Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:12:22 -
[331] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions. Would you agree to: A. Getting rid of faction police? And B. Making it undesirable to use NPC stations for safe havens for everyone (not just gankers) No. I would have Hisec people adapt to survive like people do in Nul, Low and Wormhole space to differing degrees. If it's possible in Nul, it's very possible in Hisec. People's refusal to use safe practices to avoid ganking are why ganking is a thing, and no amount of begging for a nerf is going to make those same folks any less to blame. This is a player solvable problem (as demonstrated by all the freighter guys who never get ganked vs the ones who always do) not a mechanic problem CCP need to fix. Stop being such Wendy's and overcome the obstacle. Loads of good stategies have been suggested so far and there is ONE reason the anti-gank crew havn't picked up on any of them. Laziness..
But Wormhole and much of null doesn't have indestructible NPC stations.
I mean if you are suggesting removing many of the NPC stations in high sec to put it on the same risk level as WH and null then yeah we are in agreement.
Are you for doing that?
Is anyone reading what I'm saying? My inflammatory signature usually helps people differentiate me between other people.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:21:16 -
[332] - Quote
How about this suggestion:
1. Get rid of faction police 2. Slowly replace NPC stations with player Citadels across the the board
If you really want high sec players to face the same conditions as WH and null players then getting everyone in high sec out of NPC stations would be the best option.
Please tell me with a straight face how this suggestion is pro care bear.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
141
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:24:21 -
[333] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else. Friends? You have friends? Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics.
Care to give any reason as to why, or are you just asserting things again?
P.S. Your tears are nectar. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:27:07 -
[334] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:pajedas wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else. Friends? You have friends? Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics. You're right Ima my friend. First these carebears go on and on about how -10's shouldn't be able to dock in NPC stations and they should have to set up their own citadels so they are vulnerable and "somebody can go teach them a lesson" but when the gankers go and do exactly that and start using them to stage ganks, they now decide it is too much effort to do so and prefer to just whine how it is unfair that the gankers can use citadels at all.
Yea, the goal posts sprouted wings lol.
This is why I'm telling Tardbar his ideas don't work. People cried out for a way to "take it to the gankers", gankers have citidels and rather than attack their citadels, it's right back to "run to the forums!".
No amount of changing things can help people who won't act.
Quote: Will these carebears ever be happy?
The answer we can see from all these years of observation and demonstration (yes, some of us demonstrate in game ways to thwart and even defeat people who try to screw with them, to no avail) is of course NO.
And it's not just high sec people. For years now I've been using my FoF/drone ratting battleship sit ups in 'camped' null sec systems, haven't lost one in ages and I use it to show the people crying about cloaky campers that they can be safely ignored so long as you are at the keyboard.
To no avail, because like all whiners, they don't want DIY solutions even if they work, they want the power that be to modify the landscape in their favor, they want the effort to come from CCP rather than themselves.
Unfortunately CCP seems to think there is some point which these unhappy people can be made happy, and they've been modifying the game for years on that premise , despite the evidence that nothing you can do will ever satisfy them, and efforts to do so only end up screwing over those of us who didn't ask for any help. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:36:51 -
[335] - Quote
Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for?
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:43:19 -
[336] - Quote
how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:50:44 -
[337] - Quote
Lasisha Mishi wrote:how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists.
I'd hate to agree with Jenna but EVE is PVP game and hi sec should have its fair share of PVP.
I'm not sure if you were talking to me but I wasn't advocating more PVP, but rather turning over control of stations to players like they did with POCOS.
You still have concord and you still have placed to dock.
Just don't complain because you are being forced to interact with other players.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:03:29 -
[338] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Lasisha Mishi wrote:how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists. I'd hate to agree with Jenna but EVE is PVP game and hi sec should have its fair share of PVP. I'm not sure if you were talking to me but I wasn't advocating more PVP, but rather turning over control of stations to players like they did with POCOS. You still have concord and you still have placed to dock. Just don't complain because you are being forced to interact with other players. EVE is a pvp game yes, but that doesn't mean all of it should be pvp.
highsec is where people go to take a break from the pvp and (for me) rebuild and recover(i go to highsec to avoid pvp so i can get money to buy new ships for when i'm ready to go pvp. or when i need to just take a break from the suspense of a pvp free environment where you can get jumped at any time)
in short, theres a reason high sec is so populated. and if highsec was turned "pvp friendly" how many people would leave? considering how majority of playerbase is in highsec....for a reason(and not in low sec) i'd guess a good degree of the playerbase.
the issue with turning control of stations to players, is when people lock others out (look at citadels right now. lot of scams going on where you can't go into a citadel to turn in a contract. now imagine all of your stuff is in a station, and the player who controls it has locked you out)
with EVE being so open and encouraging to scam, betrayal, theft, ganking, and......well to put it as Grath Telkin of Sniggardly said "EVE is a game that relies on hate to create war"
so highsec is the place where you can safely know you can dock. and not be locked out its a place you can put stuff and know you can get to it later a place where you can save stuff for whatever project you are doing.
remove that, and you have alot of people quitting until your left just with the playerbase of low and nullsec. and how long will that last? (with the frequent betrayal....and no place to store your stuff safely)
citadel mechanics is fine in low sec and nullsec. because you have highsec as that place you can always have access to dock. and be able to get your stuff. |
Tristan Valentina
Moira. Villore Accords
73
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:12:01 -
[339] - Quote
Ok new thought on all of this.
It would be very nice if CCP made the game teach people survival tactics. One thing about high sec is it does not really tell you how you can be made into prey. It does not really tell you how you lose its gameplay loops. I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Would be nice to have EVE really tell people how they where going to lose. Less just LOOK AT THIS GAME RISK EQUALS REWARD!! a little more in-depth. |
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
561
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:21:55 -
[340] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:Ok new thought on all of this.
It would be very nice if CCP made the game teach people survival tactics. One thing about high sec is it does not really tell you how you can be made into prey. It does not really tell you how you lose its gameplay loops. I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Would be nice to have EVE really tell people how they where going to lose. Less just LOOK AT THIS GAME RISK EQUALS REWARD!! a little more in-depth.
The New Order of Highsec exists specifically to teach people how you can be made into prey. Actually, to be honest, it exists to teach people that they are ALREADY prey. We are not shy about telling them how to deal with this either although for some reason people seem to have major heartache with our education efforts. As I have said many times, we can explain it to them but we can't understand it for them.
And we do it all with a smile.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
125
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:23:10 -
[341] - Quote
I'd also like to add something I've said before. It's space. It'd be really hard to police space unlike a city.
But this kind of stuff makes me think of my beginning days in the yesteryear of 2011. Everyone who I flew with knew criminals could lurk everywhwre. We got ganked, scammed, and awoxed. It happends. When wars happened we'd not dock up, but go explore, or do wormhole stuff, or missions elsewhere. We made them find us. When people tried to "own" ice belts or a system we'do either fight back, or gank ourselvessels with an alternative and make a concord cloud appear. We simply ignored the criminals once they made their presence known. We'd work around them. That was pretty thrilling times then. It was fun. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:23:35 -
[342] - Quote
I'm not suggesting to get rid of NPC stations out of all systems in hi sec.
I'm suggesting to move them out of high economic value systems such as ones that have ice belts.
You shouldn't make hand over fist profits without a little risk.
Now I've modified my ideas over and over again in this thread to see if I can get my ideas to stick to both sides of the issue.
Now I've gone from the care bear side to PVP apparently.
Look, ice mining is an end game income source. Unless a newb buys an ice miner it takes some time to become one.
You shouldn't be able to mine ice without risk (goddamn I just agreed with Jenna again).
Fist, there still will be NPC station outside of ice belt systems. No one is forcing you to keep your ships in citadels.
Second, you could always haul your ice out of the system if you were that antisocial.
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
Boo hoo. We are making them interact with other players. Maybe they should get out of that NPC Corp if they don't like other players citadels and place their own.
And we have a bonus that gankers don't have sanctuary in NPC stations because they are moved out of ice belt systems. Maybe you should find a Merc Corp to deal with them now.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:29:45 -
[343] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I'm not suggesting to get rid of NPC stations out of all systems in hi sec.
I'm suggesting to move them out of high economic value systems such as ones that have ice belts.
You shouldn't make hand over fist profits without a little risk.
Now I've modified my ideas over and over again in this thread to see if I can get my ideas to stick to both sides of the issue.
Now I've gone from the care bear side to PVP apparently.
Look, ice mining is an end game income source. Unless a newb buys an ice miner it takes some time to become one.
You shouldn't be able to mine ice without risk (goddamn I just agreed with Jenna again).
Fist, there still will be NPC station outside of ice belt systems. No one is forcing you to keep your ships in citadels.
Second, you could always haul your ice out of the system if you were that antisocial.
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
Boo hoo. We are making them interact with other players. Maybe they should get out of that NPC Corp if they don't like other players citadels and place their own.
And we have a bonus that gankers don't have sanctuary in NPC stations because they are moved out of ice belt systems. Maybe you should find a Merc Corp to deal with them now. ok that makes more sense
long as stations i can store my stuff at remain. i'm fine.
i don't mind if you move them out of systems with ice in them(i'm ok jumping 3-5 systems to mine ice......then again i fly an endurance so i have a cloak....and i'm one miner. not a botter of 20)
though i do think it would just be easier to make ice fields move like wormholes (aka appear in random systems so you can't predict where they will appear) |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:35:33 -
[344] - Quote
Well, it's annoying enough to not know hen an ice belt will spawn, so I think if you made the where random it would just make ice mining and ganking ice miners too annoying for both parties.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:44:19 -
[345] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for?
Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether.
You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:51:13 -
[346] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
What? What does that mean? How does a 20 man/alt skiff fleet block communication? Do you mean that they don't communicate with other players? Why would we expect them to start communicating under your system?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:17:45 -
[347] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
What? What does that mean? How does a 20 man/alt skiff fleet block communication? Do you mean that they don't communicate with other players? Why would we expect them to start communicating under your system?
I mean if you try to communicate with the multi boxer he had his settings to ignore all convos.
But maybe communication is the wrong phrase. We are looking for more player interaction.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:21:20 -
[348] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false.
Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower.
Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:44:13 -
[349] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false. Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower. Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected.
Okay, but again, those affected, assuming it is not zero, could mean less people in space, less content.
And another question, why would I, as a citadel owner, not want such a "customer". After all 20 skiffs...alot of ice, alot of fees? No?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
141
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:55:46 -
[350] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Could you point me toward any of these advertisements?
I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!"
Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement?
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 21:00:21 -
[351] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false. Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower. Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected. Okay, but again, those affected, assuming it is not zero, could mean less people in space, less content. And another question, why would I, as a citadel owner, not want such a "customer". After all 20 skiffs...alot of ice, alot of fees? No?
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
As in those players weren't providing content anyways (more players does not mean more content if they are just alts)
And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 22:58:30 -
[352] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
So, now the "more content" hypothesis is looking less tenable.
Quote:And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Not defending them, but they are not botters.
Quote:Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
That sounds even less likely. The benefits of having a 20 man skiff fleet are concentrated right? That is why some people do it. The costs are not so concentrated. And the costs of citadel owner letting such players do business are even more diffuse, and blowing up that citadel might mean blowing up a citadel you were using, or was competing with the citadel you were using.... And, if you are a player who uses ice products but also doesn't mine.
Nahh...just not seeing it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 23:37:56 -
[353] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
So, now the "more content" hypothesis is looking less tenable. Quote:And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Not defending them, but they are not botters. Quote:Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
That sounds even less likely. The benefits of having a 20 man skiff fleet are concentrated right? That is why some people do it. The costs are not so concentrated. And the costs of citadel owner letting such players do business are even more diffuse, and blowing up that citadel might mean blowing up a citadel you were using, or was competing with the citadel you were using.... And, if you are a player who uses ice products but also doesn't mine. Nahh...just not seeing it.
I'm not sure if your points matter.
Should we transfer all the POCOS back to NPCs so players won't be taxes by players?
CCP wants players to stop relying on NPCs. You can tell because they raised taxes in all NPC stations.
I just don't think they have got to the point of reducing NPC stations at this point, but they should continue with that trend.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 23:54:08 -
[354] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I'm not sure if your points matter.
Should we transfer all the POCOS back to NPCs so players won't be taxes by players?
CCP wants players to stop relying on NPCs. You can tell because they raised taxes in all NPC stations.
I just don't think they have got to the point of reducing NPC stations at this point, but they should continue with that trend.
POCOs are a revenue generating asset that people can destroy and replace with their own. If you destroy a 20 man skiff fleet what do you get? Not much. If you induce him to even stop logging in his 20 man skiff fleet, suppose he logs in 1 or 2 guys or stops altogether what do you get? Well....nothing.
And now your argument has shifted in terms of its base entirely, IMO.
Based on that I would say my points mattered.
You should use Thomas Sowell's method. Ask, "And then what?" So we remove the stations in systems with Ice Belts, and then what? Players may put up citadels. And then what? They'll likely cater to miners and maybe even gankers depending on the owners. And then what? People will mine and gank and maybe the occasional citadel will be blown up. And then what? We'll get something like we have today, but with citadels instead of NPC stations.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 03:58:37 -
[355] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot. Yeah, no they're not. Most gankers are not outlaws. It costs almost nothing to buy a few tags after a gank and repair your status. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45380
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 04:07:27 -
[356] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot. Yeah, no they're not. Most gankers are not outlaws. It costs almost nothing to buy a few tags after a gank and repair your status. I can appreciate you posting on a different character and even on IZ, I have always tried to respond to you as I would anyone else n the forum (sometimes I fail, because I'm a bit stupid at times).
So, just as I would with anyone, what's the basis for concluding that most aren't outlaw?
Looking at the purely highsec based gankers like CODE. for example, Eve Who shows the average sec status to very much be outlaw:
https://evewho.com/alli/CODE.
That's 466 members of the most active ganking corp in the game with an average sec status of -5.9
Where are you drawing the conclusion that most gankers are repairing their sec status with tags from?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 04:26:22 -
[357] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses Mouth Original Thread
From the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again.
Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing.
Scipio Artelius wrote:I can appreciate you posting on a different character and even on IZ, I have always tried to respond to you as I would anyone else n the forum (sometimes I fail, because I'm a bit stupid at times). So, just as I would with anyone, what's the basis for concluding that most aren't outlaw? Looking at the purely highsec based gankers like CODE. for example, Eve Who shows the average sec status to very much be outlaw: https://evewho.com/alli/CODE. That's 466 members of the most active ganking corp in the game with an average sec status of -5.9 Where are you drawing the conclusion that most gankers are repairing their sec status with tags from? Its their inactive -5's and lower that are skewing that into the outlaw zone. Look up their active players with ganks recently and check that again. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 05:26:49 -
[358] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again. Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing.
Well, regarding the Dev Post quite safe is not the same as completely safe.
And if you read the post he is responding too it is quite clear CCP has made mechanics changes to make the game safe.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45385
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 06:35:23 -
[359] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Its their inactive -5's and lower that are skewing that into the outlaw zone. Look up their active players with ganks recently and check that again. Ok, so as a first pass, the top 10 most active members of CODE. in the last 7 days:
http://puu.sh/s74HF/2e72dcb7cb.jpg
Checking the sec status on Eve Who for those most active chartacters:
Winnie Po0h: -10.0 Liek DarZ: -10.0 Ralliana: -10.0 Keraina Talie-Kuo: -10.0 Marina Gankalot: -10.0 KoHfeTHbIu TpoLLb: -10.0 Plasma Deat: -10.0 Kibbera: -10.0 Krominal: -10.0 Carebears' Nightmare: -10.0
That doesn't in any way show what you are claiming to be true.
I'll happily keep looking, but so far every bit of information I have looked at (includng kill history for the last 30 days and top 50 most active members of CODE.), shows that what you are claiming is opposite of the truth.
So maybe you are looking at different data and if so, what?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 14:24:55 -
[360] - Quote
Let's break this down, shall we?
High: rising or extending upward a great distance
Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm
So, "High Secuity" translates to "safe", no matter how stupid you are.
I guess CCP could ban the term HS and start calling it Empire or something cheesy.
Example A: Brand new player signs in for the first time. After a day or two decides to jump out of the starter system, as that is part of the tutorial. But he knows that if he jumps to a "low seurity" system he's likely to lose his recently acquired shuttle. So, being prudent and not wanting get shot...he stays in 0.7 and higher (just to be safe). Then, just 1 jump from WalMart-«, BAM!
Now, we all know that losing a shuttle is nothing, really. But when this new player says something like, "what just happened?", he gets berated and lambasted in local by some new order zealot. That's NOT good. I know what the trolls will say here, "if they can't handle it we don't need 'em...Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!"
And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit.
I want this game to survive, so stop being lobsters!
=ƒÉç To all the gankers out there...
=ƒÉç
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |