and the nose. I just love them and I want them and I want them in a basket and with little bow ties I want them to be on a rainbow and in my bed and I just want a house, full of them and I just want us to roll around. I can’t, I can’t

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#304 - 2014-02-28 22:30:32 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

Also because pandas are cute.


Grrr pandas! *shakes fist vigorously

I. love. pandas. um, I just (fans self) ..Sorry I’m getting emotiona;. I love pandas, I love every kind of panda (fans herself) …Sorry, I just, I REALLY LOVE PANDAS. I just want to hug all of them but I can’t ‘cause that’s crazy. I can’t hug every panda. I just want to, I want to, I want to. I’m sorry, I just, I get, anytime I hear panda, I just, I love pandas um, WHOO! Promised myself I wouldn’t cry, um, so anyway, I AM A PANDA LOVER. Um, and I, love to run tears up, pauses um, I’m sorry, I’m thinking about pandas again I just, I think about how many don’t have a home and how I should have them and how cute they are and their ears and the whiskers and the nose. I just love them and I want them and I want them in a basket and with little bow ties I want them to be on a rainbow and in my bed and I just want a house, full of them and I just want us to roll around. I can’t, I can’t


Damnit man I can't read all that with the tears in my eyes. Lol

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2014-02-28 22:31:15 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The fact that you can basically never die in any part of a sandbox game is just wrong.
I guess this is another point of contention. To me it doesn't make sense to die just because "sandbox" if you are actively and competently trying to avoid it.


So, someone actively and competently trying to inflict it means nothing, then?

That's the problem. Competent defense > competent offense. Every time. There are no little tricks I can use to beat you (or even tackle you) if you know what D-scan is, and don't fit and fly your ship like you're mentally handicapped.

The fact that only competent offense > incompetent defense is another aspect of this problem.

Highsec is too safe. It promotes stupid gameplay because you can be doing it wrong and still be alive.

Competent defense > Competent offense isn't highsec specific. It also promotes players learning competent defense, at least amongst those willing to learn the lesson, since it's actually effective. On the other hand reversing it creates a disconnect between preparation and survival, after all if no matter how prepared you are that same guy is always going to get you, why bother? It just doesn't incentivize smart play in the same way, rather reducing it to pure chance. Lastly competent offense > competent defense means you create a scenario where being on the defense is objectively stupid once ways to counter defenses are well known.
ashley Eoner
#306 - 2014-02-28 22:31:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
This discussion of WoW is kind of silly and not really relevant yea?

WoW is not obnoxiously successful because the game is good.

WoW is obnoxiously successful because of smart marketing.

Also because pandas are cute.


Grrr pandas! *shakes fist vigorously

I admit I face palmed when I found out about pandas. I know they were in WC3 at some point but still. It just seemed like a naked ploy to cash in on the success of the kung fu panda stuff.

I had already quit by that point so it really didn't matter to me.

Point is that despite all our desires for WoW to die horribly it just keeps chugging along ugh.



EDIT : I actually have a theory that part of the reason WoW is chugging along is due to what I call "the first MMORPG factor". It's always hard to quit your first MMORPG and it seems for a lot of people WoW was their first MMO. So people end up staying subscribed despite having some desire to quit.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2014-02-28 22:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kimmi Chan wrote:

I may be misinterpreting the discussion here but I don't think anyone goes out with the intention of dying. I think we also need to change dying to explode since we're all immortal. \o/

I think what Kaarous is trying to say is that some people are just terrible at fitting their ships appropriately.

That's why I specifically stated actively and competently as qualifiers. He seemed disgusted that his own competence resulted in him not blowing up. I think his follow up point reinforced that idea.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#308 - 2014-02-28 22:37:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Highsec is too safe. It promotes stupid gameplay because you can be doing it wrong and still be alive.

Competent defense > Competent offense isn't highsec specific. It also promotes players learning competent defense, at least amongst those willing to learn the lesson, since it's actually effective. On the other hand reversing it creates a disconnect between preparation and survival, after all if no matter how prepared you are that same guy is always going to get you, why bother? It just doesn't incentivize smart play in the same way, rather reducing it to pure chance. Lastly competent offense > competent defense means you create a scenario where being on the defense is objectively stupid once ways to counter defenses are well known.


I think this is a good point Master Franklin (and that is rare for the Gallente).

I think what it actually boils down to is that the PvP Enthusiasts are always looking for an advantage. They're always looking for that flaw in the armor. The Carebear is not concerned with limiting the PvP Entusiast's advantage or mending that flaw in the armor. They're more concerned with the next spawn in their mission, whether their tank is holding, and how long before they need tor reload.

ED: Apparently, I am either spelling chink in the armor wrong or chink is being censored as a derogatory term for a person from China.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#309 - 2014-02-28 22:37:47 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Competent defense > Competent offense isn't highsec specific.


No, it's just highsec exaggerated. In the other areas of space, that is mostly fine. (I believe it to not be the case in wormholes, however)

Highsec is simply the most grievous offender, with the highest, most vocal population.

Quote:
It also promotes players learning competent defense, at least amongst those willing to learn the lesson, since it's actually effective.


Which is the problem. It doesn't do that in highsec. Highsec actively discourages learning to be competent, because whether you are competent or not pretty much doesn't matter in highsec.


Quote:
On the other hand reversing it creates a disconnect between preparation and survival, after all if no matter how prepared you are that same guy is always going to get you, why bother? It just doesn't incentivize smart play in the same way, rather reducing it to pure chance. Lastly competent offense > competent defense means you create a scenario where being on the defense is objectively stupid once ways to counter defenses are well known.


I'm not saying it needs to be reversed.

I'm saying it needs to be balanced. It's not balanced right now.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Erroch
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#310 - 2014-02-28 22:37:47 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

It appears that you're not familiar with oldschool gaming. Do you know what a MUD is or a BBS?


MUDS were mostly themepark, at least every one of the Diku and derivative based ones I goofed off with during college was.

BBS's weren't games, they were sometimes platforms for "door games", but that's akin to calling twitter or reddit a game.

Sandbox games are pretty few and far between. Most muds, even though "players" were also "staff " creating content, doesn't change the fact that the rank and file were just consuming content produced by the staff.
Lilliana Stelles
#311 - 2014-02-28 22:45:39 UTC
I disagree with the philosophy behind this thread. I don't think it's the problem that OP presents.

HOWEVER.

I love the suggestions. As someone who's participated in quite a bit of both PVE and PVP content, more hardcore PVE really, truly appeals to me. Level 4 missions are too easy; it FEELS LIKE FARMING. I'd really enjoy having the difficulty turned up three or four notches.

This would add value back to meta items, which is great. You couldn't just go out steamroll NPCs for meta 4 items, and it'd actually give more value to salvaging.

I don't think we need ZERO bounties in highsec, but reducing them to lower-than-ratting rates is probably a good idea.
18 mil ticks in highsec are a BAAAAAD idea and should be fixed.

Not a forum alt. 

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2014-02-28 22:47:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I'm not saying it needs to be reversed.

I'm saying it needs to be balanced. It's not balanced right now.

I would say it's not balanced because it's not very deep. In most cases it's either a matter of "are you tackled?" Being that it's so boolean, it's hard to balance.

That said, mashing the DSCAN every 2 sec is not really what i would call the epitome of interactive social gaming.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#313 - 2014-02-28 22:52:33 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I'm not saying it needs to be reversed.

I'm saying it needs to be balanced. It's not balanced right now.

I would say it's not balanced because it's not very deep. In most cases it's either a matter of "are you tackled?" Being that it's so boolean, it's hard to balance.

That said, mashing the DSCAN every 2 sec is not really what i would call the epitome of interactive social gaming.


There are plenty of things that need fixed, is what you're trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is that this is one of them.

The need for, and usefulness of D-scan doesn't go away just because it's "boring". As far as highsec is concerned, the only problem with D-scan is that it requires you to pay any attention at all, the amount is not relevant.

If it can't be done while afk "highsec" at large doesn't want anything to do with it.

Their attitudes are a result of the cradle of safety they've been swaddled in for too long. That needs fixed, then we can actually have an honest discussion about it among the players. Instead of a derailing contest between one group of players, and one group of self interested afk robots.

Because you can't convince people to play the game correctly if the option to play it wrong and still win exists.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lilliana Stelles
#314 - 2014-02-28 22:56:34 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
The original post clearly states possible solutions. The problem is largely agreed upon. There are plenty of themepark games to choose from. Some of them I would play if they were not themeparks and I had a glimmer of hope they would last, mainly Star Trek and Star Wars.

There is only one EVE.

Once you take EVE too far towards a themepark, then other games look attractive, and the core players actually leave.

People come to EVE after reading of massive space battles, massive ponzis, corporate infiltration, etc. They don't join because they heard about mining lasers and mission grinding.

The awesomely complex economy EVE has needs all player types. But if CCP simply goes back to basics and focuses on what makes EVE special, the rest will take care of itself.



I know I'm like 15 pages behind reading this thread.
And I don't often agree with Erotica on points.
But this speaks true to the nature of EVE. This is what has killed Elder Scrolls Online for me before even getting ahold of it (You won't be able to pickpocket other players or murder the NPCs randomly? Here I was expecting "criminal" status like Eve and the previous ES games).
Eve is unique in that it allows players so much freedom, even if it does have to force them into situations where that freedom can be expressed.
And I think that in the end giving players that nudge will actually help new and casual players enjoy the game more, and not scare them away.

Not a forum alt. 

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#315 - 2014-02-28 22:58:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
then we can actually have an honest discussion about it among the players. Instead of a derailing contest between one group of players, and one group of self interested afk robots.


I would love to see a thread like this where the two sides actually had a civil and intelligent discussion on the matter rather than the business as usual that we usually see.

I think everyone wants a better game but one side always sees the other side as trying to "ruin" it regardless of how beneficial the suggested change is to everyone. Too many conspiracy theories - too little trust. Honestly, if people really want to make the game better they need to submit their suggestions with the "others" needs and wants in mind. Otherwise, it will always devolve into a barrage of flying crap.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

ashley Eoner
#316 - 2014-02-28 22:58:37 UTC
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
Erotica 1 wrote:
The original post clearly states possible solutions. The problem is largely agreed upon. There are plenty of themepark games to choose from. Some of them I would play if they were not themeparks and I had a glimmer of hope they would last, mainly Star Trek and Star Wars.

There is only one EVE.

Once you take EVE too far towards a themepark, then other games look attractive, and the core players actually leave.

People come to EVE after reading of massive space battles, massive ponzis, corporate infiltration, etc. They don't join because they heard about mining lasers and mission grinding.

The awesomely complex economy EVE has needs all player types. But if CCP simply goes back to basics and focuses on what makes EVE special, the rest will take care of itself.



I know I'm like 15 pages behind reading this thread.
And I don't often agree with Erotica on points.
But this speaks true to the nature of EVE. This is what has killed Elder Scrolls Online for me before even getting ahold of it (You won't be able to pickpocket other players or murder the NPCs randomly? Here I was expecting "criminal" status like Eve and the previous ES games).
Eve is unique in that it allows players so much freedom, even if it does have to force them into situations where that freedom can be expressed.
And I think that in the end giving players that nudge will actually help new and casual players enjoy the game more, and not scare them away.

The freedom you speak of is not unique to eve.

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#317 - 2014-02-28 22:58:39 UTC
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
And I don't often agree with Erotica on points.

I feel the dark side in you. It is goooooooood. Twisted Continue down this path and you will have all the power I know you desire.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

ashley Eoner
#318 - 2014-02-28 23:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Erroch wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

It appears that you're not familiar with oldschool gaming. Do you know what a MUD is or a BBS?


MUDS were mostly themepark, at least every one of the Diku and derivative based ones I goofed off with during college was.

BBS's weren't games, they were sometimes platforms for "door games", but that's akin to calling twitter or reddit a game.

Sandbox games are pretty few and far between. Most muds, even though "players" were also "staff " creating content, doesn't change the fact that the rank and file were just consuming content produced by the staff.

MUDs were the result of hardware limits. Programmers at the time wished they could present more freedom. Now taken in the perspective of their time MUDs were sandbox compared to the other games available.

Tradewars was not a "door game". Neither were the other games in that vein.



EDIT : If you consider Diku to be a themepark game then there is absolutely no none themepark games in existence today. I recall it being very dungeons and dragons like minus the GM directing you which allowed for a great deal of open gameplay.

Or am I not remembering the right game?
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#319 - 2014-02-28 23:00:08 UTC
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
I know I'm like 15 pages behind reading this thread.
And I don't often agree with Erotica on points.
But this speaks true to the nature of EVE. This is what has killed Elder Scrolls Online for me before even getting ahold of it (You won't be able to pickpocket other players or murder the NPCs randomly? Here I was expecting "criminal" status like Eve and the previous ES games).
Eve is unique in that it allows players so much freedom, even if it does have to force them into situations where that freedom can be expressed.
And I think that in the end giving players that nudge will actually help new and casual players enjoy the game more, and not scare them away.


Take your time. Thread's not going anywhere. Big smile

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

ashley Eoner
#320 - 2014-02-28 23:01:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Which is the problem. It doesn't do that in highsec. Highsec actively discourages learning to be competent, because whether you are competent or not pretty much doesn't matter in highsec.

You know that's crap as there are consequences for being incompetent. One could take your statement and apply it to nullblocks where individual competence is discouraged because the bees are told what to do.