Reason why I hate Eve's pvp, and its pvpers

[Naari_Naarian]

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Never fought with neutrals in system when they were ‘friendly’ then? Cause I’ve done that a bunch of times (in low as well as null)… it’s not as difficult as you seem to think it would be. Even if there’s a ton of stuff on the overview broadcasts go to the top so they’re easy to identify.

many times but positioning is important, and it has to deal with the overview. basically, if there is a nuet gang by you and one slightly off that, th e only real way not to shoot the friendly neut group is to sort by tickers. thus, removing them basically ends up making both enemies, even though out of or in game you may of arranged something else

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

arbitrarily changing these will not

I am saying, that these rates are arbitrary because they are so large, and that if they were smaller, they would matter more.

whats in local is not relative to the battle itself (as you dont call targets from local, and there is practical way of distinguishing who is who that does not make management a serious chore).

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

And the FCs of multiple fleets can all communicate on the one talky app

most of the time they are doing this already, with the lead calling out the macro game pay (directly fleet so and so here and so and so there as opposed to calling targets or coordinating with other fleets doing xyz).

I dont know if you have done fc’ng on this macro level, but its insanely hard to manage all of this with out the tickers, they were originally added for this specific reason.

lets back up for a moment and take another objective position, because i am open to other idea’s of how this should be tackled, but i believe the major reasons for alliances to create coalitions are military in nature, though some of them do have economic benefit, those (renter) alliances are not usually made for the same purpose, and generally are not as abusive.

I believe the solution is breaking up the desire to have the relationships, based on military principle, thus i am advocating for more complex fleet engagements as a method to invalidate large naps, and i am advocating for a reduction in the size of alliances and corps to both increase the amount of alliances and further reduce those sizes.

I would love to find ways to support things like renting, by having more official polical relationships like “subjugation” or “protectorate” treaties, which would involve taxation of one alliance over another and various advantages and disadvantages, and i would even advocate that subjugation treaties were forced when beating an enemy in war for a period of a year paying a set % of its income mechanically to its dominating alliance.

Iv put a bit of though into this, and i feel that the most effective way to invalidate blue donuts is militarily, directly through eve’s combat system.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

The problem it seems is the unlimited resources which allow the population to consolidate into massive groups.

Actually, this is not intirely diagnosed right.

The problem is not unlimited reasons, that actually is a bi-product of the groups, and returning eve to its previous state of this region is better then that (even though its in ways still that way) is not going to help as the super power will just come take it, and always stay on top.

It would be better if the economic value shifted over time, the problem though is that it should not do that in a significant way (more then 20-30% increased income)

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Stopping a basic human trait in an MMO game seems like a tall order.

Naari_Naarian:

not stopping it, controlling it but this is not for any other reason then to validate many corporations and alliances, not just a few. this is the most significant influence on eve’s population rates and at a fundamental level is invalidating the existence of corporations and alliances. Ccps sub-par designers have never really gotten important differences like that. They believe the such changes are “Stopping”.

lets put it another way.

option 1
this is a sandbox, and anyone can build a castle and play

option 2
this is a sandbox, and three bullies dictate who can play in it

Eve exists in option 2, but for a short while back in 2003-2005 it was option 1

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Naari_Naarian

Ccps sub-par designers have never really gotten important differences like that.

You’ve only been here since February. Why even bother playing if you have this attitude?

Leave game design to game designers and just go fly a ship for a while.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@Naari_Naarian

th e only real way not to shoot the friendly neut group is to sort by tickers

Sort by ship type. Because you’ve coordinated with your friendlies to ensure perfect cohesion between your attacking/defending forces.

@Naari_Naarian

whats in local is not relative to the battle itself (as you dont call targets from local

LOL, no kidding, but by using local you can identify which pilots are in which corps/alliances (even without overview ticker, remember your removing that) and at that point the FC (or target caller) knows what are valid targets or not. So now I need an extra ‘info management’ pilot (just cloaked in system) to get my FC/target caller the correct targets. Not fun but not impossible.

@Naari_Naarian

arbitrarily changing these will not

I am saying, that these rates are arbitrary because they are so large, and that if they were smaller, they would matter more.

Um, that’s not what arbitrary means, whether the values are large or small, it makes no difference, it still won’t matter, just like they do not matter now, even if you include your proposed overview changes.

@Naari_Naarian

its insanely hard to manage all of this with out the tickers

Sounds like an opportunity to ‘get good’.

@Naari_Naarian

they were originally added for this specific reason

So it would appear that CCP want it to be easy-ish to co-ordinate large fleets/fights… I guess that’s because one of the draws to the sandbox is massive multiplayer battles.

@Naari_Naarian

Actually, this is not intirely diagnosed right.

The problem is not unlimited reasons, that actually is a bi-product of the groups

LOL, just no. Are you seriously suggesting that without unlimited resources the massive groups could still exist? Your entire (notice the spelling) point is back-to-front… the unlimited resources existed long before the massive groups.

@Naari_Naarian

this is not for any other reason then to validate many corporations and alliances, not just a few. this is the most significant influence on eve’s population rates and at a fundamental level is invalidating the existence of corporations and alliances . Ccps sub-par designers have never really gotten important differences like that.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. You’ve got a lot of words but just… wow. What is the most significant influence on eve’s population rates? You do realise the basic human trait I was referring to was ‘grouping’?

Let me put it this way: Arbitrary limits (large or small) on group sizes in game (enforced by in-game mechanics) will not adversely affect the formation of significantly larger group interactions in game.

@Naari_Naarian

lets put it another way.

option 1
this is a sandbox, and anyone can build a castle and play

option 2
this is a sandbox, and three bullies dictate who can play in it

Eve exists in option 2, but for a short while back in 2003-2005 it was option 1

Ahhh ok, hmmm, is this a case of show us on the doll where the big blue doughnut touched you?
Now you just sound like a ‘grr goons’ post, cause I’m pretty sure ‘option 1’ is still the case?

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Scipio_Artelius

You’ve only been here since February. Why even bother playing if you have this attitude?

Leave game design to game designers and just go fly a ship for a while.

First, i have more experience at game design then most of the people at ccp, and iv been doing it longer then their company has been around.

Second, iv been in eve since 03, june. Welcome to eve btw, now that you know about this thing called “alt accounts”

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Naari_Naarian

First, i have more experience at game design then most of the people at ccp, and iv been doing it longer then their company has been around.

Second, iv been in eve since 03, june. Welcome to eve btw, now that you know about this thing called “alt accounts”

Neither of these are true. We already know this.

You can’t post the name of any game you’ve been the designer of and you can’t post on any 2003 character because it’s all lies.

If it wasn’t, it would be easy to prove your credibility.

Aside from that, your game design posts are so poor that they provide evidence enough that you aren’t a game designer at all.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Sort by ship type. Because you’ve coordinated with your friendlies to ensure perfect cohesion between your attacking/defending forces.

Again, it would require you to track that entire fleet through the entire course of the battle. Do you fleet command? have you lead larger engagements, involving more then say 5 or 10 fleets?

It may be possible to micromanage 2-3 fleets if you are really good at fcing, or you appoint someone to keep an eye on it, but after the battle starts, and targets get calling, you will get problems, get mentally exhausted for tracking multiple ship types across multiple fleets, and their locations.

Now lets do something interesting, lets say the enemy catch onto this tactic and learns to copy the other fleets builds? How will you distinguish who is friend and go when everyone runs the same ship types (which btw is highly likely since we call use the same crap (4-5 doctrines) in null anyways Ie meta).

You wont be able to micromanage it, and even if you can find ways it will not be worth the effort and you will kill friendly neuts.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

kidding, but by using local you can identify which pilots are in which corps/alliances

I already knew that was the point you were making before mentioning this and the truth is we fc’d dont have time to do that for 10-15 people. You will whelp your fleet, no doubt about it.these changes will definitely have a significant impact on blue donut fleet sizes

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Not fun but not impossible.

Again, work arounds are always possible to an extent, but usually in a reduced capacity. my objective is to reduce the sizes of engagements by breaking up donuts, and by breaking them up, increase the frequency of pvp

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Um, that’s not what arbitrary means

It means “your personal desire or position” actually. It is your claim, or position that the values do not matter, but they do when you reduce them.

Expanding corporation sizes causes less of them
retracting them causes more corporations to exist.
More corporations breed more alliances
and more alliances bring more interaction.

Thus, being large has no effect, but being small does.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Sounds like an opportunity to ‘get good’

Sigh, childish remarks, really? Can we keep this logical, and civil.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

So it would appear that CCP want it to be easy-ish to co-ordinate large fleets/fights… I guess that’s because one of the draws to the sandbox is massive multiplayer battles.

Naari_Naarian:

Yes, They do want the large battles, and they think that having 64 bit wll some how allow for the game to get “fixed” its delusional, beyond reason. Hilmar is running this game into the ground because he thinks its “good publicity” and his intention is to make this game more of a “Spectacle” then actually fix it. Ironically, if he did the latter he would get what he wanted, and more.

Its illogical, and equates to “lets see how big of numbers we can get before the game caps out”. Its a nice article on a blog but it does nothing significant for the players out side of driving profit nonsense which perpetuates the cycle. If the investors had any brains they’d see through it and fire him.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

LOL, just no. Are you seriously suggesting that without unlimited resources the massive groups could still exist? Your entire (notice the spelling) point is back-to-front… the unlimited resources existed long before the massive groups.

Are you actually Suggesting that the game would live if a region could be mined into the voidness of space? the game would end, or you’d create an extremely abusive atmosphere. Endless mining and so on is important to the majority of the game, the pvers.

By the way, I am saying that yes, they would still exist, because one thing i have learnt as game designer is players are efficient little ants, and they will always suprise you, when you think you made something impossible for them to do, they do it in no time, even while you expected them to do it in a month, they will do it in a week or a day. Do not underestimate the players ability to find an efficient work around.

This single mechanic in us as humans, drives players to excel in ways you can only dream about.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

This makes absolutely no sense at all. You’ve got a lot of words but just… wow. What is the most significant influence on eve’s population rates? You do realise the basic human trait I was referring to was ‘grouping’?

Humans are fascinating creatures, I am pleased to have visited your planet to study you. You inspire such great hope, and such horrible nightmares. What is interesting about that is that it seems you can never be only one or the other.

In games, if populations condense to much the result is the population becomes all what i can describe as “industrialized”. this forces specific styles of play on the players (changing the game from a game, to a job) forcing people to adhere to specific laws, forced game play (mandatory pvp as pvers etc). most importantly, the value of corporations, and their social interaction go’s out of it. think of this as a family unity, and the larger you are the more likely your birthday is to be missed, or at the least, reduced in value (ie less gifts or less valued gifts).

When population is broken into smaller groups the reverse is true. Thus i advocate for the games population to be broke up, so social interaction, content, and all around creativity expands again.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

will not adversely affect the formation of significantly larger group interactions in game.

what evidence do you have to offer for this? I offer 18 years of experience, and 7 years of intensive study of game theory to suggest other wise. Can you at face value provide any similar level of evidence (if not at least by claim)?

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Naari_Naarian

You have a day to present that evidence, and you have on reply to present it in before i add you to the “troll list” of eve’s forums.

It has been. Several times already. Once more:

Delete

redacted

New player in a training corporation to learn the game.

No need to learn the game if you’ve been here since 2003.

It’s pretty straight forward.

Easy to prove wrong if you have been here since 2003. Post on your 2003 character. That doesn’t expose your RL name or any identity.

You’ve even said before it’s easy to do. That also is a lie and once you lie about one thing, everything else is untrustworthy, even if the content of your posts wasn’t so poor in terms of game design.

[Scipio_Artelius]

Lol, you think editing your original post makes a difference.

It doesn’t:

Nothing is ever truly deleted from the internet.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@Naari_Naarian

kidding, but by using local you can identify which pilots are in which corps/alliances

I already knew that was the point you were making before mentioning this and the truth is we fc’d dont have time to do that for 10-15 people. You will whelp your fleet, no doubt about it.

Ok so now you’re just being willfully ignorant. If you had read the next sentence… well here, let me quote it for you:

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

So now I need an extra ‘info management’ pilot (just cloaked in system) to get my FC/target caller the correct targets.

So 1 extra person (per fleet) to coordinate ‘possible targets’ against local with the FC. As an FC I’m sure you know you have the option to split-up multiple tasks/functions between the fleet members. LOL.

@Naari_Naarian

Now lets do something interesting

Why do you hate large scale PvP yet continue to inhabit null?

@Naari_Naarian

You will whelp your fleet, no doubt about it. these changes will definitely have a significant impact on blue donut fleet sizes

lol, no doubt about it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

@Naari_Naarian

It means “your personal desire or position” actually. It is your claim, or position that the values do not matter, but they do when you reduce them.

If you’re going to define something you can’t (just like above) cut out that bits that suit your story.

’ adjective

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

I emphasized the important bit.

@Naari_Naarian

Thus, being large has no effect, but being small does.

No, no it doesn’t.

Why are you attempting to reduce the opportunity for large scale warfare when that’s the point of the game?

@Naari_Naarian

Sigh, childish remarks, really? Can we keep this logical, and civil.

What does this mean: where you are from? If you’re just going to pick apart pieces of my comments to get offended at it’s going to get tired pretty quick. I am offended by your offence. I’d like to have kept to logic, but you don’t seem to comprehend that, so I’m just gonna have fun with it.

@Naari_Naarian

Are you actually Suggesting that the game would live if a region could be mined into the voidness of space?

Not once have I ever indicated that is what I thought, because obviously that wouldn’t work… but then again I’m not a game designer, so I leave that particular problem up to them. What I am sure of is your proposal will also not work, obviously.

@Naari_Naarian

what evidence do you have to offer for this? I offer 18 years of experience, and 7 years of intensive study of game theory to suggest other wise. Can you at face value provide any similar level of evidence (if not at least by claim)?

LOL. OMG that is priceless. U must be drunk, right? I think you should probably post your CV, just to be sure. My evidence might include not acting like a child on a spaceship game forum

Later.
Cypr3ss.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@Scipio_Artelius

even if the content of your posts wasn’t so poor in terms of game design.

Yeah but it is… which makes it all the worse

PS Forum told me to try replying to someone else, cause you know, conversations and such

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

So 1 extra person (per fleet) to coordinate ‘possible targets’ against local with the FC. As an FC I’m sure you know you have the option to split-up multiple tasks/functions between the fleet members. LOL.

Alright here’s how we’ll do this.

Turn on your stream,
Start calling targets in your next 5000+ man fleet battle
Since your an fc you should know what to do.
Call targets based on the above pre mention (non-ticker or standing related) neutral friends, mixed in with neutral enemies.
Call targets by the local list.

Send me the video.
Lets see what the death rates are on your fleet, because any serious fc will know you will be missing a lot of it. Logistics matter, and this is an overly complex way of doing this.

Im sorry, but now your just arguing for the sake of arguing.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Why do you hate large scale PvP yet continue to inhabit null?

1. I do not hate it, I find it unpractical, and detrimental to the game for various reasons

• Large times sitting around doing nothing
• immense amount of power curve and lack of balance is caused by super donut coalitions
• lack of frequency of pvp is directly related to the size of said coalitions

2. I dont live in null anymore

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

lol, no doubt about it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Look. Im not saying this is the only way to break up null coalitions, but i do think it will be effective at that. If you have a better idea on how to break up the coalitions, i am willing to discuss it as another option to solving the problem. Every fiber in my body, and every atom of my knowledge tells me that this game will be dead in 3 years (or less if star citizen is a hit) if the population is not broken up, or, if some miracle growth in eve does not just happen out of no where.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

If you’re going to define something you can’t (just like above) cut out that bits that suit your story.

’ adjective

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system .

I emphasized the important bit.

lets not play the “my understanding of the definition game is right”.

We both know what the word means, be a man and admit your wrong. I have no desire to comment further on this point, and frankly, your attitude is becoming childish and i have better things to do then to waste time on childish kids on forums.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

Why are you attempting to reduce the opportunity for large scale warfare when that’s the point of the game?

I though the point of the game was to build sandcastles? can we get some sort of official statement on “what the point of the game is?”.

If hilmar came here himself and told me that this is the point of the game, i would advocate the same exact thing i advocated on the ama stream, that he should resign or be fired because he has lost any sense of being objective about this topic, or game along time ago.

This insistent position for bigger battles is down right stupidity, by the way, even more so since fixing the population rates (ie getting more people in eve) would result in them anyways!

I strongly believe, eve suffers because of its leadership, or lack there of.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

What I am sure of is your proposal will also not work, obviously.

honestly, opinion but i respect your right to think that way.
I think there is a miscommunication here. I am not purposing this to ccp. I am telling them, If they do not break up the blue donuts, this game will not exist in 3 years (figuratively speaking) this is not as much as a suggestion, as it is more a prediction.

Let me be clear about something. The last three games iv been in with similar states, have rejected my positions, and all of them are dead now. I am extremely serious about this warning. It is imperative that ccp breaks up the donuts NOW.

The value of corporations must be restored, and it will never happen until people have reason to start over, and that will never happen with immortal entities in eve.

Eve does not follow a natural cycle of life and death, and that is why it is social aspects are suffering. Key emphasis on the living part here, as opposed to just being alive. the people need to live for their corporation, not be alive because of it.

Until this state is corrected, this games destiny is death.

@Cypr3ss_Deteis

U must be drunk, right

I do not consume alcohol, or do drugs of any kind (nor have i done drugs), nor do i smoke, or sleep around.

[Nysta_Miityew]

Reading through this thread, I actually found a lot of great discussion and a lot of stuff I related to as someone who is still learning the ropes. It seems like all discussions on PvP orbit around the idea of groups of ships.

@Anna_L_Tante

The best ship in EVE is the friendship. Good solo fights are rarely happening in an universe full of groups. That’s EVE … a teamplay oriented sandbox in a virtual space.

@Erik_Andresen

join a large nullsec entity, focus on participating in what they do. Be it ratting, mining, roaming, whatever. Go out of your way to make new friends. Listen to the advice they give you.

These guys have popular opinions and seem to share the same feelings as CCP. EVE is an MMO where you are expected to take part in the community as you can accomplish more together than you can apart. I get that idea and I like it in principle. I’ve decided to get involved in the forums for this exact reason! But there’s a counter culture of people wishing for more “solo” content

@Verdis_deMosays

I have a wife, 4 kids, and a second shift job. My time is very limited online, and it’s hard to form for a fleet in the 30 minutes I have after I get home. I get the struggle to find fights. And the pain of getting blobbed when you do.

@Naari_Naarian

As a 2003 pvp vet, I am fighting insanely insistently against ccp and the blob nonsense they are propagating. I am convinced they have put all their eggs in the basket on this one

I’d like to see more “in and out” content in EVE. I don’t have lots of time to play and my hours are erratic. It really does suck when you log in and try to find something to do only to be chased around space by roaming groups. I thought Faction Warfare was what I was looking for, but I found that it’s mostly just sitting in space waiting for timers to tick down while, again, avoiding the groups that roam these areas.

Last night while I was plexing I got a chat invite from a player in local asking for a 1v1 at a point in space. I assumed it would be a trap but it actually wasn’t. I warped in and he was in a T1 frigate just like me. We fought and it was great! I actually almost won too but I ran out of nanite paste (only had 5 when I started the fight) and my tank wasn’t good enough without it.

I wish there was more of this. I wish there was a mode where PvP could be more organized and balanced. In my head I picture some type of matchmaking where people could do 1v1 or 3v3 or whatever they like. Restrictions could be placed on modules or at the least the game could try to match people up based on skill points or ship tech level or something. I think giving that as an option to players would make PvP more exciting than “have more ships than the other group”.

[Netan_MalDoran]

I’m pretty sure that the ECM changes made everything worse, now everyone just brings a billion ECM drones.

[DrysonBennington]

They blob you because they want everyone to get in on the ‘blob’ and get points. I have been scrambled and have had to wait a minute or so until the tard bards showed up to get in on the kill.

[Tesla_Nietzsche_Sun-Tzu]

I have to agree with you, practically everyone is willing to pvp as long as they know they won’t risk losing.
More people should try to fly just enough ship to do the intended job, it does make playing a lot more interesting. Instead we have more people bringing battleships to take down a frigate or destroyer.
It almost funny when people respond with risk vs. reward or anything about taking risks, and I’m not trying to single anyone out because I don’t know any of you in game.
Nobody likes losing but, if you’re not willing to actually risk losing by only going for easy kills, using alts so you aren’t alone, or whatever, then maybe you shouldn’t trasktalk somebody who’s actually playing the way they want to. Someone who still goes out in a destroyer because they know there is a lot of potential with the ship.
But this is Eve and that’s how half the comments aren’t even about the original post, everybody is doing their own thing.

[Rayit]

Maybe some kind of matchmade PvP mode would be fun. The open world stuff is all well and good but it’s hard to justify long periods of “hunting” (sitting doing nothing) for the sake of a fight that is over in seconds. I’m sure they could make matchmaking fit somehow. Some kind of simulated battle arena or whatever.

I’d love to get into PvP but the time commitment just preparing ships is a killer.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Rayit

Some kind of simulated battle arena or whatever.

Have you tried the Abyssal pvp sites?

[Rayit]

I haven’t. I had to stop playing in October due to work/uni. I’ve just got to a point where I can think about playing again. Those sites look interesting and might tempt me back in!

Thanks mate.

[William_Palmer]

Why are you arguing? Eve is full of assholes. But why the bias against solo players? There’s all kinds of crap going on, like suspects in limited engagements allowed logistics fleets and then get solo kills they should never even have won. This is a game that overwhelmingly favors corporations, the rest of us are expected to put with it, keep quiet and carry on being polite little minions. It’s not a PvP game, it’s a game of corporations and all CCP wants are bigger battles to attract more punters.