| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (13)

Posted: Dec 6th 2009 8:57PM Benicio said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Very interesting read.

Posted: Dec 6th 2009 10:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eves greatest attribute and greatest failing is the lack of balanced PvP.

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 2:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What a load of bull. Faction Warfare has never been deserted but has had fleets forming and gangs roaming daily since it was formed.

Go browse killmail sites to see the daily casualties ticking in, you can do that from day one.

http://www.caldarimilitia.org/killboard/

Yes it turned out completing the PvE oriented goals were pointless, Caldari sat on the whole Caldari/Gallente front on the drawing board. But people just ignored the PvE and kept on fighting in Fleets and roaming gangs.

Yes the changes to turn the interest back to the goals CCP imagined Faction Warfare should be was a failure, for the farming reasons author states. A few corps gained massive ISK from this, and they are now set stuffed with "Old money".

But it never stopped the fighting, it went on and with the inclusion of Pirate Corps preying on both sides and being policed by both sides, with 0.0 corps showing up to join the fray in Capital ships, a Tech 1 Cruiser pilot never needs look long for comrades in arms and superior enemies to take on his strength in numbers.

Author tries to hard, Faction Warfare never was dead, it was never even slowed down. Bad gameplay ideas by CCP were ignored like a mummy at a birthday party trying to get the boys to jump hopscotch when they were all busy playing wrestlemania.

Author tries to say it was a dull party, well we are all still busy tagteaming and having a blast.

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 2:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Do you take particular issue in using Definite Article (grammar)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Definite_article
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 5:22AM MrGutts said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So your saying it's just a zerg fest of bullshit were gangs get together and roll over anyone in there way and then you call it pvp?
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 3:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"Be aware that a fix for this issue is sure to come soon and keep watching the official news at login too in case it's ever declared to be an exploit."

I find that statement... funny.

To say 'fix' implies it's a bug. An exploit is using a bug to gain an in-game advantage. You describe the in-game advantage from making use of the bug, so clearly this is an exploit.

Devs/publishers have made it clear time and again that they *don't* need to 'declare' an exploit and that people should use common sense. Unfortunatelly, too many bad apples will never stop believing that something needs to be 'declared' an exploit first - an obvious rationale for immature players to to feel safe in exploiting a game and justified in whinging later when they get punished for doing so.

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 2:57PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You may be right. Over the years, I've noted that CCP have a habit of warning people that they're commiting an exploit before banning them. They don't have to make an announcement, but unless it's an obvious exploit such as a way to duplicate items (as with the old POS exploit), they typically give offenders a warning to stop first. I would of course strongly suggest people not do anything they're unsure of, which is why I gave the warning.

I'll be glad when that particular hole in the mechanics is plugged. It will mean mission-running packs will have to at least travel and move around, theoretically giving a much greater opportunity for PvP by catching them at gates. As it is now, not needing to move means they're practically impossible to catch. This won't stop the Minmatar and Caldari being able to complete missions using stealth bombers, of course, but that's another issue.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 4:59PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Eve is to MMOs, as Australia was to Britain in that both are basically penal colonies for the societies' (or in the MMOs case, playerbase) rejects. Honestly, Eve is probably the only MMO I have ever played where the general playerbase are so full of themselves that they feel the need to define and label words in air quotes and then insult others if their opinion of what PVP is, or in this case, the term exploit because obviously everyone who does not agree with your definition is an immature player who is "whining" (hint: I do not think that word means what you think it means).

There's a reason Eve has such a stable and consistent fanbase... it's because the majority of the hardcore users are so annoying, they are the only ones that can stand being around one another. It's sad that CCP probably doesn't know they have inadvertently created an MMO hell, a place where people take an internet spaceship game so seriously they cannot separate that a person can have thoughts and feelings that can be completely separate from game logic that apparently equates for intelligence and charm in Eve. Disagree, then just go read through the threads of insults against CCP Nozh for not understanding how certain ships work in the game a few weeks back

Sorry for the rant but I just can't take the Eves "players" (have fun defining that word in air quotes).
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2009 3:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
SO are you saying that using common sense is supposed to stop opportunists from using a flaw? If it was designed that way, how is it a "bug"?
It's interesting you say that they get punished for using this "bug", when they have discovered a method to win, or succeed.

So by saying common sense, do you mean some form of implied honor to obey some supposed non stated rules? If it isn't stated, and then you are punished, it is unjust. If it is an hack (methods of gameplay modified/altered by an external source), or a bug being exploited, it isn't as clear as you say it is.

I am NOT sticking up for those who grief, but to say that some one is exploiting where it is a design flaw is, well, flawed.

Or did I misunderstand?

Please clarify and I will stand corrected.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 4:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is a very biased view of the factional warfare missions that draws a sweeping conclusion based on the exploits of a few people. Most of the players who tried out the factional warfare missions did not end up with such large amounts of money.

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 10:52AM Kalex716 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It could be argued, that no matter what CCP implements to get people to come together naturally and just blow each others ships up will inherently be flawed, because eve is an emergent game, and it rewards ingenuity, and people that don't want their ships blown up will avoid them. If their is no seemingly realistic way to "exploit" a particular system, it usually just gets ignored by and large. As soon as you make a "point" to doing combat like fleetware, the larger extent of the community will abide by it, but the most ingenious will find a way to break it and circumvent the idealized purpose for profit, and once that cat gets out of the bag the party is over.

the Idealization of conflict (what we want it to be, vs what it actually is) is such a problematic thing in Eve, and it has nothing to do with CCP.

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 9:35PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think your argument about emergence is very true. No matter what systems developers put in, the players will always find the optimum and most fun ways to play. With faction warfare, the missions and capture points were designed as points of intererest around which fights would occur and to their credit, the fights I've had there have been some of my absolute favourite. But during the year after faction warfare's launch, 95% of fights happened on stargates and stations as normal.

So I agree that players will always find the optimum path and that path sometimes contradicts what developers want to happen. What I disagree with is the idea that it's outside developer's control. With sufficient insight and testing, game systems can be designed with a particular optimum path in mind. Similarly, when a game system is released it's to be expected that players may find unintended ways to do things and tweaking will be needed to reach the desired result.

I think the big issue with how faction warfare was approached is that issues such as scarce PvP in missions and plexes were immediately apparent from the first month but tweaks to combat those problems didn't come until a year later. When they did come, a few development oversights led to practically exploitative behaviour being a highly effective way to play. A way to make ISK, no less. That's had repercussions for the quality and quantity of PvP to be had.
Reply

Posted: Dec 7th 2009 8:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I found Eve to be full of examples of how horrible CCP is at game design. They originally launched Eve to be an "environment where the players make the game". This means that they really weren't a company that was designing an MMO game, just an MMO. So it's no wonder that Eve has a "learning cliff", because there really isn't a game to learn, just a bunch of mechanics (some of which are bass-ackwards on purpose) and the 800-pound gorilla skill training system. All of the rest, agents, missions, faction warfare, etc. came later, and are layered on top of the original environment.

But still it's a mystery to me why, after all of this time, CCP hasn't gotten really good at game design. They've had 5 years of an operating MMO environment to work with - why don't they rock at it?

The post-Apocrypha faction warfare mission exploit was pointed out to me (by Curzon Dax, may the New Eden gods bless that awesome guy for his work in the community) and the horrible simplicity of the exploit pretty much confirmed to me that for some reason, CCP still just doesn't have the chops of a real game company. How could anyone not realize that players who can cycle through missions to pick the best ones - WOULD? /boggle.

As a former player, I'm sad to say that CCP seems to pretty much be just milking Eve for money right now, relying Eve's status as the only real space MMO to bring in players. Once in, they use the ginormously overcomplicated skill system + the "free offline training" combo to get players to buy second, third and fourth accounts so they can "win" at Eve :\

It's sad to me, as I really like the sandbox space game concept. But not when the company doesn't address broken design and instead keeps pushing the purchase of multiple accounts (and buying game currency through them too now via buying a game time card from them and legitimately trading it for game money to someone else).

To me that's a company that just wants the money, and that's too bad, 'cause I won't play that kind of game :(

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: Are you Elite or Dangerous?

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 8:00PM

EVE Evolved: EVE Online vs. Elite: Dangerous

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 6:00PM

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW