252 replies to this topic

[Freyar]

Harabec Weathers, on 09 June 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

In-game credit essentially is hard cash thanks to PLEXes.

Now with that, I disagree. Due to the nature of the economy, ISK needs to be ISK and only ISK. Now if a PLEX were required, or real cash were required, that'd be an issue. As soon as you turn a PLEX into ISK, it isn't hard cash though.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Harabec Weathers, on 09 June 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

And you sound like a typical Anti-Goon propagandist!

Yeah thats called history. Id like to see the devs/players know what theyre dealing with with you guys so MAYBE this game doesnt get destroyed by then cause after all "we're here to destroy your game"

$9.95 to join Goons. They require you to join SA forums (costs to join) to get into the corp.
proof? Well, how about their forum?

http://forums.somethingawful.com/

Quote

registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95!

And yes... I know its legal in EVE
Not that the group is known for caring about rules in other games either for that matter.

or Goon wiki:

Quote

After a while a lot of the "benefactors" people decided that in order to be able to annoy EJ members more and more, they were going to start a guild on Mal'Ganis. They did pretty well so then a bunch more j4g pubbies started paying $12 to join. This leads us to now, where the j4g pubbies are telling their even worse friends to pay $12 to get in. And once you pay that $12 you can join Eighty Joule too.

http://crackerjax.or...le_Brewery.html

Edited by 514yer, 09 June 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Harabec Weathers]

Then they're not really scamming someone out of hard cash, yeah?

Really it is a matter of opinion, ultimately however PLEX gives a rough dollar value to ISK. And many a goon scam was reliving some rube of cash gained via a PLEX or three.


[edit] Going to ignore the rest of my post and just shout the usual anti-goon stuff, 514yer? Also, you don't seem to be familiar with the history of that statement.

Edited by Harabec Weathers, 09 June 2012 - 11:12 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Harabec Weathers, on 09 June 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

[edit] Going to ignore the rest of my post and just shout the usual anti-goon stuff, 514yer? Also, you don't seem to be familiar with the history of that statement.

514yer, on 09 June 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

And yes... I know its legal in EVE
Not that the group is known for caring about rules in other games either for that matter.

given that you decided to ignore the part where I DID address the rest of your post....

And if youre talking about the "destroy your game quote", its a quote from fanfest a few years back and you guys have been walking that back ever since trying to make it sound like you meant one section of the population of EVE rather than the whole game. Which was a lie then and is now

All you need to know about Goons is when their leader got an in game mail from someone in the game who expressed suicidal thoughts then their leader decided to publicly ridicule that person and suggest the Goons get him to follow through with that thought.

http://youtu.be/VbYNLmtAMAw

Pretty much says it all
Yes the slides were approved by CCP, yes he was drunk (he wasnt when he made the slides and planned the presentation but yeah noone ever remembers that part).

Edited by 514yer, 09 June 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Harabec Weathers]

514yer, on 09 June 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

given that you decided to ignore the part where I DID address the rest of your post....

Edited by 514yer, Today, 12:17 AM.

I'll remember to quote everything you say so you can't edit it in after the fact.

As for the :10bux: required to join Something Awful, well with almost 165,000 registered users, over three million threads and even more unregistered lurkers, Something Awful is one of the largest forums on the internet. The ten bucks people pay to register helps defray the sizable bandwidth costs and help pay for other improvements to the forum. Did you also know SA charges $5 to change your avatar ($10 to change someone else's avatar!), $10 for "Platinum" features (Search and Private Messaging) and $10 for Archives Access?

Some might balk at this practice, but Something Awful is the some of the best :20bux:+:10bux: I've spent on the internet. :10bux: is a great way to make sure people are interested in being civil, because the SA mods are pretty ruthless with bans (which you can pay another $10 to reverse, though you lose all the extras you've purchased, like platinum, avatars and archives).

As for this EJ thing, well, I admit I am not aware of the details as I have no interest in WoW. I don't see any scamming going on there, just a group charging a $12 membership fee. That said, if there is scamming going on, I don't think the rules of WoW extend beyond the game itself to private forums. If someone was doing something truly illegal they should be probably be punished for that. Completely serious, though I doubt you'll believe me.

That said that is a really shoddily formatted wikipage.



EDIT

As for the Mitanni incident, I had long since retired from EVE before that (I wasn't even in Goon Swarm, I was in the Penny Arcade Corporation!) so I can't really comment there besides the fact it was a sad moment. That said I believe Mitten made a full apology to the individual and other amends. Really though, I'll leave it to him to address this, if he wishes.


Just remember folks, not all Something Awful Members aka Goons were part of EVE. We're not all terrible, but we are Awful. :shobon:

[edit the second] Oh and if I recall the "Destroy your game" quote was actually originally used in some form by BoB as they swooped in to crush the fledgling Goonswarm back in their infancy. Goonswarm just took it and made it theirs, like a great deal of other things in EVE.

Edited by Harabec Weathers, 10 June 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[ChowderExpress]

Artificial numbers on a clan size is the worst idea ever. Way back in the day numbers limited sizes due to coding restrictions, those days are long past.

[Freyar]

Why are we even making a big deal about Goons showing up here anyway? I've had my negative experiences with them in EvE, but outside of that they're just playing other games too. Best to leave 'em alone and comment AFTER something (if anything) happens.

[Snib]

Side-note ahead: This thread makes me want to play EVE again. Players complaining about getting killed in a game built around non-consensual PVP deserve to be griefed out of it for they are clearly playing the wrong game.

As to the OP, well written analysis of both games EVE and WoT, and well argued points. I do hope MWO will offer a more competitive level of play than WoT, although due to the limited nature of the engagements and the rules they are forced to abide by all hopes for a strategic meta game at EVE's level do appear a little futile.

In this respect, I'd like to comment on your Lessons #3, #5 and #6, because they somewhat go together. Sorry in advance, this is going to be long.

To summarize your points, what you want is to be able to build an empire.

I do agree with you to a point on the artificial limitations WoT places on community building, however players are crafty and work around that anyway. Larger communities simply split into several clans but remain on the same out of game voice comms, use the same out of game forums, fight together all the time in non-clan matches and, as necessary, also in clan matches (as an EVE player surely I do not have to tell you about account sharing).

The reason for the 100 member limitation in WoT lie in the game mechanics tied to individual clans and the amount of chips they can hold on the global map, even reinforced recently by the introduction of tank freezing on the bigger servers (for non-players: time during which destroyed tanks are unavailable for clan matches - think of it as repair time), the goal being to limit the number of units a clan can field simultaneously and over time. Or to put it in EVE terms, the goal was to prevent blobbing.

Blobbing is a valid tactic that EVE's mechanics promote, whereas while WoT's mechanics try to dissuade it, players of course do it anyway within the given limits. In the end it comes down to economics, you want to hold territory because of the rewards (your lessons #1 and #2), and you form a blob to secure said rewards and deny them to other players. In WoT this is also called "gold farming", i.e. squatting the global map while the gold (the real money currency) fill the clan's wallet.

But why do EVE's mechanics promote it but WoT's mechanics dissuade you from it? Because EVE is a huge sandbox with enough room for even the smallest outfits to carve their part out of the universe. WoT is very small in comparison, you only have 15v15 battles for a limited number of provinces on the map, of which again you can only attack those bordering yours, making provinces deep within allied territory practically invulnerable, and some clans unattackable.

WoT's system limits conflict, that's bad (and very boring). EVE's system does geographically limit conflict, but makes up for it by scaling border conflict. Conflict is good. To quote one old EVE QEN: War is the engine that drives the universe. You want constant conflict in MWO, as much of it as you can get, it keeps players invested into the game, keeps new players interested, keeps the economy running.

Therefore I entirely disagree with your point #6 - the number of border worlds in MWO is even more limited than the number of provinces in WoT, and with 12v12 battles the scale of battles is even smaller. Thus I sincerely hope that the contract system will allow any faction to open up a contract against any border world at any time (possibly place a few limits like having to fight through some low value worlds first before being able to take on the big ones, depends a bit on how the economical map is going to look). You cannot have your cake an eat it. Becoming the biggest blob, monopolizing the border worlds and eventually limiting conflict to a few entry level border worlds is bad. Less conflict = more boredom for all involved.

I do however agree with your point #5, by all means allow corps to do something with their territory other than just put their name on it. It will allow interesting strategic opportunities if you can place installations on a map you actually fight on. Makes it harder for the attacker, but nobody said it had to be easy (of course it must not become impossible). It's a feature also being considered for WoT by its devs.

On your point #3 I agree with you, placing artificial limits on corp sizes is a bad approach to game mechanics. If the goal is to limit the possible influence of individual corps that can be reached in better ways than by splitting communities.

I do agree with all your other points as well.

tl;dr: conflict is good

[CCC Dober]

To add something to the above. Borders in the BT universe are fuzzy at best. Reason being the jump drive technology and the way it affects reaction times of defenders and entry points within a system. The actual impact on borders is such that whole armies can approach a world out of the blue. They can easily leap over a neighboring system, recharge the jump drive ASAP (or use batteries), and materialize on a pirate jump point in the next system, basically in your backyard and you get zero warning ahead of time. Even better, they might just use pirate jump points all the the time, never to be seen and materialize deep inside enemy territory. I have no idea if something like that is possible in Eve (jumping across borders unseen, materializing in the backyard of somebody).

I feel this adds immensely to the strategical and tactical options, something that other games (and border conflicts) are lacking big time. And I'm also referring to fully fledged RTS space sims, such as Sins of a Solar Emprire, where you may expect a higher degree of options in that regard. So by my reckoning, BT leads the pack in terms of fidelity. Just a matter of realizing that potential.

[Adrienne Vorton]

CCC Dober, on 10 June 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

... the strategical and tactical options, something that other games (and border conflicts) are lacking big time. So by my reckoning, BT leads the pack in terms of fidelity. Just a matter of realizing that potential.

true...but honestly if i wanted to play eve, i´d still play eve... a bit of this and a bit of that, totally okay for me... eve is a niche game, and MW most likely will be too... but honestly, i don´t want to see MWO in the SAME niche as eve... i want to help my empire in some way to be strong, but i don´t want player run empires... i don´t want to logg in to MWO one day, take a look on the map and think" omg, those XXXX own 90% of the map again... " i hope 2 things: that ppl like the OP get enough to have fun here, and for me and others, that ppl like the OP don´t get EXACTLY what they want

[War Dogz]

Mr Peabody, on 09 June 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

It sounds like you were in some sort of clan unable to compete in WoT clan wars... I am sorry you are so upset about it, but the idea is to make things *competitive* and in that scenario those who cannot successfully compete often make excuses like "we've been blocked out."

Nice attempt to troll me on CW bad news i am in a Clan that is on the map in Europe.The worst part and the most boring part of CW isnt the combat or teamwork in CW it is the lack of battles.Now just think what is the point of have a group of 100 player in WOT beside chip count can everyone fight at once nope that is limited due to 6 chip stacks and ally/chokepoints to limit the areas you are attacked from.

Now with that in mind how many clans in WOT use the same player over and over again in a day? The answer is simple a lot of clan do which now reduce the abilty of someone else to play that day if there is no time conflict. All due to chokepoints and ally blocking routes down to 1-3 battles a day

That is why i think using Cartel Like groups is bad because it is not about How skilled your pilots/group is about how much space you can control without fighting for it every day just like WOT gold farming .Which goes against the whole point of playing MWO that is combat and not farming with a few player`s while ally guard your flanks.If you want the credits then raid/control/own risk vs reward is far better then boring farming using choke points or limited access.

I agreed 100% merc groups are about the Cbills but let them fight for it every day with who ever is online and not a limited group as in WOT were 15 out of 100 player can fight all the land battles that day if the time frame is right.

Yes the top 10% player base will still get the end game but they will have to fight on every planet they control daily (IE more planets control=more player base used).If MWO use open end contracts that allowed any group to bid on any merc planets wouldnt that be more intresting than the same old chokepoint and maps day in and day out.

It all be about the Cbills and your employer not how many allys you can line up.IF your group is good and talent by all means rack up the credits but do it on your own.If you want to use pawn/Alt groups then go back to EVE/WOT let the real group leader manage there units on assigments maybe they stay small or manage a group of 1,000 player either way it force the leadership to be concern about there player base overall in combat instead of being bored Credit farming with a few key players and leaders.

Edited by War Dogz, 10 June 2012 - 04:00 AM.

[CCC Dober]

Adrienne Vorton, on 10 June 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

true...but honestly if i wanted to play eve, i´d still play eve... a bit of this and a bit of that, totally okay for me... eve is a niche game, and MW most likely will be too... but honestly, i don´t want to see MWO in the SAME niche as eve... i want to help my empire in some way to be strong, but i don´t want player run empires... i don´t want to logg in to MWO one day, take a look on the map and think" omg, those XXXX own 90% of the map again... " i hope 2 things: that ppl like the OP get enough to have fun here, and for me and others, that ppl like the OP don´t get EXACTLY what they want

In that case you'll be pleased to notice that 'fuzzy borders' basically mean that even the biggest corps and nations have to mass their defense in strategic locations (systems/planets) in order to react timely and survive. That's a lot of maintenance and can severely hinder an offense. It simply does not work to man the border and stem the tide, not in BT. Clever enemies would jump beyond that 'border' and go on a rampage in the hinterlands. That's the role I can see guys like above excel in. They could fight by their rules, pick targets as they see fit, but would have a hard time to dislodge a concentrated defense on key systems/planets. The drawback would be that this nomadic 'lifestyle' wouldn't allow them to settle somewhere in the center of all attention for the same reasons that allows them to exploit such a strategy. It just takes another bunch of people with a similar idea and they would be caught pants down in no time.

[Snib]

CCC Dober, on 10 June 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

The drawback would be that this nomadic 'lifestyle' wouldn't allow them to settle somewhere in the center of all attention for the same reasons that allows them to exploit such a strategy. It just takes another bunch of people with a similar idea and they would be caught pants down in no time.

That'd be no problem since the players with the nomadic lifestyle are usually looking for the fights and being able to say "we beat you", not for land to settle on.

On the other hand, as long as a small merc corp can decide to take a key planet in the middle of the center of attention and hold it simply because they are better players than those coming for them despite the others being bigger, that would be exactly the mechanics I would like to see.

[CCC Dober]

This would work in terms of asymmetrical warfare without a question. Other than that you're just waiting for that multi-regiment battlegroup to splat you as messily as possible. Unless there is an alliance/house nearby to suppress/counter such daring enterprises. I have absolutely no idea how and if the big houses will be able to support their contractors/supporters that way. It would definitely introduce some sort of stability in an otherwise chaotic galaxy.

[War Dogz]

Snib, on 10 June 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

On the other hand, as long as a small merc corp can decide to take a key planet in the middle of the center of attention and hold it simply because they are better players than those coming for them despite the others being bigger, that would be exactly the mechanics I would like to see.

I agree 100%.

[Snib]

CCC Dober, on 10 June 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

This would work in terms of asymmetrical warfare without a question. Other than that you're just waiting for that multi-regiment battlegroup to splat you as messily as possible. Unless there is an alliance/house nearby to suppress/counter such daring enterprises. I have absolutely no idea how and if the big houses will be able to support their contractors/supporters that way. It would definitely introduce some sort of stability in an otherwise chaotic galaxy.

Well, devs have already said that at launch a single battle will decide planet ownership, and later on they may change it to a series of battles. Each battle is 12v12 max. So unless you run out of c-bills to field your mechs the size of the opposition should be no concern, 12 players online should be all you need to hold a single planet.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

It would be cool of course if it wasnt just a random matchmaker like WoT and was instead a map of the IS and you got to pick the world on which you are fighting

[Moksha Raver]

With regards to merc units owning whole planets, etc., I have no problem as long as the game follows canon. As long as a merc unit has to pay its memebers and it can't just grow due to membership that works for me! It will prevent huge groups of players banding together to form uber strong units, etc. If a merc unit commander is responsible for paying his units, that in itself will limit the size. A merc unit is only as viable as its next contract!

[Lilli]

Not that anyone will read or even take note of this, but Goonswarm and goons are two different groups. Goons are members of the Something Awful forums, a very large portion of them play video games, and frequently you will find other goons who want to play video games with you. Goonswarm is notable because of the large impact its had and the stories that have come out of it. Goons are not all part of Goonswarm. You're liable to find good and bad people in any subset of people, this includes goons. It would be helpful if people would pull their heads out of their ***** and realize that not only are you arguing against a terribly inaccurate caricature of Goonswarm, it's not even the same thing as goons in general.

The majority of goons aren't here to 'ruin your game' or 'destroy the universe' or whatever other ******* bullshit strawman people have put up today. Most of us just want to play a video game that we're legitimately excited about because there hasn't been a good incarnation of it in over a decade (and I mean really, who wouldn't want to stomp around in a giant robot and blow each other up). If you guys can't deal with the fact that a person who makes legitimately insightful commentary on the nature of community warfare also happens to be a poster on another forum, then you've probably got bigger problems to worry about.

How about you stop trying to argue that the ideas are bad because GOONS and find a way to actually contribute helpful thoughts on the topic.

[Proteaus]

Main problem with goons here , is any prospective clan leader has to make sure that know who they are
placing into a position of power in their clan.At least unlike their forerunners in shadowbane(ebonlore) and the
goons in eve, they cannot bring the weight of their zerg to bare . But with their numbers they can and will put
force on many different targets at once.
Make no mistake as one of them stated earlier, they make the game fit their needs not the other way around.
And as proven in eve there is nothing they will not do to attempt to dominate the server.Infiltrating any they
consider to be a future threat .

Edited by Proteaus, 10 June 2012 - 05:52 AM.