EVE General Discussion

Nothing wrong with voicing your opnion now at all.

The issue brought up was to do with people believing they didnt have a voice at all or that a dialouge wouldnt exist before it was implemented. This was what I feel was an incorrect projection that it would be an imposed process.

Nothing to do with disccusions at all or any of the relevant details therein. So please don't label me as apathetic to the issues, I'm just bothered that people want to label CCP as dictators when they are if anything trying to encourage discussion.

I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code.

You really think that's how business works? When information is released, at the very least groundwork is already laid down. At this stage a well-run company is focus-grouping and analyzing feedback (not in the interpersonal communication meaning of the word). The fact that they're putting this information out signifies that it's already integrated into the roadmap. This information is released now to either soften the blow of upcoming changes, or to present a very negative outlook that will then be pulled back in the other direction to make them seem like heroes who listen to their customers' demands. Either way, their positions are covered.

The time to voice our negativity is indeed now, because by the time the changes are in the patch notes, it will already be too late. Or did you already forget Incarna?

No, its more just the fact that the suggestion so thoroughly violates the spirit of what currently exists. Furthermore, the suggestion is pants on head stupid even by the PVP mechanics of other MMOs. Basically what is being suggested in WOW (or other MMO) terms: Players are not flagged for PVP when attacking PVP flagged players.

This is batshit insane.

-Liang

What Liang said.

Not everything has to be low-/null-sec, you know.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.

Mining has no real big choices by design. It's the most basic activity there is in the entirety of the game, is it really surprising that there's little in the way of complexities? And even now, with the current system, miners have to deal with the constant threat of suicide ganks. Let's face it, there's no big "consequence" for a bunch of folks in destroyers going out and ganking these people (and may I remind you, hulks are not cheap) for pennies on the dollar.

Missioning is just dull and repetitive. Really, if people like that sort of activity, what do you care? I'd be more concerned about making missioning an engaging activity more than anything else.

Also, for new players, missioning can actually be highly dangerous all on its own if they're not properly skilled/fit. I know, hard to imagine for a veteran who can sleepwalk through level IVs, but it's a thing, and it's there.

But again... it's high-sec. Why are you so horrified to find that most of the consequence lies on the head of the aggressor? The law of the land doesn't care for your bullshit, pure and simple.

For one, capsuleers are special. Every one capsuleer is worth at least 20 equivalent NPC ships. A single capsuleer getting aggro status after killing a single NPC is NOT an even remotely equivalent exchange, no matter how you slice it.

Secondly, it would make sense in your example for the Caldari Navy player to be aggressed to Gallente players... if said Gallente players were also aggressed to the entire Caldari Navy. But guess what? That's what faction warfare is for. It is a deliberate design choice for the player to actually have to volunteer to be subject to that kind of situation. Don't like it? Take it up with CCP, why don't you?

Thirdly, most of those operations are under-the-radar, especially the ones deep within a given faction's territory. How do they get the word out that said capsuleer is a serious threat and needs to be killed-on-sight if they're at least five LYs away from the nearest friendly solar system? And besides that... that's something accounted for by the standings system.


LOL. I guess this is news to you, but people already do consensual duels all the freakin' time!

Such a horrible thing, isn't it? I guess you should quit now while you're ahead, the process has already begun...

Moving the "I am going to do a silly thing" decision to before the weapon is activated means the user doesn't fall into the situation of mistaking the "you are about to get CONCORDOKKENED" dialog with the "you are assisting someone who is at war" dialog, which has bitten me more than once (because when people need repairs, they need them now). The alternative is a round trip to the settings/reset panel every time I switch from running incursions to running missions. That is, the "safety switch" is a shortcut to enabling or disabling the dialog box, while simultaneously removing the dialog box.



I have always considered aggression mechanics to be a twisted pile of rotten spaghetti. Removing the single player aggression map is probably over-simplifying the problem, allowing everyone to shoot me because I flipped someone's can is just as broken as a system which causes seconds of lag because I happened to open fire on a new target in a lowsec fight currently involving 200 pilots. The worst feature of the current aggression system is that it requires significant study and trial+error to grok. It does not make sense to me that someone who was blinky red to me 15 minutes ago, shooting their own jetcan should result in CONCORD visiting me for a little talk.

If I can't explain the rules of aggression to a new player who is already competent at flying their ship and blowing up people in w-space or nullsec, the system is too complex.



I concur: because Greyscale chose to only put some of his cards on the table, we are left with the impression that he is a few cards short of a deck. There is merit in bringing the discussion to the players sooner rather than later but it felt like Greyscale wasn't showing us all the cards. Maybe he really does want crime watch to be easy to program. That is not what we are paying him for. Imagine if the company responsible for my business's accounting system didn't want to code in all the deductions that tax law allows me to make because that legislation is "too hard" — how is that accounting package any better than my home-built spreadsheet?

CCP Greyscale might want to publish that 45 page document he was talking about, so the players can help build the design for Crimewatch 2.0.

You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?

I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.

I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".

Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.

Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?

I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest!