Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 05:56:00 -
[91]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems?
I find this style of argument interesting. You're posting as someone arguing for safe highsec, against someone arguing for safe highsec. OBVIOUSLY someone who doesn't ever suicide gank is going to side with you, those aren't the people you need to convince. The guys you need to convince are the ones like me, who think that there should be some semblance of risk vs reward in eve. For those who want safety, WoW is thataway -->
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then.
Sonofa... you did it again. Your post makes no sense whatsoever. You're arguing with the people who DON'T think it's considered grief play, not the ones who do
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting.
And that right there is you /thread Saying that you want eve to be like wow is like saying you want a 5 star restorant to be more like McDonalds. It's really, really hard to take anyone who says eve needs to be more like wow, obvious troll is obvious, but I'll keep smackin ya anyway.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion.
A thorax with tech II guns can easily solo kill a hulk, or 2 macks, in a .5 system. Just because you posted that I'm going to drop half a billion isk on thoraxs/fittings, and see how much isk damage I can cause after the suicide nerf, it should be in and around 8bil in damages if my estimate's not off. Perceived danger in highsec is very much real, because there are people, such as myself, who will go off and suicide gank someone out of boredom. Half of the time I blow up the guys wreck rather then bothering to loot it. Eve was DESIGNED to be played this way. Griefing is not only allowed but profitable (it only becomes a problem when one person is the repeated target of griefers)
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
5. Don't frustrate wannabe wowtards with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the carebears with a false sense of security wherein they'll believe that just because it's no longer as profitable to gank them means it won't happen. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in WoW or Runescape.
Fixed.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim.
This I can't wait for Ohhhh how the carebears will whine once they realized that gankers aren't the only ones to get boned by the change
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof.
It IS idiot proof. That whole harsh, cruel universe thing? It acts like a barrier, keeping the idiots out (mostly). How bout we just leave it as it is and let eve's darwinism (a fool and his isk/ships soon part ways) take its course. |
Misanth
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 06:09:00 -
[92]
Less bottlenecks, in all sec levels, more entry routes and pipes. That should give more mobile and opportunistic pvp, less blobbage, and make low sec more appealing even for carebears. While at the same time it should give pirates alot more targets, just that they'd have to work a bit for their show.
Would love to live in low sec (again, I started out there), but right now it's either totally deserted or totally camped. For a lone/small scale guy like me it's not very appealing, thus ending up in either Empire, or nullsec.
Give incentitives for small scale pvp again, please, remove the damn blobs. High sec don't need to be safe, it's working good as it does today. I fail to see suiciding as an issue as well tbh, it's the tools for retaliation that is too weak, not the defence mechanisms. |
goodby4u
Valor Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 06:28:00 -
[93]
Sheesh, ok"grief"gameplay falls under the catagory of ummm... Everything an eve pod pilot does, that no griefing rule isnt enforced by my experience.
If they made it impossible to kill people in high sec without being at war it would hurt the game badly, and basically make it wow in space.... And if I wanted to play wow I would be playing wow right now, not that cold dark place where you need to have a brain or friends to survive type of gameplay eve is based around. |
Kaivos
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 06:41:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:55:06
Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?...
it just gets more expensive... that is all....
Yes - I will get 12 people organised and working together in torp ravens, burn 1.2 billion isk (when the no insurance hits), and we will all spend 200 hours ratting in 0.0 (as sec hits have been BASE trebbled)
So we can kill your t2 fitted, fully insured raven....
Yes, as that would really be worth it wouldnt it.
That would really teach you wouldnt it.
SKUNK
Wait what? You think mission runners are running t2 fits in their ravens/cnrs/golems. You must be kidding. My cnr costs above 1 billion with its modules. And if you can can gank it with unorganized fashion with no risk involved. **** it. I welcome this change open arms. |
Volarius
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:13:00 -
[95]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy It's considered grief play
You made me watch the eve teamspeak movie again ^_^ |
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:20:00 -
[96]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy [...] Does this not make sense?
Not at all. It does not make sense in killing the game. Because that is what you propose. To kill EVE online.
|
DB Tank
StoneFist Pilots
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:42:00 -
[97]
I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong..
I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me..
So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me..
EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way.. |
Kleus Flek
Hard Corp Carbide and Diamonds Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:56:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Le Skunk They havent come right out with it and said "safe zone" and they still pay some lip service to the "cold hard universe" but the recent nerfs leave nobody in any doubt whats really going on.
Its a slow process of nerfing, but with insurance from concorded ships next , and wardecs firmly in the firing line - I would agree its time to drop the presence and make this game "Two Zone"
This and this. CCP is such a tease. Eve isn't a "harsh universe" in Safesec and shouldn't be billed that way. Split the universe into Invinciblesec and losec/zero sec and advertise it that way. |
Vikarion
Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:31:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Vikarion on 02/09/2008 08:31:35
Originally by: DB Tank I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong..
I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me..
So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me..
EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way..
The analogy fails because, in your example, the police do not instantly know where the offender is at, and are not able to instantly show up and pop him before exiling him from the country and fining him a huge amount of ISK. If that were the case, no one would ever commit any crime in real life, save for the insane.
And that's what this patch does. Everyone who thinks that Suiganking is still possible - well, yes, it is, mechanically. Monetarily, it is ludicrous to even think about it. Popping a mission runner could well take 30+ battleships, with the new and improved Concord times. And no mission runner will ever drop 3 billion in loot. Consider also the fact that 50% of the loot is lost on average.
Frieghters? You'd have to be holding a significant fraction of a trillion ISK for someone to consider going through all the work. But don't worry - no one will bother scanning you, because there will be maybe one freighter hauling such a load about every three months. Not worth the hassle.
Suicide ganking for any other reason than harassment is dead. And (repeated) suicide ganking for reasons of harassment is bannable. Add to that the fact that no one is going to help someone do a major suicide gank for harassment...well, suicide ganking is not going to happen.
Wardecs, already stupidly easy to avoid, are going to be removed/majorly nerfed, according to CCP. They don't want carebears getting killed by them.
Hi-sec is already going to be no-PvP in fact. Why not make it so in name as well?
CCP should stop lying to its subscribers. Make hi-sec no-PvP. |
Commander Randall
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:34:00 -
[100]
I'm sorry I have to say it as i've read so many threads with the opposite stated "Ahh the taste of PVP tears". On the subject I'm afraid it's a case of it's their train set and they can break it if they damn well please. If they want to keep the illusion of ALL space being dangerous they will. All the Forum threads in the world wont change a thing. If you want to do something meaningful then you have to cancel your sub and hope enough of your fellow PVP'ers do the same to make a dent.
As to the OP I know this thread wasn't started as a Whine about nerfing PVP but as a request for some clarity but it seems your compatriots have hijacked it.
Personally I've never been suicide ganked or even PK'ed in Empire so I wasnt aware there was a problem but obviously CCP deemed that there was |
|
Vikarion
Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:39:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Commander Randall I'm sorry I have to say it as i've read so many threads with the opposite stated "Ahh the taste of PVP tears". On the subject I'm afraid it's a case of it's their train set and they can break it if they damn well please. If they want to keep the illusion of ALL space being dangerous they will. All the Forum threads in the world wont change a thing. If you want to do something meaningful then you have to cancel your sub and hope enough of your fellow PVP'ers do the same to make a dent.
As to the OP I know this thread wasn't started as a Whine about nerfing PVP but as a request for some clarity but it seems your compatriots have hijacked it.
Personally I've never been suicide ganked or even PK'ed in Empire so I wasnt aware there was a problem but obviously CCP deemed that there was
I just want them to tell the truth. And no, the best way for me to hurt CCP would not be for me to quit, but for me to try to get as many others to quit as possible. I'm not doing that, I'm just saying.
What I want is for CCP to be honest with its subscribers. Tell the truth: that they couldn't care less about Eve actually being cold and harsh, and are just trying to bring it mainstream. |
Vikarion
Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:58:00 -
[102]
Oh, and note that most of the PvPers in the thread are arguing for this - not because we want hi-sec to be risk free, but because now it is.
We just want CCP to stop lying to us and new suscribers about what the game is. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 09:00:00 -
[103]
Originally by: DB Tank I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong..
I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me..
So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me..
EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way..
Um, your post is confusing? Are you in favour of making these changes or not?
By the way, I live in England as well, and there are plenty of people who get robbed every day, and the police never even have an idea of who did it, let alone how to catch them. |
Vikarion
Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 09:06:00 -
[104]
I'm certainly not new to Eve. The new ones are usually carebears. And they ARE changing Eve. |
Squably
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 09:20:00 -
[105]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy *DAMN BIG WALL OF TEXT* Does this not make sense?
No it doesnt, go play WOW |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 09:36:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 09:38:48
Originally by: Squably
Originally by: 5pinDizzy *DAMN BIG WALL OF TEXT* Does this not make sense?
No it doesnt, go play WOW
Why would this have anything to do with WOW.
The argument is
1) High sec ALREADY IS nearly a PVP flag zone. War decs are avoidable. Suicide ganking is nerfed in a few hours, and the removal of insurance (in an upcoming patch) will pretty much kill it off. War decs have been described by ccp as "pay to grief" and are "high priority" for a FIX.
PVP in highsec is already a farce.
Its Paper shuffling wardec dodgees, dudes dropping cans saying "free loot" outside stations, 50 mill skill point - three year old guys skulking in untouchable npc 'noob' corps, and dudes in destroyers trying to annoy their way into a fight by nicking peeps loot in mission.
2) Therefore, why dont CCP stop *****ing about, and instead of this drip drip nerfing, which serves simply to infuriate the players who used to pvp in high sec. Why dont they go the whole hog and :
ban PVP in high sec lower the rewards you get for being in high sec. (many suggestions have been mooted for this) spend some resources on low sec and 0.0
Basicaly - cut the crap CCP - and start thinking outside the box.
In regards to WOW - no nobody wants respawing, no death penalty etc. Life in lowsec and 0.0 will be improved or remain the same,
SKUNK |
Bayushi Aramoro
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:02:00 -
[107]
Cba going through this thread so don't know if this has come up, but I sure as hell hope that TomB, MrRed and all those guys remember just what happened when their game got trammelized like is being suggested by the OP. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:06:00 -
[108]
In during falling skies. |
Doonoo Boonoo
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:21:00 -
[109]
I see the usual 'weekend warriors' with the poorest PvP stats are worried about Eve again.
Tip: Spend more time pressing F1-F8 instead of F5.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:45:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 11:44:57
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo I see the usual 'weekend warriors' with the poorest PvP stats are worried about Eve again.
Tip: Spend more time pressing F1-F8 instead of F5.
Wow your a rhetard
SKUNK |
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:59:00 -
[111]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/09/2008 12:00:41
Quote: pay to grief
it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG.
Darkfall is following in eves footsteps for gods sake, lets not step backwards, being able to kill people anywhere just because you should be able to and then pay the price of getting killed back is how life works.
you pay to be killed but take someone out with you.
if your goal is to be banned from every city.system in space then GO RIGHT aheadm it's a goal and the more goals a game has the more it becomes a real sandbox. |
wah bok
Caldari Copperhead Arsenal
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:04:00 -
[112]
let me get this clear.
CCP make it so suicide ganking has actual consequences and therefore they kill pvp ? What a F... up way at looking at things
Second. they say the want to change the wardecking system so there will be some goals to it instead of it being just a way so it can be used to grief other players. wow how dare they. |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:14:00 -
[113]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote: pay to grief
it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG.
Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually — scarily — a CCP quote. |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:23:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2008 12:23:57 Make highsec safe, remove everything except L1/L2 missions from high-sec, remove ice and everything except veldspar, and remove high-sec POS-es, cut the number of research and production slots in half. Then it's all fairly balanced and you have a noob starter zone which is safe.
|
wah bok
Caldari Copperhead Arsenal
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:26:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote: pay to grief
it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG.
Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually ù scarily ù a CCP quote.
Did you even bother to read all the dev said or just skimmed the first line.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:31:00 -
[116]
Originally by: wah bok
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote: pay to grief
it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG.
Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually ù scarily ù a CCP quote.
Did you even bother to read all the dev said or just skimmed the first line.
yeah I read right through to the second sentence. |
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:33:00 -
[117]
Originally by: wah bok let me get this clear.
CCP make it so suicide ganking has actual consequences and therefore they kill pvp ? What a F... up way at looking at things
Second. they say the want to change the wardecking system so there will be some goals to it instead of it being just a way so it can be used to grief other players. wow how dare they.
This...
It's amusing to see how some individuals criticize the Wardec system and at the same time manage to cringe at any change that CCP mentions. I guess that is what happens when someone draws a conclusion from the first meaning in an entire paragraph. If one bothers to read further they state:
Quote: ...and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars.
Depth and goals... How dare they?! |
Drykor
Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:35:00 -
[118]
Haven't read anything but OP and I'd just like to say:
NO EFFING WAY.
Jeez, these people, you give them a finger, they take the whole hand. |
Krecian
Gallente Mnemonic Enterprises New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:44:00 -
[119]
Can't help but think to myself...
How many high-end ships are blown up by NPC's?
How many of same said ships are blown up by PvP?
Easy answer... can you guess where I'm going with this? Yup, who's gonna buy ships and fittings when they aren't getting blown up anymore?
I don't have the data to see where the ships are dying, but you have to admit that the amount of ships destroyed in high sec PvP should be fairly sigficant. Makes me wonder how much of an impact losing high sec PvP would have on the market. To balance it out, something will have to happen... ships will have to die. Since the only other option is ship loss from PvE, we may see missions get harder to compensate.
Just a few random thoughts. Personally, I don't think it'll come to that soon. Eve players have an amazing ability to adapt, we may be suprised to find in the end that suicide ganking will just get more creative, and not be stopped at all. *shrugs*
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:45:00 -
[120]
(Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry)
The simple answer to the question in the thread title is "because we don't want to".
A slightly more complex answer is "because the general design opinion is that implementing a hard limit on non-consensual hi-sec PvP is neither desirable nor necessary right now; we reserve the right to change our opinions in future etc no matter how unlikely or remote the possibility seems to us right now, because I just know this is going to get quoted in the eventuality that all the stars align backwards and the devourer emerges from the bowels of the earth and so on and so forth and we do for some reason I can't possibly fathom right now decide to change our minds, and hell I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort".
In this specific case, there's a two-pronged argument for stopping more or less where we have with the latest blogs on the subject.
Firstly, there's a compelling reason why you should, at a high level, be able interfere with any and all activities of other players with a sufficient amount of effort, which is that true invulnerability leads to all kinds of quirky issues with invulnerable supply lines and so on, which are undesirable. By ensuring that for example all freighter movements, everywhere, have at least some in-principle form of risk, we go some way towards mitigating those concerns.
There are other considerations coming into play of course, such as the fact that by denying blanket immunity (and assuming we're communicating this effectively) we attach some perceived risk to all activities, which gets players familiarized with the idea of risk early on in the game, which lowers the hurdle in front of the option to shoulder greater risks later on in their career. This is a benefit, but not in my personal opinion as solid a reason as the previously stated objective.
When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game.
Which runs on into the second part of the argument, which is that as Zulupark mentioned earlier in the week, the goal isn't to try and step away from the original vision - it's to try and bring things back in line with that vision, as we understand it. A couple of years ago suicide-ganking was, as far as I could tell, a near-total non-issue, occurring in a few sporadic cases where someone really wanted to achieve something but otherwise didn't seem to be happening a whole lot. Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. Again, this isn't a case of us wanting to alter the original paradigm, it's an attempt to return to the actual balance of play we had before. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |