How is it? In my view we have a very niche group that create a scenario that puts off a pretty huge category of players. I don’t even think this is contested, because gankers frequently talk about how they are totally find with “carebears” quitting.
What I find odd is that people seeming have no problem with CCP putting in instanced arena combat and microtransactions to appeal to the battle royale crowd, but when you suggest they should cater to PvE players the same people start falling about screaming “YOU’RE RUINING EVE!”
All that does is make highsec like nullsec and the end result is the loss of more players.
And currently it’s not, because all that stuff is done predominantly by PvE players, the ones you think should be forced into combat PvP.
We actually agree on that principle. I think the human element is important too. I just don’t think the human element should always be able to be forced into combat with other human elements.
For me the primary appeal of EVE has been the player-driven economy, I love the idea that most assets exist in the game because players have created them. I see PvE players as a replacement for the mechanics in most games that stock vendors and things like that and I just don’t see the benefit in alienating players who just like that bit and don’t want to be forced into combat.
I think EVE is broad enough for both PvE and PvP players (in terms of combat) to exist without forcing one side to engage in the activity of the other side. And I really do mean one side, because a combat pilot can force a miner into having to engage in combat, but a miner cannot force a combat pilot to have to mine.
And these two opinions are extremes that I dont share vOv
Not really, its still open to everyone, unlike Nullsec. And how would it be the same if combat was completely different in HS than it is now in Nullsec? Do you think there should be an active counterplay to ganking or not? Because youd need to explain how you can have that AND CONCORD, otherwise theres no point in the active counter, like you believe the case is atm.
Lucas, if you are going to try and tell me how I think, then you know we are done, right?
The best idea I could come up with for a CONCORD compromise was some sort of module or mode that could be activated that would make the ship immune to illegal weapons fire for a period of time and extending the CONCORD response time by the same amount. You’d probably have to delay FacPo as well, though, which probably has other knock on effects.
This is all a dead end line of reasoning, though, because it wouldn’t really satisfy many people. People are either accepting of the way things are or want to make ganking harder. Few people want an opportunity to interject themselves into a gank in progress but are perfectly willing to bang on it as a talking point to support the removal of ganking.
For some reason unrelated to Eve, this makes me want to scream “There are 4 lights!”
You know that nullsec include NPC null, right? That’s pretty much what highsec would be if concord didn’t exist.
I think that if ganking continues to exist there should be a balanced counterplay mechanic yes. In reality I don’t think that’s possible without significant changes that kill off multiple playstyles anyway.
If that’s not your view I apologise, but that’s the impression I got from your previous comments, that you think that all PvE players should be able to be engaged in combat PvP whether they want to or not.
Again, if you ignore changing the combat system as the basis for CONCORD removal, sure. Again, except including access issues, and general ease of everything else that HS currently provides.
I cant think of a playstyle would be killed off by making ships take longer to destroy.
I actually think there is room for a module that does damage to systems or lowers resistances. Something other than neuts and smart bombs that can go in the high slots.
No, this idea isnt specifically for Barges. They have drones after all but if they wanted to could switch out a Strip Miner for a Mining Laser, I suppose.
In regards to top slot systems, Im more concerned about balancing the basic combat system and making it more interesting than buffs and debuffs, but sure, I dont see why not.
Probably what the silly Edencom weapon should have been.
A series of weapons that can render a ship helpless. Actively damaging shields armour and then modules but never hull. They could be used in high sec without Concorde intervention.
This would let anti-gankers have their playstyle and remove the argument of ganking having no ‘counterplay’.
It would also allow you to have more kinds of high sec pvp. Miners reshipping into destroyers with module damaging weapons to force other miners off the belt and to have to pay to fix up their modules. People invading missions and stripping the mission ships of their dps tanks so they can steal all the loot and salvage.
They would have less use in null but wouldn’t be without their uses. For instance if you wanted to capture a capital ship rather than destroy it you could swarm it strip it of shields and modules and then hold it there completely depleted of resources till the player is forced to choose between having that expensive loss mail to justify to their alliance or ejecting from the ship.
It would be no different than anything. Any kind of griefing you could do with these modules could also be done with a gank. You just punish people doing it to new players which is currently the only CCP defined method of griefing.
Then I dont really get why you would use these instead of just ganking the target?
Unless we ARE talking about rejigging the combat system so everyone had more HP or something.
EDIT: This is all just such spagehtti logic. Just tell new players that they can get shot at any point in space and be done with it. Bank regularly and trust no one.
In what way would the combat system change specifically to highsec that would make it different from null?
It’s only got that “general ease” because it’s highsec. Without concord it would be no easier that null. Regular freighters would pretty much cease to exist for example because it would not be economically viable to go back to the olden days of having a full fleet tagging along every time you want to move a freighter. Hell, even JFs would be a problem as cynos can’t be lit in highsec. I guess in that regard it wouldn’t exactly be NPC null, in many ways it would be worse.
That’s an oversimplification. It’s not just that they take longer to destroy, they’d be able to be destroyed without losses and with smaller fleets.
Your loss. Though I think it’s amusing that you can tell me what I believe but I can’t use the term “you think” when referring to statements you’ve made.
This is incorrect. For a start any ship that is difficult to gank but is shield or armor tanked would now be easily gankable as you’d freely drop shields and armor without consequence then have a small gank fleet drop in to finish off the hull.
This is their existing tactic, and they’re haemorrhaging so many players they aren’t making money anymore.
No…what you are talking about is a complete red herring. It is your usual style of picking a word and focusing on that one word to the exclusion of all else. Classic ‘argument ad dictionarum’ You try to force the debate into your terms and definitions…that you just invent on the fly.
Your whole ‘counterplay’ nonsense is a deliberate evasion of the fact that people can avoid being ganked…something you don’t want the debate to focus on.
Just for you…
Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking, it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea — an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources,[2] but the end use is the same. For the most part, “dictionary” is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as “well, if I define X like this…”, which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy. See, we’ve had to head off one use of this fallacy already in case someone says, “It’s not this fallacy because I’m not using a dictionary!”
It’s not, and if you want to focus on that by all means go ahead but since we all agree ganks can be avoided it’s not much of a discussion.
What is a discussion on which there are multiple differing views is whether or not there’s any actual counterplay, as in a way to play that directly contests another playstyle.
As I apologised too. I’ll try to avoid it in the future, but I’m sure I’ll slip up and use the same phrasing at some point. Rest assured though at no point am I actually trying to explain to you what you think, I’m simply using it as a term to explain what I understand to be your position to provide context to my responses.
This is purely a thought on how we might broaden the amount of pvp happening in high sec. It is not intended to replace ganking. Yes it will be a buff to the AG movement but I doubt they will ever be organised enough to really make a dent in ganking.
Nooooo ! You can’t point out blindingly obvious fact to Lucas. You have to argue in the most contorted manner possible, via Lucas’s own dictionary where he gets to decide what every single word means. You have to also accept that ‘nope’ is a valid response to 4 paragraphs of fact, be ready to point out the same facts 50 million times as Lucas just ignores them…AND accept the fact that it is Wednesday so Lucas will be countering comments that he himself made on Tuesday.
Not so because as soon as you warp scramble them you have the same timer. These weapons would require them to want to stay and fight you. You could always just warp off to safety before they did any real harm.
Not to mention anyone in a ship fitted with high sec weaponry is not going to be in a ganking ship.
I envision these weapons giving you a suspect timer if used to aggress so it would expand the baiting playstyle to more than just looting important mission items and goading the players.
Lucas seems to have been somewhat well behaved this afternoon so can we not antagonise him? I have no issue with him if he actually discusses in good faith.