Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Silent Renegade
Widget Innovations The Watchmen.
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 11:53:24 -
[1] - Quote
Everyone likes to have an opinion, so I will add my two cents worth - Note: This is my opinion and results from what I see as a substantial decline in the player base over the past two years or so. I don't ask anyone to agree with me, but feel free to comment and add your thoughts.
The simple fact is CODE and similar HighSec Space Gankers are just low-life bullies; no better and no different to the low-life that creates a false account on Face Book to bully someone online from their school or work place.
GÇ£But this is a game, itGÇÖs differentGÇ¥ you say. How? EVE is just another means to interact with people. You can interact with your mates in a playground at the local park, you can interact through one of the many social media sites, or you can interact in multi player games. How you choose to do so is what defines the difference between playing and bullying.
EVE provides four distinct zones of play, HighSec, LowSec, NullSec, and W-Space. Each supposedly providing different levels of interaction between players based on the mechanics of each zone.
HighSec = High Security Space. You can only legally attack and kill another personGÇÖs ship in HighSec if you have a legally declared war through the WARDEC system. Ganking a person GÇô killing their ship / pod in HighSec without a legally declared war is illegal and the player violating this rule will have their ship killed by CONCORD.
People who pay to play eve make their own choice when it comes to how they wish to play EVE. Not everyone wishes to PvP or venture outside HighSec. I personally know people who just like to log on once or twice a week and do a little bit of HighSec PvE mission running or just enjoy the challenge of playing the market. They donGÇÖt ask any interaction with low-life gankers that deliberately exploit the game mechanics to attack people in HighSec without a WARDEC.
At this point in time, NullSec is a far safer place to fly than any of the main HighSec trade routes, and CCP are blatantly guilty of creating this situation.
If I am in a fleet and web my Corp mateGÇÖs freighter off a gate, I get an aggression timer that will not allow me to dock or jump through a stargate. I have done nothing wrong, but am forced to pay a penalty of 60 seconds.
A low-life ganker can attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play EVE for their own enjoyment, chooses to stay in HighSec and has no wish to be involved with PvP. All the low-life gets is the same 60 second penalty before they can dock up and wait out the 15 minute Criminal Timer, jump in a new ship and go do it all again. You cannot even try to defend your freighter or industrial ship, as you will get CONCORDED if you initiate any action to try to defend your ship in HighSec.
That is no penalty GÇô it is an exploit; one that CCP is well aware of and as yet does nothing to fix and curb the bulling they knowingly allow in what is supposed to be the HIGH SECURITY play area of the game.
Two years ago, it was normal to see 27 to 33 thousand accounts online in the Australian Time Zone. Now, two years on, IGÇÖm lucky if I see 17 to 20 thousand accounts. With FozzieSov coming I am already seeing numbers as low as 15 thousand when I logon of an afternoon now. Talking to Corp mates from other countries, there are 15-20 thousand less accounts online across the USA TZ, and a similar number in the EU TZ. Over 24 hours and all time zones, this is a rough average of up to 40 thousand less accounts active in the game.
People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays GÇô he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays GÇô 1 account.
They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec.
I donGÇÖt know what CCPs grand vision is, but all I am seeing is $760,000US per month no longer getting into CCPs bank account. That is $9.12 million per year. Every one of those accounts was effectively a PLEX, and those PLEX only got into the game if someone bought them in RL and put them into the game.
Where is all this going you ask? Simple, I want to see a change to the mechanics of HighSec.
Personally, I donGÇÖt believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. It is the penalty they pay that needs to change. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term GÇÿHigh Security SpaceGÇÖ.
If CCP can make an aggression timer that locks a playerGÇÖs access to docking or Stargates for 60 seconds, then they can write better penalty into game code than that. My personal thoughts on an appropriate penalty for killing another playerGÇÖs ship in HighSec without an active declared war are:
1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);
2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;
3. Offending playerGÇÖs medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and
4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed. |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2148
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 11:58:15 -
[2] - Quote
Hang on. I gotta get me some popcorn.
Also, CODE. alt detected?
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
805
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 12:40:35 -
[3] - Quote
Eve is a game about spaceships blowing other stuff up. Shooting a spaceship in Eve is no different to shooting another player in a Call of Duty game.
It always surprises me when players claim they aren't affecting anyone else and they just want to do some PvE or trade, may be a little mining. If Eve was changed to stop unwanted player interaction then.... The Miner wouldn't have to interact with the Ganker. But then why should traders have to deal with Miners when they want to buy ore and minerals. So we need NPC sell orders for all materials.
Ah, but people who buy and fit spaceships shouldn't have to deal with traders. So we need NPC sell orders for all ships and modules/ammo.
No one should have to deal with haulers, so all stations should have everything seeded by NPC orders including all faction and LP items because no one should have to deal with exploreres and missions runners either.
I'm not sure but I think that would break they game for everyone.
Go play on the Test server if you don't want non-consensual ship on ship violence. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1878
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 12:57:13 -
[4] - Quote
There is something you have to consider when proposing harsher punishments for criminal activity in hisec. Imagine that you just started playing and, through either innocent mistake or the wiles of another, you aggress someone criminally and get CONCORDOKKEN. Would what you described really be appropriate for a brand new player? If EvE really does have a new player retention problem, does what I just described seem like it would help it or hurt it?
Remember that EvE has no way to differentiate between an innocent mistake, a rookie player being duped, and a deliberate suicide gank.
As for the rest of your post, being a hisec suicide ganker doesn't inherently make someone a bully, a monster, or any kind of bad person. It makes them someone who profits (either in loot, lulz, or tears*) from the poor choices of others. I've suicide ganked on occasion to inflict surgical damage on my direct market competition; my goal wasn't to inflict suffering or be a bully, I was trying to make it easier for me to make ISK.
Living and operating in hisec with -5.0 or below, while feasible, does severely limit your options and all but requires outside assistance from another pilot (usually an alt) in the good graces of Concord.
*The suicide gankers who do it purely for "tears" (i.e. the suffering and whining remarks of their victims) may be a bit pathological I'll grant you. But most of the ones I've associated do it mostly for profit or for the fun of it.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1302
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:00:27 -
[5] - Quote
I'm not reading all that on my phone is the tldr more tears about ganking in high sec?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
805
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:03:21 -
[6] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I'm not reading all that on my phone is the tldr more tears about ganking in high sec?
Yes and you are all bullies. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1303
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:11:31 -
[7] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I'm not reading all that on my phone is the tldr more tears about ganking in high sec? Yes and you are all bullies. Good to know. I shall rethink my eve life.
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Faylee Freir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
123
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:15:56 -
[8] - Quote
I don't think this guy knows we're playing EVE Online.
HTFU
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
410
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:21:32 -
[9] - Quote
I agree that certain gank mechanics are somewhat broken...I disagree with OP's solutions.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Yourmoney Mywallet
Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation
491
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:25:21 -
[10] - Quote
Nitshe wtf |
|
Paranoid Loyd
6265
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:26:21 -
[11] - Quote
Yarr!
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2148
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:31:55 -
[12] - Quote
I've flown with and against at least one high sec suicide ganker. He was downright civil on both occasions. I think the terms bully and 'griefer' are being misused here to be honest. The source of this dissonance is that 'THEY' are playing the game for 'fun'. 'THEY' also incorporate RP on occasion to enhance this fun. YOU (op) are taking things FAR more seriously than THEY are. Once you've learned to stop worrying and love the bomb things get much much easier.
Your ships are dead the moment they undock, they just don't know it yet. It's just a matter of time.
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin. Black Legion.
2369
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 13:32:24 -
[13] - Quote
Silent Renegade wrote: ..The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term GÇÿHigh Security SpaceGÇÖ.
If CCP can make an aggression timer that locks a playerGÇÖs access to docking or Stargates for 60 seconds, then they can write better penalty into game code than that. My personal thoughts on an appropriate penalty for killing another playerGÇÖs ship in HighSec without an active declared war are:
1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);
2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;
3. Offending playerGÇÖs medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and
4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed.
No. There have already been many nerfs to hisec over past years, as anyone who knows what the hell they are actually talking about already knows. So if there isn't a direct correlation today of increased subs retention as a result after all that then guess what, nerfing hisec killed subs. tldr; Boredom at saving the damsel for the 100th time without another player invading your mission (or wardec) actually kills subs? Who knew...we content creators did, but no one listened...
WoW is that way --> Go there, or better yet go skill yourself.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Bellatrix Invicta
New Order Logistics CODE.
110
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 14:39:26 -
[14] - Quote
I am anything but a bully to the miners I gank. I even give them ISK, skillbooks and a path to follow to Code Compliance.
If you think you've won, think again.
The CODE always wins.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
24235
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 14:44:50 -
[15] - Quote
Silent Renegade wrote:HighSec = High Security Space. You can only legally attack and kill another personGÇÖs ship in HighSec if you have a legally declared war through the WARDEC system. Ganking a person GÇô killing their ship / pod in HighSec without a legally declared war is illegal and the player violating this rule will have their ship killed by CONCORD. High security means that hisec is safer than other places, in their vanilla form, not totally safe. If other areas of space appear to be safer it is because the people that live there have made an effort to make it so.
Gankers are not exploiting game mechanics, they accept the penalties and plan around them, they are simply making better use of existing mechanics than their targets are.
Quote:Two years ago, it was normal to see 27 to 33 thousand accounts online in the Australian Time Zone. Now, two years on, IGÇÖm lucky if I see 17 to 20 thousand accounts. With FozzieSov coming I am already seeing numbers as low as 15 thousand when I logon of an afternoon now. Talking to Corp mates from other countries, there are 15-20 thousand less accounts online across the USA TZ, and a similar number in the EU TZ. Over 24 hours and all time zones, this is a rough average of up to 40 thousand less accounts active in the game.
People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays GÇô he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays GÇô 1 account.
They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec. The number of players logged in is not subs, while it may have a correlation with the amount of subscribed accounts it implicitly shows only one thing, the number of characters that are logged in. The ban on input multiplexing has had an effect on logged in accounts, and has probably resulted in some of those accounts no longer being subbed. Multiple character training has had an effect on logged in accounts, you no longer need to sub multiple accounts to train more than one character, hence unless you need to have multiple characters logged in simultaneously or more than three characters there is no longer a need to have multiple accounts.
Quote:1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);
2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;
3. Offending playerGÇÖs medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and
4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed. No, No, No and No.
Relying on CCP to provide a solution to a "problem" that can be avoided with minimal effort is just plain lazy, learn to protect yourself from unwanted attention.
The current punishment for hisec ganking is already appropriate as it deters >90% of hisec players from indulging in it. Just as in real life the penalty for a crime discourages most people from committing it, not all.
In short, working as intended.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Lan Wang
V I R I I
1024
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 15:13:30 -
[16] - Quote
hey solution....just move out of highsec and troll them all on the forums from the luxuries of lowsec and null :)
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1879
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 15:19:29 -
[17] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:hey solution....just move out of highsec and troll them all on the forums from the luxuries of lowsec and null :) But if it's coming from outside of hisec, is it really trolling?
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1189
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 15:45:45 -
[18] - Quote
The trend away from eve is do to multiple things. The low numbers of high sec bear rage quitters isn't what I would consider a large factor.
Don't get me wrong. CODE and what they do sux, is low brow non challenging game play. I've ganked a few mission cream puffs in Apanake, so I have a deep understanding of the whole gank thing. In and of itself - ganking is fine. When the whole purpose of a large group of folks is to log into eve and shoot pvp layups all day every day - that's just lame. Even if it's mostly alts the whole CODE thing adds no value, interest or excitement to the game. That being said, there is nothing in the EULA preventing a bunch of scrubs (or alts of scrubs) from banding together and acting like deep immersion role playing chumps.
Serendipity's list of things killing eve (no particular order):
1. No meaningful pvp in null. 2. Large sov alliances moving from being competitors to business buddies. 3. Game mechanics that benefit large entrenched sov alliances 4. Super cap proliferation 5. Super cap owners being super whiners about possibly losing their precious supers 6. The creep of risk aversion into the game (every wow type feature kills the game a little more) 7. Pandering to newer players to catch them up to older players (the only way to do this is to cheapen the game) 8. CCP listening to leaders of large groups as to ways to maintain and raise subscription rates 9. moon goo 10. the move to the evolved eve to where everything is automated
The thing that has kept eve alive is the fact that players can will and do take stuff from other players. It's the one thing that's different from other games. The further CCP moves from that original stance the closer they move to all the other flavor of the month games. Once eve is like all the others the doom clock starts its countdown to the end as other games that are new and exciting flash in and out of being. Without the unique abilitiy to 'lose it all' to set it apart from other games they have to compete based on new graphics, new and intersting stuff and so on. There just aren't that many games that survive against 'new'. Staying different is what allows eve to stay alive.
If CCP needs to do better at anything - it needs to do better at understanding that gamers will always ask for more stuff and justify it in many multiple ways and that what players want is not usually what is good for the game long term. They need to better balance being in tune w/ the player base and listening to them, and realizing what is bad for the game long term. (3 teir sov timers, cyno jammers, easy scanning, nerfing HS, not actually fixing the sentry drone problem(ishtars/VNI/archons) - it all adds up).
Add to that the recent proliferation of many many small games and the ever increasing ease of putting a flashy new mmo out there. There are a lot of factors.
Meaningful pvp is the only thing that will keep eve alive long term. That's the angle they have over ALL the other games. They need to exploit it. As much as folks hate to hear it - the theme stuff (missions/anoms/pve in general) are on one hand important, but on the other hand pretty meaningless to eves long term survival. PVE isn't eve. Meaningful PVP is eve. PVE just supports that. Fickle 18 year olds w/out carreers have a need to keep all their stuff. 30 year olds w/ steady incomes need meaningfull pvp to occupy their prescious gaming time.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2762
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 15:46:54 -
[19] - Quote
This thread is going places.
Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right? |
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
807
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 16:11:29 -
[20] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:This thread is going places.
Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right?
Ally in on all the war decs they have coming? |
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1190
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 16:44:25 -
[21] - Quote
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:This thread is going places.
Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right? Ally in on all the war decs they have coming?
Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve.
11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down.
This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1305
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 17:03:15 -
[22] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:This thread is going places.
Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right? Ally in on all the war decs they have coming? Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve. 11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down. This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be. Terrible suggestions all by themselves. You want to lessen available content in high sec artificially? Hell let's do whatever the op suggested while we are at it. Before lessening content there needs to be a serious driver for it first
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Taunrich Kaufmann
Executive Resources Group Ltd.
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 17:27:43 -
[23] - Quote
After reading your post I am beginning to understand why veteran players are so f*cking salty towards newcomers.
CODE and similar HighSec Space Gankers are just low-life bullies; no better and no different to the low-life that creates a false account on Face Book to bully someone online from their school or work place. - No. Bullies IRL can cause genuine physical/mental/emotional harm to people if they are allowed to. EVE is a game, and if you are experiencing serious mental or emotional distress from losing your pretend spaceship then you seriously need to see a psychiatrist.
EVE is just another means to interact with people...How you choose to do so is what defines the difference between playing and bullying. - Thank God we have you here to define what 'playing' EVE really consists of. I guess about half of the player base have been playing it wrong all this time!
People who pay to play eve make their own choice when it comes to how they wish to play EVE. - People who pay to play EVE know what they're getting into. When some cheeky mofo ganks your venture, he has made a choice about how he wants to play. When you undock in a poorly-fitted ship and get shot out of the sky, you have made a decision on how you wish to play.
Not everyone wishes to PvP or venture outside HighSec. Nobody's forcing you to PVP or leave high-sec. If you don't want to be ganked in high-sec, play smarter. Move to a different system, or fight back.
I personally know people who just like to log on once or twice a week...They donGÇÖt ask any interaction with low-life gankers that deliberately exploit the game mechanics to attack people in HighSec without a WARDEC. It's not 'exploiting the game mechanics' just because you don't like it - or do you actually expect pirates to issue WarDecs on every single target they come across?
At this point in time, NullSec is a far safer place to fly than any of the main HighSec trade routes, and CCP are blatantly guilty of creating this situation. NullSec is a 'far safer place to fly'? It sounds like you've solved your own problem here. BTW, I regularly fly the HighSec trade routes and have never encountered any problems. Like yourself, I'm in the Aus timezone.
If I am in a fleet and web my Corp mateGÇÖs freighter off a gate, I get an aggression timer that will not allow me to dock or jump through a stargate. I have done nothing wrong, but am forced to pay a penalty of 60 seconds. - Pretty sure stasis web counts as an offensive module (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and so activating it will naturally result in a cooldown timer.
A low-life ganker can attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play EVE for their own enjoyment - You should be aware by now that gankers 'attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play eve for their own enjoyment' for their own enjoyment.
...chooses to stay in HighSec and has no wish to be involved with PvP. EVE doesn't revolve around your wishes. The game focuses on PVP, whether you're dogfighting with other players, engaging in huge FW fleet battles, playing the market or even mining. It is a game about corporate competition. EVE was literally founded on and is centred on PVP.
You cannot even try to defend your freighter or industrial ship - You can defend yourself by having the sense to vary your mining locations, vary your shipping routes and by using the freaking scanner.
...it is an exploit; one that CCP is well aware of and as yet does nothing to fix and curb the bulling they knowingly allow in what is supposed to be the HIGH SECURITY play area of the game. - Shooting other players is not a freaking exploit. Doing it in HighSec is not a freaking exploit. You aren't supposed to be 100% safe anywhere once you undock, it's not that type of game.
Two years ago, it was normal to see 27 to 33 thousand accounts online in the Australian Time Zone. Now, two years on, IGÇÖm lucky if I see 17 to 20 thousand accounts. - I doubt those numbers (if true) are attributable to high-sec ganking.
People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays GÇô he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays GÇô 1 account.
They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - [CITATION NEEDED]
...not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec. - So pay for a permit you degenerate
Personally, I donGÇÖt believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term GÇÿHigh Security SpaceGÇÖ. - Compared with lowsec and nullsec space, highsec is indeed 'high security'.
The term 'high security' does not mean what you think it means. HighSec is not a safe zone, bad things can still happen. People are not 'bullies' for ganking you, scamming you, shooting you and taking all your sh*t, or generally being annoying.
Ganking is not the equivalent of creating a false FB profile to bully someone, and to consider blowing up someone's pretend spaceship equivalent to dealing real harm to someone takes some serious mental gymnastics.
It's been said before and I'll say it again; if you want an easy game, there's always this.
When you decide to embrace EVE, it will be here waiting for you, gankers and all.
CEO, Executive Resources Group Ltd.
|
Freya Sertan
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
483
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 17:45:25 -
[24] - Quote
Silent Renegade wrote:People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays GÇô 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays GÇô he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays GÇô 1 account.
They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec.
Sounds like them leaving is the best thing for Eve. We don't want or need people who get so ******* butthurt over losing a ship that they quit.
That many accounts though, sounds pretty ******* bot-aspirant to me.
New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.
Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
|
Orlacc
869
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 17:50:06 -
[25] - Quote
One more time. EVE is not a PVE game. Nor is it a PVP game.
There are many other games that will fill that need.
P.S. They always say they have multiple accounts (they don't) as they think CCP will panic if they leave.
"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
177
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 17:58:32 -
[26] - Quote
Orlacc wrote:One more time. EVE is not a PVE game. Nor is it a PVP game.
There are many other games that will fill that need.
P.S. They always say they have multiple accounts (they don't) as they think CCP will panic if they leave.
are you drunk?
Just Add Water
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1191
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 18:02:54 -
[27] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:This thread is going places.
Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right? Ally in on all the war decs they have coming? Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve. 11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down. This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be. Terrible suggestions all by themselves. You want to lessen available content in high sec artificially? Hell let's do whatever the op suggested while we are at it. Before lessening content there needs to be a serious driver for it first
To quote your masters: "I don't want to ruin the game, I want to ruin your game."
Just like you don't consider shooting npc rats in lvl 3 missions content, most of eve doesn't consider what happens on the Jita undock content either.
EVE conflict drivers (again no particular order):
1 - personal reasons (smack talk / ouchy feelings / retaliations / corp splits / alliance breakups) 2 - lols 3 - the breaking of some imaginary rule imposed by some group (Policing LS) 4 - Empire resources (POCOs, moons next to Jita)
Things that don't drive conflict:
1 - 100+ active wardec fueled turkey shoots on trade hub undocks 2 - moon goo 3 - incursions 4 - large sov null business buddies 5 - any form of pve or pve mechanic 6 - any pilot / corp / alliance w/ a kb eff > 90% (Vimsy is a great example of risk averse kb wootstats) 7 - any game mechanic that makes eve easier |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1172
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 18:55:28 -
[28] - Quote
Silent Renegade wrote:
Where is all this going you ask? Simple, I want to see a change to the mechanics of HighSec.
Personally, I donGÇÖt believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. It is the penalty they pay that needs to change. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term GÇÿHigh Security SpaceGÇÖ.
If CCP can make an aggression timer that locks a playerGÇÖs access to docking or Stargates for 60 seconds, then they can write better penalty into game code than that. My personal thoughts on an appropriate penalty for killing another playerGÇÖs ship in HighSec without an active declared war are:
1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);
2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;
3. Offending playerGÇÖs medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and
4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed.
First, you might find some support for your unorthodox view of Eve game play at this blog: http://gankingisbullying.blogspot.com/
Second, I will respectfully point out your changes would not have saved your freighter. At best it would force gankers to use security tags to repair their status (something non-freighter hauler gankers do already) every few ganks so they can get back into highsec. This would just be a slight cost increase easily absorbed by those hunting overloaded freighters for profit, and a slight increase in time as they make a few jumps from the nearest lowsec system.
The only way most hauler ganking will stop is if players stop being greedy, clueless and/or lazy and shoving too much ISK worth of goods into their haulers. CCP has put suicide ganking into the game on purpose as a risk for these haulers - that's right, suicide ganking is not an exploit but rather intended game play. Your are not entitled to load everything you own into a ship, undock and press autopilot and have it moved safely while you watch Game of Thrones. You are intended to spend some effort to protect your stuff while in space. So please spend your energies learning how to do that safely rather than composing missives on the forum. |
Bait'er De'Outlier
Trans-Aerospace Industries
30
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 19:06:21 -
[29] - Quote
More punishment you say? I think having their mining barge blown up and maybe being podded for not knowing how the game works or the universe in which they fly is advertised, viewed and used by others is sufficient. I think the only further punishment that the ganked should endure might be having something like tooltips or a tip of the day about how to not get blown up appear every time they log in would suffice. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2767
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 19:23:01 -
[30] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be. It's not that simple at all.
Large numbers of wars are generated by corporations dropping from an alliance. If you just put a hard cap on the number of aggressive wars you have you could cause people to cap out on their maximum wars by declaring a war on a single alliance and winning. In order for a limit to be mechanically sound there would need to be an established distinction between actual declared wars and "legacy" wars resulting from corps dropping from alliances.
It should be noted that alliances have never had a limit on the number of wars they can declare, but prior to inferno alliances with huge numbers of wars wasn't really a thing.
The reason why highsec PVP alliances with large numbers of members and huge quantities of wars became a thing was because the Inferno war mechanics removed the value of being in a corporation, rather than an alliance as a highsec PVPer.
Previously being in a corp meant wars against other corporations were extremely cheap, but you were limited to three and could not declare war instantly. Being in an alliance meant you wars were 2500% more expensive, but you were not limited in quantity and could declare war instantly.
Currently if you're in a corporation your wars cost as much as if you were in an alliance, which when paid continuously and in multiple is prohibitively expensive for more casual players, so those players join large alliances like Marmite rather than remaining independent. The larger groups need to declare more wars to provide sufficient content for their members, otherwise they lose members to their competitors, and subsequently are motivated to declare as many wars as possible.
If you want a system involving in limit to work I think would be best implemented as follows:
Corporations are limited to 10 aggressive wars, wars resulting from corporations dropping from an alliance and tagged as "Legacy" wars and don't count towards this cap, alliances have no limitation. Wars declared by a corporation against another corporation cost 10 million isk per week, wars between a corporation and an alliance, between two alliances or between an alliance and a corporation cost 50 million. There is no cost scaling whatsoever.
I'd also like to see changes to the ally system wherein a defender calling in an ally allows the aggressor to call in one of their own, allowing back and forth escalation, so that the system doesn't serve just provide anyone other than dedicated PVPers a massive disincentive to declaring wars. Aggression should be rewarded, not punished as conflict creates content. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |