[Tinfoil Hat Active] CCP Falcon wants to create more conflict

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Punctator

it gives some emotions - and you want play the game to feel it. If you are 1 of 256 people in 2 fighting fleets you feel notheing, but good fc can make it fun if he can sing

Sounds neat. But not something I think Ill see. Not including the old Hydra fleets.

I dont know what you mean about harrassment though.

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

It’s not raep when we’re both screaming

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

LOOK AT THIS POST!
Do you see what Drac does?
He plays so well I am even afraid of him IRL.

Fleeting with Drac showed me I’m bad at Eve.

Keep flying, brother. The game needs more people like you.

[Compo]

[Grognard_Commissar]

right, but he’s still part of the devteam. what he wants likely doesn’t differ too far from the rest of the devs.

i think that we do need more conflict. and it’s good to see that ccp agrees. however, im not sure if CCP really understand how to drive conflict in null, long term. i mean, these changes lately, i think some ahve been aimed at fixing isk faucet imbalances, but i don’t think they’re really going to generate that much more conflict in the long run.

[Dracvlad]

You made me blush…

Still, one has to look at the risk equation, in effect this change with the cyno as it is indicates that nullsec is only for big fully organised blocks and anyone else will be feeding to the farrmers.

I had an exchange on TIS public a bit before the CCP decision on cyno’s which I fully support by the way where I suggested that cyno’s needed adjusting, and I suggested that after a few jumped the cyno field would lose intensity and the fleet would then get deposited in random areas around the grid. Sadly it got derailed by a mad WH player who started waffling on about a loss I had not had when I gave an example.

I was even toying with different kinds of cyno, one generator with the ability to deposit one ship of any size directly on top of it before it failed, and another that would enable any number of ships to jump through on it, but the ships would appear all over the grid. And this would apply to covert cyno’s too. CCP Rise’s idea is fine in that it weakens cyno, but I have my eye on running small scale combats around big battles. Which I think would be interesting play if people were not so risk averse about wanting to be dropped at zero…

Anyway, I am loving these Trig invasions, I ended up getting my Ikitsura out in 2% structure the other day when I got a bit carried away… Ouch, so I made another just in case, and the five Ashimmu multiple Omen spawn on BR FOB’s still makes me run like mad with FOB’s… Oh well!

PS I am having a lot of fun in hisec at the moment, mostly with the environment actually.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Grognard_Commissar

but i don’t think they’re really going to generate that much more conflict in the long run.

I challenge you to come up with a mechanism in game that will not be rendered immediately useless by out of game Diplo and blue donut Non-Aggression/Invasion agreements.

[Grognard_Commissar]

moon siphons, easier moon catalouging, simplification of citadel and sov warfare

[Scoots_Choco]

@Grognard_Commissar

moon siphons

Tried and failed.

@Grognard_Commissar

easier moon catalouging, simplification of citadel and sov warfare

These aren’t even mechanisms. They are vague concepts.

[Grognard_Commissar]

@Scoots_Choco

Tried and failed.

that stuff worked.

@Scoots_Choco

These aren’t even mechanisms. They are vague concepts.

right. i dunno if you noticed, but im not a coder. i just live in nullsec and pay fkn attention to what drives blocs into conflict. these “chaos” gimmicks are not it.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Grognard_Commissar

that stuff worked.

It really didn’t.
All it did was show up on people’s API tools and cause minor discomfort. If you think it created any significant conflict in the game, that’s laughable.

@Grognard_Commissar

right. i dunno if you noticed, but im not a coder.

Cool, I didn’t ask, nor do I care. I said in-game mechanics. Not vague ideas and concepts.

It’s easy to whine and say “I don’t like this”. It’s another to say, “I know what I want, and it is x”. I don’t care if you’re not a coder. I want to know if you even know what it is that you want.

[March_rabbit]

@Circumstantial_Evidence

unable or unwilling to adjust to devoting 100% attention to those activities

Just imagine needing to do this while mining!
It’s like being fully committed and aware while waiting your flight in airport and never touch any smartphone or pay attention to unnecessary things. Just watching tabloid and waiting with 100% attention for hours…

[March_rabbit]

@Jonah_Gravenstein

the PvP players for the most part, they seem to adapt readily to any changes that CCP inflict upon them

Do you remember all these “i’m finally returning to EvE because of Blackout!” or “I’ve left EvE because null-sec became safer than HS!” posts?
Does it really look like you wrote it?

[Ramona_McCandless]

Why does it matter who wrote it?

[Naari_Naarian]

@Eriker_Gengod

so putting my tinfoil hat here and with the trigalvian invasion. Is it possible from a lore perspective that they could change or mask their names to use an alliance tag and completely destroy a citadel and player owned structure ? Cause that would create confusion and conflict ?

Yes but they dont need to.

Long ago one of the northern null alliances (forsaken empire) that had good standings with npc pirates that got npc support via capitals. It was the equiv of something like 25 titans, 25 supers and 50 dred/carriers of today.

To my knowledge its the only time in eve that an npc body has attacked player stations aiding players. It caused a lot of drama back in the day.

They could easily go back to doing this if they wanted it, but that would largely sh ift eve from being a sandbox to a pve oriented game, and i can see a lot upset people from that (why build an empire if npcs just blow it up the next day).

If ccp wanted to kick drama up in the game, they’d start with removing suicide ganking. That would force all the high sec pvpers to go to low or null and pvp.

[DeMichael_Crimson]

@Naari_Naarian

If ccp wanted to kick drama up in the game, they’d start with removing suicide ganking. That would force all the high sec pvpers to go to low or null and pvp.

Or hopefully create more High Sec WarDec’s.

[Naari_Naarian]

@DeMichael_Crimson

Or hopefully create more High Sec WarDec’s.

Im definitely in support of that (subject to change if i see abuse)

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

@Naari_Naarian

but that would largely sh ift eve from being a sandbox to a pve oriented game, and i can see a lot upset people from that

@Naari_Naarian

If ccp wanted to kick drama up in the game, they’d start with removing suicide ganking. That would force all the high sec pvpers to go to low or null and pvp.

Do you even read what you type?

On one hand you say that shifting Eve from a sandbox to a PvE biased game would upset a lot of people, and then on the other you suggest doing exactly that to a specific, and highly populated, area of the game.

[Naari_Naarian]

@Jonah_Gravenstein

On one hand you say that shifting Eve from a sandbox to a PvE biased game would upset a lot of people, and then on the other you suggest doing exactly that to a specific, and highly populated, area of the game.

No, I advocate the removal of the abuse of high sec.

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

@Naari_Naarian

No, I advocate the removal of the abuse of high sec.

No, you’re advocating the removal of one of the very few risks left in hisec; thus shifting hisec from being an integral part of the sandbox to a PvE biased area of the game that diametrically differs from the rest of the game, and the very premise of the game itself.

Which is a move that you yourself admit would annoy many people if it was tried elsewhere in the game.