Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
410
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 19:52:09 -
[31] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable.
Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended. |
Mag's
the united
19339
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:32:05 -
[32] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Working as intended. I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another 'Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
551
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:37:37 -
[33] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Working as intended. I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another ' Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread. and breaking the "rules" still results in a fairly small percentage of people who are actually hit on a per-run basis.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Mag's
the united
19339
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:44:24 -
[34] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:As the phrase goes just saying.
I always find it interesting, here we have gankers defending their right to do what they do all the while claiming that EvE is a harsh place. And yet when others venture ideas that would make EvE a harsh place for gankers all they do is whine about it.
That being said I find myself at odds with this particular conundrum of EvE. Gankers do add a degree of spice and risks to the other players in the game and that is as you gankers would likely say a very good thing. On the other side you have the simple fact that mechanics also coded into the game by CCP to make a gankers life difficult are far to easily circumvented by the use of other game mechanics intend or otherwise like disposable alts. You are missing the point. Sure we will defend the right to the game remaining a sandbox, but the issue we and many have with these threads, is the fact that there are already options available to avoid ganks. That there are already tools within the arsenal of modules ships and mechanics, to reduce the chances of ganks to such a small chance, it's hardly worth worrying about.
Oh and if you have any information regarding the bannable offence of disposable alts, then contact CCP. We know you mean deleting negative sec characters. But if you have a spare slot on your account, then please by all means try it. Go ahead and recycle a few negative sec characters on your main account. I'm sure you will not be facing the ban hammer and that CCP do not have measures in place to detect it.
You won't of course. It like the 'ganking newbies hurts retention and is killing Eve' line, is a lie.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mag's
the united
19339
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:45:16 -
[35] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Mag's wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Working as intended. I think the point Iain is making, is that the OP and his ilk are failing to understand this. That even before the last nerfs, this was much the case. But here we are, with another ' Just one more nerf and it will be balanced' thread. and breaking the "rules" still results in a fairly small percentage of people who are actually hit on a per-run basis. Breaking what 'rules'? What are you talking about?
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Iain Cariaba
1305
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 20:46:26 -
[36] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable. Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended. My point was to say that the goalof the highsec carebears has been met. If you've half a brain, you've got the totally safe dreamland in highsec.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
607
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 00:23:22 -
[37] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:If you use every preventative measure available to you, you reach a point where you're so close to 100% safety that the difference is negligable. Okay? And why is this a problem? In hauling the biggest preventative measure is "don't haul too much" followed by getting an alt or another player to web your ship into warp. You're lowering your reward and increasing your costs for more safety. Working as intended. The biggest preventative measure for hauling in highsec today is "fly a Deep Space Transport". You'd have to think up a very contrived scenario to gank a properly fit DST. Working as intended? I'd argue not. There's increasing your costs for more safety, then there's increasing your costs for total safety.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 00:37:11 -
[38] - Quote
Given the nature of this game, the proposal has no real teeth and becomes pointless.
Sec Status IS the way CONCORD measures people's behavior. Since they seem to be a forgiving lot, you can work/buy your way back into their good graces.
But nothing prevents someone from creating an alt to do what every other law abiding high sec player does. So in essence, any permanent penalty is moot.
There are other things to consider: would such a permanent status effect the ability to legally biomass the character or transfer it to another account?
One thing about EVE: there is no real permanence, except NPC stations... for now... so why should Sec Status be permanent? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2785
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 03:39:04 -
[39] - Quote
el cowboy wrote:I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.
There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.
One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight.
HS is safe enough as it is. No.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
245
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 07:29:33 -
[40] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Change Concord from a reactionary force intended to punish criminal activities to an actual protection force intended to "prevent" criminal activities and i could get behind a modified version of this. But as it is this is just one more really bad idea intended to make it easier for gankers.
While CCP may be supporting the gankers in the game by continuing code that allows it, it is also true that CCP intends to keep it very tightly controlled and changes that have made ganking harder of the past few years are the only indicator we need that this is the truth.
How does this make it any easier for gankers than it is today? As you said yourself Concord is reactionary...sometimes Concord is fast enough to save your ship (assuming its tanked efficiently, the security of the system is high enough they can warp in in time). All this change does it removes the free Concord services and gives pilots the option to have Concord attempt to save them, and dish out punishment to the aggressors. You were the one that stated that people should have to pay for a protection package from Concord.
Mario Putzo wrote:I think that CCP should add a weekly fee to folks who wish to have CONCORD watching their back, based on a players SP and security level of the space.
In a sense it would work somewhat like insurance where you purchase a CONCORD protection package.
1.0 = SP*1.1 .9 = SP*1.15 (covers to 1.0 as well) .8 = SP*1.25 (covers to 1.0 as well) .7 = SP*1.4 (covers to 1.0 as well) .6 = SP*1.55 (covers to 1.0 as well) .5 = SP*1.75 (covers to 1.0 as well)
This means the new bros with low SP won't have a huge cost associated with CONCORD. The more SP you get and lower Security you work in increases the cost for protection. This of course will be a completely voluntary thing if you choose not to buy a protection package, you of course will be able to be shot at without CONCORD intervention. If I have to pay for it then that punitive function MUST change to a true protection package so I get something for the ISK I will pay. It does not matter to me if that protection comes in the form of an insurance policy that gives me 100% replacement value of ship, fittings and cargo, or a true protection force that responds instantly to any aggressive act against me by another player thereby eliminating the possibility that I might loose my ship or cargo.
As to your idea making ganking easier that is common sense and as plain as the nose on your characters face. In all my time on these forums you have been a very outspoken supporter of the ganking ways, and it is simply impossible to believe that here in this topic you have had a turn of heart and are truly offering an idea that would make ganking harder. And so the only conclusion that can be reached by someone with a few brain cells active is that in some way you believe this idea will make the gankers life easier, more profitable or perhaps both. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2792
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 18:36:24 -
[41] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Change Concord from a reactionary force intended to punish criminal activities to an actual protection force intended to "prevent" criminal activities and i could get behind a modified version of this. But as it is this is just one more really bad idea intended to make it easier for gankers.
While CCP may be supporting the gankers in the game by continuing code that allows it, it is also true that CCP intends to keep it very tightly controlled and changes that have made ganking harder of the past few years are the only indicator we need that this is the truth.
How does this make it any easier for gankers than it is today? As you said yourself Concord is reactionary...sometimes Concord is fast enough to save your ship (assuming its tanked efficiently, the security of the system is high enough they can warp in in time). All this change does it removes the free Concord services and gives pilots the option to have Concord attempt to save them, and dish out punishment to the aggressors. You were the one that stated that people should have to pay for a protection package from Concord. Mario Putzo wrote:I think that CCP should add a weekly fee to folks who wish to have CONCORD watching their back, based on a players SP and security level of the space.
In a sense it would work somewhat like insurance where you purchase a CONCORD protection package.
1.0 = SP*1.1 .9 = SP*1.15 (covers to 1.0 as well) .8 = SP*1.25 (covers to 1.0 as well) .7 = SP*1.4 (covers to 1.0 as well) .6 = SP*1.55 (covers to 1.0 as well) .5 = SP*1.75 (covers to 1.0 as well)
This means the new bros with low SP won't have a huge cost associated with CONCORD. The more SP you get and lower Security you work in increases the cost for protection. This of course will be a completely voluntary thing if you choose not to buy a protection package, you of course will be able to be shot at without CONCORD intervention. If I have to pay for it then that punitive function MUST change to a true protection package so I get something for the ISK I will pay. It does not matter to me if that protection comes in the form of an insurance policy that gives me 100% replacement value of ship, fittings and cargo, or a true protection force that responds instantly to any aggressive act against me by another player thereby eliminating the possibility that I might loose my ship or cargo. As to your idea making ganking easier that is common sense and as plain as the nose on your characters face. In all my time on these forums you have been a very outspoken supporter of the ganking ways, and it is simply impossible to believe that here in this topic you have had a turn of heart and are truly offering an idea that would make ganking harder. And so the only conclusion that can be reached by someone with a few brain cells active is that in some way you believe this idea will make the gankers life easier, more profitable or perhaps both.
You don't have to pay for it, first off. Second, the benefit could be reduced response times. Right now in a 0.5 system it takes about 18 seconds for CONCORD to respond. If you buy the package you could get a substantial reduction in that response time, say down to 3-4 seconds meaning ganking would be much harder for such situations...it could still be done, but they'd need a much, much larger group of players.
If you want somebody to sit and hold your [insert appendage here] while you play, wrong game. Overall, not a fan of the idea. I'd have it scale with SP as well more SP the bigger the multiplier. There'd also have to be something to account for fleets as well. One dude who gets in fleet with this and then have it provide enhanced response times for everyone in fleet would strike me as a problem...so multiply it the number of people in fleet too. Make this a really good isk sink. Which is about the only good aspect of it I see. But hey, if people want to dump a big chunk of their income into the coffers of CONCORD...whatever v0v.
By the way, people here do understand the concept of an arms race in the context of a dynamic game...right? You make a change and those on the other side will change their strategies. Changes to ganking have been made over the years...and players who gank have adapted. This is why Mag's has those dismissive posts up above. So ask yourselves these questions:
1. Is ganking in its current state balanced? 2. What can be done to improve the balance?
Nobody appears to have asked the first question and made it a topic of serious discussion...it is simply assumed. "Something has to be done about ganking!" Why? Are too many people being ganked? Is there some other indication it is unbalanced? I don't see any discussion of this let alone evidence. You guys all skip 1 and proceed right to 2. It would also be nice if you guys were honest and stated whether or not you think ganking should be allowed in high security space.
Edit: There are a couple of interesting points to those questions by the way. First, ganking could be too hard. So the answer to 1 is no, and we need to make ganking MORE of a thing. The other thing is virtually all posts in this forum usually assume the answer to 1 is no, and that for 2 it must require a nerf to ganking. This is biased thinking. People who are biased in their thinking don't really deserve to be taken too seriously.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
64
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 21:56:05 -
[42] - Quote
I'd rather CONCORD lose godmode to be be perfectly honest. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
245
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 15:32:23 -
[43] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: You don't have to pay for it, first off. Second, the benefit could be reduced response times. Right now in a 0.5 system it takes about 18 seconds for CONCORD to respond. If you buy the package you could get a substantial reduction in that response time, say down to 3-4 seconds meaning ganking would be much harder for such situations...it could still be done, but they'd need a much, much larger group of players. First off you missed the point. It was stated that players should have to pay for a Concord protection package and yet there was no protection package offered. In fact what was offered for our weekly fee was longer response times than we currently get from Concord, and those response times get worse as your character ages Where is the protection package in that proposal? To sum up, all I see is me having to pay for less than what I get now and that can only be considered as a buff to ganking.
Now to your specific idea as quoted above., this would be a great starting point for a proper discussion about this type of change. And I would counter your by making it better / worse for all parties involved. Basic response times should start at 10 seconds in a 1.0 system and then progress downward until you get to 20 seconds in a .5 and based on my experiences this is about the same as it is now. Players could then have the option to buy improved "protections" for a fee, those packages would then shorten the Concord response time by a percentage. As a hobby programmer I am all for percentages in these things as they are easier to code over the wide range of possible situations the client / server may encounter.
Teckos Pech wrote: If you want somebody to sit and hold your [insert appendage here] while you play, wrong game. Overall, not a fan of the idea. I'd have it scale with SP as well more SP the bigger the multiplier. There'd also have to be something to account for fleets as well. One dude who gets in fleet with this and then have it provide enhanced response times for everyone in fleet would strike me as a problem...so multiply it the number of people in fleet too. Make this a really good isk sink. Which is about the only good aspect of it I see. But hey, if people want to dump a big chunk of their income into the coffers of CONCORD...whatever v0v. Been in this game for more than 5 years I do not want someone holding my hand and I have never asked for it. What I want is for CCP to keep the game in a reasonably balanced place, and by balanced I mean CCP is the ones who decide what is and is not balanced.
Since Concord is a high sec only reality I disagree with fleets presenting a problem. Since players in high sec cannot band together to protect fleet or corp mates Concord would need to treat each fleet member as if they were a solo player.
Teckos Pech wrote: By the way, people here do understand the concept of an arms race in the context of a dynamic game...right? You make a change and those on the other side will change their strategies. Changes to ganking have been made over the years...and players who gank have adapted. This is why Mag's has those dismissive posts up above. So ask yourselves these questions:
1. Is ganking in its current state balanced? 2. What can be done to improve the balance? 1. Only CCP can decide this one, as players have a vested interest in things changing to benefit them. Gankers want more and easier targets, others want more controls placed to limit ganking.
2. Again only CCP can really decide this one. I have stated this on many occasions but I will restate it here. I have no idea if ganking is in a balanced place in this game right now. What I have are these facts. A. CCP has steadily changed the game since I started playing and ALL of those changes have made ganking harder. B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made. In a final analysis since all of the changes CCP has made make it more difficult to gank I have to believe that CCP did not consider ganking to be balanced in times past. Is it balance now, we will see as changes continue to roll out.
Teckos Pech wrote: Nobody appears to have asked the first question and made it a topic of serious discussion...it is simply assumed. "Something has to be done about ganking!" Why? Are too many people being ganked? Is there some other indication it is unbalanced? I don't see any discussion of this let alone evidence. You guys all skip 1 and proceed right to 2. It would also be nice if you guys were honest and stated whether or not you think ganking should be allowed in high security space. Please do not lump me in together with the rest of the anti ganking crowd. Search and you will not find anyplace on these forums where I have called for the elimination of ganking, a total review and adjustments as needed by CCP yes, a call to remove it never.
This all goes back to my answer to question #1 above. Since the players on both sides have a vested interest in the game changing and those changes would have the game change in opposit directions then CCP is the only group that can decide.
CCP has posted some indicators that ganking is not a "major" factor in player retention, beyond that they have been relatively silent. It would be interesting to see some of the numbers they have collected on ganking but I would especailly like to see the total ISK loses including the gankers ships as a percentage of the total value of the EvE markets. This one would give us a clue as to how much if any affect ganking really has on the markets and that seems to be one of the bigger reasons gankers like to tout as a benefit to the game of their actions.
|
Mag's
the united
19360
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 16:18:29 -
[44] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:I have stated this on many occasions but I will restate it here. I have no idea if ganking is in a balanced place in this game right now. What I have are these facts. A. CCP has steadily changed the game since I started playing and ALL of those changes have made ganking harder. B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made. B is not a fact, that's simply your opinion.
Plus they have stated many times ganking is a part of the game and will remain so.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7915
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 16:40:48 -
[45] - Quote
Just throwing this out here:
During the last EVE meetup I talked with a guy who went to the latest Fanfest. Apparently, CCP gave out some stats regarding ganking at one of the roundtable events. I think the number was... ~7000 ganks over the past year or so? It would be nice to confirm this.
*IF* this number turns out to be true...
That is 7000 suicide ganks over the course of 365 days. That's an average of 19 to 20 ganks a day. Out of an average of 15 to 25k players who play daily... or ~400k subscribed players.
That is a PATHETICALLY low number when looked at it from a wider perspective. The average death-rate in a single medium-traffic low-sec system is higher than the suicide-gank rate for WHOLE of high-sec.
How did you start?
The SP System
IFW
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2450
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 19:31:31 -
[46] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made.
It would be the 100th time they did, and the 100th time they said something like this.
Or this
Or this:
EVE FAQ wrote:7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. The safest systems are the GÇÿrookie systemsGÇÖ where new players start their journey in EVE. In high-sec systems, you are less likely to be attacked since CONCORD will exact retribution on pilots who attack another pilot without good reason. But, for example, if you are flying a ship with a high value cargo, a player may attack you to destroy the ship and steal anything from the wreck if they think that itGÇÖs worth the effort. Such attacks are known as GÇÿgankingGÇÖ and if the profit theyGÇÖll make is sufficient, pilots are willing to accept the expense of losing their ship to CONCORD and having their security status lowered for their crimes. So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4371
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 19:37:08 -
[47] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:That is 7000 suicide ganks over the course of 365 days. That's an average of 19 to 20 ganks a day. Out of an average of 15 to 25k players who play daily... or ~400k subscribed players. I personally think that number is low. There are probably 19-20 ganks every few hours just in Jita 4-4 alone.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 20:31:40 -
[48] - Quote
el cowboy wrote:I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.
There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.
One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight.
I agree.
I cant go on a mass murder spree as a pirate from that souheast asian country, then go kill some terrorists and turn in their bodies for a full reprieve from any worldly government.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
914
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 20:54:56 -
[49] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Just throwing this out here:
During the last EVE meetup (in my area) I talked with a guy who went to the latest Fanfest. Apparently, CCP gave out some stats regarding ganking at one of the roundtable events. I think the number was... ~7000 ganks over the past year or so? It would be nice to confirm this.
*IF* this number turns out to be true...
That is 7000 suicide ganks over the course of 365 days. That's an average of 19 to 20 ganks a day. Out of an average of 15 to 25k players who play daily... or ~400k subscribed players.
That is a PATHETICALLY low number when looked at it from a wider perspective. The average death-rate in a single medium-traffic low-sec system is higher than the suicide-gank rate for WHOLE of high-sec. That sounds a little low. The killboards show about 3000-5000 kills per month for the CODE. Alliance alone. Assuming the majority of those are ganks, you get to 7000 pretty quickly. Maybe that was 7000 from Jan 1st until Fanfest?
In any case, CCP Quant did show that graph of the damage done by CONCORD as compared to other damage like PvP or against NPCs and it was barely noticeable on the same scale. While whether the amount of ganking in the game is too much is quite subjective, it is objectively true that as compared to most other metrics like total damage done or ganks as a fraction of total kills, the number is minuscule. Under most circumstances, your chances of getting ganked are incredibly small, and can be virtually eliminated by just spending a small amount of effort.
Highsec has never been safer. With nullsec getting an extra dose of risk added in June, is highsec next in line for an injection of danger? |
Iain Cariaba
1315
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 22:18:27 -
[50] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:el cowboy wrote:I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.
There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.
One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight. I agree. I cant go on a mass murder spree as a pirate from that souheast asian country, then go kill some terrorists and turn in their bodies for a full reprieve from any worldly government. Because a game where you fly spaceships through space with underwater physics just has to resemble the real world?
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
|
Mag's
the united
19361
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 22:53:45 -
[51] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:el cowboy wrote:I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.
There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.
One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight. I agree. I cant go on a mass murder spree as a pirate from that souheast asian country, then go kill some terrorists and turn in their bodies for a full reprieve from any worldly government. Please tell me you're joking.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12798
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 00:19:11 -
[52] - Quote
Your whole thread predicates on the assumption that people aren't supposed to be killing lots of other players in highsec.
Which is entirely wrong, so your premise falls apart.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2346
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 00:43:46 -
[53] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:el cowboy wrote:I think there should be a second level of security status put into the game. I have thought for a long time that there was too easy of a mechanism to be able to do bad things with very little consequence. People can kill people in high and low sec and after a few hours of ratting they can go back and do it again day after day and week after week.
There should be some way that Concord can distinguish which characters are prone to criminal activities independent of their current pointless security status. If someone continually is killing people in high sec they should be flagged permanently or have some very slow recovery of status.
One other thing that might work is the more you have to farm security status the less you actually receive so that at some point you no longer receive positive security status from doing mundane activities like ratting.
Ultimately I just want to see actual consequences for being a criminal in high sec and to lesser extent in low sec.
Ok, now queue the incessant barrage of flaming and care bear comments from people that think it is fun to go out in low vaulue suicide ships because they do not like a fair fight. I agree. I cant go on a mass murder spree as a pirate from that souheast asian country, then go kill some terrorists and turn in their bodies for a full reprieve from any worldly government. Good thing the governments of new Eden are not moral enough to not let something as simple as a few thousand deaths stand in the way of progress.
Ahem. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2346
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 00:48:03 -
[54] - Quote
With that being said, if we're going to make concord act like a current first world government, why stop at permanent security status? Why not allow players to flee the scene or tamper with evidence or bribe officials? Hell, make it possible to fight off police in less populated areas. **** this list could go on and on. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
245
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 01:31:28 -
[55] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Donnachadh wrote:I have stated this on many occasions but I will restate it here. I have no idea if ganking is in a balanced place in this game right now. What I have are these facts. A. CCP has steadily changed the game since I started playing and ALL of those changes have made ganking harder. B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made. B is not a fact, that's simply your opinion. Plus they have stated many times ganking is a part of the game and will remain so. Ah but it is "fact", and the relentless flood of anti-ganking threads and the venomous attacks against those who post them is proof positive as they say that it IS TIME for CCP to look again at ganking. If for no other reason they need to do it and very openly and publicly as a way of trying to calm the tensions between players on both sides.
If as you state CCP is good with the state of ganking, and that it is here to stay in this game then you and all others on the pro-ganking side of the debate have nothing to fear and therefore should openly encourage and fully support a call for a review as it would only serve to prove what you think is the truth of the matter, and yet you are very resistant to such a review why?
Why do all of you think I am anti-ganking simply because I call for a review of the situation? It seems that you have become so hyper sensitive to the situation that anyone who does not agree with you is instantly against you no matter what they state or what actions they propose.
Not that any of you will read this or give a damn because it goes against what you have already decided about me. But for the record here are my PERSONAL views on ganking.
At this point in the game I am comfortable with the state of ganking and all that surrounds it, personally I think it is in a reasonably balanced place. Even so it is time for CCP to review the ganking situation and make whatever changes they deem appropriate and yes you touchy ones that means NO CHANGES AT ALL if that is what CCP decides is proper.
Ganking always was and always will be a hyper sensitive issue in this game and as such it is a component of the game that should be reviewed on a recurring basis and the results of those reviews should be made available to the entire gaming community and linked on the launcher where they are visible and accessible to everyone that plays the game. And as a result of these on going reviews CCP should make any changes / or no changes as they deem appropriate and post that information as well. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
617
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 01:42:13 -
[56] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote: I cant go on a mass murder spree as a pirate from that souheast asian country, then go kill some terrorists and turn in their bodies for a full reprieve from any worldly government.
Funny you mention that. Google Japanese bio/chem warfare testing in WWII. Skip to the part where they faced trials like Nuremburg like the Germans did. Oh wait.....there were none. Some nice chats with NATO, US specifically, turn over research....and well go home now. events buried and obscured with spin doctoring before spin doctoring was even a term.
I say Shiroo Ishii and Unit 731 and many will go what is that.
I say Josef ******* and SS....names ring bells real fast.
The Japanese program did not even get wide spread infamy from this. This was not by accident.
this after what was very sick and twisted testing on nearby local populations when they more expansive as an Empire. Korean citizens, Chinese citizens, Filipino citizens, captured soldiers, residents of smaller island nations nearby, etc.
Want rl tie in...there ya go.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12798
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 02:41:26 -
[57] - Quote
Rowells wrote:With that being said, if we're going to make concord act like a current first world government, why stop at permanent security status? Why not allow players to flee the scene or tamper with evidence or bribe officials? Hell, make it possible to fight off police in less populated areas. **** this list could go on and on.
Not to mention that real world cops don't show up instantly by magic, if they aren't on the scene, they have to be called in.
But remember, this crowd only wants realism that benefits them. You know, hypocrisy.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2794
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 05:44:06 -
[58] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Snipped to save on characters and so forth...original post here. Except for a few instances below....
Regarding response times....I'm sorry, where did it say your response times got worse the more SP you had. I thought it got more expensive the more SP you had.
Quote:1. Only CCP can decide this one, as players have a vested interest in things changing to benefit them. Gankers want more and easier targets, others want more controls placed to limit ganking.
Load of bullcrap. This forum is about game ideas and features are essentially about game design...which hinges on balance. I see this as a complete cop out and just an excuse not to actually engage in a discussion of how dangerous should HS be.
You can try and put aside your biases...or be honest and state them openly and up front...but I guess either of these two are beyond you. In which case I'd strongly urge you to just stop posting.
As for number 2 we, the players, can offer suggestions and feedback on other suggestions. That is why the Devs have so many posts stickied on the front page.
Quote:A. CCP has steadily changed the game since I started playing and ALL of those changes have made ganking harder. B. It is time for CCP to take a serious look at ganking and decide if it should be in the game at all, and what changes need to be made.
Yes, ganking has been nerfed over time but that does not mean that ganking should not be allowed or that it should be further nerfed. I would imagine some of the nerfs came about because it became too easy. I read about one guy killing 5 barges in a belt in 1 smart bombing raven. That is more than a bit excessive, IMO. But now CCP has made it so you can tank your exhumer to battleship levels, you can tank your freighter and yet people still die being completely mucking foronic.
And as Mag's notes, B is not a fact, but an opinion.
Quote:Please do not lump me in together with the rest of the anti ganking crowd. Search and you will not find anyplace on these forums where I have called for the elimination of ganking, a total review and adjustments as needed by CCP yes, a call to remove it never.
Actually you just did above.
Quote:Ah but it is "fact", and the relentless flood of anti-ganking threads and the venomous attacks against those who post them is proof positive as they say that it IS TIME for CCP to look again at ganking. If for no other reason they need to do it and very openly and publicly as a way of trying to calm the tensions between players on both sides.
No, it is still opinion.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12800
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 05:58:14 -
[59] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Ah but it is "fact", and the relentless flood of anti-ganking threads and the venomous attacks against those who post them is proof positive as they say that it IS TIME for CCP to look again at ganking.
Their reply.
Quote: If for no other reason they need to do it and very openly and publicly as a way of trying to calm the tensions between players on both sides.
You don't get it, do you? You lose, stfu.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2452
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 06:25:13 -
[60] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Ah but it is "fact", and the relentless flood of anti-ganking threads and the venomous attacks against those who post them is proof positive as they say that it IS TIME for CCP to look again at ganking. If for no other reason they need to do it and very openly and publicly as a way of trying to calm the tensions between players on both sides.
Thats still not fact...The relentless flood of anti-ganking threads has being going on for more than ten years. And CCP have been openly and publicly answering threads on ganking for over ten years and it never calms of anti-gankers as another anti-ganking thread appears within a week of posts from CCP saying ganking is not only fine, but a very intended and CORE part of the game.
Just like bumping Just like war decs Just like every whine-bear thread
Donnachadh wrote: If as you state CCP is good with the state of ganking, and that it is here to stay in this game then you and all others on the pro-ganking side of the debate have nothing to fear and therefore should openly encourage and fully support a call for a review as it would only serve to prove what you think is the truth of the matter, and yet you are very resistant to such a review why?
We are resistant to yet another nerf, but i infact welcome CCP, in particular CCP Falcon, to share their thoughts on ganking.
Donnachadh wrote: Why do all of you think I am anti-ganking simply because I call for a review of the situation? It seems that you have become so hyper sensitive to the situation that anyone who does not agree with you is instantly against you no matter what they state or what actions they propose.
The day an anti-ganking thread appears that is; not based on a lie, fear mongering and/or a terrible premise, not reeking of entitlement, involving actual gameplay rather than just more NPC nerfdom mechanics and is not so clearly intended to create more safety to enable laziness its actually painful to read is the day hell freezes over.
If you think im exaggerating, try and read the past 4 years of anti-ganking threads. You might understand the 'sensitivity' then.
Donnachadh wrote: Ganking always was and always will be a hyper sensitive issue in this game and as such it is a component of the game that should be reviewed on a recurring basis and the results of those reviews should be made available to the entire gaming community and linked on the launcher where they are visible and accessible to everyone that plays the game. And as a result of these on going reviews CCP should make any changes / or no changes as they deem appropriate and post that information as well.
You mean like throwing a post out in an anti-ganking thread that ganking is fine, or publicly announcing a nerf to ganking in a dev blog or patch note linked in the launcher???
Granted the launcher is fairly recent, but they've been doing the rest for over 10 years.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |