| 17 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Someone getting banned for having 2 different accounts on 2 different opposing nations should not be against the rules of a sandbox mmorpg. I play a game called Eve Online and people make alternate accounts to join there enemies corporations to gather information and commit espionage. It makes the game more life like, just look at real life right now, i am sure most countries have spies in other countries collecting information. Its like creating a sandbox game and telling people they cannot take full advantage of the legal game mechanics at there disposal. Its obvious from all these revamps on avatars and combat in the last few months that the DEVS have no idea how to make the game better and keep implementing new game mechanics based on blind assumptions. I can honestly say this game has no hope at all based on the DEVS mentality.
|
|
|
12/24/08 1:09:45 PM#2
Originally posted by rubydragon5
This only points out for me one good reason to not try EVE online.
|
|
|
12/25/08 11:56:05 AM#3
Eh... I've never heard/seen PotBS described as a "sandbox" MMO. I'm an EVE vet, myself and taking the overall concept of EVE as the definition for sandbox, Pirates of the Burning Sea definitely isn't it. EVE has FW, yes, but that's not EVE's PvP end-game; it's a sideshow. EVE's PvP end-game is 0.0, alliance power bloc vs. alliance power bloc. War for territory, play for keeps. PotBS has 4 nations, no means of creating official alliances between them, the nations compete in a Realm vs. Realm campaign until someone wins, at which time the map resets. There's no "play for keeps" when the map resets. There's no sandbox when Brits can't attack other Brits, pirates can't attack other pirates, etc. My idea of "sandbox MMO" (as I learned from EVE-O) is "you pissed me off so I'm going to kick over your sandcastle, punch you in the eye, take your shoes, tear your shirt collar, make you eat sand, take your toys and split them up amongst my buddies - or die trying"... not "well, that was a fun map! Here's all your ports back, let's do it again!"
|
|
|
12/25/08 11:59:11 AM#4
|
|
|
12/25/08 3:10:03 PM#5
Originally posted by Havohej I don't want to hijack the thread, but isn't that a mighty good indication that the average EvE player will never see the game in full, and that instead they'll just ship ore between ganks? Also isn't it an indication that people in those power blocs either won't recruit, or won't trust those they do, even after a considerable length of time? Didn't that infiltrator in that notorious incident a few yearsa go wait months before putting his plan into action? And when they release an expansion, does that come with additional territory? If so, we can all guess who grabs it as soon as it's available. It's so predictable that I wouldn't exactly call it fun. |
|
|
12/25/08 6:29:38 PM#6
Havo, you obviously play this game. Assuming you reached the level cap, what do you do when you login? I've thought about coming back, I left after month 1 because i was on an empty server and they waited way to damn long to have merges. I'm just curious what you do when you login. Go to red circles and look for fights? Manuafactor stuff? Sorry if my question seems odd ------------------------- |
|
|
12/26/08 9:14:58 AM#7
I mean, if you've got a real interest in EVE-O, I'm sure the guys on this forum's EVE folder can answer question on your mind... that game's got a steep learning curve (cliff, even), but it's not set up in such a way where if you're not in the PvP end-game you've got nothing to do. Hell, many players would tell you EVE's open-ended nature means it doesn't really HAVE an "end-game", I only used the term to describe 0.0 territorial conflict myself as a loose approximation that anyone who hasn't played it could relate to. :) The power blocs tend to recruit well-known players they can sort of trust, but in my experience it's easier to get a corporation into an alliance in a powerbloc than it is to join a corp that's already in the alliance. Funny how that works, to be honest, but if you think about it it's less likely that 50 people rolled alts and built a strong PvP reputation just to get into your alliance... Yes, I believe the event you're referring to was Istvaan Shogaatsu's infiltration, which put Guiding Hand Social Club on the map - they still operate, by the way. :D That took literally months of effort, rare for a player to have that sort of patience.
When I'm alone, I use a small or medium ship (like Cutter or Xebec) to hunt merchant ships (yesterday I got 140 limestone from a fallback, 60 leather from a Bermuda MC, accepted a surrender from a sloop that didn't have anything but I'd demanded surrender so it would've been wrong to reject it, fought along a socmate in a 2v2 against a couple of French that got me a Herc Heavy (my first Herc :D). When I'm with a group of socmates, I roll however they're rolling; if it's a small/medium pirhana pack, I bring a small/medium ship. If it's a heavy PvP fleet and they're hunting for heavy enemy groups, then I'll bring a huge ship (MC Capri, Mignone Privateer, whatever I've got on hand). I've also got a British NO and FT that I've been levelling slowly on Blackbeard, both around the L20 mark right now. I'm looking forward to getting the NO to 50 and getting maybe a 4th Rate or 3rd Rate and experiencing epic port battles in colossals... but for right now, I LOVE hunting the open sea. |
|
|
12/26/08 11:53:09 AM#8
Originally posted by Havohej
Nicely said. This is also one of the biggest issues with the 'endgame' of PotBS IMHO. It's just a series of multiplayer skirmishes really.
It's not even really a wargame. The RvR means nothing. You can still produce in an 'enemy held' port and if you are a FT with 'tax evasion' the penalty is not too harsh. Contrast that with WWIIoL (as an example), where you really feel like your efforts make a difference every time you play. I tried playing Real Life but the graphics sucked, the community was annoying too. |
|
|
12/27/08 12:39:41 AM#9
I think that if you are not allowed to have 2 characters of different factions on the same server it should apply to however many accounts you have. Using 2 accounts is just a loophole to circumvent the rule. |
|
|
Linna
Apprentice Member
Joined: 5/01/05
Those who do not know their history, are bound to step in it. |
12/27/08 6:40:58 AM#10
Originally posted by Blodpls
Please read the other threads. It was EXPLICITLY allowed to have different nationalities on different accounts when the game went live. Linna |
|
Linna
Apprentice Member
Joined: 5/01/05
Those who do not know their history, are bound to step in it. |
12/27/08 6:54:03 AM#11
Originally posted by Gyrus
Nicely said. This is also one of the biggest issues with the 'endgame' of PotBS IMHO. It's just a series of multiplayer skirmishes really.
It's not even really a wargame. The RvR means nothing. You can still produce in an 'enemy held' port and if you are a FT with 'tax evasion' the penalty is not too harsh. Contrast that with WWIIoL (as an example), where you really feel like your efforts make a difference every time you play.
Having to pay the added taxes was not a problem on a national level, provided the nation that lost the ports was healthy. Once nations dropped below a certain population level, it proved to be a disaster, because it was literally impossible to compete in any way, shape or form. The other side could build better ships faster and for less effort, and there simply wasn't any way to ever catch up again. On a personal player level, losing ports was always a disaster. Many people simply didn't realise what it meant if you insisted on crafting on your main, and that main was a Privateer or Naval Officer, especially since the economy tutorial encouraged all classes to dabble, without really explaining the risk. And many of the PVE players, who were lured in by the promise of a full player economy, simply couldn't deal, even those who played freetraders. Our population (Rackham Spain) took a nosedive when Campeche was taken, for instance (back in the days when it was impossible to get it back, because there were no enemy ships to kill). Losing Havana when we had long since lost the ability to field 24 in a PB had a similar effect. But also the loss of lesser ports drove people out. People just gave up. To this day, I think the consequences of losing ports were ill thought out, and one of the main contributors to the massive attrition we saw in the playerbase. In my opinion, all ports should be lost for 3 days max, like pirate ports, and everyone should get the same amount of points for a port capture. That would fix the Pirate RvR and make it impossible to totally crush nations, which was what happened to Rackham Spain and later on France. Linna |
|
12/27/08 6:54:07 PM#12
A lot of things were different, then, including PvP captures being permaflagged if they weren't ships pirates could normally float, no insurance, etc. - you know better than I do, you were actually there. When the game went live, there was no rule to circumvent, because there didn't need to be one. You said yourself that FLS made certain changes despite the protests and warnings from some of the players that numerous exploits would be created and FLS made the changes anyway. You've also explained how when, sure enough, all those bad things you warned them about happened, FLS changed their policies. C'est la vie, tbh... whether you agree with their reasoning or not, it's their product and they're going to do what they think best for it. |
|
|
Linna
Apprentice Member
Joined: 5/01/05
Those who do not know their history, are bound to step in it. |
12/27/08 7:33:37 PM#13
Originally posted by Havohej
All it demonstrates is that they don't have a clue. Surprising really, in beta as soon as you thought you had found a way people might circumvent something, sure enough, it would be plugged already. I don't know what changed, but once the game hit live, it soon became apparent they had totally lost that insight. I think key people left in that period. Linna |
|
12/28/08 2:00:36 AM#14
Quite frankly I could use a break from all the spying/meta-gaming bullshit in EVE. Too many people involved in that go way over the line. Far past the somewhat acceptable in game heists and causing RL havoc, bullying and such. Perhaps Flying Labs response was a bit over the top, but I understand their motives. |
|
|
12/28/08 2:12:58 AM#15
Originally posted by Linna
No actually thery never had a clue. If they had the redzone mechanic would never have been instituted. The economy also never worked properly from day one, then they just kept making it worse. "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." ~Greys Law |
|
|
12/28/08 3:48:18 AM#16
Originally posted by Linna This is why I think FLS is dragging their heels on Port Governance. The fact is that the way they have set it up... and the expectations they have created... mean that anything like this will upset still more players. So, what are you left with? Port Governance that is simply reduced to a few instanced missions?
I disagree with your approach Linna. I would have made it tougher from the outset. Based on the current game design and ruleset I think FLS have painted themselves into a corner. I tried playing Real Life but the graphics sucked, the community was annoying too. |
|
|
12/28/08 4:21:37 AM#17
Originally posted by Gyrus This is why I think FLS is dragging their heels on Port Governance. The fact is that the way they have set it up... and the expectations they have created... mean that anything like this will upset still more players. So, what are you left with? Port Governance that is simply reduced to a few instanced missions?
I disagree with your approach Linna. I would have made it tougher from the outset. Based on the current game design and ruleset I think FLS have painted themselves into a corner. Gyrus: Time to quote another classic remark from Isildur: The truth about the economy is that only a third of it is implemented. As originally designed, money entered from ship kills, and exited through three sinks. We only implemented one of those sinks: ship loss. The other two – port governance and social spaces – were postponed. They’re on the schedule, but won’t show up for quite a while. In the meantime, the economy is entirely balanced on one solitary leg, instead of the tripod it was supposed to have. So port governance, in his eyes at least, was intended as a money sink, not a source of revenue. FLS might craft it deliberately so, especially now that insurance had all but made money meaningless. Or perhaps Isildur meant that the money would be transferring hands, presumably from ordinary players to guild leaders lucky enough to run a town, but I think the words "exited" and "sink" were meant to be taken literally. In which case: What's the purpose of running a town, since it's not a case where you'd want to be spending money without expecting something in return (other than the right to brag that you're a governor)? If you can set taxes, but the system is designed as a sink, it's not going to be interesting if you get none of them yourselves. Not many people would even bother with that. Not to mention the other big problem: Though they might be monoliths in theory, nations are far from being so in practice. Some of those guilds playing on the same side are in heavy competition with one another, would never come to terms on matters of policy (I saw plenty of that myself), and would certainly not tolerate being told they can't fight their own side for control of a port, especially a strategic one with a deep harbour, but instead have to decide between themselves who gets to run it. So until I see evidence to the contrary I will have to agree with you -- FLS painted itself into a corner, and that's assuming they were really serious about port governance in the first place. |
|
