Originally posted by jimmyman99 I agree with you. WHat i was whining about is not the fact that PvP exists or that it is open PvP, what i wanted to point out is that PvP takes precedence over economic development.
Economy in EVE is PvP too, non-combat PvP, but it is PvP.
------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Mandolin
Designers need to move away from the old D&D level-based model which was never designed for player vs player combat in the first place.
Economy in EVE is PvP too, non-combat PvP, but it is PvP.
You know that's what Oveur and all the heavies keep on saying in CCP.
I don't buy it.
Economic determination of price, overhead, and all that sort of stuff is much too abstract, much too dependent on consumer decision making, and much to anonymous, to be considered "PvP" in the same sense as blowing up someone's cruiser, or going to war. I don't see the role of the arms supplier as competing with other players directly as much as they are competing with market forces. It never had that feel in the old SWG, and it doesn't feel that way here.
I'm not sure if the guy churning out Ferox battlecruisers wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I'm gonna pwn so and so's corp today." Maybe, "I'm gonna corner the market today on heavyweight T1," but that's not nothing to do with the zero-sum game that PvP usually entails. It has to do with positioning yourself in the market according to long and short term goals.
PvP is almost synonymous with a "hands on approach." The outcome is 100% decided upon by the actions of the players involved. But markets? Those are things that are in many ways decided upon by factors totally outside of the control of the player who initiates it. The economic game doesn't even need a player after a certain point.
It can't be Player versus Player if there is no more player. But the economic game? The resolution of that game can be played while one sleeps.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by jimmyman99 I agree with you. WHat i was whining about is not the fact that PvP exists or that it is open PvP, what i wanted to point out is that PvP takes precedence over economic development.
Without this open PvP what would happen to the econamy in eve, 2/3's of it is created from loss's in pvp fights. It is 100x harder if not 1000x harder to lose to a NPC rat even in a frigate you can easily take out a NPC cruiser, but in pvp it means 1 guy is going to have to buy a ship and modules very shortly. And that fuel the econamy which is then fought over in every way by people trying to sell their product.
Eve is (as quoted by a prior poster, need to get their name so I can truelly quote)
EvE is Everyone Vrs Everyone.
And so the game runs
"Just because there are other colours to use in chat does not mean you have to use them..." - Please follow
You're right. The "drains" in Eve is PvP. If it wasn't for PvP, the economy would inflate and everyone would have battleships all of the time. Maybe even bigger stuff.
I kinda wonder about isk though. The "faucets" are rats, missions, and trade goods trading. The drains are... Well... Taxes on putting stuff for sale on the market and BPOs. Once there are enough T1 BPOs in the market, we might see ISKs value going down.
Originally posted by Mylon You're right. The "drains" in Eve is PvP. If it wasn't for PvP, the economy would inflate and everyone would have battleships all of the time. Maybe even bigger stuff.I kinda wonder about isk though. The "faucets" are rats, missions, and trade goods trading. The drains are... Well... Taxes on putting stuff for sale on the market and BPOs. Once there are enough T1 BPOs in the market, we might see ISKs value going down.
T1 BPOs will not change anything ISK wise. They are very common and anyone can obtain one. Besides dont forget that nearly all tech 1 goods are crafted by NPC corps as well. That limits people to how much they can charge for T1 goods; and remember that minerals price is totally independant of that.
The only thing that can in reality change the value of ISK are macro-miners. For that they are hated by community and are being blown up when discovered.
There is more then enough cash drains in the game to keep the economy stable, and the supply of T2 BPOs (that is where the real money are) is carefully regulated.
I think I'll necro this post because I've been absent for a while.
Originally posted by Precusor
What a load of sh!t.. the zerglings where all at South shore and Tarren Mill 24/7 pre Bg.. and before the HS was implemented.. EPL/Tyrs hand/STV was the place tobe so there goes your WoW bias down the drain
[quote]Originally posted by -daikatana- C) You shoulda played before battlegrounds when PvP was basically EVE with much lower death penalties (too low to be honest) and NO CAMPING. Yes, in WoW because there was no real place that absolutely everyone had to be (that they didn't show up to in groups of 20-40 or hundreds in the case of IF or Ogrimmar) because there were at least 2-3 ways into most places and you could always jump along in griffins, zepplins, boats etc.
PvP in pre-battlegrounds WoW actually took place distributed throughout the world unlike EVE where it takes place in exactly the same place every time because it gives a huge advantage to the camping player(s).
I believe I'm being misunderstood here. I said there was nowhere that absolutely everyone had to be and at least 2 ways to get into every area (negating a select few...Un'goro comes to mind but its kinda dangerous to PvP there due to patrolling devilsaurs and swarms of raptors) so camping anything didn't work. You seemed to think I said there was referring only to to large-scale PvP pre-battlegrounds. The PvPers chose SS and the Mill because they were close together, easy to reach, and had weak NPCs that wouldn't get in the way of their fighting too much. Those were places to zerg for a bunch of quick NPC kills then wait for a significant response from the opposing faction.
As far as EPL and STV go I never went to STV in the entire time I played 1-60 so I don't know exactly why you think everyone has to go there. EPL on the other hand is one of those areas which are frequently visited by groups of 15 lvl 58-60s and have significantly annoying (read as life-threatening in large groups or while ditracted by other business) mobs so PvPing there is hazzardous to your health.
I don't have a WoW bias. This particular issue, however, just had nothing to do with the reason I detest WoW PvP: nothing risked, nothing gained, nothing accomplished.
Edit: The reason I play EVE is simple, they have the risk (though it is practically nonexistant once you actually get into your 0.0 belt unless you happened to stumble into a corps home system) and I firmly believe either the players or CCP will find a way to fit a reward in there some day.
Originally posted by Mcgreag PvE vs PvP, here is a dev quote from one of the fanfest videos: "NPCs was never designed to be part of our game, they just happend to come in for some reason."
Heartily agree with this post... Eve has degenerated into simpleton, trashtalking, exploit using, pre-teens who mask their pitiful manners and lash out at the world under the cover of calling themselves "Pirates". I too have recently quit after years of playing. Sadly I made many friends and had a great time but the continuous ethical slide in the player base finally did me in.
As a Carebear character i do my missions dont go into space below 0.4, because my implants can be removed and i build.
I love the pvp in EVE because things can be destroyed and new modules and ship must be made. And i am in a nice corps who made all those things. We supply to all corps or alliance and put our modules on the market not only for our own wallet but for the corps wallet. We do missions together we supply the market with Tech II modules and have our own fun in game. We also want to rise our standing so we can build a factory in high secure space.
I am not planning to become a pirat with my (builder/mission) character
but :
I have also a new character in eve, scond account . Some of the new blood. It can be a nice pirate or bountyhunter. My builder character provide him from the nessecary implants for fast learning and after 4-5 month he can on his own. Going to 0.0, hunting pirats or become on. Or fighting for an alliance should also be fun.
Most important in all game's : Having fun, its a game
Originally posted by Azirophos Economy in EVE is PvP too, non-combat PvP, but it is PvP.
You know that's what Oveur and all the heavies keep on saying in CCP.
I don't buy it.
Economic determination of price, overhead, and all that sort of stuff is much too abstract, much too dependent on consumer decision making, and much to anonymous, to be considered "PvP" in the same sense as blowing up someone's cruiser, or going to war. I don't see the role of the arms supplier as competing with other players directly as much as they are competing with market forces. It never had that feel in the old SWG, and it doesn't feel that way here.
I'm not sure if the guy churning out Ferox battlecruisers wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I'm gonna pwn so and so's corp today." Maybe, "I'm gonna corner the market today on heavyweight T1," but that's not nothing to do with the zero-sum game that PvP usually entails. It has to do with positioning yourself in the market according to long and short term goals.
PvP is almost synonymous with a "hands on approach." The outcome is 100% decided upon by the actions of the players involved. But markets? Those are things that are in many ways decided upon by factors totally outside of the control of the player who initiates it. The economic game doesn't even need a player after a certain point.
It can't be Player versus Player if there is no more player. But the economic game? The resolution of that game can be played while one sleeps.
Well, you might not wake up and say, "Today I'm gonna PWN the ______ Corp!!" but when a corp puts something on the market... IF they're feeling competative (because sometimes people just put it up for a price and leave it at that) they look at the market info in their region... they look at the prices and how far you have to go to get the cheapest bid... then, they create their Sale Order according to that. You under bid another Sale Order... you make the price the same only you're closer... you buy up their product and re-sell it at a higher price to control the market... business might not have explosions, but it's certainly a good fight.
You don't have to buy it for it to be true.
We can agree to disagree, or we can bicker constantly... either way, I'm right. SobaKai.com There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
Originally posted by SobaMan Well, you might not wake up and say, "Today I'm gonna PWN the ______ Corp!!" but when a corp puts something on the market... IF they're feeling competative (because sometimes people just put it up for a price and leave it at that) they look at the market info in their region... they look at the prices and how far you have to go to get the cheapest bid... then, they create their Sale Order according to that. You under bid another Sale Order... you make the price the same only you're closer... you buy up their product and re-sell it at a higher price to control the market... business might not have explosions, but it's certainly a good fight. You don't have to buy it for it to be true.
I think its only true if one takes a very broad, abstract view of PvP to justify some agenda.
Where is the player versus player? It seems to me that players are competing against bids, and really could care less about whether it was ultimately placed by a player or not.
Yeah its loosely affected by players in that they initiate bids, but then can we really call two competing bids PvP, simply because its the player that initiates it? Noncombat play in EVE can only be considered PvP if you have a funny and atypical way of defining PvP. It simply is too unlike PvP as is commonly understood to make the association.
I can put a snowball on the roof, and have it fall on someone's head at some later point in the afternoon due to the wind and other factors. But it would be a real stretch to say that I was in a snowball fight.
If we take the definitions to extreme, we can say that there is no PvP in EVE, but PvE alone. Piracy is a PvE activity, because the pirate is limited to those areas that have traffic enough to meet their needs. The environment is more important than the players at that point. Alliance wars are PvE activities, because its the environment of choke points, resources harvested from environmentally generateed asteroids, and the limitations of time it takes to manufacture ships and modules.
But when we look at these things, piracy and alliance wars are only PvE activities if you take a very broad, abstract view to push the agenda that EVE is more PvE than PvP. Its all true, but its only true if you define PvE in a funny, atypical way. Alliance wars and piracy are unlike those things we commonly associate with PvE, that declaring it a PvE activity just doesn't make sense.
I'll tell us one thing though. An activity doesn't automatically become "PvE," or "PvP," simply because Oveur says it is.
Then again, I'm not about to quit EVE because Oveur has an obsession with EVE's PvP. Its too good of a PvE game for me to believe him.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I think it's been mentioned, but most seem to be ignoring a very real solution to the gatecamping/bottleneck problem: Deal with it in game.
All the convo back and forth in forums is great, but it's not fixing anything.
The reality is that gatecamping is a free option available to all players in the game; it's simply a question of in-game ethics. So what do you do about it? Exercise your own freedoms. If you don't like the bottleneck gate-camping, gather a gang of like minded individuals, jump gate and take them out on the other side. It appears to me that is exactly what the pirates have done. You could have ships out there training 1 or 25 or 100 warp inhibitors on you, but they only work if you're trying to get away. Take the gate back. Keep it for a while.
Sure it's not as easy as it sounds. You'll have to 1) succeed 2) hold against their retailiation 3) unless someone is willing to hold the position for you, you will have to start again the next time. But what the hell, lay it on the line.
The point is, the pirates have rallied toward a common goal. Instead of moaning the injustice of it to CCP, take it in-game and do the same. Play a role in game. After all , it's an Roll Playing Game. Have FUN with it. Challenge yourself, and you just might have the loot from the remains of their ships as a reward.
Originally posted by copperfwtx I think it's been mentioned, but most seem to be ignoring a very real solution to the gatecamping/bottleneck problem: Deal with it in game. All the convo back and forth in forums is great, but it's not fixing anything. The reality is that gatecamping is a free option available to all players in the game; it's simply a question of in-game ethics. So what do you do about it? Exercise your own freedoms. If you don't like the bottleneck gate-camping, gather a gang of like minded individuals, jump gate and take them out on the other side. It appears to me that is exactly what the pirates have done. You could have ships out there training 1 or 25 or 100 warp inhibitors on you, but they only work if you're trying to get away. Take the gate back. Keep it for a while. Sure it's not as easy as it sounds. You'll have to 1) succeed 2) hold against their retailiation 3) unless someone is willing to hold the position for you, you will have to start again the next time. But what the hell, lay it on the line. The point is, the pirates have rallied toward a common goal. Instead of moaning the injustice of it to CCP, take it in-game and do the same. Play a role in game. After all , it's an Roll Playing Game. Have FUN with it. Challenge yourself, and you just might have the loot from the remains of their ships as a reward.
The difference is that what you talk about IS actual PVP. Most of these gate-campers are not interested in real PVP, or they would pick up someone their own size. Most of them are lamers and griefers on a pathetic ego trip.
SOE knows what you like... You don't! And don't forget... I am forcing you to read this!
Originally posted by duncan_922 Originally posted by copperfwtx I think it's been mentioned, but most seem to be ignoring a very real solution to the gatecamping/bottleneck problem: Deal with it in game. All the convo back and forth in forums is great, but it's not fixing anything. The reality is that gatecamping is a free option available to all players in the game; it's simply a question of in-game ethics. So what do you do about it? Exercise your own freedoms. If you don't like the bottleneck gate-camping, gather a gang of like minded individuals, jump gate and take them out on the other side. It appears to me that is exactly what the pirates have done. You could have ships out there training 1 or 25 or 100 warp inhibitors on you, but they only work if you're trying to get away. Take the gate back. Keep it for a while. Sure it's not as easy as it sounds. You'll have to 1) succeed 2) hold against their retailiation 3) unless someone is willing to hold the position for you, you will have to start again the next time. But what the hell, lay it on the line. The point is, the pirates have rallied toward a common goal. Instead of moaning the injustice of it to CCP, take it in-game and do the same. Play a role in game. After all , it's an Roll Playing Game. Have FUN with it. Challenge yourself, and you just might have the loot from the remains of their ships as a reward.
The difference is that what you talk about IS actual PVP. Most of these gate-campers are not interested in real PVP, or they would pick up someone their own size. Most of them are lamers and griefers on a pathetic ego trip.
No, they're pirates... Not all pirates are Jack Sparrow, mate. Pirates kill, loot, and savagely hold their own for whatever it is the other ship may have on board. People only call them griefers because they're trying to get them banned. All they're doing is killing you. There is no exploit in that. There is nothing "illegal" or against EULA in that. You (person in general) got killed by a gate-camping pirate, not griefed.
I hate gate-campers, but I love the convos people start because they think the pirate actually gives a shit...
We can agree to disagree, or we can bicker constantly... either way, I'm right. SobaKai.com There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
I agree. PvP is one thing. This is another. I'll restate that kind of game play is a matter of in-game ethics. Obviously those camping the gates have none.
Is it against the rules? Griefing can be reported, and an account can be suspended over it, but camping a gate pretty indiscriminate. In my interpretation it COULD be conidered Grief play under the follwing player conduct article. "This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. " But are enough people reporting this for the CCP to do something about particular individuals? And will CCP consider camping "griefing"?
Is it fair? I'll admit the odds are a little stacked against those that just want to mine and produce, or do a little low-sec hunting. I don't like the idea any more that you do.
However, my point is that if you don't like it, get in there and do something productive about it.
I would propose a coalition of corporation security forces. Lots of corporations operate out of shared or nearby space. Any one corporation may not have enough security ships logged in at any given time to bust a blockade. But combined, I'll bet enough destroyers, frigates, or battleships could be mustered to make a run on a gate long enough for some miners and haulers to make it through. Just takes a little cooperation and communication. Every corporation in the region of one of these bottleneck gates that wants to mine in no-sec has a vested interest in cooperating.
It's an in-game attempt to affect the world in which we play. This gate camping has been happening so long, it's a status quo that, besides forum complaints and the odd report or two, everyone seems to be accepting without taking any proactive steps to remedy. There's no way in hell it would be easy since it's been allowed to go on for so long without action. And SURE the whole idea would need a lot of work. But you'd be doing SOMETHING about it besides about it. If gate camping is unfair, then camp back.
Besides, I'll bet some battles over gate control would make some REALLY cool fleet battles.
Originally posted by copperfwtx It's an in-game attempt to affect the world in which we play. This gate camping has been happening so long, it's a status quo that, besides forum complaints and the odd report or two, everyone seems to be accepting without taking any proactive steps to remedy. There's no way in hell it would be easy since it's been allowed to go on for so long without action. And SURE the whole idea would need a lot of work. But you'd be doing SOMETHING about it besides about it. If gate camping is unfair, then camp back. Besides, I'll bet some battles over gate control would make some REALLY cool fleet battles.
People do things about it all the time. This is a very big topic over on the Eve-O forums as well. People complain... and even more people offer solutions that either need testing or have worked. Gate camping won't be banned or ban-able because it offers players an obstacle worth over-coming. This is a game, and, in this game, few things are reputable and worth remembering... The day you conquered a gate camp/gank squad and reclaimed that solar system will be a day you remember for the rest of your life.
We can agree to disagree, or we can bicker constantly... either way, I'm right. SobaKai.com There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts.
I haven't sorted through all the thousands of threads on EVE-O site, can you point me to where these threads are? I'm interested in reading into them.
Originally posted by copperfwtx I agree. PvP is one thing. This is another. I'll restate that kind of game play is a matter of in-game ethics. Obviously those camping the gates have none. Is it against the rules? Griefing can be reported, and an account can be suspended over it, but camping a gate pretty indiscriminate. In my interpretation it COULD be conidered Grief play under the follwing player conduct article. "This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. " But are enough people reporting this for the CCP to do something about particular individuals? And will CCP consider camping "griefing"?
There are a few things that people have done within the rules of the game and ccp have come in and said STOP. Lowsec gatecamping is not one of them.
The best example would be the guy who repetedly took a smartbombing armagedon to a highsec gate and started bombing, he lost his ship everytime so it wasn't against the rules or anything but he was rich and was back there again the next day with a new ship. After a few hundred ship/pod kills (mostly noobs) CCP decided it did fell under the greifing rule above and asked him to stop doing it (note they did not ban him, just asked him to stop, had he continued to do it they might have banned him).
So it is clear that if CCP do consider something within the rules of the game griefing they will act on it, but they have not acted against gatecamps so it's fairly safe to say that they do not class it as greifing.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
"I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts."
This is what the fanboys of Eve live for Waiting to gank you, muahaahahaha, than around around their house screaming how they ganked someone, real disgusting.
Originally posted by Static_Wolf "I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts."
This is what the fanboys of Eve live for Waiting to gank you, muahaahahaha, than around around their house screaming how they ganked someone, real disgusting.
Static are you so incompetent that you can't even get the quote option to work right? As usual you are taking a narrow view of what gate camping means for the population of EVE.(it might help if you actually played the game instead of just trolling the forum). What does gate camping mean to me? It means we always know were to go to kill some pirates waiting to gank someone. How convenient is that? You guys really need to start having a more positive outlook on life its easier that way.
Originally posted by Aetius73 Originally posted by Static_Wolf "I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts."
This is what the fanboys of Eve live for Waiting to gank you, muahaahahaha, than around around their house screaming how they ganked someone, real disgusting.
Static are you so incompetent that you can't even get the quote option to work right? As usual you are taking a narrow view of what gate camping means for the population of EVE.(it might help if you actually played the game instead of just trolling the forum). What does gate camping mean to me? It means we always know were to go to kill some pirates waiting to gank someone. How convenient is that? You guys really need to start having a more positive outlook on life its easier that way. How do you mean?
Originally posted by Static_Wolf Originally posted by Aetius73 Originally posted by Static_Wolf "I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts."
This is what the fanboys of Eve live for Waiting to gank you, muahaahahaha, than around around their house screaming how they ganked someone, real disgusting.
Static are you so incompetent that you can't even get the quote option to work right? As usual you are taking a narrow view of what gate camping means for the population of EVE.(it might help if you actually played the game instead of just trolling the forum). What does gate camping mean to me? It means we always know were to go to kill some pirates waiting to gank someone. How convenient is that? You guys really need to start having a more positive outlook on life its easier that way. How do you mean?
He's talking about taking a group of anti-pk's and breaking the gate camp, that more clear for you Cletus?
Comments
------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mandolin
Designers need to move away from the old D&D level-based model which was never designed for player vs player combat in the first place.
You know that's what Oveur and all the heavies keep on saying in CCP.
I don't buy it.
Economic determination of price, overhead, and all that sort of stuff is much too abstract, much too dependent on consumer decision making, and much to anonymous, to be considered "PvP" in the same sense as blowing up someone's cruiser, or going to war. I don't see the role of the arms supplier as competing with other players directly as much as they are competing with market forces. It never had that feel in the old SWG, and it doesn't feel that way here.
I'm not sure if the guy churning out Ferox battlecruisers wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I'm gonna pwn so and so's corp today." Maybe, "I'm gonna corner the market today on heavyweight T1," but that's not nothing to do with the zero-sum game that PvP usually entails. It has to do with positioning yourself in the market according to long and short term goals.
PvP is almost synonymous with a "hands on approach." The outcome is 100% decided upon by the actions of the players involved. But markets? Those are things that are in many ways decided upon by factors totally outside of the control of the player who initiates it. The economic game doesn't even need a player after a certain point.
It can't be Player versus Player if there is no more player. But the economic game? The resolution of that game can be played while one sleeps.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Without this open PvP what would happen to the econamy in eve, 2/3's of it is created from loss's in pvp fights. It is 100x harder if not 1000x harder to lose to a NPC rat even in a frigate you can easily take out a NPC cruiser, but in pvp it means 1 guy is going to have to buy a ship and modules very shortly. And that fuel the econamy which is then fought over in every way by people trying to sell their product.
Eve is (as quoted by a prior poster, need to get their name so I can truelly quote)
EvE is Everyone Vrs Everyone.
And so the game runs
"Just because there are other colours to use in chat does not mean you have to use them..." - Please follow
You're right. The "drains" in Eve is PvP. If it wasn't for PvP, the economy would inflate and everyone would have battleships all of the time. Maybe even bigger stuff.
I kinda wonder about isk though. The "faucets" are rats, missions, and trade goods trading. The drains are... Well... Taxes on putting stuff for sale on the market and BPOs. Once there are enough T1 BPOs in the market, we might see ISKs value going down.
T1 BPOs will not change anything ISK wise. They are very common and anyone can obtain one. Besides dont forget that nearly all tech 1 goods are crafted by NPC corps as well. That limits people to how much they can charge for T1 goods; and remember that minerals price is totally independant of that.
The only thing that can in reality change the value of ISK are macro-miners. For that they are hated by community and are being blown up when discovered.
There is more then enough cash drains in the game to keep the economy stable, and the supply of T2 BPOs (that is where the real money are) is carefully regulated.
I think I'll necro this post because I've been absent for a while.
What a load of sh!t.. the zerglings where all at South shore and Tarren Mill 24/7 pre Bg..and before the HS was implemented.. EPL/Tyrs hand/STV was the place tobe
so there goes your WoW bias down the drain
[quote]Originally posted by -daikatana-
C) You shoulda played before battlegrounds when PvP was basically EVE with much lower death penalties (too low to be honest) and NO CAMPING. Yes, in WoW because there was no real place that absolutely everyone had to be (that they didn't show up to in groups of 20-40 or hundreds in the case of IF or Ogrimmar) because there were at least 2-3 ways into most places and you could always jump along in griffins, zepplins, boats etc.
PvP in pre-battlegrounds WoW actually took place distributed throughout the world unlike EVE where it takes place in exactly the same place every time because it gives a huge advantage to the camping player(s).
I believe I'm being misunderstood here. I said there was nowhere that absolutely everyone had to be and at least 2 ways to get into every area (negating a select few...Un'goro comes to mind but its kinda dangerous to PvP there due to patrolling devilsaurs and swarms of raptors) so camping anything didn't work. You seemed to think I said there was referring only to to large-scale PvP pre-battlegrounds. The PvPers chose SS and the Mill because they were close together, easy to reach, and had weak NPCs that wouldn't get in the way of their fighting too much. Those were places to zerg for a bunch of quick NPC kills then wait for a significant response from the opposing faction.
As far as EPL and STV go I never went to STV in the entire time I played 1-60 so I don't know exactly why you think everyone has to go there. EPL on the other hand is one of those areas which are frequently visited by groups of 15 lvl 58-60s and have significantly annoying (read as life-threatening in large groups or while ditracted by other business) mobs so PvPing there is hazzardous to your health.
I don't have a WoW bias. This particular issue, however, just had nothing to do with the reason I detest WoW PvP: nothing risked, nothing gained, nothing accomplished.
Edit: The reason I play EVE is simple, they have the risk (though it is practically nonexistant once you actually get into your 0.0 belt unless you happened to stumble into a corps home system) and I firmly believe either the players or CCP will find a way to fit a reward in there some day.
PvE vs PvP, here is a dev quote from one of the fanfest videos:
"NPCs was never designed to be part of our game, they just happend to come in for some reason."
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
gate camping is a huge flaw in this game
Heartily agree with this post... Eve has degenerated into simpleton, trashtalking, exploit using, pre-teens who mask their pitiful manners and lash out at the world under the cover of calling themselves "Pirates". I too have recently quit after years of playing. Sadly I made many friends and had a great time but the continuous ethical slide in the player base finally did me in.
In my opinion EVE is what you want to make of it.
As a Carebear character i do my missions dont go into space below 0.4, because my implants can be removed and i build.
I love the pvp in EVE because things can be destroyed and new modules and ship must be made. And i am in a nice corps who made all those things. We supply to all corps or alliance and put our modules on the market not only for our own wallet but for the corps wallet. We do missions together we supply the market with Tech II modules and have our own fun in game. We also want to rise our standing so we can build a factory in high secure space.
I am not planning to become a pirat with my (builder/mission) character
but :
I have also a new character in eve, scond account . Some of the new blood. It can be a nice pirate or bountyhunter. My builder character provide him from the nessecary implants for fast learning and after 4-5 month he can on his own. Going to 0.0, hunting pirats or become on. Or fighting for an alliance should also be fun.
Most important in all game's : Having fun, its a game
You know that's what Oveur and all the heavies keep on saying in CCP.
I don't buy it.
Economic determination of price, overhead, and all that sort of stuff is much too abstract, much too dependent on consumer decision making, and much to anonymous, to be considered "PvP" in the same sense as blowing up someone's cruiser, or going to war. I don't see the role of the arms supplier as competing with other players directly as much as they are competing with market forces. It never had that feel in the old SWG, and it doesn't feel that way here.
I'm not sure if the guy churning out Ferox battlecruisers wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I'm gonna pwn so and so's corp today." Maybe, "I'm gonna corner the market today on heavyweight T1," but that's not nothing to do with the zero-sum game that PvP usually entails. It has to do with positioning yourself in the market according to long and short term goals.
PvP is almost synonymous with a "hands on approach." The outcome is 100% decided upon by the actions of the players involved. But markets? Those are things that are in many ways decided upon by factors totally outside of the control of the player who initiates it. The economic game doesn't even need a player after a certain point.
It can't be Player versus Player if there is no more player. But the economic game? The resolution of that game can be played while one sleeps.
Well, you might not wake up and say, "Today I'm gonna PWN the ______ Corp!!" but when a corp puts something on the market... IF they're feeling competative (because sometimes people just put it up for a price and leave it at that) they look at the market info in their region... they look at the prices and how far you have to go to get the cheapest bid... then, they create their Sale Order according to that. You under bid another Sale Order... you make the price the same only you're closer... you buy up their product and re-sell it at a higher price to control the market... business might not have explosions, but it's certainly a good fight.
You don't have to buy it for it to be true.
SobaKai.com
There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
I think its only true if one takes a very broad, abstract view of PvP to justify some agenda.
Where is the player versus player? It seems to me that players are competing against bids, and really could care less about whether it was ultimately placed by a player or not.
Yeah its loosely affected by players in that they initiate bids, but then can we really call two competing bids PvP, simply because its the player that initiates it? Noncombat play in EVE can only be considered PvP if you have a funny and atypical way of defining PvP. It simply is too unlike PvP as is commonly understood to make the association.
I can put a snowball on the roof, and have it fall on someone's head at some later point in the afternoon due to the wind and other factors. But it would be a real stretch to say that I was in a snowball fight.
If we take the definitions to extreme, we can say that there is no PvP in EVE, but PvE alone. Piracy is a PvE activity, because the pirate is limited to those areas that have traffic enough to meet their needs. The environment is more important than the players at that point. Alliance wars are PvE activities, because its the environment of choke points, resources harvested from environmentally generateed asteroids, and the limitations of time it takes to manufacture ships and modules.
But when we look at these things, piracy and alliance wars are only PvE activities if you take a very broad, abstract view to push the agenda that EVE is more PvE than PvP. Its all true, but its only true if you define PvE in a funny, atypical way. Alliance wars and piracy are unlike those things we commonly associate with PvE, that declaring it a PvE activity just doesn't make sense.
I'll tell us one thing though. An activity doesn't automatically become "PvE," or "PvP," simply because Oveur says it is.
Then again, I'm not about to quit EVE because Oveur has an obsession with EVE's PvP. Its too good of a PvE game for me to believe him.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I think it's been mentioned, but most seem to be ignoring a very real solution to the gatecamping/bottleneck problem: Deal with it in game.
All the convo back and forth in forums is great, but it's not fixing anything.
The reality is that gatecamping is a free option available to all players in the game; it's simply a question of in-game ethics. So what do you do about it? Exercise your own freedoms. If you don't like the bottleneck gate-camping, gather a gang of like minded individuals, jump gate and take them out on the other side. It appears to me that is exactly what the pirates have done. You could have ships out there training 1 or 25 or 100 warp inhibitors on you, but they only work if you're trying to get away. Take the gate back. Keep it for a while.
Sure it's not as easy as it sounds. You'll have to 1) succeed 2) hold against their retailiation 3) unless someone is willing to hold the position for you, you will have to start again the next time. But what the hell, lay it on the line.
The point is, the pirates have rallied toward a common goal. Instead of moaning
the injustice of it to CCP, take it in-game and do the same. Play a role in game. After all , it's an Roll Playing Game. 
Have FUN with it. Challenge yourself, and you just might have the loot from the remains of their ships as a reward.
SOE knows what you like... You don't!
And don't forget... I am forcing you to read this!
No, they're pirates... Not all pirates are Jack Sparrow, mate. Pirates kill, loot, and savagely hold their own for whatever it is the other ship may have on board. People only call them griefers because they're trying to get them banned. All they're doing is killing you. There is no exploit in that. There is nothing "illegal" or against EULA in that. You (person in general) got killed by a gate-camping pirate, not griefed.
I hate gate-campers, but I love the convos people start because they think the pirate actually gives a shit...
SobaKai.com
There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
I agree. PvP is one thing. This is another. I'll restate that kind of game play is a matter of in-game ethics. Obviously those camping the gates have none.
Is it against the rules? Griefing can be reported, and an account can be suspended over it, but camping a gate pretty indiscriminate. In my interpretation it COULD be conidered Grief play under the follwing player conduct article. "This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. " But are enough people reporting this for the CCP to do something about particular individuals? And will CCP consider camping "griefing"?
Is it fair? I'll admit the odds are a little stacked against those that just want to mine and produce, or do a little low-sec hunting. I don't like the idea any more that you do.
However, my point is that if you don't like it, get in there and do something productive about it.
I would propose a coalition of corporation security forces. Lots of corporations operate out of shared or nearby space. Any one corporation may not have enough security ships logged in at any given time to bust a blockade. But combined, I'll bet enough destroyers, frigates, or battleships could be mustered to make a run on a gate long enough for some miners and haulers to make it through. Just takes a little cooperation and communication. Every corporation in the region of one of these bottleneck gates that wants to mine in no-sec has a vested interest in cooperating.
It's an in-game attempt to affect the world in which we play. This gate camping has been happening so long, it's a status quo that, besides forum complaints and the odd report or two, everyone seems to be accepting without taking any proactive steps to remedy. There's no way in hell it would be easy since it's been allowed to go on for so long without action. And SURE the whole idea would need a lot of work. But you'd be doing SOMETHING about it besides
about it. If gate camping is unfair, then camp back.
Besides, I'll bet some battles over gate control would make some REALLY cool fleet battles.
SobaKai.com
There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts.
I haven't sorted through all the thousands of threads on EVE-O site, can you point me to where these threads are? I'm interested in reading into them.
The best example would be the guy who repetedly took a smartbombing armagedon to a highsec gate and started bombing, he lost his ship everytime so it wasn't against the rules or anything but he was rich and was back there again the next day with a new ship. After a few hundred ship/pod kills (mostly noobs) CCP decided it did fell under the greifing rule above and asked him to stop doing it (note they did not ban him, just asked him to stop, had he continued to do it they might have banned him).
So it is clear that if CCP do consider something within the rules of the game griefing they will act on it, but they have not acted against gatecamps so it's fairly safe to say that they do not class it as greifing.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
"I agree, gate camping/campers won't be banned and that's fine with me. The camping adds an obstacle, and only those brave enough to challenge it will succeed in no-sec, for however long it lasts."
This is what the fanboys of Eve live for
Waiting to gank you, muahaahahaha, than around around their house screaming how they ganked someone, real disgusting.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
How do you mean?
How do you mean?
He's talking about taking a group of anti-pk's and breaking the gate camp, that more clear for you Cletus?