Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Psychophantic
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:52:00 -
[181] - Quote
OMG
Suicide ganking actually has a consequence now? |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:52:00 -
[182] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world.
There is a VAST difference between grief play and stuff that big guys use to affect everything.
The days of pwning a mission runner for the luls are mostly gone. These attacks had a singular goal of causing market chaos so that jump freighter after freighter could arrive to save the day at obviously a HUGE profit for the big alliance doing it at the cost of smaller alliances.
As for dec shields. A temporary truce on the issue that CCP has stated they will address properly in the future. That does not count at all. |
Psychophantic
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:53:00 -
[183] - Quote
I bet you're a hoot at parties.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
227
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So we need alot more to end this crap. Ganking is a vital part of EVE Online. If you do not think it is, you need to quit and sign up with a Korean MMO.
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:08:00 -
[185] - Quote
Very pleased with this change. Not that I want suicide ganking to stop or slow down. I hope it picks up. I want gankers (particularly the lulzy kind) to be forced to work harder earning isk to pay for their lulz. |
baltec1
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:21:00 -
[186] - Quote
I make 20 mil every time my wallet flashes which is enough to pay for around 20 gank thashers, 2 gank rax or one gank brutix. The interdiction will continue. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:22:00 -
[187] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This will help a bit but I doubt it will even cause a 10 percent drop in the ganks.
Why? Because in the old days the ganking was done in teams for direct and risk free epic profit. However, Today it is far less direct but gain as far as market prices.
The big nullsec alliances are greatly benefiting from higher mineral prices that their bots produce. And yes I accuse many of knowingly using bots. Or turning a blind eye because they are "blue"
However the ganking is mostly scaring the active players away from the belts. The bots don't give a rats butt because they can easily replace lost ships and they don't have to worry about playtime. Therefore the next time some alliance alt tells you they are just trying to "clean up the bots" please keep that in mind.
So we need alot more to end this crap. Namely giving mining craft slow to no regen buffers that can outlast an alpha strike to give current concord time to respond.
I propose that all mining craft be given a massive boost to structure hit points.
ahahahahahahahahaha |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:29:00 -
[188] - Quote
This will change nothing.
Gankers will still gank end of story. They loot they pick up will just need to exceed their ship and module loss.
as for miners......... They dont really care. hulks will still get ganked, so will macks.
All removing insurance will do is weed out weaker gankers and eliminate an isk faucet. |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:53:00 -
[189] - Quote
Nice. However it could be much better (also) to extend insurance to full price of T2 ships, modules and rigs. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:16:00 -
[190] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
According to another thread and Twitter theyre doing the opposite "If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:16:00 -
[191] - Quote
Anyone notice how the carebears that are completely unable to create tears of their own eagerly clutch at anything somebody that doesn't agree with them says and claim they are tears?
Just so you understand, you do know this wont save miners? Nor will it save idiots that cram several hundred million into a T1 hauler, and it wont save 5b isk Tengus either. So before you go around cheering and calling opinions "tears" you should really think about those three facts. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:18:00 -
[192] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Agreed. Unlikely it's going to happen I'm afraid. A sad day for eve.
Ive said exactly that but they seem to be going in the opposite direction instead.
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:27:00 -
[193] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded.
Yeah well... When is the last time someone was actually punished for griefing in EVE.... 2007? Kugu for griefing CCP? **** FiS Its Called EVE |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:32:00 -
[194] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:SilentSkills wrote:It wont affect suicide ganking much, a thorax is pretty cheap, and destroyers got buffed. Really this. The only change is less Solo Arty Battleships and more teams of smaller attack ships. It is part of EVE's new group content.
Well that an the one group ppl (who are even pissed off about gankers) are really pissed about suicide ganking right now is Goons and I dont see them giving 2 ***** about this.
Maybe theyll give high sec dwellers a PVP flag system **** FiS Its Called EVE |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed.
Please keep the discussion on track and refrain from personal attacks.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:50:00 -
[196] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:53:00 -
[197] - Quote
There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer.
Welp.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:57:00 -
[198] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:Anyone notice how the carebears that are completely unable to create tears of their own eagerly clutch at anything somebody that doesn't agree with them says and claim they are tears?
Just so you understand, you do know this wont save miners? Nor will it save idiots that cram several hundred million into a T1 hauler, and it wont save 5b isk Tengus either. So before you go around cheering and calling opinions "tears" you should really think about those three facts.
YOU ARE RUINING THE WHOLE PLAN.
:mad: |
TharOkha
0asis Group
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:19:00 -
[199] - Quote
It will change nothing, just reduce LOL ganking (and i think its right). Hulks or t1 haulers will be still targets. GÇ£Reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
1892
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:27:00 -
[200] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer. Welp. Can you imagine the whines after this change, when it carries on as before.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
Shawnm339
Galactic Shipyards Inc NEM3SIS.
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:40:00 -
[201] - Quote
it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....
If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?
Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo |
Shawnm339
Galactic Shipyards Inc NEM3SIS.
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:42:00 -
[202] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved? LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)
lololol giggle of the day so far
/iseewhatyoudidthere |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:26:00 -
[203] - Quote
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. But it won't stop gankers - only make them select targets more carefuly and maybe gank with swarms of cheaper ships like destroyers instead of solo.
|
Shade Millith
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:33:00 -
[204] - Quote
Quote:it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....
If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?
Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo
The police in RL don't arrive in 5 seconds either. So obviously the timer for concord should be 5 minutes.
This is just CCP bending over and nerfing suicide ganking... again, as they've been doing for the last several years. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:34:00 -
[205] - Quote
i hope that insurance for self-destruct is going to be removed too... its "a little" bit stupid that you get money for car that you blow up with explosive... :/ and if you want money for that you commit insurance fraud and go to jail... |
Ariane VoxDei
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:46:00 -
[206] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Max Von Sydow wrote:Delicious Tippia tears. What? Nothingness has a taste all of a sudden? Igualmentedos wrote:BEST tears! You really shouldn't define something that doesn't exist as GÇ£bestGÇ¥ GÇö it will only set you up for thorough disappointment. Dondoran wrote:This is truly a great idea gankers not getting nearly free ships to grief the innocent with YeahGǪ a couple of problems here: gankers are not griefers, the ships were not nearly free, and ther targets were not innocent. Quote:Anything that hurts that kind of game play is only going to have positive effects on the rest of eve. Quite the opposite GÇö it will only hurt the economy and make it better for botting. Yep, sounds like (politician-)tears alright, when you resort to denial and tautologies.
Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. Head out of ass. Even pimped mission ships can be taken out with considerable ease, so by comparison a indy (t2 or not) or barge/exhumer is loleasy. Barrier to entry against orca/freighter/JF is a bit higher, but still just a matter of making sure the target is worth it (or worth the denial). Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right). If you dont like hisec concordslappy, dont fly there, fly somewhere else. I am sure the hisec residents take a similar approach to low/null/wh if they dont like their experience of those places. The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. And it wont stop those there, wait and see, those ganks will become harder to pull off and the punishments more severe as eve gradually ("slowly boiling the toads") moves towards a more sane and mass-acceptable system for highsec and eventually lowsec.
Also cut the bullcrap, you know better, it wont make a significant boost to botting or real nerf to "economy" by cutting demand (in a miniscule way). Dont delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that the current level of highsec unsanctioned ganks are really denting them or significantly keeping the economy going by blowing up a few ships here and there. To the invidual victim it matters. To the group it is barely a shrug. And certainly not denting the drone region ones or nullsec bears in any way. The goon ice project, which demonstrably has effected the market, is merely a (indirect) market manipulation effort, whether for shortterm speculation or longterm pricesetting to please the icebots - some of which they undoubtedly run themselves - who will gladly pay some % of gross for higher prices and coming under NAP umbrellas. That, after all, is just business. |
Shnejder
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:11:00 -
[207] - Quote
I just see ganked victims in here crying. As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.
|
okst666
Not Solitude Again Chained Reactions
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:18:00 -
[208] - Quote
The whole insurance system in eve is totaly ****** up in my opionion.
Why do I have to insure MY ship from damage by others?
I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.
Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost. [X] < Nail here for new monitor |
Nalia White
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:31:00 -
[209] - Quote
i like it how all the true carebears (read suicide gankers) claim that hisec will be safer with this change. well guess what, it isn't. you still have the same tools (some even get buffed apparantly), CONCORD will act the same, you now just pay more for messing with other players in a zone where people want to not engage in pvp primarly.
this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. now a ganker knows exactly that he will lose his gankerboat and can engage an other player in an uninsured ship and wins double. he gets to loot and even get more insurance money from his lost ship then the victim, how this could be ok in the first place is beyond me but i am relatively new to eve :)
so i welcome this change. and no, i was never killed in "pvp" nor killed someone yet... only ship losses are from npc's
finaly: if you are no carebears and true pvp lovers you wouldn't look for helpless prey in highsec anyway. hypocrits, all of you! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1260
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:32:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ariane VoxDei wrote:Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is GÇö it's inherent in the design of the economy.
Quote:Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right). The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident?
Quote:The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. Why should it? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |