Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fifty Three
Fifty Three 53
14
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 06:40:24 -
[1] - Quote
Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? |
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 06:45:54 -
[2] - Quote
Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Shadow Cartel
11639
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 06:49:19 -
[3] - Quote
Relevant: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6544374#post6544374
How did you Veterans start?
|
Fifty Three
Fifty Three 53
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 07:02:42 -
[4] - Quote
Thanks for the info ShahFluffers. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3373
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 07:10:32 -
[5] - Quote
Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones?
1. 6-25 seconds depending on security status and whether CONCORD has already spawned: http://blog.beyondreality.se/TTK-CONCORD
2. No. If CONCORD is already spawned and within 150km to a criminal act they respond near instantly. Otherwise they take the same amount of time to arrive if they are 151km or 100AU away.
3. Depends on the attacker and system. A tanked Hulk in a virgin 1.0 can handle multiple Catalysts until CONCORD responds In 6s. A cargo-expanded Covetor can probably be exploded by a single frigate in 26s in a pulled 0.5. In general though, the Covetor and Hulk are fleet ships that need active defence from a fleet and are intended to be vulnerable and require you to protect them. There are other ships that are much tankier, like the Procurer and Skiff, which you should think about using if you are going to mine in dangerous space like highsec is if you don't have a permit.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Lothros Andastar
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
246
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 21:30:11 -
[6] - Quote
Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec |
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
856
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 21:31:32 -
[7] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec
that's true! but some goons are sustaining the opposite in the CSM thread! pls take a single decision!
ask mittens if in doubt |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
175
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 21:33:32 -
[8] - Quote
Soel Reit wrote:Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec that's true! but some goons are sustaining the opposite in the CSM thread! pls take a single decision! ask mittens if in doubt
They just want to keep the game the same.
Hi Sec is basically their own personal fish-barrel when they get bored of Null Sec. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 21:51:59 -
[9] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked
Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high).....
So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
175
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 22:02:55 -
[10] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...
I think banning Pvp in any space would be against a major core value of this game.
That said, I do think many aspects of Pvp in Hi Sec need to be refactored due to large organized groups having a free-for-all with the established penalties simply being the "cover price" to play.
There is more to it though.
|
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 22:08:12 -
[11] - Quote
oiukhp Muvila wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... I think banning Pvp in any space would be against a major core value of this game. That said, I do think many aspects of Pvp in Hi Sec need to be refactored due to large organized groups having a free-for-all with the established penalties simply being the "cover price" to play. There is more to it though.
There is more tahn enough room for pvp in low and 0.0.....
There you would know what you are risking and if you WANT to risk it it's all your fault....
In high with the risk of beeing ganked you have NO choice because you can't go nowhere else....
Just give PVE ONe place where they can live THEIR sight on the game.....even PVP must admit that this would be just fair.... |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
176
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 22:19:01 -
[12] - Quote
Unfortunately that would go against one of the major things that makes Eve so different from other games. Banning Pvp outright in any space is probably a non-starter.
I think that is one of the things that would change this game is such a drastic way that it essentially wouldn't be Eve Online anymore.
The fact that Pvp can happen anywhere is what Eve is all about.
I do think that some aspects of it need to be adjusted though.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1662
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 22:23:20 -
[13] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:oiukhp Muvila wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... I think banning Pvp in any space would be against a major core value of this game. That said, I do think many aspects of Pvp in Hi Sec need to be refactored due to large organized groups having a free-for-all with the established penalties simply being the "cover price" to play. There is more to it though. There is more tahn enough room for pvp in low and 0.0..... There you would know what you are risking and if you WANT to risk it it's all your fault.... In high with the risk of beeing ganked you have NO choice because you can't go nowhere else.... Just give PVE ONe place where they can live THEIR sight on the game.....even PVP must admit that this would be just fair.... Why do you want to penalise highsec PVEers in this way?
No risk also means no reward. If you remove PVP from highsec, then that will also be balanced by removing asteroids, missions, incursions, rats and anomalies.
That would be far worse for PVEers than the risk of being ganked
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28157
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 00:03:17 -
[14] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high).....
So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... They logged in to a PvP game, that's your acceptance of the possibility of PvP happening to them right there.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Cade Windstalker
1430
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 06:25:37 -
[15] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high).....
So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...
This is not the way the game works, or has ever worked.
If you want a game that works that way I hear there are other Sci-Fi games out there, some of them are single player so you can guarantee nothing bad will happen to you unless you let it.
CCP have repeatedly said that CONCORD is not prevention they are a punishment and they are not going to prevent suicide ganking in High Sec. It is meant to be safer not safe. |
Chewytowel Haklar
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
283
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 06:46:09 -
[16] - Quote
While I concur with the idea that high sec isn't supposed to be safe I often wonder if the risk/reward ratio is high enough. If it isn't, then perhaps there needs to be more risk on the part of those carrying out the ganking activity for profit. And yes, I am aware not all do it for profit and simply just for the kill.
I say that because another core philosophy of EVE is the greater the risk then the greater the reward. That doesn't seem to be the case in highsec where you can earn substantial rewards with less risk. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3377
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 07:09:44 -
[17] - Quote
Chewytowel Haklar wrote:While I concur with the idea that high sec isn't supposed to be safe I often wonder if the risk/reward ratio is high enough. If it isn't, then perhaps there needs to be more risk on the part of those carrying out the ganking activity for profit. And yes, I am aware not all do it for profit and simply just for the kill.. How do you propose to do so? No matter what variables CCP settles on for the CONCORD response, players can still choose to put whatever they want in their ships (like say 24 PLEX), undock, and then go get an ice cream. All you can do is tweak the variables to set the cost to attack someone, but if a player chooses to make themselves a profitable target by carrying more than that cost, there is nothing CCP can do to make it more risky to attack the more rewarding targets.
The risk vs. reward paradigm is relevant to PvE rewards that spawn into our shared universe, but makes much less sense in PvP encounters like suicide ganking where the effective risks are determined by the players. It's also much less important given that PvP only destroys assets in the shared universe, rather than adding new ones and devaluing the assets of everyone else like PvE does.
Maybe there does need to be larger windows of vulnerability for criminals in highsec but it is really hard for players to compete with the infallible NPCs that do much of that work for them. A cost is just a 100% certain risk and so highsec criminals do indeed have to deal with risk and loss, even if those risks are generally predictable like CONCORD and the loot fairy. I think highsec players either have to accept the guaranteed retaliation that CONCORD provides and the fact that that leave very little room to interact with the criminals, or reduced the NPC protection and create a larger space for players to interfere with criminals and more uncertainty for them. Frankly though, I don't think most highsec players will want to give up some of the free but predictable protection CONCORD offers in order to leave room for them to shoot the bad guys themselves.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Kaeden 3142
State Protectorate Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:05:56 -
[18] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec
High Security space should be just that and have a proactive Concord response instead of a reactive one. For example as soon as the safety switch is set to red you are deemed hostile.
|
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
210
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:11:41 -
[19] - Quote
Chewytowel Haklar wrote:another core philosophy of EVE is the greater the risk then the greater the reward. While that is fundamentally right, I believe there are a lot more factors than these two that activities are balanced around. Like required investment in ISK and skills, the complexity of knowledge one needs to be effective, the number of ships (alts or players) to be coordinated... ahh, and if luck is needed or not too.
I'm too new to form an opinion about how well balanced ganking is in terms of ISK generation, but it's definately the activity that needs the most organization, cooperation and concentration of the things that I had the chance to try in EvE.
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
Kia Heaven
We Are Clowns
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:23:55 -
[20] - Quote
Kaeden 3142 wrote:Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec High Security space should be just that and have a proactive Concord response instead of a reactive one. For example as soon as the safety switch is set to red you are deemed hostile.
I don't think giving NPCs proactive behaviour is a good idea to implement in a player-driven sandbox. To me, players should be able to enlist in either concord or faction police and try to do the cops: given the law, which clearly disallows shooting first unless certain circumstances, a player-cop should be able to fight gankers and pirates (and protect the victims with logisticts?). Then maybe concord response time can be tweaked and security status of the sistems based upon the player police force. Cops that go against the law should be punished and, eventually, kicked from the faction police/ concord; good cops can either be regularly paid with taxes or with LP/isk for every lawful action. |
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Lost Obsession
1661
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:15:05 -
[21] - Quote
Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones?
1) Concorde is not here to rescue but to punish. 2) Response time depends on the security status of the system. 1.0 fast - 0.5 slow 3) depends on how many gangers you face, the system you are in, what ships the gankers use, your implants or on grid boosts....many variables
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Lost Obsession
1661
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:17:10 -
[22] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...
you sir are an idiot
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Keno Skir
1546
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:28:33 -
[23] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...
Jog on, everybody agrees to PvP by undocking.
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 19:56:15 -
[24] - Quote
ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-) |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 19:57:21 -
[25] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... you sir are an idiot
No...simply no......
I'm just........totally right..... |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1579
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 20:24:03 -
[26] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-) Not at all. He / she's only talking about the rewards, not the content.
Making HS a safe zone would mean, you'd have to deprive it fom any sort of reward that could be used in PvP, which basically means everything.
Remove standings and insurance.
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 11:04:24 -
[27] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-) Not at all. He / she's only talking about the rewards, not the content. Making HS a safe zone would mean, you'd have to deprive it fom any sort of reward that could be used in PvP, which basically means everything.
nonsense......
all you have to do is ban pvp from high and let things go its way..... |
Sasha Nemtsov
New Order Logistics CODE.
696
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 12:41:29 -
[28] - Quote
(Yawn) What, this again?
CCP says somewhere that ~80% of players live, work, and play in Highsec.
They do so under the current rules governing non-consensual player conflict.
If non-consensual PvP were to be removed, what would change?
You're right; there'd be an immediate QoL uptick for those of the 80% who are averse to conflict.
So... CCP is expected to unbalance the whole game in exchange for a few smug smiles from the carebears?
I don't think so.
minerbumping
New Order Audio Archive
NEW! MinerBumping Video Vault
|
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
175
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 13:00:22 -
[29] - Quote
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:(Yawn) What, this again?
CCP says somewhere that ~80% of players live, work, and play in Highsec.
They do so under the current rules governing non-consensual player conflict.
If non-consensual PvP were to be removed, what would change?
You're right; there'd be an immediate QoL uptick for those of the 80% who are averse to conflict.
So... CCP is expected to unbalance the whole game in exchange for a few smug smiles from the carebears?
I don't think so. I mean is that 20% more important than the 80%? Sounds like minority tyranny to me. |
Krin Dessat
Far Runner
59
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 13:25:11 -
[30] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-) Not at all. He / she's only talking about the rewards, not the content. Making HS a safe zone would mean, you'd have to deprive it fom any sort of reward that could be used in PvP, which basically means everything. nonsense...... all you have to do is ban pvp from high and let things go its way.....
Which would quickly lead to a complete collapse of Eve's economy. That, and many people (including me) would cease playing, because a totally risk-free game is simply not what I pay a monthly fee for. And before you ask, I am a trader, hauler and industrialist. I however fully accept the risks and try to plan and prepare for the eventuality that I may be a target. A proper balance between risk and reward must be maintained. |
|
Cade Windstalker
1434
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 15:41:29 -
[31] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-)
High-Sec is not a PvE only zone, in fact more is destroyed in PvP in High Sec on average than in Null between ganks, wars, duels, suspect timers, -10s, and other PvP activity.
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:
Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high).....
So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense...
you sir are an idiot No...simply no...... I'm just........totally right.....
No, you're really not, and you're displaying a fantastic level of ignorance here.
Eve is a PvP focused game. If you undock a ship anywhere in Eve you consent to the possibility that another player will shoot you.
Don't like it? Don't undock. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:14:19 -
[32] - Quote
Nothing will collapse...all will regulate itself after a short period of time......
Don't use threatening gestures just because you don't want this change......
This tactic is too transparent..... |
Carnivorous Swarm
New Eden Department of Sanitation
4
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:40:50 -
[33] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high
Looks like you paid for the wrong game, bub.
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
32278
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:45:02 -
[34] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Sasha Nemtsov wrote:(Yawn) What, this again?
CCP says somewhere that ~80% of players live, work, and play in Highsec.
They do so under the current rules governing non-consensual player conflict.
If non-consensual PvP were to be removed, what would change?
You're right; there'd be an immediate QoL uptick for those of the 80% who are averse to conflict.
So... CCP is expected to unbalance the whole game in exchange for a few smug smiles from the carebears?
I don't think so. I mean is that 20% more important than the 80%? Sounds like minority tyranny to me. Down with tyranny, make High Sec Great Again! \o/
CONCORD, invade Low Sec and Nul Sec!
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28158
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 20:47:37 -
[35] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Nothing will collapse...all will regulate itself after a short period of time......
Don't use threatening gestures just because you don't want this change......
This tactic is too transparent..... Supply and demand, a risk free hisec would create an overabundance of supply, and very little demand.
Think before you post, and at least give the illusion that you know how an economy works instead of just looking like a fool.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Hal Morsh
Minmatar Confederate
578
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 00:04:47 -
[36] - Quote
It used to be people payed to complain about profits in highsec and plex. Now it's free to play and the complaint still exists, no handouts unless you're lucky, and they certainly wont be from CCP.
Being sapient can drive us mad.
|
Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
501
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 00:36:35 -
[37] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... Play on Singularity. Nonconsensual PvP is restricted there.
I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
|
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
176
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 00:44:54 -
[38] - Quote
Dark Lord Trump wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Fifty Three wrote:Hi. I have a few questions.
1. How long does Concord take to come rescue someone under attack in High Sector?
2. Does response time depend on how big the High sector system is and/or far away the hostile action is taking place from Concord ships?
3. Can a tanked Covetor,Hulk, the weakest of the barges/Exumers survive long enough until Concord arrives usually, without even having offensive capability, like scout drones? Awe somebody got ganked Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....concord should respond THE SAME SECOND with an 100k alpha on the attacker or an autodestruct of the attacker would help too or CCP should make unsanctioned attacks impossible(in high)..... So many possibilities to protext normal people from this PVP nonsense... Play on Singularity. Nonconsensual PvP is restricted there. I never have understood that btw... |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
3434
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 01:05:13 -
[39] - Quote
If you really want a comprehensive look at all things ganking, you might check out minerbumping.com. It's from CODE. (I'm not affiliated) and has copious tools, notes, and tactics that detail everything I can think of when it comes to ganking. They have calculators for how many ships t takes to gank another, and can adjust for sec status and pod skills. It's mind blowing to me more people don't use it; if not to gank, certainly to make yourself more survivable. They put it all out there for the public to see and use! I would think it would be a must-read for any capsuleer... but I think some players just dislike ganking so much they never think to check out what the other side is doing. If you know what they know, you can make yourself virtually immune from ganking. Sadly, so few players bother that gankers will never be at a loss for targets.
Signatures should be used responsibly...
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1666
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 01:34:04 -
[40] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:ERM.....
How could someone come to the conclusion that you have to remove PVE content from a PVE only zone?
I don't get this sry....sounds...silly :-) Of course you don't get it. You're a Carebear that wants everything for nothing.
If you have no risk, there is no reward.
You want reward, then accept risk and stop being a Carebear whiner.
On the flipside, how could someone come to the conclusion that highsec is a 'PVE only zone'? Oh that's right. Carebear.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Cade Windstalker
1439
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 02:08:51 -
[41] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Nothing will collapse...all will regulate itself after a short period of time......
Don't use threatening gestures just because you don't want this change......
This tactic is too transparent.....
No one is threatening you because no one has to. CCP have repeatedly stated they're not going to do exactly the thing you're asking them to do here.
You've provided zero reasoning beyond some vague and unfounded assertions about how many people supposedly want this change. That's not an argument it's bordering on a religion. I'm pretty sure you're at risk of pissing off the Amarr RP community if you keep this up. |
Khergit Deserters
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
5029
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 02:10:24 -
[42] - Quote
Oddly, mining and high sec ganking are about the most math-driven and most formulaic things you can do in EVE. For miners, ore intake per second, plus secondary hauling to market considerations. HAL 9000 could come up with a optimal way to do it. (And has. Damn 24-hour horrible miner bots. Luckily players reported them, and a CCP special project bug-sprayed them. James 315 and his alt shill dude showed up late in the game. Bob bless him, he must have smelt a smell, blood in the water, something like that.
It was the highest pile of horseshite one could ever not visualize. It was highly controversial in forums. It was like a troll thing, but when enough people called logical B.S. on that, an earnest but naive alt stepped in to defend, redirect, and derail. From those humble roots-- a movement hatched. Somewhat like how coconut and palm oil, backed by compressed gas, comes out of a metal canister, through a cross-shaped cut in a plastic nozzle. It was expertly played, so a tip of the hat to Jim. At present, pretty limitless amounts of Whipped Cream to spray onto pancakes).
From the gankers' side, pretty much the same thing. Math and formulas(ae). Constants are Fac Po intervention time for this system, vs. ganking a high sec new guys. Variables include EHP of the target, how much DPS you got in your fleet, and facpo response time. Another job for HAL 9000. (But of course, the target might move around. And, the best of CODE. give hints in Local before undocking).
Comparatively, though: -Rat in your alliance's system in null: Pretty mathematically predictable. ::burp:: -Get into one of your null alliance's fleet:s: Roll the dice, highly unpredictable -PVP in low sec: Ride the Cyclone. All we are is dust in the wind. Hi Sec ganking: Heisenberg controlled environment. Applied chemistry formula
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 10:50:45 -
[43] - Quote
Nobody needs higher rewards for risks in high.....
You still can have this in low/0.0....
There is simply no need for this in high....
High has to be for those who have a PVE view on the game.....simply because they can go nowhere else and they are disturbed by strange people with strange hobbies as it is today.....time to change it.....
bottom line... |
Fandarel Falkener
Zentarim Combat Wombat.
4
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 11:22:06 -
[44] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:High has to be for those who have a PVE view on the game.
Oh Boy you really should visit some regions in Null-Sec. But seriously, as writen by CCP Phantom
Consent to PvP
* You consent to PvP when you click "undock". * You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea. * In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.
So deal with it.
Learn to adapt or simply die. Its your choice. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 15:36:39 -
[45] - Quote
Fandarel Falkener wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:High has to be for those who have a PVE view on the game. Oh Boy you really should visit some regions in Null-Sec. But seriously, as writen by CCP Phantom Consent to PvP * You consent to PvP when you click "undock". * You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea. * In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too. So deal with it. Learn to adapt or simply die. Its your choice.
And EXACTLY THIS has to be changed 180 degree or the (paying) player fluctuation will continue....this view to the game is simply not modern anymore and because it is so they leave.....
I can't see how someone could not see this simple fact....
Must be some kind of self applicated wearing blinders......
And btw...you can't be serious about 0.0......
Just because there is less prey for gankers they have NO RIGHT to spoil the party for all that have another view to the game in high....or else..... ----> players continue to leave...... so ccp has to change it to the right direction or will face the consequences....
bottom line...... |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
605
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 15:46:47 -
[46] - Quote
Oh look, another one of these arguments. I wonder what it could possibly mean that people's views constantly need correcting, over and over.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 15:57:32 -
[47] - Quote
Seems that changes are to be made and it has to be said over and over 'til it happens even if there are people that don't want a change are arguing against it.....
This is called "a discussion"...... |
Carnivorous Swarm
New Eden Department of Sanitation
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 16:06:25 -
[48] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote: so ccp has to change it to the right direction or will face the consequences....
bottom line......
My friend, this has been discussed to ad nauseum, and CCP's (the game designer's) stance is well known.
Eve is fine and on course.
You are the one who is wrong. But go ahead and invent threats about how the sky is about to fall. Throw hissy fits on the forums. Repeat over and over "OR ELSE" in a scary voice.
Most people here are amused, rather than disturbed, by your stark ignorance.
HTFU, learn to play, or don't and get stomped. |
Cade Windstalker
1445
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 16:44:10 -
[49] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:And EXACTLY THIS has to be changed 180 degree or the (paying) player fluctuation will continue....this view to the game is simply not modern anymore and because it is so they leave.....
I can't see how someone could not see this simple fact....
Must be some kind of self applicated wearing blinders......
I'm really not sure how you can't see that you have zero proof of this assertion.
You want it to be true, but that doesn't make it true.
Also, that quote you're responding to was posted by a dev.
If you want a game where you are safe from the interference of other players Eve is not that game. It's a game that is, at a very fundamental level, about players interacting with each other in both positive and negative ways.
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Nobody needs higher rewards for risks in high.....
This is not now nor has it ever been what High Sec is about. High Security space is *safer* it is not *safe*. Never has been, never will be.
Everything in Eve is about risk vs reward. You want no incrementing rewards for your risks? Go belt rat in a T1 Frigate in a .8 system. I guarantee you no one is going to bother you doing that. It's about the most risk-averse thing you can do in Eve and the rewards match.
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Seems that changes are to be made and it has to be said over and over 'til it happens even if there are people that don't want a change are arguing against it.....
This is called "a discussion"......
A discussion involves both sides listening and responding to what the other is saying. You're not so much responding as repeating yourself without really responding to what's being said to you.
You certainly aren't learning anything or trying to justify this belief of yours that there's some silent majority that supports your view of the game.
As a beloved CSM recently said, 'it's easy to put words in the mouth of the silent majority.'
Just because you think something does not mean the majority agrees with you. I have plenty of views an opinions that are not in the majority, but I've learned to identify those and treat them appropriately rather than attempting to force them on everyone else as you're doing here. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3933
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:02:47 -
[50] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree.
Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:11:53 -
[51] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec.
No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience..... |
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
218
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:15:09 -
[52] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:(...) it has to be said over and over 'til it happens (...) This is called "a discussion"...... No it's not. Discussion is an exchange of ideas and opinions, backed up by relevant data a participant has, or what he heard, or even what he feels about the subject.
Repeating the same thing over and over in the hope that others will change their minds if they hear it over and over is called... a tantrum.
We didn't hear one that can be compared to yours for a while now, so please don't stop. You may even convince us!
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
Krin Dessat
Far Runner
66
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:26:21 -
[53] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience.....
Again with the feet. Is it a fetish?
And the only sound I hear is everyone NOT agreeing with you (and this includes CCP). Perhaps that should give you a clue.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3334
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 18:28:50 -
[54] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Dark Lord Trump wrote: Play on Singularity. Nonconsensual PvP is restricted there.
I never have understood that btw...
If you want to actually test something like new feature about to be implemented, everyone continually killing you is not productive. The test server is not supposed to be for fun at no in-game cost but for testing. You are not competition when killing me on the test server but just wasting time. If you want a PvP fix, the live game is the place to do it. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 19:55:40 -
[55] - Quote
Krin Dessat wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience..... Again with the feet. Is it a fetish? And the only sound I hear is everyone NOT agreeing with you (and this includes CCP). Perhaps that should give you a clue.
if you dont hear the sound you must be deaf or blindfolded by ignoring the reality of this game....... |
Cade Windstalker
1449
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:15:37 -
[56] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:if you dont hear the sound you must be deaf or blindfolded by ignoring the reality of this game.......
You mean the loud high-pitched whine coming from a very small minority of the player base?
Pretty sure that's the sound of hull plating shearing on under-tanked industrials and freighters. |
Quinn Hatfield
The Scope Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 20:17:21 -
[57] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Krin Dessat wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience..... Again with the feet. Is it a fetish? And the only sound I hear is everyone NOT agreeing with you (and this includes CCP). Perhaps that should give you a clue. if you dont hear the sound you must be deaf or blindfolded by ignoring the reality of this game....... The only person ignoring the reality of Eve is you.
Now kindly foxtrot oscar in the direction of whatever themepark you were playing before Eve.
I don't burn bridges, I merely steal a bolt a day.
|
Lokitroy11 Blackmages
The Ancients of Eternity The Pestilent Legion
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 21:35:29 -
[58] - Quote
Except of banning highsec PvP and ganking.CCP should make the ganker have a longer timer for criminal status...right now the ganker can get numerous kills/day from sitting on a gate. They should make the ganker pick more valuable targets by making other ship not valuable. By that I mean only been able to kill 3 ships/day, if they gank a tayra. They missed the opportunity of killing a plex tanked atron minutes behind it. Can't pick on the newbies since they wouldn't be high value target. Not worth the gankers time to attack a procurer or retriever when they only can attack every so often(hours). Then the risk(missing on another target way more important/waiting hours until concord forgets about you) vs reward(getting that 20 bill freighter/getting the 1 best freighter out of the 20 that passed).
What do you guys think?(using my phone sort of hard to type) Worth starting another thread?(CCP needs to work on high sec for the newbros to play and stay active) |
Cade Windstalker
1451
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 22:34:04 -
[59] - Quote
Lokitroy11 Blackmages wrote:Except of banning highsec PvP and ganking.CCP should make the ganker have a longer timer for criminal status...right now the ganker can get numerous kills/day from sitting on a gate. They should make the ganker pick more valuable targets by making other ship not valuable. By that I mean only been able to kill 3 ships/day, if they gank a tayra. They missed the opportunity of killing a plex tanked atron minutes behind it. Can't pick on the newbies since they wouldn't be high value target. Not worth the gankers time to attack a procurer or retriever when they only can attack every so often(hours). Then the risk(missing on another target way more important/waiting hours until concord forgets about you) vs reward(getting that 20 bill freighter/getting the 1 best freighter out of the 20 that passed).
What do you guys think?(using my phone sort of hard to type) Worth starting another thread?(CCP needs to work on high sec for the newbros to play and stay active)
I think this shows a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge about how gankers operate in Eve and how the mechanics surrounding ganking work.
First off, if you want to prevent the gankers from getting kills then tank your ships and carry an amount of ISK in them that can't be profitably ganked for the tank you have.
On top of that if you actually look at some ganker killboards you'll find that most professional gankers only kill a few things a day anyways.
Ganking in Eve is not supposed to be hard to do, it's supposed to be hard to do profitably because it's punished, not because the mechanics somehow heavily restrict it. If you want to avoid being ganked then don't haul large amounts in an untanked ship, and no a bunch of inertial stabs does not count as tank unless you're sub-2 second align time, and even *then* you're taking a risk. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61976
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 03:10:32 -
[60] - Quote
Not a very good example to use that when that Dev quote is based on Akita T's Golden rules for new players which was created 10 years ago.
That's the whole problem with this game, CCP is way behind the times and always fails to make the correct changes to make the game more enticing for general gamers. Sure CCP may attempt it but only when it's too late and then the change itself is done too little to make a noticeable difference in player retention, thus enforcing the constant dwindling log in numbers.
CCP needs to get out of that rut, stop living in the past, embrace the future and change with the times..
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
|
Lothros Andastar
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 03:30:53 -
[61] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:CCP needs to get out of that rut, stop living in the past, embrace the future and change with the times.. They tried that and it resulted in the Summer of Rage. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3936
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 05:24:21 -
[62] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience..... Sorry, but you are simply wrong. CCP looked into this and found that people who get killed within their first days of playing EVE are more likely to stay than people who had no such interactions.
The myth that shooting spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships is hurting the game has long been debunked and shown to be false.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
179
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:53:32 -
[63] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. No you have to go to low/0.0 for that .....the sound of the footsteps of leaving people voting with their feet is not to ignore....sry that it will change your game and convinience..... Sorry, but you are simply wrong. CCP looked into this and found that people who get killed within their first days of playing EVE are more likely to stay than people who had no such interactions. The myth that shooting spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships is hurting the game has long been debunked and shown to be false. You mind citing sources for your claims on that one? |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3936
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 06:58:29 -
[64] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Sorry, but you are simply wrong. CCP looked into this and found that people who get killed within their first days of playing EVE are more likely to stay than people who had no such interactions.
The myth that shooting spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships is hurting the game has long been debunked and shown to be false.
You mind citing sources for your claims on that one? Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
179
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 07:09:12 -
[65] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Sorry, but you are simply wrong. CCP looked into this and found that people who get killed within their first days of playing EVE are more likely to stay than people who had no such interactions.
The myth that shooting spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships is hurting the game has long been debunked and shown to be false.
You mind citing sources for your claims on that one? Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Interesting. I wish they broke it down by trial account too. This only examines the people that had already invested the money. What about those that hadn't? |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
423
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 07:29:09 -
[66] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec Until you guys get bored and blues become your target. Ive seen that many many times of blue on blue violence.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3936
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:03:35 -
[67] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Interesting. I wish they broke it down by trial account too. This only examines the people that had already invested the money. What about those that hadn't? The 80k players in the first part is about trials and if they are more likely to subscribe or not. At the end of that part he mentions briefly that <1% of sub cancellation mention ship loss as the reason, this concerns all subscribed players. So they indeed covered both trial and subscribed players.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Kaeden 3142
State Protectorate Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:24:14 -
[68] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec.
Not undocking a hauler is not really feasible is it and logistics is necessity. You're right; clearly CCP is accomodating your play style and it's not the game for me. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:27:28 -
[69] - Quote
Kaeden 3142 wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. Not undocking a hauler is not really feasible is it and logistics is necessity. You're right; clearly CCP is accomodating your play style and it's not the game for me. Can I have your stuff? You can't take it to other games anyway
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Kaeden 3142
State Protectorate Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:41:30 -
[70] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Kaeden 3142 wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote: Should not happen to a paying customer who don't accepted pvp at least not in high....
As a paying customer I want to shoot people in Highsec, period... It has to be repeated over and over until CCP agre... Oh wait, they already agree. Maybe play some other game or don't undock if you are too bad for even Highsec. Not undocking a hauler is not really feasible is it and logistics is necessity. You're right; clearly CCP is accomodating your play style and it's not the game for me. Can I have your stuff? You can't take it to other games anyway
I will just sit on for awhile until I can aleast move in highsec with decent protection from g(w)ankers. |
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:52:40 -
[71] - Quote
Kaeden 3142 wrote:I will just sit on for awhile until I can aleast move in highsec with decent protection from g(w)ankers. People who are not incredibly bad at EVE never had an issue with that anyway.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61983
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:57:40 -
[72] - Quote
OMG, not this crap again. Swear you guys just keep beating on that dead horse.
That whole segment was presented way out of context. It was suppose to be a lead in for the new tutorial NPE (New Player Experience) yet CCP Rise decided to use it to validate Suicide Ganking.
Sure, they say 1% of account cancellations was due to ship loss and or harassment. But they failed to mention the total percentage amount of players that quit ? And out of that amount what was the percentage amount of players who actually completed CCP's little questionnaire ? Also what was the time span that statement is based upon ? Without those numbers given nobody can present an accurate estimation or comparison.
As for the 80,000 new players age 15 days old in that survey, 85.5% weren't killed, 13.5% were legally killed and 1% were ganked. Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. They even added a bunch of new systems to the list of 'Protected Newbie' starter systems because of that issue.
Man, talk about 'Smoke & Mirrors' ...........................
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1667
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:05:18 -
[73] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. Incorrect as usual there DMC.
There is no ban on ganking new players. It is a ban on ganking in starter systems. As soon as a new player leaves the starter system and join the rest of us, they are perfectly fine to gank.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:23:58 -
[74] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Sorry, but you are simply wrong. CCP looked into this and found that people who get killed within their first days of playing EVE are more likely to stay than people who had no such interactions.
The myth that shooting spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships is hurting the game has long been debunked and shown to be false.
You mind citing sources for your claims on that one? Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
Really?
An "all is right and all is well propaganda video as "proof" " ?
Really....
This is so transparent..... |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:34:38 -
[75] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Really? An "all is right and all is well propaganda video from fanfest as "proof" " ? Really.... This is so transparent..... I mean what should they say? "we loose customers day by day but are not willing to do what the leaving costumers want us to do so we let them go"? Propaganda video? This is CCP trying to evaluate if there is actually a problem with people leaving because of ship loss to ganking or other means. And they did this because people like you cry on the forums all the time about it. This is about their business, they have all the motivation to get this right.
They looked into it and found out that there is no such problem.
Stop the act. You are crying on the forums because you want changes to EVE which will benefit you personally. To pretend that this is for the new players is a lie.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:38:18 -
[76] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Really? An "all is right and all is well propaganda video from fanfest as "proof" " ? Really.... This is so transparent..... I mean what should they say? "we loose customers day by day but are not willing to do what the leaving costumers want us to do so we let them go"? Propaganda video? This is CCP trying to evaluate if there is actually a problem with people leaving because of ship loss to ganking or other means. And they did this because people like you cry on the forums all the time about it. This is about their business, they have all the motivation to get this right. They looked into it and found out that there is no such problem. Stop the act. You are crying on the forums because you want changes to EVE which will benefit you personally. To pretend that this is for the new players is a lie.
You can all it as you like...it's still propaganda that all is well.....:-)
The leaving customers tell another story..... |
Liek DarZ
New Order Logistics CODE.
29
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:51:25 -
[77] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:The leaving customers tell another story..... And your sources explaining that those people leaving due to ganking are.... which? I mean, noone ever heard of people leaving over boring PvE, insufficiently twitchy action, lack of meaningful first person control etc...
EVE is not for everybody. Claiming that EVE would be a better game w/o hisec ganking is dubious, claiming it would have more people w/o ganking lacks data.
Do not project from your own way of thought. And, maybe, read the New Pilot FAQ. You know, the thing stating what to expect from EVE.
Do you also run around as a medic in Battlefield and complain about being shot, as you "would prefer to focus on the healing part of the game, and not on the shooting parts"? Same for miners in EVE. One does not opt out of PVP here. Especially not when in space.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:58:30 -
[78] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Sure, they say 1% of account cancellations was due to ship loss and or harassment. But they failed to mention the total percentage amount of players that quit ? And out of that amount what was the percentage amount of players who actually completed CCP's little questionnaire ? Also what was the time span that statement is based upon ? Without those numbers given nobody can present an accurate estimation or comparison. People have the possibility to voice their reasons if they unsubscribe. Given that the amount of crying and pleading for more protection from the carebear community is a daily topic on the forums, why should we assume at all that they suddenly go silent if they "vote with their wallet" and can write to CCP directly?
Your problem with this study is that it does not fit your narrative. There is nothing CCP could have done differently to please people like you.
Even is only 1% of all players fill out that questionnaire, there is no reason to claim that the silent minority contains all the raging carebears who left because of ganks and wardecs. There is quite some reason however to believe that they are the ones crying to CCP at every opportunity.
DeMichael Crimson wrote: As for the 80,000 new players age 15 days old in that survey, 85.5% weren't killed, 13.5% were legally killed and 1% were ganked. Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. They even added a bunch of new systems to the list of 'Protected Newbie' starter systems because of that issue.
This is completely wrong. The only thing that is off-limits are the starter systems. New players are maybe on their first day in there. The reason why new players don't get ganked a lot is because they are usually not worth the effort. That does not prevent the carebear crowd from lying about how this is the main issue why new players quit, when it was already demonstrated that this is no issue at all.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 10:01:54 -
[79] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:You can all it as you like...it's still propaganda that all is well.....:-)
The leaving customers tell another story..... The story the leaving customers tell is one that does not involve issues with ship loss. Did you even watch the video?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1668
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 10:11:36 -
[80] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Teros Hakomairos wrote:Really? An "all is right and all is well propaganda video from fanfest as "proof" " ? Really.... This is so transparent..... I mean what should they say? "we loose customers day by day but are not willing to do what the leaving costumers want us to do so we let them go"? Propaganda video? This is CCP trying to evaluate if there is actually a problem with people leaving because of ship loss to ganking or other means. And they did this because people like you cry on the forums all the time about it. This is about their business, they have all the motivation to get this right. They looked into it and found out that there is no such problem. Stop the act. You are crying on the forums because you want changes to EVE which will benefit you personally. To pretend that this is for the new players is a lie. You can all it as you like...it's still propaganda that all is well.....:-) The leaving customers tell another story..... What leaving customers?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61986
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 11:46:52 -
[81] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. Incorrect as usual there DMC. There is no ban on ganking new players. It is a ban on ganking in starter systems. As soon as a new player leaves the starter system and join the rest of us, they are perfectly fine to gank. OMG, do some research before you post again. Notice #3, #4 and #7
Quote:GM Homonoia posted on 2012-06-14 18:36:11 UTCOk, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master When that and other warnings were posted in the forums, only 1 system in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc had been added to the list of 'Protected' Starter Systems and Career Agent Systems. Since then 10 more systems in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc have been added to that list and if the issue continues, even more systems will be added.
CCP's Official page about 'Rookie Griefing' :
Quote:Sisters of EVE Epic Arc
Given the variety of systems this arc can take place in, players are asked to refrain from any form of griefing to rookie players (30 days old or less) in mission sites and systems associated with the arc.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61986
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 12:17:45 -
[82] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Sure, they say 1% of account cancellations was due to ship loss and or harassment. But they failed to mention the total percentage amount of players that quit ? And out of that amount what was the percentage amount of players who actually completed CCP's little questionnaire ? Also what was the time span that statement is based upon ? Without those numbers given nobody can present an accurate estimation or comparison. People have the possibility to voice their reasons if they unsubscribe. Given that the amount of crying and pleading for more protection from the carebear community is a daily topic on the forums, why should we assume at all that they suddenly go silent if they "vote with their wallet" and can write to CCP directly? Your problem with this study is that it does not fit your narrative. There is nothing CCP could have done differently to please people like you. Even is only 1% of all players fill out that questionnaire, there is no reason to claim that the silent minority contains all the raging carebears who left because of ganks and wardecs. There is quite some reason however to believe that they are the ones crying to CCP at every opportunity. More than likely most of the players that quit out of frustration didn't even bother responding to CCP's questionnaire. The problem I have with that study is how all the other percentage numbers needed to make an informed evaluation of the issue has been conveniently, maybe even intentionally, left out.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote: As for the 80,000 new players age 15 days old in that survey, 85.5% weren't killed, 13.5% were legally killed and 1% were ganked. Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. They even added a bunch of new systems to the list of 'Protected Newbie' starter systems because of that issue.
This is completely wrong. The only thing that is off-limits are the starter systems. New players are maybe on their first day in there. The reason why new players don't get ganked a lot is because they are usually not worth the effort. That does not prevent the carebear crowd from lying about how this is the main issue why new players quit, when it was already demonstrated that this is no issue at all. I suggest you look at my reply to Shae Tadaruwa. Obviously there's a problem because now there's a total of 35 systems listed as "Protected" and if the issue continues, even more systems will be added.
Anyway, I never posted a statement saying I believe new players leave this game due to being Suicide Ganked, I only responded to the topic after you posted CCP Rise's propaganda BS trying to validate Suicide Ganking. However I do know quite a few older players who have left this game due to being Suicide Ganked.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15709
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 12:39:29 -
[83] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Anyway, I never posted a statement saying I believe new players leave this game due to being Suicide Ganked, I only responded to the topic after you posted CCP Rise's propaganda BS trying to validate Suicide Ganking. However I do know quite a few older players who have left this game due to being Suicide Ganked.
DMC
Isn't that typical. The efforts to study the issue by the company that makes the game (ie the people who have a REAL FINANCIAL STAKE in figuring out why people stop playing the game they make), told to us by an employee of the company whose salary depends on people paying for the game, is somehow "propaganda"...
..But "i know some dudes that quit because of suicide ganking" (aka "Anecdotal Evidence" aka "no evidence at all") is somehow more than enough proof that this poster needs.
It's literally a display of what's actually wrong with Humanity. People like this will ignore facts and evidence and instead see things the way they want to.
This is a fact: CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I still think the main thing that keeps pushing new bros away is the fact of the many many levels of griefing that you folks do allow.. but of course you wont nerf that cause that also would hurt someone else's game. perfect thinking here. We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
This is a direct refutation of the foolish idea that 'griefing' meaning suicide ganking and other things makes people leave. it's black and white.
And yet their dislike of a thing is so strong that an Old guy in robes with a long beard and a penchant for magically drowning ancient Egyptians could come off a mountain with stone tablets upon the which the words "Thou SHALL gank people, for that's how Thou keep people play EVE Online-ith" are seared into it and they still wouldn't believe it.
Well, people like this are going to have to dislike it. If CCP thought something was costing them money they'd have killed it a decade ago. Their internal metrics prove to them it's not, so it's all good. If one doesn't like it, one can go play any of the hundreds of carebear games that don't allow it. |
Carnivorous Swarm
New Eden Department of Sanitation
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 12:58:26 -
[84] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:When that and other warnings were posted in the forums, only 1 system in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc had been added to the list of 'Protected' Starter Systems and Career Agent Systems. Since then 10 more systems in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc have been added to that list and if the issue continues, even more systems will be added. CCP's Official page about 'Rookie Griefing' : Quote:Sisters of EVE Epic Arc
Given the variety of systems this arc can take place in, players are asked to refrain from any form of griefing to rookie players (30 days old or less) in mission sites and systems associated with the arc.
I understand your sentiment here, but these rulings on the SOE arc were not in response to ganking.
People were mission invading (or getting fleet invites to "help"), trying to suspect bait new pilots, and were stealing/ransoming mission objectives. It was the same kind of griefing that was banned in the starter systems. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3937
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 13:14:10 -
[85] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:More than likely most of the players that quit out of frustration didn't even bother responding to CCP's questionnaire. The problem I have with that study is how all the other percentage numbers needed to make an informed evaluation of the issue has been conveniently, maybe even intentionally, left out. How is that more than likely? They voice their opinions daily on the forums. They seam to be very vocal, so to even suggest that this somehow completely changes when they quit the game and they have the opportunity to tell CCP why shows how biased or delusional you are.
To invoke the "silent minority" and pretend they somehow magically refute an argument is complete bs and has nothing to do with a honest discussion.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:I suggest you look at my reply to Shae Tadaruwa. Obviously there's a problem because now there's a total of 35 systems listed as "Protected" and if the issue continues, even more systems will be added. You try really hard to make this look like there is actually an issue. The cited page clearly states this is inteded for new players in starter systems. Player older than 30 days in those starter systems are not protected. No players outside those systems are protected. Obviously the rule is to protect new players who are learning the basics and how to navigate around. It is not intended to protect you in your first 30 days while you can do whatever you want.
There is no reason to think that those 5 new systems are because of ganking. They most likely reason would be that they are related to the changes in the NPE.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Anyway, I never posted a statement saying I believe new players leave this game due to being Suicide Ganked, I only responded to the topic after you posted CCP Rise's propaganda BS trying to validate Suicide Ganking. However I do know quite a few older players who have left this game due to being Suicide Ganked.
No one tried to validate suicide ganking and it is not propaganda, but an attempt to check if the whole tears you people shed about players quitting because their space ship exploded is actually true. Turn out it was not and you are all just lying to change the game in your favour and not because of the new players or some poor vets who could not handle a ship loss.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 13:15:34 -
[86] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:OMG, do some research before you post again. Notice #3, #4 and #7 It's a strange thing though. You read those guidelines, and remember 3, 4 and 7. I also read them, and can only recall 1 and 2.
Maybe we should have concentrated on the "will not be debated or further clarified" part instead. I'd even suspect being encouraged to use common sense, if it was common. :]
But still... "Hey, let's check the age of the pilot of the ship I caught before we shoot!" - said no gatecamper ever.
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15710
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 13:32:12 -
[87] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote: Turn out it was not and you are all just lying to change the game in your favour and not because of the new players or some poor vets who could not handle a ship loss.
That's the heart of it all isn't it. Some people can't be objective, which means they can't see how something they don't like is beneficial and even necessary.
You know I'm not a fan of several things people do in game, like suicide ganking and cloaky camping just to name two. I get no joy from suicide ganking (that I've done exactly once because it was a corp activity one weekend) and I've never left a ship cloaked in someone elses system while I slept (not that it's not a legitimate tactic, i just can't be arsed lol).
But I get how those things are vital for the game. The cloaky camper is damping some of the raw isk and materials coming out of null (which is good for prices), as well as giving some of us something to fight/prepare against (this still works). I take PRIDE in my ability to keep on ratting with a cloaker in system, so what I had to reship and make lower ticks, I'm still making isk while that camper is powerless to stop me unless he wants to bring a blinged out ship with enough faction scrams to hold me down.
Likewise, the suicide gankers present that "unknown danger" in high sec that keeps smart people on their toes while punishing stupid people for being oblivious even though the game gives you copious tools to protect yourself. And getting suicide ganked can make someone angry, and anger is a great motivator in a game like this. ANY strong emotion ties a player more closely to the game.
I've come to believe that the best sign of intelligence someone can display is the ability to see things beyond their own narrow set of preferences. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28169
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 16:39:53 -
[88] - Quote
Obligatory popcorn as the idiots come out of the woodwork.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Krin Dessat
Far Runner
72
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 17:31:08 -
[89] - Quote
I once was ganked and lost a T1 Industrial and several hundred million ISK. At first I was upset, but shook it off because I came to realize it was my own fault.
It taught me a lesson, it made me look deeper into the game mechanics and what I could do to protect myself. It gave me something to do, something to strive for. So in reality, I am thankful to the gankers for motivating me to do better The ISK I lost has since been replaced (and then some)
I havent been ganked since. Doesn't mean it cant, or wont happen. But the chances of it happening are much lower now, since I don't fly around in a poorly tanked T1, with way too much cargo and without any intel
Asking for game changes isn't the way to go. Asking advice on protecting yourself however, is.
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15717
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 17:34:58 -
[90] - Quote
Krin Dessat wrote:I once was ganked and lost a T1 Industrial and several hundred million ISK. At first I was upset, but shook it off because I came to realize it was my own fault.
It taught me a lesson, it made me look deeper into the game mechanics and what I could do to protect myself. It gave me something to do, something to strive for. So in reality, I am thankful to the gankers for motivating me to do better The ISK I lost has since been replaced (and then some)
I havent been ganked since. Doesn't mean it cant, or wont happen. But the chances of it happening are much lower now, since I don't fly around in a poorly tanked T1, with way too much cargo and without any intel
Asking for game changes isn't the way to go. Asking advice on protecting yourself however, is.
You sir, must be lying. You cannot exist. An EVE player that takes responsibility for his choices, realizes his mistake like a grown ass man and takes it upon himself to improve and protect himself rather than deciding to run crying to the forums for mommy CCP to change the game to punish the nasty bad people?
Preposterous.
Next thing you'll tell me is that tooth fairies are real!
/sarcasm
|
|
Krin Dessat
Far Runner
72
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 18:11:25 -
[91] - Quote
It's what makes this game so appealling! It isnt some continuous grind-fest without any risk. You never know what other players will do, and you have to outsmart them. At the end of the day, I can find some satisfaction in the fact I can still thrive and contribute to the game.
|
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
166
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 18:29:31 -
[92] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
High has to be for those who have a PVE view on the game
Confirming that filthy renters don't have a PvE view on the game |
Cade Windstalker
1458
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 19:12:47 -
[93] - Quote
I am thinking this thread would be a lot nicer if everyone took a deep breath and considered the things written without attributing malice where there is no evidence.
That said...
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Really?
An "all is right and all is well propaganda video from fanfest as "proof" " ?
Really....
This is so transparent.....
I mean what should they say? "we loose customers day by day but are not willing to do what the leaving costumers want us to do because we don't want to loose the dream of EVE beeing "special" so we let them go"?
It's not a propoganda video, it's a Fanfest presentation. It's transparency on CCP's part, they're sharing the data they have.
You are also, still and again, assuming that people are leaving because High Sec is not a perfectly safe PvE playground. You have zero proof of this, please stop leaping to erroneous and unsupported conclusions.
Teros Hakomairos wrote:You can all it as you like...it's still propaganda that all is well.....:-)
The leaving customers tell another story.....
People leave MMOs all the time. Generally it's out of boredom or being grabbed by other interests, not because the world is too dangerous. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 23:30:50 -
[94] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I am thinking this thread would be a lot nicer if everyone took a deep breath and considered the things written without attributing malice where there is no evidence. That said... Teros Hakomairos wrote:Really?
An "all is right and all is well propaganda video from fanfest as "proof" " ?
Really....
This is so transparent.....
I mean what should they say? "we loose customers day by day but are not willing to do what the leaving costumers want us to do because we don't want to loose the dream of EVE beeing "special" so we let them go"? It's not a propoganda video, it's a Fanfest presentation. It's transparency on CCP's part, they're sharing the data they have. You are also, still and again, assuming that people are leaving because High Sec is not a perfectly safe PvE playground. You have zero proof of this, please stop leaping to erroneous and unsupported conclusions. Teros Hakomairos wrote:You can all it as you like...it's still propaganda that all is well.....:-)
The leaving customers tell another story..... People leave MMOs all the time. Generally it's out of boredom or being grabbed by other interests, not because the world is too dangerous.
Get adult.....
They "don't share all the data they have",they only share the data that fits in their concept of "eve has to stay speccial".....
This is called "positive corperation management"....just let the good news pass the filter and filter out the bad news...... |
Cade Windstalker
1459
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 01:51:18 -
[95] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Get adult.....
They "don't share all the data they have",they only share the data that fits in their concept of "eve has to stay speccial".....
This is called "positive corperation management"....just let the good news pass the filter and filter out the bad news......
I'm really wondering what motivation you think CCP have for this. Like, do you think they hate money or something?
If CCP had convincing data saying "we should change this" they would change it.
If they had data saying "this is a problem" they would do something about the problem. They don't.
Again, you have literally no proof of your assertions here. You're pulling conclusions out of your rectal cavity and asking everyone to ignore the smell and take them as fact, which is just ridiculous.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Not a very good example to use that when that Dev quote is based on Akita T's Golden rules for new players which was created 10 years ago. That's the whole problem with this game, CCP is way behind the times and always fails to make the correct changes to make the game more enticing for general gamers. Sure CCP may attempt it but only when it's too late and then the change itself is done too little to make a noticeable difference in player retention, thus enforcing the constant dwindling log in numbers. CCP needs to get out of that rut, stop living in the past, embrace the future and change with the times.. DMC
Sorry, didn't see this somehow.
Yes, the dev was posting something based on old content, but the fact that a dev was saying it (and that other devs have said similar things repeatedly over the years) means that's what CCP thinks of the game and the state it should be in.
It's possible Eve would be a more generally popular game if it was less punishing and if High Sec was "safe" as opposed to "safer". I find that somewhat unlikely though, and the only way to find out is to introduce a change that is almost guaranteed to drive off a large portion of the existing player-base.
This is a player base that has been loyal for years, and is heavily invested in the game as it exists right now. Messing with this in any substantial way is not a good idea, and especially not in the kind of sudden changes OP is ranting about.
Ever heard of Star Wars Galaxies? That is literally the case study for why massive shifts in your game's core gameplay are a *terrible* idea no matter how justified you may feel in the changes in question. If you actually look at a lot of what was changed there it made a lot of sense. It was going to do exactly the sort of things you're talking about here. Open up the game to more players, make it more accessible, address a lot of things that may have been seen as a barrier to a new player, ect.
It utterly killed the game and was a contributing factor in the dev behind the change's suicide.
So yeah, I feel pretty confident in saying that this kind of "lets massively change our core gameplay to appeal to a new demographic" line of thinking is a terrible idea and acting on it has a better chance of turning "Eve is dying" into "No really literally dying" than anything else CCP can do to the game while keeping it running. |
Krin Dessat
Far Runner
74
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 02:12:07 -
[96] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
Get adult.....
They "don't share all the data they have",they only share the data that fits in their concept of "eve has to stay speccial".....
This is called "positive corperation management"....just let the good news pass the filter and filter out the bad news......
You mean, stay special as opposed to bland, boring and a cookie cutter of any other MMO.
I'll take special.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1668
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 04:49:44 -
[97] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Funny how he conveniently forgot to mention that most older players know that CCP Game Masters made it perfectly clear in these forums a few years ago not to mess around with New Players age 30 days or younger. Incorrect as usual there DMC. There is no ban on ganking new players. It is a ban on ganking in starter systems. As soon as a new player leaves the starter system and join the rest of us, they are perfectly fine to gank. OMG, do some research before you post again. Notice #3, #4 and #7 Quote:GM Homonoia posted on 2012-06-14 18:36:11 UTCOk, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master When that and other warnings were posted in the forums, only 1 system in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc had been added to the list of 'Protected' Starter Systems and Career Agent Systems. Since then 10 more systems in the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc have been added to that list and if the issue continues, even more systems will be added. CCP's Official page about 'Rookie Griefing' : Quote:Sisters of EVE Epic Arc
Given the variety of systems this arc can take place in, players are asked to refrain from any form of griefing to rookie players (30 days old or less) in mission sites and systems associated with the arc. DMC Read the second point on the list you quoted Doofus.
Jeez. Can't even read what you are quoting.
However, if you are somehow trying to claim that new players can leave starter systems and instantly be in the epic arc systems that are also protected, then outline exactly how.
Otherwise re read what I wrote and understand how stupid you are.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3960
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 05:03:11 -
[98] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Read the second point on the list you quoted Doofus.
Jeez. Can't even read what you are quoting.
However, if you are somehow trying to claim that new players can leave starter systems and instantly be in the epic arc systems that are also protected, then outline exactly how.
Otherwise re read what I wrote and understand how stupid you are.
Read the post you just quoted "Since then CCP have done some changes to the above quote" to paraphrase. A rookie going from a career agent to the Arc system or between arc systems is 'on the arc'. Obviously if they run a loaded industrial through Niarja and you happen to be there ganking generally, gank away still, CCP aren't going to do anything about that. But if you start targeting only rookies on any common autopilot routes between career agents & arnon, expect a ban hammer under their current rules, right from their policy pages
To post the link for you AGAIN. https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203209712-Rookie-Griefing
Since you failed to read what you were quoting.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1669
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 10:29:49 -
[99] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Read the post you just quoted "Since then CCP have done some changes to the above quote" to paraphrase. A rookie going from a career agent to the Arc system or between arc systems is 'on the arc'. Bullshit.
That is not stated anywhere. Doofus #2
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Jenn aSide
shinigami miners ChaosTheory.
15727
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 12:21:22 -
[100] - Quote
Quote:Teros Hakomairos Doomheim
Has to be one of the best things I've seen this week lol. Minus one troll toon. |
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62000
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 14:48:50 -
[101] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Read the post you just quoted "Since then CCP have done some changes to the above quote" to paraphrase. A rookie going from a career agent to the Arc system or between arc systems is 'on the arc'. Bullshit. That is not stated anywhere. Doofus #2 Seriously, your sarcastic troll remarks are pathetic. For a so called 'Vet', you not only excel at being pigheaded, you're also blind as a bat as well.
Definitely time to do the same as Dracvlad's forum signature and just block you.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62000
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 14:52:35 -
[102] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:Teros Hakomairos Doomheim Has to be one of the best things I've seen this week lol. Minus one troll toon. Unfortunately you're still here. All hail the Troll Queen Jenn aSide.
Dracvlad's forum signature is right, definitely time to block you as well.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Jenn aSide
shinigami miners ChaosTheory.
15730
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 15:25:56 -
[103] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:Teros Hakomairos Doomheim Has to be one of the best things I've seen this week lol. Minus one troll toon. Unfortunately you're still here. All hail the Troll Queen Jenn aSide. Dracvlad's forum signature is right, definitely time to block you as well. DMC
Of course you should, as this would be a whole lot easier on your fragile ego than going back and understanding why you end up being wrong so much (and confronted for being wrong so much by so many people not named Jenn).
Only a liar calls the truth "trolling". |
Benje en Divalone
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 15:46:50 -
[104] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:It's possible Eve would be a more generally popular game if it was less punishing and if High Sec was "safe" as opposed to "safer". I find that somewhat unlikely though, and the only way to find out is to introduce a change that is almost guaranteed to drive off a large portion of the existing player-base.
This is a player base that has been loyal for years, and is heavily invested in the game as it exists right now. Messing with this in any substantial way is not a good idea, and especially not in the kind of sudden changes OP is ranting about. "Safe" games are boring. On the flip side wasting my time is extremely irritating.
Most PVE players that I know welcome and actively seek a challenge. What irks us to no end is somebody coming to waste our time. Most other games call this griefing. That ganked metric has been debunked several times already. Even if true all it says is that PVP players like PVP (um, duh?).
Before you get your knickers in a twist I think that making hi-sec a PVP free zone is an awful idea and for the most part hi-sec is reasonably safe enough to be attractive to PVE players. Of course in my perspective there are a couple of glaring exceptions.
The consequences for suicide ganking are not harsh enough to prevent what I and what I suspect most PVE focused players consider grief play. Unfortunately I do not have a good answer how to solve that without damaging the flavor of EVE. Maybe if there was some alternative that made hi-sec piracy viable I could point in that direction.
Wardecs are a bigger problem and one that's actively harming the retention of PvE players. Out of the last nine weeks my main's corp was wardec'd only one made any legitimate effort the rest were tradehub killboard padding (griefing). The week with the real threat was mildly amusing for an evening but the rest was pretty lame (station games). Spent most of it playing an alt or operating elsewhere.
A good indicator of player retention is guild participation. The hands-down best way for a PVE player to deal with a wardec is to drop corp, log out or dock up. Wardecs actively discourage PVE folks from social engagement. Any mechanic that encourages not playing directly harms retention.
There needs to be a way for a corporation to exempt themselves from wardecs without making it crushingly expensive for small corps. Tie it to POS ownership or make it consensual or something.
Here's another statistic for you: Players that exclusively PVE or PVP are rare. Most MMO players at least dabble in many aspects. Most PvE players will voluntarily engage in PvP eventually but if don't let them dictate the pace at which they do it they'll just find another game that doesn't insist on wasting their time.
After all that hot air I am not advocating any change unless CCP sees the need for it. They seem to be struggling with how to appeal to PvE players and mostly I think that's because they don't understand what motivates us. What I wrote above is my small attempt to give some insight.
"PvP is the most rewarding" -- CCP_Ghost. Thanks for the spit-take
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ever heard of Star Wars Galaxies? That is literally the case study for why massive shifts in your game's core gameplay are a *terrible* idea no matter how justified you may feel in the changes in question. If you actually look at a lot of what was changed there it made a lot of sense. It was going to do exactly the sort of things you're talking about here. Open up the game to more players, make it more accessible, address a lot of things that may have been seen as a barrier to a new player, ect.
It utterly killed the game and was a contributing factor in the dev behind the change's suicide.
http://kotaku.com/5057189/star-wars-galaxies-designer-jeff-freeman-dies
"Freeman's brother tells the Escapist that 'personal issues', not the fury SWG players were at the root cause of his decision to take his own life."
SWG was one of those cult classic games. Very loyal but very small fan base. Once WoW demonstrated the revenue potential of MMO's "very small" became "very uninteresting" to the money folks. |
Cade Windstalker
1468
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 19:39:48 -
[105] - Quote
Benje en Divalone wrote:.... The consequences for suicide ganking are not harsh enough to prevent what I and what I suspect most PVE focused players consider grief play. Unfortunately I do not have a good answer how to solve that without damaging the flavor of EVE. Maybe if there was some alternative that made hi-sec piracy viable I could point in that direction. Wardecs are a bigger problem and one that's actively harming the retention of PvE players. Out of the last nine weeks my main's corp was wardec'd only one made any legitimate effort the rest were tradehub killboard padding (griefing). The week with the real threat was mildly amusing for an evening but the rest was pretty lame (station games). Spent most of it playing an alt or operating elsewhere. A good indicator of player retention is guild participation. The hands-down best way for a PVE player to deal with a wardec is to drop corp, log out or dock up. Wardecs actively discourage PVE folks from social engagement. Any mechanic that encourages not playing directly harms retention. There needs to be a way for a corporation to exempt themselves from wardecs without making it crushingly expensive for small corps. Tie it to POS ownership or make it consensual or something. Here's another statistic for you: Players that exclusively PVE or PVP are rare. Most MMO players at least dabble in many aspects. Most PvE players will voluntarily engage in PvP eventually but if don't let them dictate the pace at which they do it they'll just find another game that doesn't insist on wasting their time. After all that hot air I am not advocating any change unless CCP sees the need for it. They seem to be struggling with how to appeal to PvE players and mostly I think that's because they don't understand what motivates us. What I wrote above is my small attempt to give some insight. "PvP is the most rewarding" -- CCP_Ghost. Thanks for the spit-take
I guarantee you that CCP understands how the various participants in their game think and what they want, probably better than most players do and almost certainly better than most players think they do.
While we're sharing fun facts... fun fact, most MMOs very intentionally have single-player friendly content and a large portion of any MMO is probably being played by people who have little to no interest in going outside of this sort of bubble. There's a reason WoW has made it very very easy to play fairly solo, and even easier to find quick groups to play group content with without having to do any of the organization work yourself.
The only 'solution' to the problem of permanent wardecs that I've seen floated that's at all reasonable is basically letting player corps join NPC alliances in exchange for having to pay taxes as if you're in an NPC corp and not being able to anchor structures or take advantage of any of the other corp-only mechanics beyond the organizational ones.
Benje en Divalone wrote:http://kotaku.com/5057189/star-wars-galaxies-designer-jeff-freeman-dies
"Freeman's brother tells the Escapist that 'personal issues', not the fury SWG players were at the root cause of his decision to take his own life."
SWG was one of those cult classic games. Very loyal but very small fan base. Once WoW demonstrated the revenue potential of MMO's "very small" became "very uninteresting" to the money folks.
Not the root cause is not the same thing as not being a contributing factor. I doubt we'll ever know to what extent it was but I personally have a hard time believing that that level of public ridicule and vilification could have helped.
SWG wasn't actually that small or niche, especially not back in its heyday. It peaked around 300k subscribers and was running a fairly health ~200k when the NGU dropped in late 2005, when WoW was just starting to take off. There were plenty of MMOs that were just launching (including Eve) and WoW hadn't really taken hold yet as this big phenomenon at the time.
What killed SWG was badly the NGU was handled and how many fundamental changes it made to the gameplay in a very very short span of time. It disconnected older players from the game and failed to draw in any new ones because who wants to join a game that's very visibly falling apart? |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3953
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 05:46:16 -
[106] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:Teros Hakomairos Doomheim Has to be one of the best things I've seen this week lol. Minus one troll toon. There should be killmails for forum PvP. CCPls?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3953
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 05:55:26 -
[107] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:Teros Hakomairos Doomheim Has to be one of the best things I've seen this week lol. Minus one troll toon. Unfortunately you're still here. All hail the Troll Queen Jenn aSide. Dracvlad's forum signature is right, definitely time to block you as well. Not sure why you even bother to discuss here. It seams it makes you very angry if people call you out for the bs you spew. And because it actually is bs and you probably even know it, you can't even defend your posts, get annoyed instead and start to block people.
Until the next post where you will start with the same bs all over again without any lesson learned... who is the troll here?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62004
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 08:11:57 -
[108] - Quote
Hahaha, keep skiing down that Bandini Mountain of BS you trolls keep spewing out.
I don't have to defend anything, the proof was already linked, it's your problem you lack reading comprehension.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1675
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 08:58:34 -
[109] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Hahaha, keep skiing down that Bandini Mountain of BS you trolls keep spewing out.
I don't have to defend anything, the proof was already linked, it's your problem you lack reading comprehension.
DMC Oh the irony.
You are one of the most vile people on the forum the way you attack people.
At least I'm happy to admit I don't find some people or opinions to be worth much and am happy to say so. You're just a typical hypocrit. Offer nothing of value and just spew bile everywhere. For way too long. CCP should have never reversed your permanent ban after you cried about being banned for abusing another player.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 09:53:59 -
[110] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Definitely time to do the same as Dracvlad's forum signature and just block you.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Dracvlad's forum signature is right, definitely time to block you as well. Dracvlad's forum signature seems to be an exclusive club for the wisest and most rational capsuleers. I often dream of being invited to this elite company.
Though it will only happen spontaneously, as I fail to find the entertainment value in the recruiter's posts, and I always get bored halfway before it would provoke a reply from me. Or maybe I'll just need to work harder to be worthy.
Ima Wreckyou wrote:There should be killmails for forum PvP. CCPls? I really exprected more from you than such bitter cynism. We have lost a potential content creator, not to mention the revenue to the devs! You guys should know more than anyone that it's pointless to expect things from CCP, and you should take the matters in your own hands.
That miner could have been saved! We -knew- his endangered opinion will only meet resentment, but no other way out was offered to him. We are all at fault here. But I think I know the solution to avoid such a senseless waste of forum-lives!
Start selling Forum Permits!
It only costs 10 million ISK, and valid for a FULL year. Displaying your Forum Permit in your signature ensures that Agents of the Forum will side with you during any discussion where the holder of the document displays ignorance of facts, sense and methods to forumulate at least an argument that looks valid from a certain distance. Of course it also guarantees that the Agent's under no circumstance will involve sarcasm during discussions that permit holders are involved in.
Wish I could think of someone good enough with words who could draft the details of such contract..
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3094
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 10:06:11 -
[111] - Quote
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:Dracvlad's forum signature seems to be an exclusive club for the wisest and most rational capsuleers. I often dream of being invited to this elite company.
ROFL, brown nosing much methinks...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
102
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 11:17:49 -
[112] - Quote
For years and almost every ganking thread that has been created, the pro gank community have always said ganking is not profitable, is just for the lol's and therefore should be allowed. Miner ganking I agree, hauler ganking completely disagree. Hauler ganking is extremely profitable. High sec should not be 100% safe either. Long ago I used to be a ganker, but imo it's as boring as hell.
If you look at certain systems, Poinen, Uedama and Niarja in particular, the amount of isk made from loot drops, compared to total isk in ships lost by gankers is staggeringly one sided. These groups say they are "protecting" high sec players and enforcing what they feel is the proper amount to haul. In reality, it's the easiest and quickest way to make billions per hour, while risking very, very little in the way of assets of their own.
In my eyes, the true gankers are the "miner gankers" that are doing it more for the lol's than isk. This type of combat should be kept in the game and even somewhat encouraged, while the hauler gankers need a major hit with the nerf bat.
So since almost all gankers claim it's for the lol's and not profitable, ganking should be allowed to continue in high sec. I would propose even delaying Concord response slightly during criminal activity. However, any criminal activity resulting in a ship being killed means there are no longer loot drops from the targeted, destroyed ship.
This idea should not be an issue for gankers, since they are only doing this activity for fun anyway, while still creating risk for high sec players as miners, haulers and pvers can still be ganked with the possibly of even less Concord intervention.
Ganking will most likely never go away, but this is a way to make sure it's for fun and not for the isk faucet currently being used by the giant null sec alliances.
For those who will whine that they can't afford to keep losing a 3 mil isk catalyst during a gank without getting loot in return, they better find a different career, like mining perhaps. |
Cade Windstalker
1475
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 12:54:22 -
[113] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:For years and almost every ganking thread that has been created, the pro gank community have always said ganking is not profitable, is just for the lol's and therefore should be allowed.
....
I have never seen anyone state this in any seriousness and I've certainly never seen or heard any indication CCP take this seriously. Ganking is done for profit or for secondary reasons in the rare cases it's unprofitable (out of corp booster ganking, for example).
CCP have specifically balanced ganking around cargo capacity vs tank, that was the entire tradeoff they created with freighters getting low slots.
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:If you look at certain systems, Poinen, Uedama and Niarja in particular, the amount of isk made from loot drops, compared to total isk in ships lost by gankers is staggeringly one sided. These groups say they are "protecting" high sec players and enforcing what they feel is the proper amount to haul. In reality, it's the easiest and quickest way to make billions per hour, while risking very, very little in the way of assets of their own.
Again, file under "things not to be taken seriously". Some people gank miners for the sake of ganking miners, but most of the time ganking is entirely for profit. Anyone who thinks it's the quickest and easiest way to make money in Eve though has another thing coming...
There's a lot of time and effort, never mind the number of people/characters required, to gank most high value targets. If ganking was really so amazingly profitable more people would do it, there's certainly enough older players with experience. The reality is that you need to spend a ton of time sitting and waiting for each gank, and realistically spending the same amount of time in a Carrier ratting in Null gives similar profits for the time spent.
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:In my eyes, the true gankers are the "miner gankers" that are doing it more for the lol's than isk. This type of combat should be kept in the game and even somewhat encouraged, while the hauler gankers need a major hit with the nerf bat. So since almost all gankers claim it's for the lol's and not profitable, ganking should be allowed to continue in high sec. I would propose even delaying Concord response slightly during criminal activity. However, any criminal activity resulting in a ship being killed means there are no longer loot drops from the targeted, destroyed ship. This idea should not be an issue for gankers, since they are only doing this activity for fun anyway, while still creating risk for high sec players as miners, haulers and pvers can still be ganked with the possibly of even less Concord intervention. Ganking will most likely never go away, but this is a way to make sure it's for fun and not for the isk faucet currently being used by the giant null sec alliances. For those who will whine that they can't afford to keep losing a 3 mil isk catalyst during a gank without getting loot in return, they better find a different career, like mining perhaps.
Also file under "things not to be taken seriously". This entire suggestion is a misinformed joke if it's even serious in the first place. |
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
103
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 14:26:40 -
[114] - Quote
Quote:Ganking is done for profit or for secondary reasons in the rare cases it's unprofitable (out of corp booster ganking, for example).
Go miner ganking for 6 months and tell me how profitable it is, if your lucky you'll break even.
Quote:Some people gank miners for the sake of ganking miners, but most of the time ganking is entirely for profit. Anyone who thinks it's the quickest and easiest way to make money in Eve though has another thing coming...
This is not miner ganking, it's mostly DST hauler ganking, which is super profitable and in one case done with 7 alphas. At least do some research before commenting. |
Cade Windstalker
1477
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 15:22:34 -
[115] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Quote:Ganking is done for profit or for secondary reasons in the rare cases it's unprofitable (out of corp booster ganking, for example). Go miner ganking for 6 months and tell me how profitable it is, if your lucky you'll break even.
Seems like a failure in target selection to me. The whole point of the balance around mining ships and hauling ships is that not everything can be ganked profitably if the 'defending' player is smart with their fit and how much they keep in their hold.
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Quote:Some people gank miners for the sake of ganking miners, but most of the time ganking is entirely for profit. Anyone who thinks it's the quickest and easiest way to make money in Eve though has another thing coming... This is not miner ganking, it's mostly DST hauler ganking, which is super profitable and in one case done with 7 alphas. At least do some research before commenting.
Anyone who manages to make a DST an easy gank target should go take Eve Uni's Fitting 101 course. DSTs can get more EHP per M3 than almost anything else in the game when fitted and flown correctly.
Even then a ganker has to find a target they can gank, which requires sitting on one or more gates with one or more accounts with ship and cargo scanners for potentially hours until something comes along that's worth ganking. Plus you then have to split the profits between however many people/accounts participated.
I'm pretty well versed in the economics of ganking, it's really not as great as you're making it out to be. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28183
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 15:32:18 -
[116] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Quote:Ganking is done for profit or for secondary reasons in the rare cases it's unprofitable (out of corp booster ganking, for example). Go miner ganking for 6 months and tell me how profitable it is, if your lucky you'll break even. The profit isn't necessarily in the loot drop; I know for a fact that more than a few of the gankers that target miners are also in the business of selling mining ships and equipment, they consider the cost of ganking miners to be a marketing expense.
Quote:Quote:Some people gank miners for the sake of ganking miners, but most of the time ganking is entirely for profit. Anyone who thinks it's the quickest and easiest way to make money in Eve though has another thing coming... This is not miner ganking, it's mostly DST hauler ganking, which is super profitable and in one case done with 7 alphas. At least do some research before commenting. Right back at ya.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3956
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 15:39:59 -
[117] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:This is not miner ganking, it's mostly DST hauler ganking, which is super profitable and in one case done with 7 alphas. At least do some research before commenting. Please show us the 7 alphas and how often they gank something valuable. Then after they divided the profits from what actually dropped - the gank ships (because you know, they are individual people if they use alphas) show us what that insane ISK/h looks like over the period the where online.
I bet a lot it's way way lower than even mining
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Jenn aSide
shinigami miners ChaosTheory.
15742
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 15:46:13 -
[118] - Quote
I don't care about gankers wallets, the only way gankers affect me (on the odd occasion I have no choice but to deal with high sec, it really is my least favorite part of EVE) is that they are just another obstacle to be overcome, to avoid and to be defeated (publicly if at all possible).
The people who spend time worrying about how hard or how easy that game is for people they obviously dislike are really saying "I can' beat these people on my own, I need leverage". This is not to say that sometimes people like that might accidentally have a point, just saying that the last person you want to solicit an opinion from is someone who doesn't like the thing in the 1st place.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3956
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 15:56:35 -
[119] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Hahaha, keep skiing down that Bandini Mountain of BS you trolls keep spewing out.
I don't have to defend anything, the proof was already linked, it's your problem you lack reading comprehension. That is rich for someone who has a clear problem reading the very thing he cites. Do you really thing you fool someone with this bs? As always you just show to everyone what a liar you are.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics CODE.
1244
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 20:55:52 -
[120] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah.
DMC
In every. Damn. Thread.
Just skip over it, if there's anything of substance in there, it's not worth wading through his verbosity to find it.
Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
|
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62067
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 02:43:42 -
[121] - Quote
Galaxy Pig wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah.
DMC
In every. Damn. Thread. Just skip over it, if there's anything of substance in there, it's not worth wading through his verbosity to find it. Hahaha, your little sarcastic comments and misquoting is nothing more than rage tears.
Thanks for showing us just how butthurt you really are.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3098
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 12:32:40 -
[122] - Quote
Posting in a CODE and HTFU posters all looking very stupid thread thanks to DMC and of course their own hang ups.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 13:36:40 -
[123] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:very stupid thread thanks to DMC Complete lack of punctuation is practical - everyone can read whatever they want into it. So all will like you!
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3098
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 16:18:39 -
[124] - Quote
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:Dracvlad wrote:very stupid thread thanks to DMC Complete lack of punctuation is practical - everyone can read whatever they want into it. So all will like you!
Generally the worst posters change other peoples quotes and then comment on it, just saying...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8371
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 16:42:11 -
[125] - Quote
But WE are the ones who are toxic, according to the gankers.
And elitists too. We're The Toxic Elitists. We should get jackets made.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Yebo Lakatosh
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 16:50:01 -
[126] - Quote
Thank you for the encouraging words Drac, but I still have a long way to go before I can claim that Honourable Title.
So were were we? Ahh yeah, there is that ambigous rule, ending with a CCP note stating that they will not clarify it any further. And there is a fellow claiming that the gankers and other malignant elements (who's accounts hangs on the ballance of understanding such rules) misunderstood it. Good to know that you guys care of their assets!
Though since I've yet to see either DMC or Drac boasting about how cool gankers they are, I'll consider CODE more reliable in such matters.
Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3100
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 18:06:02 -
[127] - Quote
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:Thank you for the encouraging words Drac, but I still have a long way to go before I can claim that Honorable Title.
So were were we? Ahh yeah, there is that ambigous rule, ending with a CCP note stating that they will not clarify it any further. And there is a fellow claiming that the gankers and other malignant elements (who's accounts hangs on the ballance of understanding such rules) misunderstood it. Good to know that you guys care of their assets!
Though since I've yet to see either DMC or Drac boasting about how cool gankers they are, I'll consider CODE more reliable in such matters.
It would be better that you did not change what people say and then make a comment, it just makes you look very untrustworthy in terms of opinions.
I would rather things were clear cut, because it is unfair for people to be affected by differing interpretations depending on the GM, though I feel the ambiguity is left more as an ability to blow up people for real game reasons.
Like many people I feel that ganking as a game play is fine in Eve, my issue is more to do with the ease, for example you do not see me complain about ganking of miners and that is because I judge that the balance is fine, people having an option to get into something more difficult and take a yield hit or something that can be killed and more yield. I only complained when all ships had the tank of a wet paper bag.
I don't like the bumping mechanism in terms of freighter ganking because it is total stale and boring play for the freighter pilot and makes a mockery of the concept of a counter, if the only counter is dock up and log off then we have an issue and that is the case.
But on the other side of things I am not a fan of this all powerful CONCORD, but anyway, one can discuss these issues with rational people, but sadly the Eve forums is hardly the place for it.
Anyway o7
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28186
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 18:22:01 -
[128] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Yebo Lakatosh wrote:Thank you for the encouraging words Drac, but I still have a long way to go before I can claim that Honorable Title.
So were were we? Ahh yeah, there is that ambigous rule, ending with a CCP note stating that they will not clarify it any further. And there is a fellow claiming that the gankers and other malignant elements (who's accounts hangs on the ballance of understanding such rules) misunderstood it. Good to know that you guys care of their assets!
Though since I've yet to see either DMC or Drac boasting about how cool gankers they are, I'll consider CODE more reliable in such matters. It would be better that you did not change what people say and then make a comment, it just makes you look very untrustworthy in terms of opinions. It's still better than not knowing what you're talking about, and when people pull you up on it claiming that any errors were simply a deliberate act in order to test the knowledge of others, lets not go in to what you base your judgement of the opinions and knowledge of others on.
Quote:I would rather things were clear cut, because it is unfair for people to be affected by differing interpretations depending on the GM, though I feel the ambiguity is left more as an ability to blow up people for real game reasons. If it were clear cut then people would push that boundary to the extreme, having it in a grey area means people think twice about it just in case they cross it.
Quote:Like many people I feel that ganking as a game play is fine in Eve, my issue is more to do with the ease, for example you do not see me complain about ganking of miners and that is because I judge that the balance is fine, people having an option to get into something more difficult and take a yield hit or something that can be killed and more yield. I only complained when all ships had the tank of a wet paper bag. Pre buff barges were fine in terms of tank, if you actually fitted one.
Quote:I don't like the bumping mechanism in terms of freighter ganking because it is total stale and boring play for the freighter pilot and makes a mockery of the concept of a counter, if the only counter is dock up and log off then we have an issue and that is the case. Except that's not the only counter, and you damn well know it.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8373
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 19:32:25 -
[129] - Quote
Benje en Divalone wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:It's possible Eve would be a more generally popular game if it was less punishing and if High Sec was "safe" as opposed to "safer". I find that somewhat unlikely though, and the only way to find out is to introduce a change that is almost guaranteed to drive off a large portion of the existing player-base.
This is a player base that has been loyal for years, and is heavily invested in the game as it exists right now. Messing with this in any substantial way is not a good idea, and especially not in the kind of sudden changes OP is ranting about. "Safe" games are boring. On the flip side wasting my time is extremely irritating. Most PVE players that I know welcome and actively seek a challenge. What irks us to no end is somebody coming to waste our time. Most other games call this griefing. That ganked metric has been debunked several times already. Even if true all it says is that PVP players like PVP (um, duh?). Before you get your knickers in a twist I think that making hi-sec a PVP free zone is an awful idea and for the most part hi-sec is reasonably safe enough to be attractive to PVE players. Of course in my perspective there are a couple of glaring exceptions. The consequences for suicide ganking are not harsh enough to prevent what I and what I suspect most PVE focused players consider grief play. Unfortunately I do not have a good answer how to solve that without damaging the flavor of EVE. Maybe if there was some alternative that made hi-sec piracy viable I could point in that direction. Wardecs are a bigger problem and one that's actively harming the retention of PvE players. Out of the last nine weeks my main's corp was wardec'd only one made any legitimate effort the rest were tradehub killboard padding (griefing). The week with the real threat was mildly amusing for an evening but the rest was pretty lame (station games). Spent most of it playing an alt or operating elsewhere. A good indicator of player retention is guild participation. The hands-down best way for a PVE player to deal with a wardec is to drop corp, log out or dock up. Wardecs actively discourage PVE folks from social engagement. Any mechanic that encourages not playing directly harms retention. There needs to be a way for a corporation to exempt themselves from wardecs without making it crushingly expensive for small corps. Tie it to POS ownership or make it consensual or something. Here's another statistic for you: Players that exclusively PVE or PVP are rare. Most MMO players at least dabble in many aspects. Most PvE players will voluntarily engage in PvP eventually but if don't let them dictate the pace at which they do it they'll just find another game that doesn't insist on wasting their time. After all that hot air I am not advocating any change unless CCP sees the need for it. They seem to be struggling with how to appeal to PvE players and mostly I think that's because they don't understand what motivates us. What I wrote above is my small attempt to give some insight. "PvP is the most rewarding" -- CCP_Ghost. Thanks for the spit-take Cade Windstalker wrote:Ever heard of Star Wars Galaxies? That is literally the case study for why massive shifts in your game's core gameplay are a *terrible* idea no matter how justified you may feel in the changes in question. If you actually look at a lot of what was changed there it made a lot of sense. It was going to do exactly the sort of things you're talking about here. Open up the game to more players, make it more accessible, address a lot of things that may have been seen as a barrier to a new player, ect.
It utterly killed the game and was a contributing factor in the dev behind the change's suicide. http://kotaku.com/5057189/star-wars-galaxies-designer-jeff-freeman-dies "Freeman's brother tells the Escapist that 'personal issues', not the fury SWG players were at the root cause of his decision to take his own life." SWG was one of those cult classic games. Very loyal but very small fan base. Once WoW demonstrated the revenue potential of MMO's "very small" became "very uninteresting" to the money folks.
My observation over the years is that while we can debate ganking and PVP until the heat death of the universe, the biggest driving force in the game was PVe.
It was only the making of PVe too easy (I'm looking at you, exploration) and addition of huge ISK faucets that, once mastered, lost their challenge, that the game began to stagnate. Back in the heydays the game was very lively and yes a lot of people did missions and such, but they have a general interest in the game.
That's the sad part really: the game is the best it has ever been, and the developers and designers have done a great job. But like the agent's point in The Matrix: you cannot have it too easy for people. Making the game too easy (for PVe and PVP alike) will drive players off. Doing it lopsided, like making it easy for gankers one year, then making it easier for mission runners the next, then haulers the next, then fixing years later that which was imbalanced, only screws one play style at a time. Then we argue about buffs and nerfs and fail to see the big picture.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Lokitroy11 Blackmages
The Ancients of Eternity The Pestilent Legion
1
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 21:58:12 -
[130] - Quote
I don't know a lot about ganking. But I feel that the problems is simple. Move to null. From there on. It won be ganking. Its going to be PvP. Then you can blame it more on yourself if you get caught and stop blaming the people that catch you. I've been caught hauling expensive stuff and the good way of fixing it was simple. Pay someone else to die with your stuff "haulers channel" they F*** up. You make cash.
But really. Ganking might not be profitable after you get the loot and you divide it. But when you look at zkillboard and see all those kills they get. They sacrifice 40 mill stealth bomber or a 2 mill catalyst. How is that a risky ? The guy hauling prob lost 5 bill easy. I am waiting for a code or goon guy to reply to this saying "his fault haulin that much" but isn't that the point of a freighter?to haul large quantities of stuff. Idk where I was going with this honestly...hi how you doing? |
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3959
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 21:59:36 -
[131] - Quote
What post was that? The one he did not even read himself?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Cade Windstalker
1489
|
Posted - 2017.04.30 00:42:04 -
[132] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:My observation over the years is that while we can debate ganking and PVP until the heat death of the universe, the biggest driving force in the game was PVe.
It was only the making of PVe too easy (I'm looking at you, exploration) and addition of huge ISK faucets that, once mastered, lost their challenge, that the game began to stagnate. Back in the heydays the game was very lively and yes a lot of people did missions and such, but they have a general interest in the game.
That's the sad part really: the game is the best it has ever been, and the developers and designers have done a great job. But like the agent's point in The Matrix: you cannot have it too easy for people. Making the game too easy (for PVe and PVP alike) will drive players off. Doing it lopsided, like making it easy for gankers one year, then making it easier for mission runners the next, then haulers the next, then fixing years later that which was imbalanced, only screws one play style at a time. Then we argue about buffs and nerfs and fail to see the big picture.
PvE has never been particularly hard or a major driving force in this game. If anything we have more actually challenging PvE options now than ever.
The reason most people do PvE is to fund their PvP habit, or for some other equally money driven goal. That makes PvE a means to an end not a driving force in the game. |
Cybertherion
Pneumatic Cabal
61
|
Posted - 2017.04.30 00:53:30 -
[133] - Quote
I dunno about that. Given the game's social toxicity, a lot of peeps may just PvE because morons etc. I agree the PvE should be more engaging (harder?) however, but since I enjoy PvP and just generally being a horrible comedian I can't really comment on its in-game mechanics other than the plexing music SUCKS.
µ¡úsï¥sÉ+sï¥
|
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics CODE.
1246
|
Posted - 2017.04.30 19:42:01 -
[134] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Galaxy Pig wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah.
DMC
In every. Damn. Thread. Just skip over it, if there's anything of substance in there, it's not worth wading through his verbosity to find it. Hahaha, your little sarcastic comments and misquoting is nothing more than rage tears. Thanks for showing us just how butthurt you really are. DMC
You expressed that thought in less than five paragraphs... We're all proud of you!
Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
|
Expendable Unit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 14:31:24 -
[135] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Highsec is more dangerous than nullsec
Only in Eve online. Safe = Not Safe. Good = Bad. Dishonest = Honest. |
ISD Fractal
isd community communications liaisons
1587
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 15:19:24 -
[136] - Quote
Forum Rules of Conduct wrote:27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. # This thread has gone from a simple question about Concord mechanics to who knows what. I'm going to close this thread down now.
ISD Fractal
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |