EVE Search - EVE following historical path of Ultima Online

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE following historical path of Ultima Online

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Topic
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 14:37:00 - [1] Originally by: Lord WarATron Nothing stoping people suicide ganking at all, you can still gank as normal. A mining barge ina belt will still die vs same numbers. I guess all this fuss is over people unwilling to fight with what they cannot afford to lose? Sure about that? They did say they were decreasing concord response time. That's really the only problem I have with this change. Insurance nullification makes sense, and the sec status stuff is meh. They're simultaneously making it more difficult and more expensive to kill someone in high sec. I think the scariest thing about recent changes is how heavy handed they've been. Didn't CCP used to pride itself on slowly but surely tweaking things to where they should be by way of babysteps?
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 14:58:00 - [2] Originally by: Nayah Thalaen Edited by: Nayah Thalaen on 07/08/2008 14:50:37 For all those people who - want the old days of EVE to come back - whine about PvP is softening - whine about EVE isn't that dark place it used to be You don't want PvP. No, frankly you don't. You want to kill people who don't want to be killed. You enjoy to see the suffering of others. You want PvP? Go deep into nullsec, and you can PvP all day. 24 hours a day! Yes, you will die, probably all the time, against those well organized alliances. But no, I know you won't do that. You want to kill people in high sec, where they can't defend themselves, and YOU can win all the time. You want to kill people who "want the 25% of EVE" while doing that you actually want 1% of EVE. I think all you people need a big deal of mental care... And right about there is where you demonstrated that you have nothing of value to contribute. People need mental care because they enjoy a certain aspect of gameplay? Really? On the subject of mental care, have you really considered just how insane it is to think you're qualified to make a blanket assertion about a lot of people you've never met, particularly when it's abundantly apparent that you don't even possess the credentials to make any such diagnoses in any circumstances?
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:04:00 - [3] Originally by: Robrina Brun Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Sure about that? They did say they were decreasing concord response time. You sure you read that part entirely? CONCORD responds faster with two tackler frigates and a battleship. Though the frigates instalock, the battleship will take a while to get you locked and begin firing. This instead of getting blobbed by the current CONCORD response. So yes, they respond faster, but if you tank decently you should be able to postpone your imminent destruction long enough to get the kill. It's just one BS. Didn't they make Concord start ECMing a while back when people were crying about their freighters being ganked? (I don't, in fact, suicide gank, even though I think it's incredibly entertaining, so I'm not 100% on that as I don't really catch the wrath of concord...ever. I vaguely recall that being the case, though. I also recall a lot of carebear crying because even though they ECM'd the players, drones were still killing their freighters ). At any rate, it sounded like they were basically doing the longer BS lock time for the sake of drama.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:17:00 - [4] Originally by: Nayah Thalaen Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Originally by: Nayah Thalaen Edited by: Nayah Thalaen on 07/08/2008 14:50:37 For all those people who - want the old days of EVE to come back - whine about PvP is softening - whine about EVE isn't that dark place it used to be You don't want PvP. No, frankly you don't. You want to kill people who don't want to be killed. You enjoy to see the suffering of others. You want PvP? Go deep into nullsec, and you can PvP all day. 24 hours a day! Yes, you will die, probably all the time, against those well organized alliances. But no, I know you won't do that. You want to kill people in high sec, where they can't defend themselves, and YOU can win all the time. You want to kill people who "want the 25% of EVE" while doing that you actually want 1% of EVE. I think all you people need a big deal of mental care... And right about there is where you demonstrated that you have nothing of value to contribute. People need mental care because they enjoy a certain aspect of gameplay? Really? On the subject of mental care, have you really considered just how insane it is to think you're qualified to make a blanket assertion about a lot of people you've never met, particularly when it's abundantly apparent that you don't even possess the credentials to make any such diagnoses in any circumstances? But you have, right? Is there a place where they teach you to speak that way? Actually I do know a few ppl RL who - like you said "enjoy a certain aspect of gameplay" and I pity them. They CAN enjoy it, isn't that enough for you? I can't and I also wouldn't want to ban them from EVE. But I pity them. (And yes feel free to express your opinion in the form of a private war against me... ) You've basically just asserted that people with different tastes than yours are mentally ill. Let's spread this around some. -People who like rap music need a great deal of mental care. -Vegetarians need a great deal of mental care. -Christians need a great deal of mental care. -Hockey fans need a great deal of mental care. Yeah, no. Doesn't work that way.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:54:00 - [5] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Garreck The real head-scratcher for me is that any time a playstyle becomes harder with more hardcore penalties... ...the complaints about Eve no longer being hardcore or trending away from hardcore start flowing. Making magical omnipotent NPC buddies even more omnipotent is "more hardcore". Gotcha. This. And it doesn't really help that "god mechanics" are pretty poor design in general. Concord in its current form is only marginally better than a popup stating that you're not allowed to fire your weapons on such and such target for some nonspecific reason with no more depth than, "It's just not allowed."
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:10:00 - [6] Originally by: Jita Jolene Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Originally by: Malcanis Making magical omnipotent NPC buddies even more omnipotent is "more hardcore". Gotcha. This. And it doesn't really help that "god mechanics" are pretty poor design in general. Concord in its current form is only marginally better than a popup stating that you're not allowed to fire your weapons on such and such target for some nonspecific reason with no more depth than, "It's just not allowed." I'm BAWLIN for ya some more man! Learn to do something HARD in game why don't ya? You are simply a Carebear in denial, whining because YOUR game is harder now. Boohoo! More BAWLIN! But wait, there's more... God Mechanics? Insurance payout for a criminal act is not god mode? Lets see how far that can be tossed in the cruel real world. Even more BAWLIN! You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this personally affects me. "My" game is not harder. My game is, however, devolving to suit the lowest common denominator (i.e., you). I am not, nor have I ever been, a suicide ganker. And, no, insurance payout for a criminal act is not a "god mechanic". It functions as any other contractual agreement functions. It may be a broken mechanic, but there's nothing "godlike" about it. Typical properties of a god include omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Properties insurance decidedly lacks, but Concord does not. It's simply poor design and they're only utilized in any game when some basic design failure hasn't been able come up with a solution for a problem that doesn't step outside of established game mechanics.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:11:00 - [7] Originally by: Garreck And interestingly enough...the only reason risk could potentially decrease for high sec carebears is if too many high sec "pirates" decide it's too hardcore and they'd rather do something easier. Decreased Concord response time fundamentally reduces high-sec risk regardless of whether high-sec gankers decide to quit high-sec ganking or continue doing so. It's risk-reduction by way of game mechanic.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:23:00 - [8] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:31:44 Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:28:02 Originally by: Garreck Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Decreased Concord response time fundamentally reduces high-sec risk regardless of whether high-sec gankers decide to quit high-sec ganking or continue doing so. It's risk-reduction by way of game mechanic. I disagree. The equation of how much damage you need to do before Concord gets you is still static...even if now you'll need more firepower to kill faster because Concord's gonna kill you faster. That is not a decrease in risk for the afk guy...it's just an increase in risk ("investment" really) by the gank squad. The afk guy with his billion isk mods is still just as dead if someone comes to the table with the means to do it. The only thing that changes is the means to do it...hence only an increase in risk for the gankers, and only a decrease in risk for the gankee if the gankers just take their ball and go home because "it's too hard." If we follow your "logic" (I use the word hesitantly) to its conclusion, if 10 concord remote repping BS's spawned and instalocked the AFK guy, his risk wouldn't be reduced because the gankers "just need to bring more firepower". Cutting the amount of damage someone in high sec can take from any one ship fundamentally reduces their risk across the board. And, you can spare as all your infantile analogies about people taking their ball and going home because it's "too hard". It's math. It's very easy to calculate exactly how much firepower is needed to drop a given ship in a given period of time. If it can't be done by a group, it won't be attempted. Since pilots are a limited resource, reducing the probability that enough of the resource will be present to kill a given ship is a direct reduction to their risk. Edit: It's occurred to me that, perhaps, you do not understand the definition of "risk". Quote: Risk ûnoun 1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss Reducing the amount of damage they can take (by increasing concord response time) instantly reduces their exposure to injury or loss. Here's the part where you say, "Nuh uh, they just need to bring more firepower!" There are a limited number of gankers to go around. Requiring more of them to destroy any one target at a given time means that less are available for destroying other targets. This, in turn, means that the AFK haulers on the whole are less at risk of being destroyed by gankers at any given moment. Thus, their exposure to loss has been reduced. Q.E.D.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:24:00 - [9] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:27:25 Originally by: Jita Jolene uhh, lets see.... Reduces hauler risk in high sec, no check How do you figure it doesn't? If they were only removing insurance payouts, you would be correct. Perhaps you did not read the entire blog. Quote: Ehh, McFly, this is what you call game balance. Except you're pretending that it doesn't decrease hauler risk, which it very clearly does, so there is no balance. Quote: You laughably asked for someone to post calculations before accepting their points, let us see yours. I'm not the one making assertions that this "restores risk/reward". You are. All I've done is asked you to demonstrate that, and your response is...what? "No, you first!"
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:40:00 - [10] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 16:41:28 Originally by: Garreck So have we established whether or not it can't be done by a group? Or if it will be profitable? The complaints are completely invalid (and more than a little hypocritical) until high sec protection reaches a point of making ganking impossible. I meant "by a given group." Any given group can pretty easily establish whether or not they can break a target. They know concord response time, they know their DPS. You seem to think there is some infinite quantity of suicide gankers available. If there are a group of 3 people who suicide gank, and tomorrow the bare minimum they could do it with is 5 people, their targets risk is reduced because they're less likely to encounter enough people to do so. This is not rocket science and it's a little bit depressing that you have such trouble grasping it.

SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:57:00 - [11] Quote: So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... New players != changes in game mechanics. Don't be obtuse. Additionally, it has less to do with the number of pirates Vs. the number of targets and more to do with the number of pirates Vs. the amount of ground that can be covered. You could have made a stronger attempt if you had gone about increases in systems or gates. Still weak, just, y'know...not as.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:30:00 - [12] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Don't be obtuse. I think your whole argument is fairly obtuse. You're hung up on a pretty rediculous detail. In the grand scheme, any afk-er, no matter how many or few high sec gankers are around, is risking his ship and his cargo/mods. You act like the fact that they're still "risking" somehow completely negates the fact that their risk is reduced, while their rewards remain static. Meanwhile, they have the gall to cry about the risk/reward of the gankers being out of whack. Quote: I was merely highlighting the comedy in the cries of "make Eve hardcore" when, in fact, the high sec piracy career just got more hardcore, No, cutting the number of viable targets does not make it "more hardcore", not matter how much you insist it does.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:35:00 - [13] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 07/08/2008 17:35:51 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Quote: So I suppose each new player that joins Eve and elects to not become a pirate is an equal nerfing of piracy? I mean...it's more targets to go around, so less likelihood of any particular individual coming across a limited number of pirates... New players != changes in game mechanics. Don't be obtuse. Additionally, it has less to do with the number of pirates Vs. the number of targets and more to do with the number of pirates Vs. the amount of ground that can be covered. You could have made a stronger attempt if you had gone about increases in systems or gates. Still weak, just, y'know...not as. You are reaching a bit now. You know as well as I do that as long as it is still profitable to suicide gank, they will come. Stating that there won't be enough players willing to dabble in this (in my opinion perfectly acceptable) style of game play is more than a little ludicrous. So is arguing they "won't be able to cover enough ground"... what ground? Are we keeping boundaries and score now? Please. Yes the number of occurances will likely go down. Hello, that is the reason for the adjustment to be made in the first place... that is the goal. But as long as it merely requires some thought, risk, and dedication to that type of play the main result we will see is more of a focus on very high value targets. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. And apparently neither does the majority of the EVE community, both PVP oriented and Carebear oriented alike. Listen, I know reading is hard, but I pretty clearly didn't say that. What I said was, the probability that any given player will encounter a suicide gank is directly reduced, thus their risk is directly reduced. This is accompanied by the fact that the reward is remaining static. I am making this statement not as an overarching argument against the change, (if you care to read back and follow along with the rest of the class), but against the masturbatory, "omg, risk/reward balance blah blah rabble rabble rabble" nonsense that people frequently spout off about on here. You have just admitted that the risk will decrease. See it? It's right here: Quote: Yes the number of occurances will likely go down. And it's apparent that the rewards those players, whose risk has decreased, will earn remains static. This isn't about the change, it's about the masturbatory "omg risk/reward balance!" arguments people make being complete and utter bullshit because they selectively apply the concept.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:56:00 - [14] Originally by: Esu Nahalas Originally by: SurrenderMonkey No, cutting the number of viable targets does not make it "more hardcore", not matter how much you insist it does. What's "hardcore" about low-risk suicide ganking? And don't give me this noble BS about how you are culling the herd. The vast majority of suicide gankers don't give a damn about the herd in the first place. I wasn't the one going on about "hardcoreness" in the first place, so you're asking the wrong person. My issues here are two-fold: 1. The bunk "risk/reward" arguments that are inconsistently applied to justify anything. 2. With regard to this change, I'm opposed to two aspects... 2a. The rather heavy-handedness of recent changes. Insurance payouts alone here would have been enough. CCP used to tweak rather surgically, but lately they're swinging a sledge hammer at anything that moves. They're getting sloppy. 2b. The homogenization of gameplay. I'm not really sure how anyone who has ever played this game could reach the conclusion that there is a "suicide ganking" problem. Every now and then someone gets suicide ganked. I've never been suicide ganked, no one I know has ever been suicide ganked. I've never even SEEN a suicide gank. I know they exist, though, and I like that - the possibility keeps things lively. They're slowly diminishing and/or removing such things entirely, though. These little outliers are what make games like this fun.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:46:00 - [15] Originally by: DeckardIRL Suicide Ganking has not been nerfed... the consequences are now just more severe... stop WHINING... I have seen and been the victim of suicide gankers... its a fair tactic... just because it will not be as profitable... stop whining... another n00b who wants to kill empire n00bs... get to low sec where all the fun is now... Deck This would be true if they had just stripped insurance payouts. But that's not the only thing they did. Thus, it's not true, and you can't very well have a valid point based on an assertion that's entirely false.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:03:00 - [16] Originally by: DeckardIRL Originally by: SurrenderMonkey This would be true if they had just stripped insurance payouts. But that's not the only thing they did. Thus, it's not true, and you can't very well have a valid point based on an assertion that's entirely false. Faster and more severe concord according to system sec, proportionate sec status hits and no insurance... I am sorry I said the consequences are more severe... I fail to see how my assertion is incorrect?? Deck ...You've asserted that only the consequences have changed. This is false, because concord response time has been decreased. This is a direct nerf to hi-sec ganking and not merely an alteration of the consequences for doing so. Thus, your statement was false.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:04:00 - [17] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: DeckardIRL Suicide Ganking has not been nerfed... the consequences are now just more severe... stop WHINING... I have seen and been the victim of suicide gankers... its a fair tactic... just because it will not be as profitable... stop whining... another n00b who wants to kill empire n00bs... get to low sec where all the fun is now... Deck By a similar argument, if say... hi sec mission rats had their bounties reduced by 80%, hi sec missioning wouldn't be nerfed, just made less profitable? Right? There's that, too.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.