These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PvE wars: The empires strike back

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2014-07-29 20:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Da Dom
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Concord can still police hi sec and not take part
It won't be highsec any more, remember?
I'm not talking about removing Hi Sec, I'm talking about empires expanding. Hi sec can remain unchanged while other systems can be conquered/reconquered.

Tippia wrote:
In what way? And why?
Adding a new player into the game of alliance warfare. Smart NPC's that can challenge players. You'd think twice about ratting drones (<--- insert your empire of choice here) if they could randomly attack one of your POS's in a revenge attack, wouldn't you?

Because Far-que... That's why.
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2014-07-29 20:35:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Da Dom
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
What do think would break?
People who have no interest in fiddling with boring NPCs would have their work interrupted for no benefit. Even the ones who are interested would be forced to deal with pointless annoyances.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other here, but is this not the exact thing that PvE players are mocked for when they complain about someone ganking them? Interruption of gameplay by hostile outside forces is one of the driving mechanics of EVE, no?

This made me smileLol

Because Far-que... That's why.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-07-29 20:41:26 UTC
ok, I'm going to sound like a parrot, repeating the same thing over and over again but...



Malcanis' Law.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
NIFTYGetAtMe
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-07-29 20:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: NIFTYGetAtMe
Idk how that idea would actually play out, but EVE seriously needs more subscribers and a fundamental change in attitude (best case scenario: from stubborn and toxic to embracing) especially with the impending release of Elite and Star Citizen in the next dozen... I mean couple years. CCP does need to be careful, but they should seriously be considering every single wild idea that comes at them to get subs up.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2014-07-29 20:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Da Dom wrote:
I'm not talking about removing Hi Sec, I'm talking about empires expanding. Hi sec can remain unchanged while other systems can be conquered/reconquered.
No. If the empires can attack players to expand, the players can attack the empires right back and take their space. Otherwise, Jenn's initial comment was spot on.

If they can't do that, you just have incursions and/or FW again and your idea is pointless.

Quote:
Adding a new player into the game of alliance warfare. Smart NPC's that can challenge players. You'd think twice about ratting drones (<--- insert your empire of choice here) if they could randomly attack one of your POS's in a revenge attack, wouldn't you?

All of this already exists. So how is what you describe any different? And why is it needed?

NIFTYGetAtMe wrote:
Idk how that idea would actually play out
Sure you do. The OP is describing incursions and we already know how that plays out: some initial interest that then makes players leave in droves. Some find it good for mindless farming; everyone else just find it an annoying disturbance.

Neither E:D nor SC really compete with EVE since they're a completely different genre. We can speculate fairly well about how it will play out when they're released too since we've seen that happen before as well: just look at the launches of StarCraft II or X: Rebirth.
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2014-07-29 20:52:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
What do think would break?
People who have no interest in fiddling with boring NPCs would have their work interrupted for no benefit. Even the ones who are interested would be forced to deal with pointless annoyances.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other here, but is this not the exact thing that PvE players are mocked for when they complain about someone ganking them? Interruption of gameplay by hostile outside forces is one of the driving mechanics of EVE, no?


Holy False Equivilence.

EVE is a player driven game, players are supposed to be able to do that, NPCs are not. If one doesn't care for the consequences of playing a player driven open sandbox game that features non-consensual pvp (one potential consequnece is ganking, which i have been able to avoid for 7 years), that's fine but they shouldn't be playing EVE.


If NPC's could engage us in non-consensual PvE, it would just be another mechanic we would have to deal with

Adapt or die, as the saying goes

Because Far-que... That's why.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-07-29 20:52:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Tippia wrote:
Adding a new player into the game of alliance warfare. Smart NPC's that can challenge players. You'd think twice about ratting drones (<--- insert your empire of choice here) if they could randomly attack one of your POS's in a revenge attack, wouldn't you?

All of this already exists. So how is what you describe any different? And why is it needed?


You failed at multiquoting, Tippia.
Or are you really arguing with yourself here? Ugh

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-07-29 20:53:24 UTC
Actually, I retract my not having an opinion. Having NPCs randomly set up nasty gate camps and suddenly sending entire fleets to bash POCOs and POSs would really give Null the wild west feel CCP seems to want it to have.

Heck, you wanna make it real hardcore, make those invading ships drop nothing and have no bounty. The reward for killing them is getting to keep your stuff.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#49 - 2014-07-29 20:56:02 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
NPCs sending entire fleets to bash POCOs and POSs

It's not ideal, but I guess it's better then sending real players to do it.

Oh god.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2014-07-29 20:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Da Dom wrote:
If NPC's could engage us in non-consensual PvE, it would just be another mechanic we would have to deal with
Again, this already exists. It is already bad because it removes player intentionality and choice.

Riot Girl wrote:
It's not ideal, but I guess it's better then sending real players to do it.
No, that is exactly why it's an idiotic idea: if it can be done by players, NPCs have no business doing it.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#51 - 2014-07-29 20:57:42 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Tippia wrote:
Adding a new player into the game of alliance warfare. Smart NPC's that can challenge players. You'd think twice about ratting drones (<--- insert your empire of choice here) if they could randomly attack one of your POS's in a revenge attack, wouldn't you?

All of this already exists. So how is what you describe any different? And why is it needed?


You failed at multiquoting, Tippia.
Or are you really arguing with yourself here? Ugh


The forum singularity!
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2014-07-29 21:03:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
I'm not talking about removing Hi Sec, I'm talking about empires expanding. Hi sec can remain unchanged while other systems can be conquered/reconquered.
No. If the empires can attack players to expand, the players can attack the empires right back and take their space. Otherwise, Jenn's initial comment was spot on.

If they can't do that, you just have incursions and/or FW again and your idea is pointless.


Don't be ridiculous CCP wouldn't code hi sec to be conquerable. This idea of FW or incursion clone you like promote in this discussion would be available in every system that is not hi sec. That's a big difference

Because Far-que... That's why.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-07-29 21:06:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
If NPC's could engage us in non-consensual PvE, it would just be another mechanic we would have to deal with
Again, this already exists. It is already bad because it removes player intentionality and choice.

Sometimes (usually) the big bad universe doesn't give you a choice.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#54 - 2014-07-29 21:06:44 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
NPCs sending entire fleets to bash POCOs and POSs

It's not ideal, but I guess it's better then sending real players to do it.

What are they gonna do, seed L10 missions to kill pos?

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 ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#55 - 2014-07-29 21:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Da Dom wrote:
Don't be ridiculous CCP wouldn't code hi sec to be conquerable.
It is no more ridiculous than your idea.
If NPCs can take over player space, then players can take over NPC space. If you want the NPC is question to be an empire, guess whose space will be lost…

Quote:
This idea of FW or incursion clone you like promote in this discussion would be available in every system that is not hi sec.

Yes, every system, including highsec and including the systems that are currently safe from this kind of disruption, and it would have to be entirely mutual. Otherwise, it is as Jenn presumed earlier: nothing but a pathetically thinly veiled “CCP, please hurt null for no conceivable reason” QQ thread.

Bryen Verrisai wrote:
Sometimes (usually) the big bad universe doesn't give you a choice.
The good news is that you can remove bad game design. The even better news is that you can choose not to implement it to begin with.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2014-07-29 21:12:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
nothing but a pathetically thinly veiled “CCP, please hurt null for no conceivable reason”

To be clear, I can completely sympathize with people who want null to remain as easy and riskless as possible.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2014-07-29 21:15:51 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
To be clear, I can completely sympathize with people who want null to remain as easy and riskless as possible.

That's your problem. What does it have to do with what I said?
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-07-29 21:23:27 UTC
Some of us can conceive of reasons for null to get "hurt" (in the same way one gets hurt when one receives a medical injection).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#59 - 2014-07-29 21:29:32 UTC
Instead, how about the empires that have been at war with each for so freaking long actually fight one another?

Even better, make the battleground areas automatic lowsec, dividing the empires apart with lowsec systems.

"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.
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2014-07-29 21:30:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Da Dom
Tippia wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
Don't be ridiculous CCP wouldn't code hi sec to be conquerable.
It is no more ridiculous than your idea.
If NPCs can take over player space, then players can take over NPC space. If you want the NPC is question to be an empire, guess whose space will be lost…
If CCP wants to code it like that. Wouldn't that make for a good strategic war where you can choose to take the empire territory or defend your own.

Because Far-que... That's why.