Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
Roids in high sec use to spawn slower than now. Miners did not move to low sec at that time. Also, I saw a dev post awhile ago (do not have the link) where he said "We are aware many players will never leave high sec and we are fine with that".
I think we should be looking for ways for people how want to live in low sec to be able to do so and make a living there, rather than "encouraging" those who prefer high sec to move. A CCP Dev stated that too: they do not want to see those who prefer low or null log out their main and log in their alt, just to make the numbers add up. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
knowsitall
Science and Finance
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
My original proposal was nothing to do with nerfing hi-sec (or botting for that matter), it was never about what i thought. To be honest my opinion, your opinion is mute. It was about making a mechanism for CPP to decide what they want the ideal dispersion to be, and a way to use the stick/carrot to achieve this goal. As i said the numbers i used are irrelivant. This would be determined by CPP after much data mining and analysis.
So If CPP are happy that they expect 70% of active players to be in hi-sec then they make hi-sec big enough with enough resources (ie moons, station slots, agents, roid, exploration sites etc) to efficently mantain 70% of the active playerbase. After that point PvP competion starts (not pew pew, though some as war dec would probably occur). Then it is up to the players to move (being back up to their full efficiency) or not move (and live with the reduced efficiency). Not everyone has to move but some may prefer to.
So the risk vs reward is not static for each area (ie hi-sec/low-sec/null-sec) it changes with the active playerbase size within that those areas. I have seen a sig that says a clever predator does not kill all its prey. Well the same is true for for the preyed apon, locust swarms have to continually move as they deplete all resources, if they don't move they die. Same thing here.
At the moment CPP have limited influence over where you live, as some of the resource in hi-sec are essentially infinite. Meaning the activities with the inifinte resources, why would you ever go anywhere else.
knowsitall |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 16:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
tl;dr : Resource scarcity is the stick.
BTW... Whats the carrot?
Seriously if you *just* do that, it will just result in player base decline. I think resource scarcity is a feature high sec would really benefit from, not just to spread out the population, but also to legitimise wars.
However.... first..... ensure that every play style that people have in highsec is possible and rewarding in low/null. Right now its not. That includes all the professions you personally don't approve of or think people who do them are playing eve wrong.
.
|
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
242
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 17:04:00 -
[34] - Quote
Such harsh restrictions would encourage me to find a different sandbox. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1538
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 17:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
Where I choose to play in Eve is my business. Working as intended.
Now go die in a fire. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
331
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 17:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Carebears will be out of highsec once the idiots are out of nullsec. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
snake pies
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 20:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
allow all empire systems to be captured and turned into nullsec systems using a combination of null-sec and faction warfare sov mechanics. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
240
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 20:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Your suggestions will not change anything in a positive way. There are more reasons to remain in high sec than just mining. Low sec is empty for a reason.. it's dangerous by design and because null sec organizations like it that way (no mans land protects them). Moving the masses suddenly into low sec will only create targets until they discover there is not place for them to do what they like and they unsub.
The risks in high sec for miners are about equivalent to the null sec risks for miners. The risks are different in nature but they are there. You can argue that historically the risks have seemed less in high sec.. but that is only because pvpers did not actively target high sec as much in the past and null sec wasn't as tamed... Tamed null sec is nearly void of risks for miners whose main worry is surviving battleship spawns.. easily done with todays guarding ships.
What you are suggesting is making all areas equal and not just equivalent - this will be a boring change. The areas are greatly different the way they are and thank goodness for the variety. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Imrik86
Underdog Corp
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 21:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
People don't go out of hi-sec to low-sec because it's just a gate camp fest. If they are up to leave hi-sec, they rather go to null and get rich, or they go to WH, which is risky, but fair because it's risky for everybody, not to mention it's more profitable.
Here's a lengthy list of tweaks CCP could do to improve game mechanics in low-sec:
- Make player list delayed in local, like in WH - Get rid of warpable locations (belts, sites, etc.), force players to scan |
knowsitall
Science and Finance
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:00:00 -
[40] - Quote
As the first person in this thread to be completely unconstructive i respond and would like to correct you.
Asuka Solo wrote:Where I choose to play in Eve is my business. Working as intended.
Now go die in a fire.
How you choose to play Eve is CPPs business. Unless of cause you are in RMT and turned playing Eve into a business.
I'll pass on dying in a fire thank you.
knowsitall |
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
682
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:36:00 -
[41] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:to be honest, the issue is that low sec is just a no-mans land in terms of doing anything except looking for a fight.
i'm mostly a miner, and from my perspective mining in low sec is an idea as smart as using your manhood as a thermometer to check the boiling point of water.
the difference between low sec ore and high sec ore is roughly 360k per jetcan right now. so for 360k per jetcan you'll leave concord's warm embrace? not to mention the logistical pain that is moving ore from low sec, to jita to sell it.
as for null sec, that's just a case of getting in to a corp/alliance so that local is full of blues, not so bad. however low sec is just a no man's land of pointlessness from a mining perspective.
Currently the risk from high sec to low sec is almost binary: little to no risk in high sec vs. guaranteed death in low sec. Note that I'm a pirate by the way.
I've always been in favor of an exponential reward system. Let's leave miners alone in high sec. Leave it as it is. If they want to mine for scraps, go right ahead. Make low sec 1000x more profitable. That should fix the issue just fine. Make every hour you mine in low sec, everything else remaining the same, 1000x as good as the best high sec space. Carebears would flock to it in a second. Problem solved.
Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á Mining, reloaded. -á-áADDICTED. |
Idris Mandela
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ruareve wrote: Buff low and null. Make them areas where more people want to go to. Move the population by showing them a carrot and leading them towards new points on the map. At the same time there is no reason not to also provide content and fun for the people that don't care to take the plunge into the harsher side of Eve. That doesn't mean make high sec immune to PVP, it just means offer the players more choices and soon you'll have more players... in all three security areas.
This +1. If EVE wants new peeps then it needs to provide more incentives not even bigger barriers to entry. No one needs to hermetically seal off PVE from PVP content but what really gets new players is the perception that they really dont have much of a chance in null sec given the older generation of players already there. EVE's current mechanics unfortunately dont seem to provide much incentive. I keep thinking about how much perception matters for new gamers who probably have cut thier teeth on MMOs and other games which have instant gratification (admittedly this is another topic altogether) but FW for example is a good albiet still flawed way to get people to null sec without hitting them over the head unlike some people seem hell bent on doing.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 04:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
How about some system for lowsec where instead of a generic criminal flagging system we have a visual requirement system.
What is visual requirement?
Basically it is my idea that the sec loss and GCC flag only happen if there are CONCORD witnesses, in other words if you shoot me on a gate things function as is. However out in the belts or in a mission I can shoot first and only get an aggression timer with you and your corp(if you are not in an NPC corp) but no GCC and no sec loss.
This would give incentive IMO for low sec mining ops at least because now people can bring defenders who can actually defend and not wait for barges to go pop before they are allowed to shoot. It would also make that warning about no Concord defense that you get the very first time into Low Sec make more sense. the Fuzz do not have a full sensor net in place as such they only see what happens on the grids of guarded structures. (gates and stations).
this would also make it feel more like a middle ground between high and null, anywhere away from the NPC infrastructure would now work as NBSI, but on the gates "big brother is still watching". |
Idris Mandela
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 04:51:00 -
[44] - Quote
Viktor Fyretracker wrote:How about some system for lowsec where instead of a generic criminal flagging system we have a visual requirement system.
What is visual requirement?
Basically it is my idea that the sec loss and GCC flag only happen if there are CONCORD witnesses, in other words if you shoot me on a gate things function as is. However out in the belts or in a mission I can shoot first and only get an aggression timer with you and your corp(if you are not in an NPC corp) but no GCC and no sec loss.
This would give incentive IMO for low sec mining ops at least because now people can bring defenders who can actually defend and not wait for barges to go pop before they are allowed to shoot. It would also make that warning about no Concord defense that you get the very first time into Low Sec make more sense. the Fuzz do not have a full sensor net in place as such they only see what happens on the grids of guarded structures. (gates and stations).
this would also make it feel more like a middle ground between high and null, anywhere away from the NPC infrastructure would now work as NBSI, but on the gates "big brother is still watching".
Kinda like pockets of concord / GCC flagging. It kinda makes sense. A week ago my FW fleet engaged a ganker on the sun and in the process we got flagged GCC and whats worse because the guy he was shooting at was - Sec status and he wasnt, we got standing hits instead. |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 09:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:I bet you dark age of camelot has had relatively stable growth for 9 years running too, eh?
EVE is small potatos. Period. You may not like it, but its the truth. It's a niche game. If you compare it up against "themepark mmos" it amounts to nothing in terms of market share. The elephant in the room here of course is WoW. The main "themepark mmo" everyone here rails against.
WoW's been around for 8 years now. Care to take a look at *it's* subscriber numbers?
Here, let me help.
Here's all the MMOs with over 1 million subs.
Notice EVE isn't even on the chart.
Here's all the MMOs with under 1 million subs.
You'll find EVE on there. Sitting at 350k. Even if you combine Tranquility with Serenity it still doesn't match up to Warhammer Online of all things. |
Britannica
Legion of Ghost
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 09:35:00 -
[46] - Quote
Viktor Fyretracker wrote:How about some system for lowsec where instead of a generic criminal flagging system we have a visual requirement system.
What is visual requirement?
Basically it is my idea that the sec loss and GCC flag only happen if there are CONCORD witnesses, in other words if you shoot me on a gate things function as is. However out in the belts or in a mission I can shoot first and only get an aggression timer with you and your corp(if you are not in an NPC corp) but no GCC and no sec loss.
This would give incentive IMO for low sec mining ops at least because now people can bring defenders who can actually defend and not wait for barges to go pop before they are allowed to shoot. It would also make that warning about no Concord defense that you get the very first time into Low Sec make more sense. the Fuzz do not have a full sensor net in place as such they only see what happens on the grids of guarded structures. (gates and stations).
this would also make it feel more like a middle ground between high and null, anywhere away from the NPC infrastructure would now work as NBSI, but on the gates "big brother is still watching".
something like this as well as balancing the reward vs risk of high, low and null would be more effective than simply reducing high sec.
at present the areas in eve dont follow a gradient in reward vs risk. its more:
high sec - moderate reward vs low risk low sec - moderate reward vs high risk null sec - high reward vs moderate risk
balancing the risk vs reward system will encourage people to move to low and then to null |
Dave stark
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 10:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Dave stark wrote:to be honest, the issue is that low sec is just a no-mans land in terms of doing anything except looking for a fight.
i'm mostly a miner, and from my perspective mining in low sec is an idea as smart as using your manhood as a thermometer to check the boiling point of water.
the difference between low sec ore and high sec ore is roughly 360k per jetcan right now. so for 360k per jetcan you'll leave concord's warm embrace? not to mention the logistical pain that is moving ore from low sec, to jita to sell it.
as for null sec, that's just a case of getting in to a corp/alliance so that local is full of blues, not so bad. however low sec is just a no man's land of pointlessness from a mining perspective. Currently the risk from high sec to low sec is almost binary: little to no risk in high sec vs. guaranteed death in low sec. Note that I'm a pirate by the way. I've always been in favor of an exponential reward system. Let's leave miners alone in high sec. Leave it as it is. If they want to mine for scraps, go right ahead. Make low sec 1000x more profitable. That should fix the issue just fine. Make every hour you mine in low sec, everything else remaining the same, 1000x as good as the best high sec space. Carebears would flock to it in a second. Problem solved.
then how profitable would null sec have to become? |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 10:27:00 -
[48] - Quote
Right, lets clear this up. The essential problem here is not risk vs reward. Its effeciency. Its about the most effecienct way to make isk, not the most potentially rewarding. You can increase the reward all you want but its not going to work because the risk of low/null makes it ineffecient.
The people you're trying to move into low/null are flying ships which cannot stand up to PVP. Expensive ships. There's a high risk of them being ganked as helpless loot pinatas. The high risk of losing 300-400m negates the effeciency of any possible isk being made. At the same time, if you increase the reward too far to try and compensate for that risk of ship loss it will become the defacto isk faucet for major corps and alliances already in low/null who wil just move in and shut out high sec players anyhow.
low/null need to provide rewards that are unique to low/null and not available to high. As long as you're still speaking in terms of ISK it will simply never be worth it to the sort of player you're trying to attract and as long as you're speaking in terms of punishing high sec by removing something from it to give to low/null you're not going to get much support either.
The flaw in low/null is with low/null itself. Its just not appealing to the majority as it currently stands. Nor will it ever be as long as people keep approaching it as a matter of ISK. |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 11:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Dave stark wrote:to be honest, the issue is that low sec is just a no-mans land in terms of doing anything except looking for a fight.
i'm mostly a miner, and from my perspective mining in low sec is an idea as smart as using your manhood as a thermometer to check the boiling point of water.
the difference between low sec ore and high sec ore is roughly 360k per jetcan right now. so for 360k per jetcan you'll leave concord's warm embrace? not to mention the logistical pain that is moving ore from low sec, to jita to sell it.
as for null sec, that's just a case of getting in to a corp/alliance so that local is full of blues, not so bad. however low sec is just a no man's land of pointlessness from a mining perspective. Mining in low sec is easy, as you say it's just not worth the effort of scouting a hulk into an empty system, and your chances of finding a low sec corp with regular fleet boosted mining ops is :lol: As for making resources scarce in high sec, seems kind of cool. How would you feel about allowing people to fight over those resources? For example giving people a mechanic by which they can fight for research slots, or fight for control of a certain agent. Or a *real* way to fight miners out of their belts? (because let's face it, suicide ganking is dumb) Might give high sec bears a reason to hire mercs, and if they start working together there might be a little less hate on the forums. (and a little more objectivity, I might add)
I have said it before, we need a sov-light in hisec.
I think the problem is not so much that highsec is resource rich or too protected, but that in highsec you have no real reason to fight other than simply wanting to fight.
You need a motivator.
I like your ideas on possible motivators, but I think more than just specific ideas on how, the important thing is the overriding principle of the motive.
And since nullsec has its motivator, sov that affects resources and plexes, and lowsec has its motivator, either FW or lowsec resources, hisec needs it own.
There is precedent. Most people I know who do FW are actually carebears in hisec who like pvp with a goal but hate the null metagame and politics.
Right now, you have sov in null, you have FW in lowsec, but you do not have any PvP mechanism in highsec other than something that approximates griefing, which is non-consensual wardecs done for the lulz.
If one or many ways to encourage and make interesting highsec pvp emerged, people would flock to it.
Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 11:18:00 -
[50] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:I bet you dark age of camelot has had relatively stable growth for 9 years running too, eh? EVE is small potatos. Period. You may not like it, but its the truth. It's a niche game. If you compare it up against "themepark mmos" it amounts to nothing in terms of market share. The elephant in the room here of course is WoW. The main "themepark mmo" everyone here rails against. WoW's been around for 8 years now. Care to take a look at *it's* subscriber numbers? Here, let me help. Here's all the MMOs with over 1 million subs.Notice EVE isn't even on the chart. Here's all the MMOs with under 1 million subs.You'll find EVE on there. Sitting at 350k. Even if you combine Tranquility with Serenity it still doesn't match up to Warhammer Online of all things.
I fail to see your point.
What is so wrong about a niche game if it generates revenue and profit?
Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
|
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 11:49:00 -
[51] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:What is so wrong about a niche game if it generates revenue and profit?
Absolutely nothing. That's not what I was saying. I was specifically replying to Simi trying to prop EVE up against "Themepark MMOs" which by and large tend to be marketshare juggernauts compared to EVE.
Hell, I play EVE because its a niche.
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:There is precedent. Most people I know who do FW are actually carebears in hisec who like pvp with a goal but hate the null metagame and politics.
Yep, that's pretty much the boat I'm in. I don't like pvp without some sort of goal and I'm not motivated purely by tears or loot. But nor do I have any interest in the drama and powerplocs of nullsec. Give me an objective or a team cause or something. Something to fight over or against and not something that discourages direct conflict in favour of ninja farming for LPs.
Frankly RvB seems to do high sec pvp vastly better than FW does. |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 11:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:
Absolutely nothing. That's not what I was saying. I was specifically replying to Simi trying to prop EVE up against "Themepark MMOs" which by and large tend to be marketshare juggernauts compared to EVE.
Hell, I play EVE because its a niche.
Then why do you bring up the themeparks if you like not playing theme?
Xhaiden Ora wrote:
Yep, that's pretty much the boat I'm in. I don't like pvp without some sort of goal and I'm not motivated purely by tears or loot. But nor do I have any interest in the drama and powerplocs of nullsec. Give me an objective or a team cause or something. Something to fight over or against and not something that discourages direct conflict in favour of ninja farming for LPs.
Frankly RvB seems to do high sec pvp vastly better than FW does.
I agree FW needs to be tweaked, but I wouldn't go as far as say that.
However, we do agree on the need to introduce new mechanics for PVP in highsec that encourage emergent gameplay and are not related to either Null sov or low sec FW, but can lead to them. One of the reasons PvP is not popular in highsec is because people have little opportunity to gain experience in it without huge investments and without rewards from the mechanic. Hence missions are much more attractive than PvP in highsec. Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 12:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:Then why do you bring up the themeparks if you like not playing theme?
I didn't. Simi did. Read the thread. -.-
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I agree FW needs to be tweaked, but I wouldn't go as far as say that.
However, we do agree on the need to introduce new mechanics for PVP in highsec that encourage emergent gameplay and are not related to either Null sov or low sec FW, but can lead to them. One of the reasons PvP is not popular in highsec is because people have little opportunity to gain experience in it without huge investments and without rewards from the mechanic. Hence missions are much more attractive than PvP in highsec.
RvB allows designated areas for pvp that people know they can go to for a scrap and frowns on podkilling. They also focus on actual pvp combat and try for relatively even sides. That allows actual pvp experience with the risk of just your ship. As opposed to low sec which is just random ganks of opportunity with as uneven a fight as can be found.
Its not hard to be able to afford a stack of Tech 1 frigates to toss away in pvp. But one wrong move with your pod and you're out more ISK than you can likely afford to replace as a newb. Because you probably scrapped together money for learning implants or an older player gave you money for them. Making you super risk adverse right out of the gate.
"Fly what you can afford to lose" is a fallacy in the face of a nub with Learning implants in his head. The average newb gets a big ol' helping of risk aversion right out of the gate with them. |
Idris Mandela
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 12:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote: Its not hard to be able to afford a stack of Tech 1 frigates to toss away in pvp. But one wrong move with your pod and you're out more ISK than you can likely afford to replace as a newb. Because you probably scrapped together money for learning implants or an older player gave you money for them. Making you super risk adverse right out of the gate.
"Fly what you can afford to lose" is a fallacy in the face of a nub with Learning implants in his head. The average newb gets a big ol' helping of risk aversion right out of the gate with them.
Totally agree on the Learning Implants they are IMO one of the single biggest factors in turning new peeps into carebears, CCP needs to get rid of em like learning skills.
For the average newbie even a set of +3s is a major investment, and especialy for someone who is still trying to find his feet in EVE. |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 12:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
When I first started Eve I created a Caldari character because I thought picking a faction mattered. I was somewhat disappointed when I later found out I could go pretty much anywhere regardless of the story line behind the game.
Perhaps there is a way to have some high sec systems as conflict zones where instead of concord you have empire military assuming the role of Concord. The big difference would be the response you get is based on your faction with the controlling empire. So if your in a Caldari owned system then the police will respond to help you if someone from Gallente attacks.
Please note I said some systems not all. There would need to be clear travel routes that Concord has designated as neutral commerce areas where the normal security rules would apply.
Why go into the border zones? Why not allow POS for individual faction status instead of corp? Put some missions that require you to kill other players within the opposing faction. Higher concentrations of ice, asteroids, and exploration sites in the contested zones. Not higher payouts compared to other areas of high sec, just more numerous resources for those willing to go for them.
This would allow people to defend mining ops or mission runners without incurring a security hit with concord.
As an added bonus it might even help the BS make a comeback since they will be the heaviest ship in the field.
Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 12:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote: I didn't. Simi did. Read the thread. -.-
Let me correct then. Why oppose Simi's allusion to themeparks if you basically agree with it? Simi's point, which is that certain changes make EVE stop being a niche and become a themepark you seem to share, yet you went out of your way to question it. I am pointing out your objection makes no sense to me, in particular of light of your reply.
Xhaiden Ora wrote: RvB allows designated areas for pvp that people know they can go to for a scrap and frowns on podkilling. They also focus on actual pvp combat and try for relatively even sides. That allows actual pvp experience with the risk of just your ship.
Sure, but it misses my point, which is for mechanics-driven incentives. RvB is still player determined and not goal centric other than fun. I like the RvB people etc, but if I am in highsec I rather missions, as it is more profitable (Well, RvB is zero profit, actually).
Xhaiden Ora wrote:As opposed to low sec which is just random ganks of opportunity with as uneven a fight as can be found.
You don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.
Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.
Xhaiden Ora wrote: Its not hard to be able to afford a stack of Tech 1 frigates to toss away in pvp. But one wrong move with your pod and you're out more ISK than you can likely afford to replace as a newb. Because you probably scrapped together money for learning implants or an older player gave you money for them. Making you super risk adverse right out of the gate.
"Fly what you can afford to lose" is a fallacy in the face of a nub with Learning implants in his head. The average newb gets a big ol' helping of risk aversion right out of the gate with them.
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose includes the pod. If you cannot afford to lose those implants, don't get them.
So your point in this respect is invalid: "Fly what you can afford to lose" is not a fallacy, but the only real rule. Just because people forget you don't only fly a ship, but also the pod with the clone that has the implants, it doesn't make it a fallacy.
However, it is true that fear of losing implants is one of the reasons for risk aversion - but that is not the game mechanic's fault. I mean, anything above +3 is not really needed unless you are training level 8 skills or higher, and those are not noob skills, and if you are training those as a noob, you are doing it wrong.
There is point in which the handholding and lowest common denominator stuff has to stop, and that is when risk aversion is based on making stupid choices based on self-imagined progressions paths instead of engaging the community of the more experienced. For example, wanting to be some corporate lordmaster right away insted of joining EVE-U or something. Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
146
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 12:40:00 -
[57] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:Let me correct then. Why oppose Simi's allusion to themeparks if you basically agree with it? Simi's point, which is that certain changes make EVE stop being a niche and become a themepark you seem to share, yet you went out of your way to question it. I am pointing out your objection makes no sense to me, in particular of light of your reply.
No, I'm opposing Simi's allusion to themepark MMOs being short term business failures and EVE being superior because its managed 9 years of stable growth. The market is dominated by themepark MMOs. Some of which are near as old as EVE.
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:RvYou don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.
Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.
Yeah...no. Gatecamp ganking is not "skilled and patient hunting of prey".
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:So your point in this respect is invalid: "Fly what you can afford to lose" is not a fallacy, but the only real rule. Just because people forget you don't only fly a ship, but also the pod with the clone that has the implants, it doesn't make it a fallacy.
My point is not invalidated by you playing semantics with the letter instead of the spirit of the law.
Crunchie Attuxors wrote: There is point in which the handholding and lowest common denominator stuff has to stop, and that is when risk aversion is based on making stupid choices based on self-imagined progressions paths instead of engaging the community of the more experienced.
You can't have it both ways. Do you want more people PVP'n or do you want to keep holding up this silly elite hardcore attitude thats used to oppose suggestions to fix the situation? There are so many hurdles in the way of a new player, espescially one that doesn't already have older players they know in game, that its a miracle EVE retains anyone at all.
Yet any attempt to remove or lessen the hurdles is met with this silly "HTFU" attitude.
It's just a game. |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 13:13:00 -
[58] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:
No, I'm opposing Simi's allusion to themepark MMOs being short term business failures and EVE being superior because its managed 9 years of stable growth. The market is dominated by themepark MMOs. Some of which are near as old as EVE.
Apples and oranges.
The point Simi
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:RvYou don't fly in lowsec. Lowsec is not random ganks of opportunity. It is the skilled and patient hunting of the prey.
Highsec is random ganks of opportunity.
Xhaiden Ora wrote: Yeah...no. Gatecamp ganking is not "skilled and patient hunting of prey".
As I said, you dont play lowsec.
A gate camp can be avoided by simply using the starmap or having an alt inside lowsec choke point parked in an station. You would know this if you actually knew how to play in lowsec.
Gate camps are an extremely small park of the lowsec experience. FW and mission runner hunting are way more common.
Xhaiden Ora wrote: My point is not invalidated by you playing semantics with the letter instead of the spirit of the law.
Sorry but you need to reread what "Fly what you can afford to lose" In the words and in the spirit it includes implants. You fly with implants.
It is not semantics. It is what the phrase means.
However, you are playing semantics. You are saying the spirit of the phrase applies only to ships. That is not thinking about it enough. It applies to the fittings, to the cargo, to the ammo, and to the implants, in letter and in spirit.
Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 13:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote: You can't have it both ways. Do you want more people PVP'n or do you want to keep holding up this silly elite hardcore attitude thats used to oppose suggestions to fix the situation?
I suck at PvP, so I do not have a silly elite hardcore attitude. I just dislike stupid ideas that spread like memes. As I said, I agree with you that there needs to be incentives in highsec for pvp.
I also agree that risk aversion is tied to the inability to jump out of clone for most new players.
However, I also explain that this risk aversion is self imposed by an inability to realize this game is not an instant gratification game, and that it is ok, if you cannot afford it, to train slower in exchange for more fun. This seems logical to me, but flies over the head of most whiners.
Xhaiden Ora wrote: There are so many hurdles in the way of a new player, espescially one that doesn't already have older players they know in game, that its a miracle EVE retains anyone at all.
Chess is very hard. Yet millions have been playing it for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Do you propose changing the rules of chess to make it more accessible?
Xhaiden Ora wrote: Yet any attempt to remove or lessen the hurdles is met with this silly "HTFU" attitude.
Only the stupid attempts. I support all good ideas. In fact, I agreed with you in some of what you said - a fact you seem to have missed in your defensiveness.
Personally, the ideas I consider good are the ones that take into account the specific impact a certain change has on the game at large. Making the game "easier" changes the game. It can be a good game still, but it will be a different game. Some of us, tens of thousands of us, like it that way, and pay real money for the pleasure.
Uncommitted whining because the game is hard is different from thought out concrete proposals for improvement.
Xhaiden Ora wrote:It's just a game.
Then why get so mad? Eve forums official anthem:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA |
Motoko Kusanagui
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 14:49:00 -
[60] - Quote
I think the best way to get people moving from high sec to low is making it much more attractive, is better to make people interested in that part of the game than forcing them by nerfing other areas such as high sec.
Make it worth it and people will go. After being a 100% high sec carebear for a lot of time I decided to try playing as a low sec explorer and found it interesting enough yo make it my main ocupation, it was not as much dangerous as I first thought it would be... at least in the low sec area I tried.
I also think that there is a huge amount of players that enjoy high sec mining and missioning because is a way to relax and spend time from RL problems and stress nerf that area and you'll make EVE no that good for them. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |