Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Meatbag Pussrocket
Root.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Singularity has some wonderful new ships and textures and nebulae... yes yes, well and good, but did you notice the new policy that appears to be in effect? Namely:
If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
for better or for worse it looks like CCP is taking a stand on Suicide ganking, hulk-a-geddon, or market manipulation via proxy war on items, or all of the above.
What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious?
FWIW: i have no horse in this race, but if nothing else it may push those looking for PvP into more desparate measures and might incite some violence in 0.0, and thats always a good thing. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible. |
Haulin Aussie
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Confirmed.
Thankfully, destroyers are cheap as **** and going to be win after patch, so hulks and **** get no love. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
ShipToaster
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Wait, you mean Poetic Stanzeil was right? Score one for the tinfoil hatters.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
525
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the issue - it will render highsec botters paradise (not that I though the occasional gank would have discouraged them thus far), but from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
Gazmin VanBurin
Go Petition Blizzard
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible.
Conferming that I will still suicide gank expensive targets using SB gangs |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
525
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces.
Agreed.
Unlikely it's going to happen I'm afraid.
A sad day for eve. morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change and why it wasnt in place at the start i have no idea apart from that i dont think its aimed directly at suicide ganking i can only see a slight decrease in overall ganking and gankers will just be alot more picky at what they go after. |
|
Stealing Honest
Stealing Honest Speculation Group LLC
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
This is a nice move. Not because it will reduce ganks, but because it wont effect them at all, and it does reduce an isk faucet.
Goon are gonna love this change heh, and the new tears will be epic
SH |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change How so?
Quote:i can only see a slight decrease in overall ganking and gankers will just be alot more picky at what they go after. And the question, as always, is why on earth that is needed. If anything, highsec could use an increase in ganks at the moment, because they've become so ridiculously rare over the years.
Stealing Honest wrote:This is a nice move. Not because it will reduce ganks, but because it wont effect them at all, and it does reduce an isk faucet. If they want to reduce the ISK faucets, it would be far better to adjust one of the bigger ones and do a very minute adjustment to it instead GÇö same total effect, but far less impact on those affected. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
110
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Right-click - selfdestruct - wait 1:55 - gank - collect insurance.
As of yesterday you did get insurance payout for self-destructing.
If that "loophole" is patched, the change would mainly effect people ganking freighters for profit, therefore increase the maximum "safe" value of cargo to move around in a freighter. |
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
If this is true, all of 0.0 and lowsec should form the donut and collectively turn on highsec. |
Selinate
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is a step in the right direction, AND it does not mean the end of suicide ganking.
If you take out a ship filled with 1 bil worth of faction fits, you should have the risk of losing it in a suicide gank.
If you want to use a ship to suicide gank someone in, you have the consequence of completely losing your ship, and getting no isk back at all. It just doesn't make sense otherwise... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Right-click - selfdestruct - wait 1:55 - gank - collect insurance.
As of yesterday you did get insurance payout for self-destructing. That, or make sure you do it on stations or gates in a ship that gets vaporised by the sentry guns before the doughnut boys get there GÇö sentries still leave your insurance intact.
Selinate wrote:This is a step in the right direction What direction is that, and why is it the right one?
Quote:If you want to use a ship to suicide gank someone in, you have the consequence of completely losing your ship, and getting no isk back at all. It just doesn't make sense otherwise... How so? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Bischopt
Ice Fire Warriors
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
It's not going to stop suicide ganking. t1 fit battlecruiser is still only about 30m which really isnt a lot of money. Destroyers and cruisers are even less. my opinion anyway. |
Sadayiel
Inner Conflict
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:Singularity has some wonderful new ships and textures and nebulae... yes yes, well and good, but did you notice the new policy that appears to be in effect? Namely:
If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
for better or for worse it looks like CCP is taking a stand on Suicide ganking, hulk-a-geddon, or market manipulation via proxy war on items, or all of the above.
What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious?
FWIW: i have no horse in this race, but if nothing else it may push those looking for PvP into more desparate measures and might incite some violence in 0.0, and thats always a good thing.
Do you really consider suicide gankers are looking for PvP experience?
I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
525
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Bischopt wrote:It's not going to stop suicide ganking. t1 fit battlecruiser is still only about 30m which really isnt a lot of money. Destroyers and cruisers are even less. my opinion anyway.
My guess would be that stealthbombers will become far more common in suicide ganks... morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
239
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious?
I think it won't make a lot of difference really. Gankers will just pick slightly fatter prey and well for ganking Macks you don't need expensive ships anyway.
Still, I'm happy insurance at last starts to make some sense.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned.
People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Must be the same kind of police that won't chase you all over the universe until they permanently remove you from the game for as much as blowing a single ship once.
Anyway if that gets eventually implemented, I will have a drink to CCP. So... no affordable NEx store... no full-fledged Incarna... no new casual content... no new solo content... no new PvE content...-á
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Selinate
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bischopt wrote:It's not going to stop suicide ganking. t1 fit battlecruiser is still only about 30m which really isnt a lot of money. Destroyers and cruisers are even less. my opinion anyway.
Some people do this in a t1 BS though, and can gain the majority of their isk back from that BS through insurance payout. That isn't right. If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. |
Prince Kobol
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Disagree.
If you gank an indy ships that has no kind of defense but they have nothing of any value in their cargo hold then it was your own fault for ganking him in the first place.
If however this person had something of great value then congrats on you for ganking him as it will be worth it.
Hopefully this change will make people choose their targets more carefully and gank those that do travel with valuable cargo and no defense instead of just ganking anybody at random.
|
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Freighters? Not much you can do except using an alt to web yourself into warp - a support fleet won't really help. So they still will be ganked if they haul anything worthwile
The real problem is that macro-miners are even safer than they used to be.
This game is in a constant decline - and yes - I actually mine myself in highsec occasionally... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:16:00 -
[28] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. That already happened with the policy change allowing dec shields and wardec shedding. Wardecs are 100% consensual these days. So yes, if this turns out not to be a bug, it is indeed heading further down the wrong roadGǪ
Name Family Name wrote:Freighters? Not much you can do except using an alt to web yourself into warp - a support fleet won't really help. GǪin other words, a support fleet will help. Not just by making it easy to travel but also by spotting the gank long before it happens. And even if someone manages to get himself ganked in a freighter, the consequences for the ganker still remain in his hands and it's up to him to ensure that they are enforced. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. That already happened with the policy change allowing dec shields and wardec shedding. Wardecs are 100% consensual these days. So yes, if this turns out not to be a bug, it is indeed heading further down the wrong roadGǪ Well, wars are still chugging along, but CCP is definitely treading the razor's edge. One more little nudge, and it will all come crashing down. Here, a little snippet from a mail I received very recently from one of our targets:
A Recent War Target wrote:I would ask you to have your corp remove the dec as you will be wasting your money. I'd like you to look at this thread right here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22792&p=4CCP stated no longer an exploit. So yeah. You can dec every 24 hours, and we jump into alliance and out every 24. Your call. Makes no matter to me. We are still recruiting noobs, and industrial types. I get it that your guy's idea of pvp is to station camp, and blow up noobs with 3 weeks in game and such but I am not feeding you kills to pad your battleclinic stat's. This isn't some learning experience and your not trying to help us. Balls in your court. Drop the dec and you only lose the money once and can likely find some easy target who doesn't know a damn thing about metagmaing or how game mechanics work presently. Or keep the decs rolling and we just keep losing them. Your isk, your choice.
I can't help but wonder how this forest would fare if all the predators disappeared... |
Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries Bloodbound.
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
troll. I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg |
|
Kelsi Corynn
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:26:00 -
[31] - Quote
Interesting. Nice catch.
Will have minimal impact if any on strategic suicide ganking, so I see no harm done to EVE's soul. |
Skorpynekomimi
E.A.D Alliance Omega Vector
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
This makes ganking mining barges a little less profitable, and bigger targets a chunk less.
I hope they go the whole way, and remove insurance completely. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:troll. So we can safely say that you agree, seeing as how you can't muster even the slightest shred of an argument. Thank you for your support.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries Bloodbound.
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:troll. So we can safely say that you agree, seeing as how you can't muster even the slightest shred of an argument. Thank you for your support.
still trolling. I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1201
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:33:00 -
[35] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:still trolling. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Anyway, we can still safely say that you agree, seeing as how you still can't muster even the slightest shred of an argument. Thank you for your continued support. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
525
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
I hope they go the whole way, and remove insurance completely.
+1
on a side note,: Tippia just got successfully trolled with one of the oldest troll attempts on the interwebs, which is repeatedly just posting 'troll'. morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:39:00 -
[37] - Quote
if this is true... thnx CCP a lot... thnx for making this game (at least little) logical... and thnx for helping ours "elite pvpers" (read suicide gankers) to grow themselfs a balls... maybe... if they decide to find a target that can defend itself... |
Alara IonStorm
RvB - BLUE Republic
345
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved? The same type that takes the Murder Weapon out of your hand slaps your wrist and says that if you do that again 8 or 9 more times we get serious. Unless you rat in Null Sec of course, then your fine.
We have some lazy a$$ magic Cops. |
Russell Casey
One Ton Reverberation Project
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
One time I shot an NPC merchant outside a station---got blown up by sentry guns. Only after my insurance was paid did I bother to see who the aggro countdown was for.
It was Pend Insurance. |
SilentSkills
Estrale Frontiers
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
It wont affect suicide ganking much, a thorax is pretty cheap, and destroyers got buffed. |
|
Alara IonStorm
RvB - BLUE Republic
345
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:45:00 -
[41] - Quote
SilentSkills wrote:It wont affect suicide ganking much, a thorax is pretty cheap, and destroyers got buffed. Really this. The only change is less Solo Arty Battleships and more teams of smaller attack ships.
It is part of EVE's new group content. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:if this is true... thnx CCP a lot... thnx for making this game (at least little) less logical... and thnx for helping ours "elite pvpers" (read suicide gankers) to grow themselfs a balls letting haulers be even more pants-on-head retarded without suffering any consequences... Fixed.
Alara IonStorm wrote:[The same type that takes the Murder Weapon out of your hand slaps your wrist and says that if you do that again 8 or 9 more times we get serious. No, that's basically the only sensible and non-magical part of CONCORD.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Terrible change.
CCPs dogma "No space is safe" is only true aslong as nobody is complaining about it on the forums. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
I approve! Now if you want to gank a high value target you have to pay the price. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
Cpt Fina wrote:Terrible change.
CCPs dogma "No space is safe" is only true aslong as nobody is complaining about it on the forums.
High sec isn't completely safe. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:51:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Even a ship fit and flown properly isn't invincible.
|
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:53:00 -
[49] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Even a ship fit and flown properly isn't invincible. Against ganks, it most certainly is.
DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Alara IonStorm
RvB - BLUE Republic
345
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:54:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, that's basically the only sensible and non-magical part of CONCORD.
I am gonna go a head and doubt that letting every Killer have free reign in the space they killed is the most sensible thing about them.
Sensible would be coordinating off the wreck setting the perp to -5 and sending him on his way out the door. I am sure Suicide Ganking would go down quite a bit. Which is exactly what the Police would want.
But that would be a lot less fun then smoking some dudes Barge in a Rax.
|
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:54:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
In this current situation it was the right choice to make.
If I want to kill a specific person in high security space I just have to catch him in space and kill him. This hasn't changed. CCP has only balanced the risk and reward.
I would high five CCP if players get the ability to gank other players in incarna. That would rock. |
Selinate
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:55:00 -
[52] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:Tippia wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:troll. So we can safely say that you agree, seeing as how you can't muster even the slightest shred of an argument. Thank you for your support. still trolling.
you're not the first to come to this conclusion. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:56:00 -
[53] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:Even a ship fit and flown properly isn't invincible. Against ganks, it most certainly is. DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably?
in-+vin-+ci-+ble adj. Incapable of being overcome or defeated; unconquerable.
Say whaaaaaaat? |
Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:58:00 -
[54] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Cpt Fina wrote:Terrible change.
CCPs dogma "No space is safe" is only true aslong as nobody is complaining about it on the forums. High sec isn't completely safe.
Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.
What are principles good for if you abandom them when things get rough?
Eve online is a special, unique MMORPG to the enxtent that we the playerbase allows it to be... and that's bullshit. What's next GÇô instanced missions or PvP arenas. PvP flags maybe? |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:59:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? And you must be in tears, presumably? |
Stealing Honest
Stealing Honest Speculation Group LLC
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
People dont need insurance to gank. It's just a crutch.
Don't let your game be determined by a crutch.
SH |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:00:00 -
[57] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:I am gonna go a head and doubt that letting every Killer have free reign in the space they killed is the most sensible thing about them. GÇ£SensibleGÇ¥ in the sense of GÇ£makes senseGÇ¥ GÇö the same kind of making sense that fuels the argument to remove insurance for CONCORD kills.
Igualmentedos wrote:In this current situation it was the right choice to make.
If I want to kill a specific person in high security space I just have to catch him in space and kill him. This hasn't changed. CCP has only balanced the risk and reward. Not really, no. They've reduced the risk for people who already had next to none, and have not affected the risk of the other party. Above all, they've made highsec a bit safer, which is the wrong choice to make in the current situation, considering how ridiculously safe it already is (and how much safer they've already made it with their ill-conceived policy change).
Selinate wrote:you're not the first to come to this conclusion. He certainly shows how easy it is to be wrong, yes. Well, that, or how easy it is to misunderstand something as simple as a five-letter word.
DarkAegix wrote:And you must be in tears, presumably? No. Why would I be? I'm just exasperated by CCP's decision to make highsec safer when the exact opposite needs to happen. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:00:00 -
[58] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? And you must be in tears, presumably? Delicious Tippia tears. |
Dondoran
Free Masons United Inc. Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:02:00 -
[59] - Quote
This is truly a great idea gankers not getting nearly free ships to grief the innocent with , imagine that. Anything that hurts that kind of game play is only going to have positive effects on the rest of eve. What looked like the biggest buff to suicide ganking now has balance, excellent job CCP.
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:03:00 -
[60] - Quote
Max Von Sydow wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? And you must be in tears, presumably? Delicious Tippia tears.
BEST tears!
-Can we call them Tt's from now on? |
|
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
409
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
Good change, makes sense. Would allow tier 3 BCs to be cheaper as well. |
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit. GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:07:00 -
[63] - Quote
Max Von Sydow wrote:Delicious Tippia tears. What? Nothingness has a taste all of a sudden?
Igualmentedos wrote:BEST tears! You really shouldn't define something that doesn't exist as GÇ£bestGÇ¥ GÇö it will only set you up for thorough disappointment.
Dondoran wrote:This is truly a great idea gankers not getting nearly free ships to grief the innocent with YeahGǪ a couple of problems here: gankers are not griefers, the ships were not nearly free, and ther targets were not innocent.
Quote:Anything that hurts that kind of game play is only going to have positive effects on the rest of eve. Quite the opposite GÇö it will only hurt the economy and make it better for botting. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:08:00 -
[64] - Quote
Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
Awesome, EVE is realistic now!
High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.
High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.
/inflammatory comments |
Aida Nu
Nu Industries
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:11:00 -
[65] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
Awesome, EVE is realistic now!
High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.
High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.
/inflammatory comments
WTF is wrong with you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
Awesome, EVE is realistic now!
High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.
High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.
/inflammatory comments Excellent explanation for why this is a very bad change that hurts the game. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
56
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:13:00 -
[67] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
High-sec is meant to be safeR! I'm glad CCP changed this.
finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
/inflammatory comments
FTFY
|
Joe Skellington
Caldari Elite Force Independence..
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:14:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:And you must be in tears, presumably? No. Why would I be? I'm just exasperated by CCP's decision to make highsec safer when the exact opposite needs to happen.
It's less "safe" for the gankers now, because they actually have to pay the consequences for their actions, instead of milking a bad game mechanic. So your comment is illogical. -á-á |\_/|-á -á/ @ @ \ -á-á -á( > -¦ < )-á -á`-+-+x-½-½-¦ -á-á / O \ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:15:00 -
[69] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT You realise that this makes things worse for miners, don't you?
Joe Skellington wrote:It's less "safe" for the gankers now, because they actually have to pay the consequences for their actions, instead of milking a bad game mechanic. So your comment is illogical. The reason it was GÇ£safeGÇ¥ for gankers was because the victims chose to make it safe for them. That's their choice and their problem, not something CCP should unbalance the game for. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:15:00 -
[70] - Quote
nvm |
|
Villandra Chassind
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:[ BEST tears! -Can we call them Tt's from now on?
Why not go the whole hog and refer to it as "Tippia in Tears". Everyone loves T i Ts right? |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
suicide ganks will still happen just with chepaer ships now.
Also have you considered that maybe the ships are 100 isk each screwing with the values?
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:21:00 -
[73] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Max Von Sydow wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? And you must be in tears, presumably? Delicious Tippia tears. BEST tears! -Can we call them Tt's from now on?
Guys, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to ignore the troll.
And actually, those tears taste rather bitter. Not really my flavor, but each to his/her own I guess. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:22:00 -
[74] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Finally, carebear suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution. It's a shame most of them are too thick for that!
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here! Grow up! You're playing with the pros now.
High-sec is meant to be safeR! I'm glad CCP changed this, and am looking forward to further improvements to EVE later.
finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK. Whatever will they do now? Probably run level 1 missions because any degree of skill is too much for them
Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT YOU USELESS BABY GANKERS
So many wimpish ganker tears! I'm reeaallly sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! Welcome to EVE. Now there's danger in what you do. LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring incompetant baby suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance! I'm literally drowning in tears over here.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here. This is where we discover that suicide gankers are carebears, and miners are elite EVE pros.
/inflammatory comments FTFY Moar fixin' done. More is still required, though. |
Dondoran
Free Masons United Inc. Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:22:00 -
[75] - Quote
Anyway you want to look at this the simple facts remain tier 3 BC gank machines and real destroyers need to have something balancing them even if you donGÇÖt agree Tippia.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:25:00 -
[76] - Quote
Villandra Chassind wrote:Why not go the whole hog and refer to it as "Tippia in Tears". Everyone loves T i Ts right? Because it would be rather wasteful to attach such a wonderful acronym to something that will never materialise.
Could you make a useful one out of GÇ£funny how people make silly and foolish assumptions about actions based on even more silly and foolish assumptions about intentionsGÇ¥? There's quite a few letters to play with, so there should be something useful there.
Oh wellGǪ anyway: poor miners. They really didn't need this kind of sucker punch. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Zions Child
Odyssey Inc SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:27:00 -
[77] - Quote
Eh, I don't really care much about this change. Destroyers are cheap. Hulkageddon is still fun. Gankers do it for the lulz, not for the profits (that's just an enjoyable side benefit). Probably won't do it in a battleship, but que sera sera. Also, EVE players are immortals, when did blowing up a ship become murder (and no, crew don't count because they're not people)?
Beeteedubs miners: Ships getting blown up is good for business. |
Nypheas Azurai
Azimuth Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:29:00 -
[78] - Quote
I'm also enjoying some of the tears from indy-hate here. While I enjoy seeing a certain individual constantly challenging the obvious - why an insurance company wouldn't pay out for ships lost in criminal acts - I'll concede the point: let gameplay trump over realism & credulity... right?
(because an argument for insurance payouts from criminal activity certainly can't be made from a credibility standpoint, otherwise anyone arguing that has a severe lack of understanding on how insurance works).
So let's examine the current disparity that results in the gameplay: Haulers are told: don't haul what you can't afford to lose. (there's always an alpha strike that will guarantee loss despite any "smart" hauler fit) Gankers are told: don't gank with what you can't afford to lose... MINUS the generous payout from your favorite Insurance Company.
See the problem here? "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" is the universal principle, the equalizer among all EVE pilots, so why does it seem to favour the ganker in that they can afford to lose more than what they fly since they get it back whereas the indy must obey the rule and lose all of his/her cargo?
I propose then equal-opportunity insurance: Insurance for haulers that INCLUDES cargo insurance.
Now both parties can gank and be ganked to their hearts content! (I'm not actually proposing this, just showing the holes in the pro-insurance argument when it's applied equally) |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:31:00 -
[79] - Quote
i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop... |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
i'd love to see concord introduced to low sec BUT the low sec concord are players not npc.
they would have free reign to gank any pirate with a -2.5 or worse sec status.
they would get missions to find and take out pirates. Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
|
Dondoran
Free Masons United Inc. Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
[[ Tippia.[/quote]Of course I agree that they need to have something balancing them. What I'm wondering now is what supposed imbalance it is you're referring to?[/quote]
The new battle cruisers would mean solo ganking is cheaper as thay will cost less than a BS. The more powerfull destroyers will mean less are needed to gank a target all of which benefits gankers greatly. How is this lost on you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:39:00 -
[82] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop... So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed?
Dondoran wrote:The new battle cruisers would mean solo ganking is cheaper as thay will cost less than a BS. The more powerfull destroyers will mean less are needed to gank a target all of which benefits gankers greatly. How is this lost on you?
It's not lost on me. It's just not something I see as a balancing problem. Where is the imbalance? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:44:00 -
[83] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop... So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed?
only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all... and its easy for CCP to make a jail... we have CQ... just remove the door... |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:45:00 -
[84] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed? So you agree, then, that you must be in tears right now?
You've really got to stop the whole assumption thing, T i T, or else I'll just take advantage of it.
|
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Hmm.
I wonder if this is a "two birds with one stone" affair and this is the first step.
First up being that getting Concordokened gave you full insurance never sat well as a concept. So, it now makes more logical sense.
But I wonder if it's tied into the Smuggling that CCP were planning on introducing.
For those not remembering the small details, CCP were going to overhaul the smuggling contraband system for illegal goods and put policing in the hands of the players. I think it was to help players RP the police role and make bounter hunters have a bigger role.
I wonder if CCP are indeed planning on removing Concord or at least, limiting its ability and response times.
They could change it so that what would normally trigger a Concord response gets the killer(s) flagged with a new semi-permanent criminal flag, which can only being lifed on ship destruction (or a pod kill), coupled with having what's left of Concord place bounties on the crims so that the players who partake in policing get a payout for their work.
Could be an interesting mechanic if it's not exploitable. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1202
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:46:00 -
[86] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all... So, basically, drastically increase the sec status loss and/or drastically slow down the ability to earn back sec status? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:51:00 -
[87] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:only if, when police catch you you are thrown in jail for few real weeks... that would be reality then... if you want it all... So, basically, drastically increase the sec status loss and/or drastically slow down the ability to earn back sec status? DarkAegix wrote:[So you agree, then, that you must be in tears right now? No, why would I? And why would I be in tears? You never managed to answer thatGǪ
no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1206
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls... WeeeellGǪ that's not really how the real world, works, no, unless you're talking about some feel-good happy-end Hollywood version of jail. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:55:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:no no no... that would me only deportation to country of third world where is no law... and thats not real world case... in real world when you are in jail you cant influence on anything outside jail walls... WeeeellGǪ that's not really how the real world, works, no, unless you're talking about some feel-good happy-end Hollywood version of jail.
well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1206
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:56:00 -
[90] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that... Only until they get a book deal.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:57:00 -
[91] - Quote
Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:So you agree, then, that you must be in tears right now? I'm being trolled so hard right now, and am not even realising it.
|
Lord Mandelor
Consolidated Holdings War Ensemble.
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:57:00 -
[92] - Quote
The age of the stealth bomber is upon us. ConHo Daily: http://conhodaily.blogspot.com Stories ranging from midgets inside your Damage Control to drones becoming self-aware. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that... Only until they get a book deal.
ok... but they cant drive that car anymore anywhere... thats the point... |
Zions Child
Odyssey Inc SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:59:00 -
[94] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:well... for ppl that are in jail for mass murder... its very like that... Only until they get a book deal.
QFT |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1206
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
So you still think it's a bad idea, then. WellGǪ thanks again for your unwavering support, I suppose.
Are your really sure you want to call attention to the fact that you're trolling like that, though?
Anyway, why would I be in tears? You never managed to answer that, but keep insinuating that I should be and I don't quite see why. It would probably be a better troll if I did, don't you think? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Hmm.
I wonder if this is a "two birds with one stone" affair and this is the first step.
First up being that getting Concordokened gave you full insurance never sat well as a concept. So, it now makes more logical sense.
But I wonder if it's tied into the Smuggling that CCP were planning on introducing.
For those not remembering the small details, CCP were going to overhaul the smuggling contraband system for illegal goods and put policing in the hands of the players. I think it was to help players RP the police role and make bounter hunters have a bigger role.
I wonder if CCP are indeed planning on removing Concord or at least, limiting its ability and response times.
They could change it so that what would normally trigger a Concord response gets the killer(s) flagged with a new semi-permanent criminal flag, which can only being lifed on ship destruction (or a pod kill), coupled with having what's left of Concord place bounties on the crims so that the players who partake in policing get a payout for their work.
Could be an interesting mechanic if it's not exploitable.
It would also be a rather excellent bit of game design and restore a lot of faith for me that CCP aren't afraid of rocking the boat and have still got balls.
i doubt concord will be completely removed.......... its necessary to protect noobs from being perma griefed. Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship?
I think it makes sense that you don't get insurance for it, but I don't think it makes much of a difference because such ships are cheap to replace anyway.
Unless your usual kind of brand for a suicide rush is a Tengu of course. |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:07:00 -
[98] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So, I'm still assuming terrible ideas, then. WellGǪ That means I need emotional support, I suppose. You are an excellent, handsome troll and your posts are extremely effective at riling me up Anyway, I'm in tears. They're streaming down onto my keyboard, and all of your insinuations are entirely correct. It would probably be a good idea if I stopped posting, don't you think?
|
Aurelius Valentius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:Singularity has some wonderful new ships and textures and nebulae... yes yes, well and good, but did you notice the new policy that appears to be in effect? Namely:
If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
for better or for worse it looks like CCP is taking a stand on Suicide ganking, hulk-a-geddon, or market manipulation via proxy war on items, or all of the above.
What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious?
FWIW: i have no horse in this race, but if nothing else it may push those looking for PvP into more desparate measures and might incite some violence in 0.0, and thats always a good thing.
GANKing for ISK is impure!!! GANKING For the sheer joy should be worth that pesky little ISK you lose... come one now... Ganking is not for the money it's for the KM and the happy, happy tears!.... it has to have a cost also or too many people would be enjoying this wonderful sport and that cannot be allowed...
10/10 I support a No Insurance for CONCORDED ships - this works for me!!!!... seperates the wannabies from the TRUE GANKERS... be a man and take it on the wallet for your profession... oh the sweet tears in local... WHAAAAA.... that RAVEN killed my WALLET!!!!... oooh carebears do love the sound of the tears!!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:08:00 -
[100] - Quote
Aidan Brooder wrote:Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship? No, not really. Largely because there's no rage or tears. Rather, it's just some kind of sigh and eye-roll at CCP ruining the game further for miners and needlessly making highsec safer when it would be served well by a decent increase in danger. Why would I be in tears? I honestly don't get it. If you want to troll me, you need to at least explain that part, or I won't be able to be angry with you GÇö just confused. Are you trying to rile me up by agreeing with me? Is that it? If so, it's a very weird tacticGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
ACE McFACE
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:09:00 -
[101] - Quote
pfft, i forget to insure all the time, this hardly effects me and when I occassionally find a mack to gank ZE GOGGLES, ZEY DO NOTHING! (Not wearing them so don't waste your time reading this sig) |
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:11:00 -
[102] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aidan Brooder wrote:Eh... Really? All this rage and tears because you don't get the bloody insurance money for a suicide ship? No, not really. Largely because there's no rage or tears. Rather, it's just some kind of sigh and eye-roll at CCP ruining the game further for miners and needlessly making highsec safer when it would be served well by a decent increase in danger. Why would I be in tears? I honestly don't get it. If you want to troll me, you need to at least explain that part, or I won't be able to be angry with you GÇö just confused.
They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp. But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:15:00 -
[103] - Quote
Aidan Brooder wrote:They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp. But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt. That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them.
This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well.
Oh wellGǪ with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
232
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:22:00 -
[104] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why am I in tears? I can't control them. You're trolling me into an endless spiral of confusion You're succeeding in riling me up by leaving me utterly flabbergasted. Is that it? If so, it's a very effective tacticGǪ You're finally starting to see it. I'm leaving now. Hopefully we've all learned something today. I know I have. |
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aidan Brooder wrote:They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp. But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt. That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them. This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well. Oh wellGǪ with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough).
The suicide tactic is stupid, you have to admit that. And yes, there are human crews on the bigger ships, too. Who cares? And losing the few ISK for a BC ain't the world anyway.
But: Instead they should make better (programatic) rules for corp warfare. And make NPC corp players targets if they hang around for too long. (FW? ) |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:25:00 -
[106] - Quote
Before all these furries and mad bot owners get too carried away:
A catalyst can gank a mackinaw RIGHT NOW, before patch boost and who the hell insures destroyers as it is. Trashers will still hunt yo tard bombers and cov ops.
Hauler targets of around 100-ish mil will still be viable with hurricanes even uninsured.
Alpha Battleships are rarely used for less than 200-300 mil but the tier 3 BCs will offset the no insurance cost to the ganker since they be cheaper
And guess what, Smartbomb ganks are often used for LOLS and you can't put a price on the LOLS.
I do give you one though, hulk ganking with a BC might wear on the wallet but on the positive side, that's why there's dessies and friends or alts.
Now that is placed in perspective... U MAD? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
1891
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:29:00 -
[107] - Quote
I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Handsome Hussein
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:32:00 -
[108] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. This, really. And the complacency of high-seccers will make it even easier. Leaves only the fresh scent of pine. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:33:00 -
[109] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:You're finally starting to see it. Am I? I'm just getting more confused with your trollsGǪ that is what they are, right? You said so before, but maybe that was the trollGǪ
GǪin which case, that's probably the first paradox-meta-troll I've ever seen. Impressive (of a sort). I'm still more confused than riled up, though, and I still don't get what the tears are supposed to be about.
Aidan Brooder wrote:The suicide tactic is stupid, you have to admit that. And yes, there are human crews on the bigger ships, too. Who cares? And losing the few ISK for a BC ain't the world anyway. I agree that replacing wardecs with mandatory suicide ganks (and then disincentivising those ganks) is pretty stupid. There should definitely be some way of deal with your opponents/enemies/competitors that is more formalised than that.
At the same time, ganks most definitely need to remain as a constant threat for the careless and inattentive.
Quote:But: Instead they should make better (programatic) rules for corp warfare. And make NPC corp players targets if they hang around for too long. (FW? ) WeeeellGǪ I'm not entirely convinced that pushing NPC corpers into some FW-like arrangement is a good way to go. They already pay a hefty price for that membership in terms of what they are allowed to do, and there are were still ways of getting to them. It's not as horrid a solution as forcing them into player corps, but it just seems a bit heavy-handed. I'd rather move in the direction of more restrictions and/or higher costs for a wider range of activities. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Selinate
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:38:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears.
I think most people realize that suicide ganking won't stop because of this, but the world WILL make a little more sense after this change. |
|
LuminousAxle
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:41:00 -
[111] - Quote
Would this change also act as an isk sink? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:42:00 -
[112] - Quote
LuminousAxle wrote:Would this change also act as an isk sink? Nope. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
1892
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:48:00 -
[113] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Mag's wrote:I hope this is true. It's something I actually wanted for some time ago, mostly because of the shock when suiciding doesn't actually stop. Oh there will be tears. I think most people realize that suicide ganking won't stop because of this, but the world WILL make a little more sense after this change. Please don't try to bring sense into this. We are talking about a game mechanic, not a RL one. Many things in Eve don't make sense, but they are there because it aids the game.
I do actually like this change if true, but not for some ridiculous makes sense argument.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
LuminousAxle
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:55:00 -
[114] - Quote
Tippia wrote:LuminousAxle wrote:Would this change also act as an isk sink? Nope.
Ok. But wouldn't this change at least stop new Isk being created by the insurance company after a gank. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:58:00 -
[115] - Quote
LuminousAxle wrote:Ok. But wouldn't this change at least stop new Isk being created by the insurance company after a gank. Yes. It makes a faucet activate ever so slightly less often.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Dalloway Jones
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:01:00 -
[116] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
The only way they could make ganking much easier than it is right now is to have every Thrasher group or Brutix have a big red button on their dashboard that says "press this to asplode a hulk". |
Jenshae Chiroptera
107
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:05:00 -
[117] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. How so?
Tippia wrote:People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. How so?
Tippia wrote:It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. How so?
How so?
How so? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Montevius Williams
Eclipse Industrial Inc
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:05:00 -
[118] - Quote
I dont understand the issue? You can still get ganked...you just wont be paid insurance for doing a criminal act. Whats the issue again? |
Hamster Too
No Name Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:06:00 -
[119] - Quote
Anyone claiming that high-sec is safe is talking out of his (or hers) a**...
There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. You just have to be prepared to either [a] accept the consequences of engaging in non-consensual combat or [b] spending your time and effort in tricking the target to give you the right to fire without Concord showing up and rudely interrupting you the fun you are having with him.
You don't like people feeling safe? You are free to dispel that feeling at any time. Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec.
The insurance was a crutch. A thick layer of bubble wrap making sure that the ganker did not get hurt by a failed gank. Its removal will not stop the professionals that are adept at judging the value of potential payout, nor will it stop people ganking for the LOLs. The only people who will be butthurt by it will be the inept ones who were in effect playing EVE in a very easy mode. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
142
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:09:00 -
[120] - Quote
I'd support removing concord if you could no longer biomass negative sec status and neg sec status wasn't allowed in high sec and trials were weapons locked in HS against players. Then suicide all you want, but farm back up your rep. Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:15:00 -
[121] - Quote
Dalloway Jones wrote:The only way they could make ganking much easier than it is right now is to have every Thrasher group or Brutix have a big red button on their dashboard that says "press this to asplode a hulk". Considering how rare ganks are, there is obviously quite a bit that can be done to make them easier.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:How so? Because griefing is a bannable offence. The other two GÇ£how soGÇ¥s are answered by the assertions they follow. You need a different question for those.
Hamster Too wrote:There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. GǪand yet, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because highsec is defined by having costs tied to all kinds of aggression. The problem is that when these costs get too high, the aggression drastically decreases and thus makes highsec too safe.
We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
Quote:You don't like people feeling safe? Only if it's a false safety. Otherwise, it starts to negatively affect the economy.
Quote:Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec. You do realise that this is an argument against the removal of insurance, don't you? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:19:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:19:00 -
[123] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. How so? Tippia wrote:People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. How so? Tippia wrote:It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. How so? How so? How so?
This padawan, "gets it."
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1212
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:22:00 -
[124] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade.
MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Montevius Williams
Eclipse Industrial Inc
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:24:00 -
[125] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out.
I would like to know the answer to this as well. |
Soporo
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Hamster Too wrote:Anyone claiming that high-sec is safe is talking out of his (or hers) a**...
There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. You just have to be prepared to either
[a] accept the consequences of engaging in non-consensual combat or
[b] spending your time and effort in tricking the target to give you the right to fire without Concord showing up and rudely interrupting you the fun you are having with him.
You don't like people feeling safe? You are free to dispel that feeling at any time. Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:25:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade. MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim.
High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. Just cuz your flying in a straight line doesnt mean they are which means even if you many scouts its still almost impossible to know. Especially if they are all docked up in a station waiting for you to pass through before undocking in which case there is no way to know. |
Selinate
86
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:31:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. If you can't spot a 50 BS gank, you need to fire your scouts. It's fair to the freighter pilot because it's so easy to spot and evade.
Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey, and then the BS fleet warps in and suicide ganks the freighter.
Or a fleet using log off mechanics for the same thing.
No, they should definitely lose their BS's either way, it's not fair. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:32:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
7/10
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
416
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:33:00 -
[130] - Quote
I have to say I feel vindicated in my years long campaign to remove insurance.
While I'd like to see it removed completely less one month for new players, it's a step in the right direction.
It's not about the ganking for me. Ganking is a part of the game and I dare say a fun part of the game. It won't affect that much. Just lessen the random griefers doing it for the lulz.
No, for me it's about what EVE is supposed to be. To paraphrase Pierre Eliot Trudeau: The powers that be have no place in the bedrooms of EVE. In other words, CCP's role should not be that of a nanny. This is a sandbox. A player run economy. Insurance is not in the spirit of that philosophy.
If someone wants insurance then make a corporation that specializes in it.
I see this as a positive move and can only be good for EVE in the long run.
Mr Epeen If you can read this, you haven't blocked me yet. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:38:00 -
[131] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. GǪand that is why ganks are so easy to avoid.
Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted.
Quote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade them, but that was not what he was doing. So the difference is quite significant. Which part do you disagree with, and why?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:39:00 -
[132] - Quote
Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:40:00 -
[133] - Quote
Andski wrote:Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ Nah. You have to use Catalysts insteadGǪ poor you.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Takashi X2
Eleventh Hour Guardians
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:41:00 -
[134] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:High sec isnt like 0.0 there are many ways and routes around and to your sides. GǪand that is why ganks are so easy to avoid. Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted. Quote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade them, but that was not what he was doing. So the difference is quite significant. Which part do you disagree with, and why? Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Andski wrote:Damn it, now I won't be able to use a 1400 Tempest to blap mackinaws just for ~kicks~ Nah. You have to use Catalysts insteadGǪ poor you.
Losing a Brutix entirely is cheaper than losing a fully insured Tempest in any case, but it was hilarious. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:45:00 -
[136] - Quote
Takashi X2 wrote:Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? Because I missed in the mass of quotes.
Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere. The trap hinges on the enemy scout being able to see where you're warping so people can log in and get ready on the other side. If you don't go to the gate you warp out towards, the trap fails.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:46:00 -
[137] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey GǪin which case it can be spotted.
Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan.
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:And you're any different how? For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade
This is laughable. You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere.
This is hilarious stuff.
|
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:48:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Why did you skip the quote about the log on trap and stations? Because I missed in the mass of quotes. Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere. The trap hinges on the enemy scout being able to see where you're warping so people can log in and get ready on the other side. If you don't go to the gate you warp out towards, the trap fails.
Trolling again. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:57:00 -
[140] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan. If you've scouted the route, yes.
Quote:You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers. No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes. Yes, in some cases, they answers may seem obvious, but I still prefer that hey actually give those answers than to presume to know their reasoning, because I don't.
For some reason, a huge number of people seem to be highly offended by the mere thought of having to explain themselves and to argue for what they believe. This makes them want to label me as trolls, when in fact, it is an excellent opportunity to show why their perspective is preferable to others.
The reason I want that information is because it is usually far more fruitful to argue those underlying assumptions and normative statements than the road from those to some end result. If I were to presume why people don't want to go there, it is because they are aware that those statements are at odds with some fundamental design philosophy of the game.
MeestaPenni wrote:This is hilarious stuff. Yes. Laughingly easy.
Selinate wrote:Trolling again. How so?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Avon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:58:00 -
[141] - Quote
The same insurance mechanic should apply no matter how a ship is lost. That isn't a complaint; I for one look forward to the removal of insurance all together. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:00:00 -
[142] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes.
Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of.
Today's "troll keyword": simply.
|
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:03:00 -
[143] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Tippia wrote:No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes.
Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of. Today's "troll keyword": simply.
I will refer to this individual from now on when discussing all cases of T i T. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:04:00 -
[144] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Obtuse.....that's the word I'm thinking of. Why?
Quote:Today's "troll keyword": simply. Yeah, seeGǪ this is why I don't troll. Far too much effort for no appreciable reward (well, not appreciated by me at least). It's much simpler and much more rewarding to just try to get straight answers, because at least then you can have some kind of discussion.
As to why some people so abhor straight answerGǪ you'll have to ask them.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:11:00 -
[145] - Quote
How so?
Tippia wrote:Today's "troll keyword": simply. How so?
Tippia wrote:Yeah, seeGǪ Is it really? How so?
Tippia wrote:this is why I don't troll. Who's crying? I'm not crying? I'm peeling an onion. That's all.
Tippia wrote:Far too much effort If by effort you mean no effort, then you are correct in your assertion. |
Hamster Too
No Name Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:14:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hamster Too wrote:There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec. GǪand yet, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because highsec is defined by having costs tied to all kinds of aggression. The problem is that when these costs get too high, the aggression drastically decreases and thus makes highsec too safe. We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer. Everything has a cost. A low-sec pirate wants a kill? He has to spend ISK/time to hunt down someone. Null sec dwellers want sov in a system? Again, they have to spend time and ISK to obtain and defend it. Why should high-sec agression not have an associated cost? All these actions affect other players, why should high-sec agression be cheap?
If you care you can disrupt high-sec easily enough. Null-sec is supposed to be well organized. Descend on all of the carebears in high enough numbers and you'll make life very difficult here. Build one less supercap and spend the money instead to fund the anti high-sec campaign. Just look at Goons, it can be done.
But don't stop at that: while making life difficult in high-sec invite those same people to null. Spend time teaching and nurturing them and I am quite sure that quite a few will stick around.
As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time.
Tippia wrote:Quote:You don't like people feeling safe? Only if it's a false safety. Otherwise, it starts to negatively affect the economy. Quote:Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec. You do realise that this is an argument against the removal of insurance, don't you? It is a false sense of security You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it? What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank? |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:15:00 -
[147] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:This padawan, "gets it." Not quite yet. He still needs to match the question to the claim. Also, he needs to not troll with pointless repetition. How so? |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:17:00 -
[148] - Quote
Seriously? You need me to go Google up a definition of 'obtuse' for you?
Protip: the underlying concept behind your "why?", actually defines the term.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:34:00 -
[149] - Quote
Hamster Too wrote:Everything has a cost. Fair enough. What I'm referring to is the one thing that defines highsec: that aggression costs. You can either pay it by losing your ship (suicide) or by handing over ISK to CONCORD (wardec). This is in addition to the various opportunity costs you mention. Thus, high-sec aggression does have an associated costs and it isGǪ well, let's just call it Gǣless cheapGǥ than elsewhere.
Quote:As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time. I have been targeted by ganks four times GÇö two of those in my first year, one in my second, one in my third, and none since (ok, I landed in a disco trap recently, but it wasn't particularly aimed at me, and it was all suicide and no gank). I've also lived for quite a while in a very obvious ganking area and travelled constantly across an equally obvious ganking pipeline. The sum of those experiences is that ganks have become increasingly rare over the years.
Quote:It is a false sense of security Good. WellGǪ no, it's bad, really. They shouldn't trick themselves that way. Preferably, they should be fully aware of the risks so they take the precautions needed to mitigate them and thus earn a sense of measured security GÇö one that they have created for themselves.
Quote:You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it? I don't need to change anything, but at the same time, I don't see the need for it to change either. I don't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to feel safe GÇö I mean that the safety they feel should be of their own making, not one created by the game restricting gameplay in such a way that safety is the only feeling you can have.
Quote:What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank? Quite the opposite, actually. Remove that false sense of safety that lets them make such horrible mistakes and replace it with a sense of calculated and gauged safety that lets them judge what they can safely get away with without becoming that loot pi+¦ata.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1214
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:34:00 -
[150] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Seriously? You need me to go Google up a definition of 'obtuse' for you? No, but you can stop illustrating it by pretending to not understand what the GÇ£whyGÇ¥ in question was in relation to. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Selinate
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Seriously? You need me to go Google up a definition of 'obtuse' for you? No, but you can stop illustrating it by pretending to not understand what the GÇ£whyGÇ¥ in question was in relation to.
And you can stop pretending that he didn't answer your "why?" in his response. |
Hamster Too
No Name Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:43:00 -
[152] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aidan Brooder wrote:They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp. But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt. That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them. This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well. Oh wellGǪ with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough).
If the corp keeps shedding the wardecs send them a note that they will be suicide ganked until further notice. Open a petition with a copy of the note and ask for a definition of griefing so you don't cross the line.
The way I see it the latest wardec changes are a good counterbalance to the plague of neutral reps, neutral boosters... neutral Orca pilots. Did I miss anything? |
Covert Kitty
SRS Industries SRS.
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:47:00 -
[153] - Quote
bah insurance payouts for concorded ships was always, heck insurance payouts as a whole, are a silly feature anyway. It's probably an improvement overall.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1216
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:01:00 -
[154] - Quote
Selinate wrote:And you can stop pretending that he didn't answer your "why?" in his response. I have to start before I can stop.
So, let's do that one again: why does GÇ£[my] trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishesGÇ¥ make him think of the word GÇ£obtuseGÇ¥, especially considering the explicit caveat that GÇ£the answers may seem obvious, but I still prefer that hey actually give those answers than to presume to know their reasoning, because I don't.GÇ¥
Or, put another way: why should I assume things rather than to strive for certainty? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Lairne Tekitsu
Ordo Mercuia
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:01:00 -
[155] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Skorpynekomimi wrote:
I hope they go the whole way, and remove insurance completely.
+1 on a side note,: Tippia just got successfully trolled with one of the oldest troll attempts on the interwebs, which is repeatedly just posting 'troll'.
No, he's only been trolled if gets angry, which he hasn't.
There's a difference between trying to troll someone and succeeding. |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:03:00 -
[156] - Quote
Lack of insurance payout wouldnt have saved this Orca.
|
Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:05:00 -
[157] - Quote
This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world. The sad truth about morality in EvE : eve-search.com/search/author/EpicFailTroll |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:07:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Or, put another way: why should I assume things rather than to strive for certainty?
It's obvious you will cheerfully ignore that which is certainty.
You can't even wrap your head around the comical illogic of insurance payouts for what the mechanics of the game deem to be illegal acts.
"How so?" you say.....and normal posters slowly shake their heads and silently mouth..."what the fu.....?"
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:13:00 -
[159] - Quote
I've seen very few people come right out and say "stop the ganking." A couple, not many. Point is....go ahead and keep the gank in the game. There is absolutely a valid place in the game for the practice. If I had the chance to gank a hauler with uber loots....pew pew pew.
There is no sane way to validate the practice of subsidizing that type of play though. And that is what insurance is....a subsidy to ease the loss of a ship. Missioners have no mechanism to subsidize the ammunition lost, or the drones damaged.....and the ganker considers the ship to be no more important than ammo. It is a piece of ammo. |
Selinate
88
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world.
How does eve not condone grief play any more? Go scam someone with the market mechanics. Or better yet, go flip some poor miner's can, let him shoot you, then warp in with a bigger ship.
Or even better yet, go suicide gank a hauler with 3 bil worth of faction stuff on his indy, since the profit will just be slightly smaller, but negligibly smaller. |
|
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:18:00 -
[161] - Quote
Now wait a second...
Does anyone really think that the big organized suicide ganking alliances care about a few million ISK work of Brutix? They're doing it for the tears and taking out 200m exumers. Taking away some pocket change reimbursal won't change anything. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
Villandra Chassind wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:[ BEST tears! -Can we call them Tt's from now on? Why not go the whole hog and refer to it as "Tippia in Tears". Everyone loves T i Ts right?
I approve. T i T s!
While we remove the insurance payout can we please take out this annoying filter? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1216
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:19:00 -
[163] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:It's obvious you will cheerfully ignore that which is certainty. No. It is just that I cheerfully don't assume that something is a certainty.
Quote:You can't even wrap your head around the comical illogic of insurance payouts for what the mechanics of the game deem to be illegal acts. Of course I can. It's just that I can also see the logic of having mechanics in place that makes no real-world sense if they benefit gameplay. CONCORD is another such example: it is utterly illogical, just like insurance, but it serves a purpose in the game and thus has its place.
Quote:"How so?" you say.....and normal posters slowly shake their heads and silently mouth..."what the fu.....?" Yes, GÇ£how so?GÇ¥, I say, and thus probe for knowledge, in whomever made the claim, about what the purpose of insurance is in EVE. If all they can think of as an answer is some real-life comparison, they are overlooking what the insurance is actually doing, and thus their assumed lack of logic is in fact a lack of perspective. They are arguing game mechanics without considering the game mechanic.
Selinate wrote:How does eve not condone grief play any more? EVE has never condoned grief play. Grief play is against the EULA and will get you banned. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Selinate
88
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:20:00 -
[164] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:It's obvious you will cheerfully ignore that which is certainty. No. It is just that I cheerfully don't assume that something is a certainty. Quote:You can't even wrap your head around the comical illogic of insurance payouts for what the mechanics of the game deem to be illegal acts. Of course I can. It's just that I can also see the logic of having mechanics in place that makes no real-world sense if they benefit gameplay. CONCORD is another such example: it is utterly illogical, just like insurance, but it serves a purpose in the game and thus has its place. Quote:"How so?" you say.....and normal posters slowly shake their heads and silently mouth..."what the fu.....?" Yes, GÇ£how so?GÇ¥, I say, and thus probe for knowledge, in whomever made the claim, about what the purpose of insurance is in EVE. If all they can think of as an answer is some real-life comparison, they are overlooking what the insurance is actually doing, and thus their assumed lack of logic is in fact a lack of perspective. They are arguing game mechanics without considering the game mechanic.
Still trolling. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:24:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CONCORD is another such example: it is utterly illogical, just like insurance, but it serves a purpose in the game and thus has its place.
If it's "utterly illogical".....how can it "have its place" and "serve a purpose?"
Please....explain why CONCORD is "utterly illogical."
|
Naari Talvanis
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:25:00 -
[166] - Quote
At last.. now let's all sit back and watch the griefer tears.. Doubt we'll see many of the strategic or smart gankers crying in here though.. It's still possible to gank.. but it shouldn't be easy..
And for the people moaning that we're moving to pvp being consentual, move to low or 0.0, or moan for them to improve the wardec mechanic, which would actually be usefull.
Seeing people claim ganking has anything to do with pvp or smart fitting makes me enjoy the tears that will surely come even more.. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1216
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 05:26:00 -
[167] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Still trolling. How so?
MeestaPenni wrote:If it's "utterly illogical".....how can it "have its place" and "serve a purpose?" The same way I can be a Top Hat in monopoly GÇö utterly illogical, but still with a purpose.
On the surface, it's because logic is not strictly required in order to have a purpose. More fundamentally, though, it's because we are talking about two completely separate systems of logic.
Suicide-insurance is illogical GÇö or, more accurately, unrealistic GÇö because no real-world insurance company would pay out if the customer willingly and with intent put himself in a situation where he'd with utmost certainty be destroyedGǪ even less so if the situation was one where he was committing a crimeGǪ and even less so if he kept doing it over and over again. It is illogical because the common logic of a business is that it is there to make money and to keep everyone from going to jail for aiding and abetting criminals (although some might argue this latter pointGǪ).
Suicide-insurance is logical because it is not a simulation of a real-world insurance company, but rather a game mechanic that is intended to incentivise the destruction of ships. This is a good thing because such destruction generates demand for goods and keeps the economy flowing. It is particularly logical if certain ships are particularly likely to be ganked and if, without these ganks, those ships would be in very low demand. The real-world-illogic is utterly irrelevant because the mechanic does not serve the same purpose as the real-world business. So being utterly illogical and still serving a purpose is not in any way contradictory.
Quote:Please....explain why CONCORD is "utterly illogical." It is utterly illogical in the same way as suicide-insurance is illogical GÇö or, more accurately, unrealistic. No real-world police force teleports to the scene of the crime without being called; it does not instantly know who the culprits are, and it does not instantly kill (almost) everyone involved. In particular, no real-world police force has what can only be described as the hand of God backing them up, condemning anyone who somehow manages to avoid them to eternal damnation. It is illogical because the common logic of a police force is to apprehend and investigate suspected criminal acts so the suspects can be handed off to the criminal justice system.
CONCORD is logical because it is not a simulation of a real-world police force, but rather a game mechanic that is intended to define highsec: it is there to ensure that aggression in certain parts of space comes at a cost. This is a good thing because it creates an area where people can hedge their resources against the hope that the general miserliness of other players will keep them from attacking people all willy-nilly. It also ensures that certain acts of aggression are pretty much impossible due to hardware limitations, and thus opens up a market for the other way of paying that defining aggression cost. In order to maintain this defining characteristic, any tactic that circumvents it is considered an exploit and will be answered with actions taken against your account. The real-world-illogic is utterly irrelevant because the mechanic does not serve the same purpose as the real-world police force (in fact, a different mechanic is in place to simulate that part far more closely). Once again, being completely illogical and at the same time serving a purpose is not in any way contradictory.
Naari Talvanis wrote:At last.. now let's all sit back and watch the griefer tears.. They have to find this thread first, which would explain the lack of tears so farGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 05:30:00 -
[168] - Quote
The real tears will be from the miners when they find out that gankers actually do not give a crap about insurance. |
SilentSkills
Estrale Frontiers
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 05:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
Crap. my bucket is full..
/gets new tear bucket
Can't have enough ganker tears! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:12:00 -
[170] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:The real tears will be from the miners when they find out that gankers actually do not give a crap about insurance.
not empty quoting |
|
Embrace My Hate
Black Horizon. Test Friends Please Ignore
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:14:00 -
[171] - Quote
I am tired of posting on the topic so I'll just say this.
Inb4 victims cry because gankers are exploiting every loophole in the book and still getting insurance.
Inb4 Victims cry because ganking escalates cause you ****** with the wrong crowd. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:15:00 -
[172] - Quote
SilentSkills wrote:Crap. my bucket is full..
/gets new tear bucket
Can't have enough ganker tears!
Gankers, unlike most of their victims, are able to adjust their tactics when game mechanics are changed against their favor.
I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves. |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
226
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:16:00 -
[173] - Quote
ShipToaster wrote:Wait, you mean Poetic Stanzeil was right? Score one for the tinfoil hatters. Hilmar said he wanted to make CONCORD smarter ... I suppose those smarts was invalidating insurance claims. :)
This won't put an end to ganking. It won't put an end to ganking for profit. Nor should it. Ganking is a valuable part of this game. But gankers will have to use a couple braincells in their target selection. They might even have to create a spreadsheet. ;)
Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:18:00 -
[174] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:ShipToaster wrote:Wait, you mean Poetic Stanzeil was right? Score one for the tinfoil hatters. Hilmar said he wanted to make CONCORD smarter ... I suppose those smarts was invalidating insurance claims. :) This won't put an end to ganking. It won't put an end to ganking for profit. Nor should it. Ganking is a valuable part of this game. But gankers will have to use a couple braincells in their target selection. They might even have to create a spreadsheet. ;)
By the time any ganker worth his salt is redboxing you, he already knows exactly how you're fit.
On our end, we might have to increase our bounty payouts and throw in a slight cushion for flubbed ganks, but this will not put a dent in our campaign in the /slightest./ |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
278
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:23:00 -
[175] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:The real tears will be from the miners when they find out that gankers actually do not give a crap about insurance.
Yes, this change will be more of a boon to the bigger haulers like Orcas, Freighters and Jump Freighters. It really won't affect (much) the ganking of mining barges and exhumers.
(The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.) |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
226
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:25:00 -
[176] - Quote
Andski wrote:On our end, we might have to increase our bounty payouts and throw in a slight cushion for flubbed ganks, but this will not put a dent in our campaign in the /slightest./ Hopefully the screaming doesn't force CCP to take highsec protection a step further.
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:27:00 -
[177] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:(The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.)
Bombers are more fragile than, say, Punishers. Nobody complains about that. |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
239
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:31:00 -
[178] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Tippia wrote:No, that's basically the only sensible and non-magical part of CONCORD.
I am gonna go a head and doubt that letting every Killer have free reign in the space they killed is the most sensible thing about them. Sensible would be coordinating off the wreck setting the perp to -5 and sending him on his way out the door. I am sure Suicide Ganking would go down quite a bit. Which is exactly what the Police would want. But that would be a lot less fun then smoking some dudes Barge in a Rax. I'd say a realistic police would throw you into prison for a few months or years. Perhaps they won't catch you as fast as concord does but if they catch you you'd be dragged out of your pod and won't be able to fly spaceships for a long time. |
Bloody Wench
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:35:00 -
[179] - Quote
This won't stop hisec suiciders at all, and it's not meant to.
If you think it will lead to a sudden blossoming of T1 haulers carrying billions worth of loot you're out of your mind.
It will make target selection a bit more 'selective'. It's a little more of a gamble in drops vs costs.
It simply removes a rediculous mechanic where you get reimbursed for your crime. Where you get bailed out regardless if you get a crap roll on loot drops.
If you think this will put even the slightest dent in the shannigans of entities like GSF you're sadly mistaken.
25 mill for fully fit gank Brutix. Do you really think that 25 mill is worth any consideration at all?
It's a broken mechanic, and it deserves to go away. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:46:00 -
[180] - Quote
This will help a bit but I doubt it will even cause a 10 percent drop in the ganks.
Why? Because in the old days the ganking was done in teams for direct and risk free epic profit. However, Today it is far less direct but gain as far as market prices.
The big nullsec alliances are greatly benefiting from higher mineral prices that their bots produce. And yes I accuse many of knowingly using bots. Or turning a blind eye because they are "blue"
However the ganking is mostly scaring the active players away from the belts. The bots don't give a rats butt because they can easily replace lost ships and they don't have to worry about playtime. Therefore the next time some alliance alt tells you they are just trying to "clean up the bots" please keep that in mind.
So we need alot more to end this crap. Namely giving mining craft slow to no regen buffers that can outlast an alpha strike to give current concord time to respond.
I propose that all mining craft be given a massive boost to structure hit points. |
|
Psychophantic
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:52:00 -
[181] - Quote
OMG
Suicide ganking actually has a consequence now? |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:52:00 -
[182] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world.
There is a VAST difference between grief play and stuff that big guys use to affect everything.
The days of pwning a mission runner for the luls are mostly gone. These attacks had a singular goal of causing market chaos so that jump freighter after freighter could arrive to save the day at obviously a HUGE profit for the big alliance doing it at the cost of smaller alliances.
As for dec shields. A temporary truce on the issue that CCP has stated they will address properly in the future. That does not count at all. |
Psychophantic
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:53:00 -
[183] - Quote
I bet you're a hoot at parties.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
227
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So we need alot more to end this crap. Ganking is a vital part of EVE Online. If you do not think it is, you need to quit and sign up with a Korean MMO.
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:08:00 -
[185] - Quote
Very pleased with this change. Not that I want suicide ganking to stop or slow down. I hope it picks up. I want gankers (particularly the lulzy kind) to be forced to work harder earning isk to pay for their lulz. |
baltec1
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:21:00 -
[186] - Quote
I make 20 mil every time my wallet flashes which is enough to pay for around 20 gank thashers, 2 gank rax or one gank brutix. The interdiction will continue. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:22:00 -
[187] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This will help a bit but I doubt it will even cause a 10 percent drop in the ganks.
Why? Because in the old days the ganking was done in teams for direct and risk free epic profit. However, Today it is far less direct but gain as far as market prices.
The big nullsec alliances are greatly benefiting from higher mineral prices that their bots produce. And yes I accuse many of knowingly using bots. Or turning a blind eye because they are "blue"
However the ganking is mostly scaring the active players away from the belts. The bots don't give a rats butt because they can easily replace lost ships and they don't have to worry about playtime. Therefore the next time some alliance alt tells you they are just trying to "clean up the bots" please keep that in mind.
So we need alot more to end this crap. Namely giving mining craft slow to no regen buffers that can outlast an alpha strike to give current concord time to respond.
I propose that all mining craft be given a massive boost to structure hit points.
ahahahahahahahahaha |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:29:00 -
[188] - Quote
This will change nothing.
Gankers will still gank end of story. They loot they pick up will just need to exceed their ship and module loss.
as for miners......... They dont really care. hulks will still get ganked, so will macks.
All removing insurance will do is weed out weaker gankers and eliminate an isk faucet. |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 07:53:00 -
[189] - Quote
Nice. However it could be much better (also) to extend insurance to full price of T2 ships, modules and rigs. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:16:00 -
[190] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
According to another thread and Twitter theyre doing the opposite "If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:16:00 -
[191] - Quote
Anyone notice how the carebears that are completely unable to create tears of their own eagerly clutch at anything somebody that doesn't agree with them says and claim they are tears?
Just so you understand, you do know this wont save miners? Nor will it save idiots that cram several hundred million into a T1 hauler, and it wont save 5b isk Tengus either. So before you go around cheering and calling opinions "tears" you should really think about those three facts. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:18:00 -
[192] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Agreed. Unlikely it's going to happen I'm afraid. A sad day for eve.
Ive said exactly that but they seem to be going in the opposite direction instead.
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:27:00 -
[193] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded.
Yeah well... When is the last time someone was actually punished for griefing in EVE.... 2007? Kugu for griefing CCP? **** FiS Its Called EVE |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:32:00 -
[194] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:SilentSkills wrote:It wont affect suicide ganking much, a thorax is pretty cheap, and destroyers got buffed. Really this. The only change is less Solo Arty Battleships and more teams of smaller attack ships. It is part of EVE's new group content.
Well that an the one group ppl (who are even pissed off about gankers) are really pissed about suicide ganking right now is Goons and I dont see them giving 2 ***** about this.
Maybe theyll give high sec dwellers a PVP flag system **** FiS Its Called EVE |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed.
Please keep the discussion on track and refrain from personal attacks.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:50:00 -
[196] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:53:00 -
[197] - Quote
There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer.
Welp.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:57:00 -
[198] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:Anyone notice how the carebears that are completely unable to create tears of their own eagerly clutch at anything somebody that doesn't agree with them says and claim they are tears?
Just so you understand, you do know this wont save miners? Nor will it save idiots that cram several hundred million into a T1 hauler, and it wont save 5b isk Tengus either. So before you go around cheering and calling opinions "tears" you should really think about those three facts.
YOU ARE RUINING THE WHOLE PLAN.
:mad: |
TharOkha
0asis Group
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:19:00 -
[199] - Quote
It will change nothing, just reduce LOL ganking (and i think its right). Hulks or t1 haulers will be still targets. GÇ£Reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
1892
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:27:00 -
[200] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer. Welp. Can you imagine the whines after this change, when it carries on as before.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
Shawnm339
Galactic Shipyards Inc NEM3SIS.
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:40:00 -
[201] - Quote
it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....
If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?
Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo |
Shawnm339
Galactic Shipyards Inc NEM3SIS.
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:42:00 -
[202] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved? LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)
lololol giggle of the day so far
/iseewhatyoudidthere |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:26:00 -
[203] - Quote
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. But it won't stop gankers - only make them select targets more carefuly and maybe gank with swarms of cheaper ships like destroyers instead of solo.
|
Shade Millith
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:33:00 -
[204] - Quote
Quote:it just makes sense end off......if I see a truck driving down the road and ram him to get his booty of ipads which my mate then steals I shouldnt deserve any insurance.....
If I decide I'm going to ram that Mercedes AMG whateverthefookitscalled in my Austin Maestro just for the giggles and subsequent tears should I get insurance?
Of course not it makes no sense......griefers have now got to work for their so called fun boo frigging hoo
The police in RL don't arrive in 5 seconds either. So obviously the timer for concord should be 5 minutes.
This is just CCP bending over and nerfing suicide ganking... again, as they've been doing for the last several years. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:34:00 -
[205] - Quote
i hope that insurance for self-destruct is going to be removed too... its "a little" bit stupid that you get money for car that you blow up with explosive... :/ and if you want money for that you commit insurance fraud and go to jail... |
Ariane VoxDei
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:46:00 -
[206] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Max Von Sydow wrote:Delicious Tippia tears. What? Nothingness has a taste all of a sudden? Igualmentedos wrote:BEST tears! You really shouldn't define something that doesn't exist as GÇ£bestGÇ¥ GÇö it will only set you up for thorough disappointment. Dondoran wrote:This is truly a great idea gankers not getting nearly free ships to grief the innocent with YeahGǪ a couple of problems here: gankers are not griefers, the ships were not nearly free, and ther targets were not innocent. Quote:Anything that hurts that kind of game play is only going to have positive effects on the rest of eve. Quite the opposite GÇö it will only hurt the economy and make it better for botting. Yep, sounds like (politician-)tears alright, when you resort to denial and tautologies.
Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. Head out of ass. Even pimped mission ships can be taken out with considerable ease, so by comparison a indy (t2 or not) or barge/exhumer is loleasy. Barrier to entry against orca/freighter/JF is a bit higher, but still just a matter of making sure the target is worth it (or worth the denial). Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right). If you dont like hisec concordslappy, dont fly there, fly somewhere else. I am sure the hisec residents take a similar approach to low/null/wh if they dont like their experience of those places. The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. And it wont stop those there, wait and see, those ganks will become harder to pull off and the punishments more severe as eve gradually ("slowly boiling the toads") moves towards a more sane and mass-acceptable system for highsec and eventually lowsec.
Also cut the bullcrap, you know better, it wont make a significant boost to botting or real nerf to "economy" by cutting demand (in a miniscule way). Dont delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that the current level of highsec unsanctioned ganks are really denting them or significantly keeping the economy going by blowing up a few ships here and there. To the invidual victim it matters. To the group it is barely a shrug. And certainly not denting the drone region ones or nullsec bears in any way. The goon ice project, which demonstrably has effected the market, is merely a (indirect) market manipulation effort, whether for shortterm speculation or longterm pricesetting to please the icebots - some of which they undoubtedly run themselves - who will gladly pay some % of gross for higher prices and coming under NAP umbrellas. That, after all, is just business. |
Shnejder
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:11:00 -
[207] - Quote
I just see ganked victims in here crying. As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.
|
okst666
Not Solitude Again Chained Reactions
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:18:00 -
[208] - Quote
The whole insurance system in eve is totaly ****** up in my opionion.
Why do I have to insure MY ship from damage by others?
I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.
Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost. [X] < Nail here for new monitor |
Nalia White
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:31:00 -
[209] - Quote
i like it how all the true carebears (read suicide gankers) claim that hisec will be safer with this change. well guess what, it isn't. you still have the same tools (some even get buffed apparantly), CONCORD will act the same, you now just pay more for messing with other players in a zone where people want to not engage in pvp primarly.
this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. now a ganker knows exactly that he will lose his gankerboat and can engage an other player in an uninsured ship and wins double. he gets to loot and even get more insurance money from his lost ship then the victim, how this could be ok in the first place is beyond me but i am relatively new to eve :)
so i welcome this change. and no, i was never killed in "pvp" nor killed someone yet... only ship losses are from npc's
finaly: if you are no carebears and true pvp lovers you wouldn't look for helpless prey in highsec anyway. hypocrits, all of you! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1260
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:32:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ariane VoxDei wrote:Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is GÇö it's inherent in the design of the economy.
Quote:Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right). The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident?
Quote:The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. Why should it? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Nalia White
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:34:00 -
[211] - Quote
Shnejder wrote:I just see ganked victims in here crying. As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.
From my point of view we (gankers) take huge amounts of isk out of the game ccp isnt able to cause of the nice botter ccp is to ****** do ban forever instead of 3 days for the 1st time. We should be awarded by free months for our work.
haha good one. just continue your good work sir, you will be even taking more isk out of the system as you will not be rewarded by your crime with free isk.
thanks for saving eve |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:37:00 -
[212] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ariane VoxDei wrote:Not innocent? Yes, I am sure they are guilty of repeatedly flying practically unarmed, practically untankable ships in a entirely non-agressing way. They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is GÇö it's inherent in the design of the economy. Quote:Fits well with the rest of your thug-think in this thread (the victim was to blame, yeah, right). The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident? Quote:The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. Why should it?
hey Tippia... you only ask why something should change... and why not??? because you dont approve it? yea we know it, but its not (thnx god) up to you.
and
p.s. you see that your kind is here minority... and zillion posts from one person is not zillion opinions, only one...
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1263
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:38:00 -
[213] - Quote
OmniBeton wrote:No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. Shawnm339 wrote:Of course not it makes no sense. okst666 wrote:I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.
Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost. Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
Nalia White wrote:this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. GǪby that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:39:00 -
[214] - Quote
Cpt Fina wrote: Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.
The trusims / principles of the game, or more precisely their implementation are subjective. For example one principle is risk vs reward, in the case of ganking in hi-sec (miners especially), I think the risk vs reward is out of balance in favour of the ganker, removing insurance is a step in returning to the one of the alleged principles of the game.
Cpt Fina wrote: Eve online is a special, unique MMORPG
No it isn't, in most respects Eve is the same as playing many other MMO's on a PvP server, frankly the biggest differences simply come from it being set in space. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:41:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change How so?
Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical. |
Shnejder
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:47:00 -
[216] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Tippia wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change How so? Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.
Its also illogical to build weapons and transport them to reprocess them to get nearly all the materials back u needed for the weapons just cause its smaller in the amount of cargo u need to be moved but noone cares about this (cause no carebear cried).
If u want a full logical universe turn your pc off and go outside |
Jenshae Chiroptera
116
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:47:00 -
[217] - Quote
Andski wrote: I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.
So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun". CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:49:00 -
[218] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Cpt Fina wrote: Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.
The trusims / principles of the game, or more precisely their implementation are subjective. For example one principle is risk vs reward, in the case of ganking in hi-sec (miners especially), I think the risk vs reward is out of balance in favour of the ganker, removing insurance is a step in returning to the one of the alleged principles of the game.
But this change will do almost nothing to protect miners themselves, whilst it will radically increase the protection to freighters and orcas. If anything the poor schmoe in a mining marge is going to be slightly worse off, because he'll still be on that list of near-free-to-gank targets.
We better hope that Soundwave goes ahead and changes drones to bounty rats soon.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:50:00 -
[219] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Andski wrote: I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.
So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun".
Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1263
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:54:00 -
[220] - Quote
Psychophantic wrote:OMG
Suicide ganking actually has a consequence now? It always did. The problem is that the victims choose to remove the consequences for the aggressor (and then they complain about how there are no consequences as a result, which is hilarious).
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:So we need alot more to end this crap. Why should it be ended?
Ryllic Sin wrote:Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical. No it's not. Paying out insurance in such a situation encourages the occurrence of that situation. It is only illogical if you assume that criminal acts are a bad thing and something that shouldn't be encouragedGǪ and I'm asking why shouldn't they be? They create a much-needed risk in highsec.
It's only illogical unrealistif from a real-world perspective, but they are game mechanics, not the real world, so that logic is rather irrelevant to how the mechanic fulfils its purpose.
Avila Cracko wrote:you only ask why something should change... and why not??? I only ask why something should change, because people assert that it should for no adequately explained reason. GÇ£Why notGÇ¥ is not an argument for a change GÇö it's a logical fallacy (onus probandi) GÇö and it can be trivially answered by GÇ£because you haven't explained whyGÇ¥. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Nalia White
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:56:00 -
[221] - Quote
Tippia wrote:OmniBeton wrote:No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. Shawnm339 wrote:Of course not it makes no sense. okst666 wrote:I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.
Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost. Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work. Nalia White wrote:this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. GǪby that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).
there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens... but you are pulling straws here i see. not worth any more discussion with you good sir. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
Shnejder wrote: Its also illogical to build weapons and transport them to reprocess them to get nearly all the materials back u needed for the weapons just cause its smaller in the amount of cargo u need to be moved but noone cares about this (cause no carebear cried).
Putting aside I have no idea what your are blathering about (If you are objecting to materials taking less room than guns, it seems logical they would use less room), but anyway regardless of whether I agree or disagree, it is irrelvant, we have an expression where I come from - two wrongs don't make a right.
Shnejder wrote: If u want a full logical universe turn your pc off and go outside
Seems you don't quite grasp how forums work, the person I responded to asked why it was illogical, I provided the answer, if you can't cope with that, I suggest you turn your pc off and go outside. |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:03:00 -
[223] - Quote
Tippia wrote:OmniBeton wrote:No insurance for beeing concorded is logical. Shawnm339 wrote:Of course not it makes no sense. okst666 wrote:I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.
Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost. Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work. Nalia White wrote:this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship. GǪby that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).
If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
116
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:07:00 -
[224] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here?
Miners aren't shooting and most of them being some what sane are half AFK while doing other things. I am sure that gankers will like you highlighting that they are no better than miners though. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:08:00 -
[225] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No it's not. Paying out insurance in such a situation encourages the occurrence of that situation. It is only illogical if you assume that criminal acts are a bad thing and something that shouldn't be encouragedGǪ and I'm asking why shouldn't they be? They create a much-needed risk in highsec.
It's only illogical unrealistif from a real-world perspective, but they are game mechanics, not the real world, so that logic is rather irrelevant to how the mechanic fulfils its purpose.
It is illogical from a game world perspective, this is a mmoRPG, it is illogical that an insurance company would pay out to someone who loses their vehicle in the process of commiting a crimnal act.
As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1263
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:10:00 -
[226] - Quote
Nalia White wrote:there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens. Sure chance is the highest risk there is GÇö it's when the probability factor in your Cost +ù Probability equation is 1. I just find it rather telling that it is so pointless to insure your ship for every-day highsec activities. It suggests to me that the risks are a bit too lowGǪ
OmniBeton wrote:If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple. That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ
GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).
Ryllic Sin wrote:It is illogical from a game world perspective GǪif you assume that it is a business, not a game mechanic. Unfortunately for that line of logic, it is a game mechanic; it is not a business. So the logic of business does not apply, whereas the logic of game mechanics does GÇö within that logic, paying out insurance for criminal acts isn't strange in the least.
Quote:As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little. Yes! And my point is that this is where the debate should lie, because that is where the logic of the payouts comes from GÇö arguments about real life businesses completely miss the point and are utterly irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the logic of the mechanic. This is why I keep asking GÇ£whyGÇ¥: why is this adjustment of risk vs. reward (for both parties) needed? Why do the gankers need more risk and the victims less? Why can't/don't/shouldn't the victims do that adjustment on their own? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
242
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:11:00 -
[227] - Quote
It's logical that suicide-gankers don't receive insurance payouts. It's illogical that minerals can be magically compressed into railguns, space is a liquid, and a host of other things.
EVE can never be completely realistic or completely illogical/unrealistic. This is the line which CCP determines. They've chosen that this little particular part of EVE will make logical sense because they feel it will be best for gameplay/immersion/sensibility/realism. It's up to them to decide what to do next. Because insurance for suicide gankers has been removed doesn't mean that next 'logical' and beneficial improvement to EVE is to remove CONCORD.
Some things can make sense, others don't need to make sense. This change is one thing which does make sense. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
116
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:12:00 -
[228] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:... create a much-needed risk in high security..
Umm ...
Encouraging criminal behaviour. Riiight. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:17:00 -
[229] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote:there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens. Sure chance is the highest risk there is GÇö it's when the probability factor in your Cost +ù Probability equation is 1. I just find it rather telling that it is so pointless to insure your ship for every-day highsec activities. It suggests to me that the risks are a bit too lowGǪ OmniBeton wrote:If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple. That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life). Ryllic Sin wrote:It is illogical from a game world perspective GǪif you assume that it is a business, not a game mechanic. Unfortunately for that line of logic, it is a game mechanic; it is not a business. So the logic of business does not apply, whereas the logic of game mechanics does GÇö within that logic, paying out insurance for criminal acts isn't strange in the least. Quote:As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little. Yes! And my point is that this is where the debate should lie, because that is where the logic of the payouts comes from GÇö arguments about real life businesses completely miss the point and are utterly irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the logic of the mechanic. This is why I keep asking GÇ£whyGÇ¥: why is this adjustment of risk vs. reward (for both parties) needed? Why do the gankers need more risk and the victims less? Why can't/don't/shouldn't the victims do that adjustment on their own?
how so?
|
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:31:00 -
[230] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic SinGǪ Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Umm ... Yes? Just because it is GÇ£highGÇ¥ security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, GÇ£highGÇ¥ sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec). Quote:Encouraging criminal behaviour. Riiight. Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime. That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing GÇö quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.
How so? |
|
Prince Kobol
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:32:00 -
[231] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
But this change will do almost nothing to protect miners themselves, whilst it will radically increase the protection to freighters and orcas. If anything the poor schmoe in a mining marge is going to be slightly worse off, because he'll still be on that list of near-free-to-gank targets.
We better hope that Soundwave goes ahead and changes drones to bounty rats soon.
What you should of said is it will radically increase the protection of freighters and orcas when carrying NO cargo.
If a freighter/orca or any other ship is carrying cargo of a certain value in relation to what is required to gank said ship, then it is still a target to be ganked as a profit can still be made.
So instead of randomly ganking a ship knowing regardless of what it drops you will either only lose a small amount of isk or come out even, you might have spend a little time and choose your targets.. oh the horror.
Unless of course what you are saying is that any ship should be ganked regardless of value so long as those who are ganking do not lose any isk in the process.
The only change I see in this if indeed it does goes ahead is that there will be a slight, and only slight drop in ganking for lols and that's it. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
117
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:33:00 -
[232] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic SinGǪ
Yes? How so?
Tippia wrote: Yes? Just because it is GÇ£highGÇ¥ security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, GÇ£highGÇ¥ sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec).
Yes? How so?
Tippia wrote: Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime.
Yes? How so?
Tippia wrote: That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing GÇö quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.
Yes? How so? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1263
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:33:00 -
[233] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:This is actually a change in the right direction. Obviously it will not stop suicide ganking. However, it should slightly curb it by forcing predators to be a wee bit more selective.
Also, in before Tippia's "How so?" No, your statement is more of a Gǣwhy?Gǥ kind of thing, because you elaborate on the Gǣhow soGǥ partGǪ
Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?
GǪalso, I liked your first version of the post better. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:35:00 -
[234] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:This is actually a change in the right direction. Obviously it will not stop suicide ganking. However, it should slightly curb it by forcing predators to be a wee bit more selective.
Also, in before Tippia's "How so?" No, your statement is more of a Gǣwhy?Gǥ kind of thing, because you elaborate on the Gǣhow soGǥ partGǪ Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction? GǪalso, I liked your first version of the post better.
How so? |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
129
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:35:00 -
[235] - Quote
I'm fine with this as long as they also remove insurance payouts for non-combat ships which get killed in low/nullsec. After all, taking your shiny industrial out there is a completely irresponsible thing to do, amirite? |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:43:00 -
[236] - Quote
I mean, since EVE is apparently based on "real life" now...
You know, I probably wouldn't give much of a **** under normal circumstances, but with the recent legalization of "decshields" and whatnot, this just gives the impression that CCP is now pandering to the safe-haven "iwin" needs of highsec carebears. CCP, say it ain't so? |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:47:00 -
[237] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote: [quote=OmniBeton]If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).
As far as I understand there is only one "company" insuring ships in EVE and it is legal, so paying inurance to criminals is illogical. Isurance companies that protects criminals usualy are called "mafias"
|
Vastek Non
State War Academy Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:49:00 -
[238] - Quote
Really good to see. Hopefully that is the end of it though. I would hate to see stupidity go completely unpunished i.e. going afk at Jita gate with a full set of +5's in cargo etc.
It never made sense, at last CCP has seen the light.
Also, extremely amusing to see the self professed ganking expert who 'doesn't actually care' (their words) posting furiously at every comment on this topic. Yes you know who you are. I suspect tears, but meh, clearly their highly biased view isn't really that relevant so whatever.
People will still be ganked if they make themselves a big enough target, and that is exactly the way it should be. Hopefully though, bored fools ganking shuttles and pods for 'tears' will decline somewhat though. That is just pathetic and the type of behaviour that results in nerfs like this.
Edit: Tippia, you have some really bizzare views on how police operate/should operate. Clearly you think Somalia is a good example of a fully functioning society?
Anyway, well done CCP, but no more please!! |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:50:00 -
[239] - Quote
Andski wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:(The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.) Bombers are more fragile than, say, Punishers. Nobody complains about that.
Bombers don't (last time I checked) cost more then 20-30M ISK and come with a Covops cloak, have a small sig radius, a decent velocity, the ability to align quickly, and are combat ships.
Exhumers & Barges are ships designed to sit in a single place for an hour at a time (or at a minimum, slowly move around while a 2-3 minute cycle runs). The only offense they can carry are either 5 small or 5 medium drones. That presents a very different target profile and makes them basically sitting ducks.
A zero-tank Mackinaw has about 6290 EHP (37.5% EMP resist, 50% THE are the weak points). At best (without using faction or T2 rigs), you can boost that to 12-13k EHP. A mammoth with a similar focus on tank over design function would end up at 23k EHP and an Iteron V would have 24k EHP.
(Personally, I applaud coordinated groups who use destroyers to gank vessels in hi-sec. It takes a degree of organization and teamwork to pull off. On the flip side, I think the ability of a solo ship to alpha-gank easy targets is being over abused at the moment and will not be surprised to see CCP change things even further)
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:51:00 -
[240] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?
Well Tippia, instead of trolling with your usual one-line punchers why don't you actually take the time to think about it for a minute?
And what is being curbed here is suicide ganking (not ganking as your post above suggests).
|
|
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:51:00 -
[241] - Quote
OmniBeton wrote:Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote: [quote=OmniBeton]If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life). As far as I understand there is only one "company" insuring ships in EVE and it is legal, so paying inurance to criminals is illogical. Isurance companies that protects criminals usualy are called "mafias"
"The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth."
Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal.
The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care?
Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
Quote:Well Tippia, instead of trolling with your usual one-line punchers why don't you actually take the time to think about it for a minute?
And what is being curbed here is suicide ganking (not ganking as your post above suggests).
Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't?
Or are you just going to stay on your high horse and act as if it's your god-given right to be correct because you are standing for the just and holy needs of the highsec citizens?
IMO, just get rid of insurance altogether. It's a massive isk faucet, and there's no way in hell that the SCC is actually running a profit. This also opens the door to player-run insurance companies. (Chribba's next venture, maybe?) |
Vastek Non
State War Academy Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:01:00 -
[242] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:OmniBeton wrote:Tippia wrote:Nalia White wrote: [quote=OmniBeton]If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ? You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life). As far as I understand there is only one "company" insuring ships in EVE and it is legal, so paying inurance to criminals is illogical. Isurance companies that protects criminals usualy are called "mafias" "The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth." Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal. The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care? Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
I pretty much agree with the Insurance in war zones bit, however consider that real world militaries have insurance on many front line assets (including soldiers). I personally feel that Insurance being done away with completely would be great, however it would be extremely noob/small alliance unfriendly so probably best to leave as is for the sake of the game
edit: fail quote |
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:03:00 -
[243] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:I mean, since EVE is apparently based on "real life" now...
You know, I probably wouldn't give much of a **** under normal circumstances, but with the recent legalization of "decshields" and whatnot, this just gives the impression that CCP is now pandering to the safe-haven "iwin" needs of highsec carebears. CCP, say it ain't so?
I still personally think this is a stop gap until they can come up with a system of bribe/counter bribe for wardecs. Which would be much awesome and win. PvP starts in Highsec with a wallet duel, and if it goes all the way to conclusion, it ends with a gun duel. Verdict: Epic win for all and a righteous isk sink for highsec. The loser in any fight consols himself with a moral victory. Thus is the beginning of slave-morality. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:05:00 -
[244] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't? The answer has been provided numerous times. It's just you don't like the answer. Suicidie ganking as it is allows "LOL" players to easily destroy hundreds of millions of isk with very little risk and consequence to themselves. And mining in hi sec shouldn't have to be an extremely perilous activity as it has become for miners. And the solution to miners shouldn't have to be "don't mine in hi sec and you'll be safe". Because as it stands this is pretty much their only option during this LOL-fest. And because there is little damage to the gankers activities like this can go on indefinitely.
Quote:Or are you just going to stay on your high horse and act as if it's your god-given right to be correct because you are standing for the just and holy needs of the highsec citizens? Why don't you ask Tippia? :-) |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:11:00 -
[245] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:p.s. you see that your kind is here minority... and zillion posts from one person is not zillion opinions, only one...
EVEs player base has been going to the dogs for years, there are many more whining carebears on the forums than there used to be. Most of the old school players who would be agreeing with Tippa have all quit over the years. Still it doesn't matter, what you claim as a victory is nothing of the kind and will change very little.
P.S.
I don't care anyway, you can all huddle in highsec to frightened to play the game and BFF each other to extacy for all eternity for all I care, so removal of insurance and dec shield alliances or w/e doesn't bother me. |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:12:00 -
[246] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
"The SCC is responsible for regulating and monitoring all trade transactions that take place on space stations. It has agents on all stations that record the transactions and they also offer courier and escrow services to make trade smooth."
Nowhere does it say that it's supposed to be 100% legal.
The only thing to imply that is that it's part of the CONCORD faction... but we're talking about a corrupt entity which allows people to legally shoot each other in highsec for a small weekly fee. Do you think they would really care?
Also - tell me why miners and industrialists should be insured after dying in lowsec. After all, in real life, if you hauled your car into Somalia and it got blown up, would your friendly local insurance company be responsible?
Well, never seen CONCORD saying "nah, I'll pass on this" when someone was kill in hisec so I think they care. And even there was a corruption not all insurances would be payed. Corruption make things depend on someones mood.
Low sec does not differ much from hi sec from legal point of view. You stil became a criminal if you attack someone (sec status) so I think insurance applies. Null sec, a the other hand, is different story. It's your Somalia, no penalty for attacking, 100% off the empire and CONCORD jurisdiction. And for death there insurance payment is, I think, questionable. |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Roosterton wrote:Can you actually provide a solid answer? Why is suicide ganking a bad thing? Why do gankers lose insurance, when miners and industrialists doing equally stupid things don't? The answer has been provided numerous times. It's just you don't like the answer. Suicidie ganking as it is allows "LOL" players to easily destroy hundreds of millions of isk with very little risk and consequence to themselves. And mining in hi sec shouldn't have to be an extremely perilous activity as it has become for miners. And the solution to miners shouldn't have to be "don't mine in hi sec and you'll be safe". Because as it stands this is pretty much their only option during this LOL-fest. And because there is little damage to the gankers activities like this can go on indefinitely.
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Miners have plenty of options available to them:
Don't mine with super shiny shield boosters. Don't mine in paper-thin mackinaws, use hulks D-scan at 500k, warp off if you see a fleet of thrashers on scan.
But no, on top of that, and on top of the fact that suicide ganking for-the-lols means a rapid descent into the bowels of being outlawed from highsec, and despite the fact that insurance was already nerfed to a certain extent in Tyrannis...
CCP are still trying to make it harder. It's like miners are supposed to sit there, activate lasers, and not have to do anything, and be in 100% complete safety.
And that's not EVE.
Quote:Why don't you ask Tippia? :-)
Perhaps because Tippia actually raises a good, philosophical point when he does it? You're just failing at trying to use Tippia-arguments, which only Tippia is pro enough to use.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:30:00 -
[248] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Just wondering if this change is going to affect the cost to insure a ship since the cost of insurance should be somehow linked to the risk of insurance payout. Not sure if it actually works that way in Eve, but it would make sense. There are varying levels of insurance you can buy, which basically means that they let you asses your own risk. Hilarious no?
El 1974 wrote:p.s. is there a way to ignore posters who keep trolling threads?
Yeah, don't read their posts. The loser in any fight consols himself with a moral victory. Thus is the beginning of slave-morality. |
enterprisePSI
Unimatrix 0.1
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:33:00 -
[249] - Quote
i never insure my ships when i suicide gank. The tears of the many, outweight the tears of the few. Or the one.
-«enterprise-psi |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: (The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.)
Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
An explanation - currently crafting in Eve is no different than most other MMOs, it is just a more complex version than most. In real sandbox games players have far more freedom when it comes to building stuff, they really can invent new stuff, in some even create the graphics.
Now creating the graphics may be a step too far in an mmorpg, but the game could certainly do with being more like a sandbox where players get the freedom and the abilty to influence the enviroment when it comes to crafting.
So to expand on your example, it would be even better if ships simply had a set number of points (obviously with more expensive ships having more points), that the player was then able to use tofit out a ship in any way they wished, how many HP, how much CPU, cargo hold size, how many high/mid/low slots, etc.
This, to take the mining / ganking example would give the miner the choice to go for an all out mining ship, that was easy to gank, or they could go for anti-gank minng ship, which would be a less effecient miner, smaller cargo hold,etc, but be much more tanky (genuinely tanky, not tanking out a paper thin hull which is the only option people currently have).
It fit in with the alleged goal of a player being able to effect the enviroment and add some much needed variety to the game. |
|
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:42:00 -
[251] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote: (The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.)
Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
So to expand on your example, it would be even better if ships simply had a set number of points (obviously with more expensive ships having more points), that the player was then able to allocate to use to fit out a ship in any way they wished, how many HP, how much CPU, cargo hold size, how many high/mid/low slots, etc.
This, to take the mining / ganking example would give the miner the choice to go for an all out mining ship, that was easy to gank, or they could go for anti-gank minng ship, which would be a less effecient miner, smaller cargo hold,etc, but be much more tanky (genuinely tanky, not tanking out a paper thin hull with little CPU which is the only option people currently have).
It fits in with the alleged goal of a player being able to effect the enviroment and add some much needed variety to the game. |
Russell Casey
One Ton Reverberation Project
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:43:00 -
[252] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you. Personally, I think CCP should just let outlaws into highsec so we get more carnage from them suicide ganking stuff and fighting with vigilantes. Having a second, watered down NPC police force never made much sense . |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Russell Casey wrote:Roosterton wrote:
No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now?
Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you.
Faction navies can be dodged while suicide ganking, sure, but what if you need to go to highsec to make isk? To pick up a shiny faction BS for your corp?
Or what if you're in lowsec, and now everybody can Peeveepee you without getting shot by sentries? (Although this may be a good thing, depending on your stance. )
|
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:48:00 -
[254] - Quote
whoops... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:00:00 -
[255] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Surely the real soluton would be to extend your solution and make Eve more of real sandbox, less of the faux sandbox that it currently is.
An explanation - currently crafting in Eve is no different than most other MMOs, it is just a more complex version than most. In real sandbox games players have far more freedom when it comes to building stuff, they really can invent new stuff, in some even create the graphics. GǪyou know, I've always wondered what shoggoth-like insanity would be spawned by having something like Alpha Centauri's unit creation mechanism in an MMO GÇö especially one with an industry and economy of the complexity of EVE.
Russell Casey wrote:Faction navies can be dodged. Alts or friends with +status can be used to scout or haul gank-ships. The only major consequence really is being perma-flagged so other players can shoot you. GǪand that is where we find the reason people why don't see any consequences of ganking: because they choose not to exercise this option and instead let the criminals off, scot-free.
Want to increase the actual consequences for gankers? Two words: tradeable killrights. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:05:00 -
[256] - Quote
About damn time. Make people actually choose their targets more carefully and take the full risk involved without having insurance to fall back on. Things have gotten out of hand, to where you can suicide just about anything just for ***** and giggles and still lose next to nothing. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[257] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:No consequences? So -10 security status isn't a consequence now? Oh? Then why don't you explain to me how a -10 player suicide ganking in hi sec suffers from a lower sec status?
In other words how exactly is it hurting going from a -10 to a -10?
Quote:Miners have plenty of options available to them:
Don't mine with super shiny shield boosters. I wasn't aware that lul-ganking was due to "shiny shield boosters". I seriously doubt that not having shield boosters is going to stop suicide ganking.
Quote: Don't mine in paper-thin mackinaws, and don't use paper-thin hulks either.
Fixed.
Quote:D-scan at 500k, warp off if you see a fleet of thrashers on scan. The problem isn't just thrashers. It's gangs of ships. And in hi sec, where there can be hundreds of players congrgated at any time it becomes extremely difficult sorting through gangs out looking for lul-ganks and players going about their business.
Quote:But no, on top of that, and on top of the fact that suicide ganking for-the-lols means a rapid descent into the bowels of being outlawed from highsec, and despite the fact that insurance was already nerfed to a certain extent in Tyrannis... Except it doesn't. -10's can and do enter hi sec with impunity thanks to alts providing them with any ship they wish upon arrival. |
Tuggboat
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[258] - Quote
Great, Now that this is fixed it makes no sense for me to have to travel 20,30,40 jumps through gates. Now we need high sec cynos with limitless range and no fuel costs. You know its a bonus for from our High sec taxes. Rewards are lower cuase we got more benefits. Paid for by npc corp taxes or something like that. I see no use wasting valuable game time running 40 jumps to my lush incursion site. We need instant fleet formups to, fleet invite accept, cyno up. Will work nice for low sec too, no gate camps to hinder play. I never did understand travel, now it makes even less sense.
Or at least autopilot to zero |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:10:00 -
[259] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:CCP are still trying to make it harder. It's like miners are supposed to sit there, activate lasers, and not have to do anything, and be in 100% complete safety. Oh stop it with the melodrama. This change isn't going to stop suicide ganking. It will slightly curb it at best. They won't be 100% safe, so you can stop crying now.
Roosterton wrote:Tippia actually raises a good, philosophical point when he does it? You're just failing at trying to use Tippia-arguments, which only Tippia is pro enough to use. Ok then. Let me get all "philosophical" on you and ask the question... How so? |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:12:00 -
[260] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Oh stop it with the melodrama. This change isn't going to stop suicide ganking. It will slightly curb it at best. They won't be 100% safe, so you can stop crying now.
I know they're not going to be 100% safe. I'm saying that it's as if CCP wants them to be.
Quote: Ok then. Let me be "philosophical" and ask the question... How so?
How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English.
|
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:15:00 -
[261] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English. You said Tippia asks philosophical questions, so I'm asking you a Tippian philosophical question... How so? :) |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:16:00 -
[262] - Quote
Roosterton wrote:
How so what? You said removing suicide ganking insurance was a good thing. Tippia then said "how so?" You can't answer a "how so" with another "how so," as that's just bad English.
Why not?
|
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:29:00 -
[263] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I think that during a suicide gank the insurance payout funds for the victim's ship should come from whoever fires the killing blow. Don't have sufficient funds in you account? You cannot shoot a player in high sec.
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
129
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:34:00 -
[264] - Quote
Good. I am a fan of the ability to suicide gank, have done it and will do more. However whatthis will do is stop peopel randomly suiciding freighters on the off chance itll have some nice loot, knowing that you arnt losing hundreds of millions in BSs.
Suicide ganking will, and should, still go on, itll be more of a risk to do so now, as it should be. If you fail now, you actually lose somethign of value. And yes, dessies can still pop miners, thats fine. |
Sader Rykane
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
128
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:37:00 -
[265] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Concord is there to watch pod pilots. There are relatively FEW pod pilots in space compared with people in space. Not to mention concord operate with stuff like...this.
We are way to powerful to not have our every move watched constantly. So yes, I totally think its plausible that CONCORD not only watches us 24/7, but probably knows what we intend to do before we do it and has ships on standby.
|
Saint Lazarus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
165
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:41:00 -
[266] - Quote
to summarize my feelings
This is bullcrap
But I dont care enough to whine any more than that |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:44:00 -
[267] - Quote
I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:45:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
Awesome, EVE is realistic now!
High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.
High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.
/inflammatory comments Excellent explanation for why this is a very bad change that hurts the game.
I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia, nectar of the Gods! It is sweet. Oh, so sweet!
I'm not going to say you're wrong Tippia. I respect your opinion to much to do so. However, I'll simply disagree.
This doesn't change the ganker's ability to gank the same targets they've been ganking all along. So, from a capability perspective, this changes NOTHING.
At best it's a motivational change. From what I've seen all these gankers "teaching" noobs to properly fit their ships were very adamant that they were doing these guy's a favor. So if they still feel that way, go ahead, gank away. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Oh wait, were you doing it because it as financially viable? Then perhaps you weren't doing Eve the favor you told everyone you were.
We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:59:00 -
[269] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave.
And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec GÇö completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case.
Mr Kidd wrote:I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the dayGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Reislier
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 15:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
Well it needed to be changed.. either lose the bogus insurance or change the name to bonus and keep it.
It's curious that people just can't seem to call a spade a spade in this game. |
|
Darrow Hill
Eight Bit Industries
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 15:51:00 -
[271] - Quote
Meh.
The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.
The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.
CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:06:00 -
[272] - Quote
Tippia has to much free time out of game that I wonder if an account isn't kept active just to troll the forums. Think I am only up to page 5 so far, only gone from the boards for 10 hours and wow did this turn into a threadnaught I didn't see before I left.
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee? Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the miner looses everything in the hull (cause insurance doesn't even come close to what a hulk is priced at). If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other? Oh wait....this new insurance change will only curb rampant destruction not stop it. It just makes the aggressor think "Is it really worth it?" before they pull the trigger cause being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping, now the ganker pays the full amount and will have to find more valuable targets instead of padding killboards with cheap losses. |
yumike
Eve of Madness
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:08:00 -
[273] - Quote
Darrow Hill wrote:Meh.
The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.
The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.
CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.
Pretty much this, It's already ridiculously easy to suicide gank casually in highsec (with a bit of ratting the sec status comes back relatively quickly) and make good coin doing it.
It's a much needed change for the new BC's that do BS-like damage for bc-like cost. It's already easy to pop most pve ships with one or two t1 bs's, to move that threshold down to bc's and to still be fully insured is craziness.
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
You don't suicide gank much do you? Admittedly I haven't for a few months now, But it's all I did most weekends for about a year and it was retardedly easy to make good money doing it.
Few people do it more likely because it's a pain in the ass to repair your sec status constantly. (The best way I found was to get several L4's with BS spawns in systems around you, 3-4missions is best. leave them active and do a 'roam' every 10 minutes, kill one let it respawn at downtime rinse repeat, finish missions on friday and gank the weekend away.)
The isk change is meh, My insurance payout never mattered when I had 5 or more pre-fit ships already sitting in station it was just free money and will continue to be. This change makes perfect sense..
Now we need them to remove insurance from self destructing so we aren't losing freighter/capital/supercapital kills when they know they are screwed :) |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:11:00 -
[274] - Quote
As long as we can target and shoot at eaxh other in hi-sec, suicide ganking is here to stay. |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:11:00 -
[275] - Quote
srry about the double post. |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:20:00 -
[276] - Quote
Let's play the *****-game.
I'll start:
(/Me whispers) *****. I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:22:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kyneska wrote:I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave. And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec GÇö completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case. Mr Kidd wrote:I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the dayGǪ
I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings and not some rp fluff. are you honestly saying that the blob wouldnt rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord. you dont know the zombei incident when zombei corp tanked concord and rampaged empire.
|
Nam Noissim
Red Lobsters Unilateral
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:35:00 -
[278] - Quote
Insurance fraud is a real thing, and even in our internet spaceship game the RP part of your brain has to think the corps/orgs/whatevers that are doing insurance for these ships would *have* to be getting pissed off about constantly losing money to these suicide gankers. I mean...think about it in RP terms, "Thanks for the 10K isk sir. Fly safe!" *gets blown up* "I'll take that 11M isk payout please." "It's your 30th one today...we are in the hole 329.7M. Anyway, here are your funds. Fly safe!"
You get the idea. I approve this RP element. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:45:00 -
[279] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings What are you referring to here?
Quote:are you honestly saying that the blob wouldnt rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord. For one, the blob already runs rampage all over empireGǪ or at least over most of empire. For another, those 0.0 blobs are in 0.0 for a reason GÇö that reason doesn't exist in empire space, much less in highsec, and there are other mechanics in place to ensure that they can't blob in highsec the way they do out there (most notably when it comes to things like tactics and ship choice).
All CONCORD does is ensure that if/when they come to highsec, they have to pay the same aggression fee as everyone else. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:54:00 -
[280] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Tamriel's. Rated ARG for Pirates. **** you. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:56:00 -
[281] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee? It shouldn't, nor is it. The difference between the two is how they approach ensuring that safety for themselves.
Quote:Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the minerGǪ GǪis also safe from total loss. It's inherent in the system.
Quote:If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other? Seeing as how the ganker can be stopped just fine, I don't quite see the point in this hypothetical situation. You're painting a scenario that does not correspond with the reality of the game. The ganker can keep on ganking until stopped just like the miner can keep on mining until stopped.
Quote:being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping So make him wrong. Stop him. Make sure that -10 status comes at its proper price. Make use of those kill rights. If there is an unwarranted amount of safety for the ganker, it's because the victim chooses to make it so.
yumike wrote:You don't suicide gank much do you? I don't suicide gank at all, so no, not muchGǪ
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
this. gameplay prespective. I think you mean gamemechanics and you say you dont. i belive you, im not very good at forum.
if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care. |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:00:00 -
[283] - Quote
Destroyers get buffed, and gankers get a nice little toy in the Tier 3 bc's that have a bigger volley than some bettleships.
On the other hand, insurance for concordokken ships is removed.
Working as intended. Rated ARG for Pirates. **** you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1265
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:04:00 -
[284] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
this. gameplay prespective. That was in response to LCO's GÇ£from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?GÇ¥
And no, it's gameplay, not game mechanics: its the gameplay that (supposedly) needs to conform to some measure of realism GÇö the game mechanics do not. They're just there to generate that gameplay.
Quote:if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care. Ok.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1419
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:09:00 -
[285] - Quote
oh no i'm sure this will cease our reign of terror
return to the belts, worthless peasants |
Zenda Pharedi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:23:00 -
[286] - Quote
we need concord to protect the newbies, or certain d***less pirates would be camping noobstations in t3s with logi backup. that kills eve. and no, suicide ganking is not coming to an end. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:23:00 -
[287] - Quote
Even if this is all true, I don't think it's going to affect gankers very much considering several factors:
1. Who is paying and how much for certain ganks (don't forget prizes).
2. Dessies getting some love. Therefore ganking with these things will be easier.
3. How often your survive a gank. The more you survive ganks, the more likely the gankers will want to kill you just for the hatred that they have towards you. At this point, you'll have to make sure you have enough ISK to cover the loss of your mining ship because they're not gonna care for one second how expensive their next attempt will be.
EDIT:
PS: This could be a good opportunity to take advantage of ammo/ship production. |
SirHorace
Solo Artists
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:52:00 -
[288] - Quote
I'm totally fine with with not getting insurance from my Suicide Destroyers. This will in no way lessen my number of ganks. Like at all. The price to buy and fit a new one comes with a single dropped miner 1. |
Khors
El Barco Pirata
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:53:00 -
[289] - Quote
I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:01:00 -
[290] - Quote
Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets. |
|
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:02:00 -
[291] - Quote
You do realize goons pay their suicide gankers in tech goo right? This does nothing to save ye little mining carebears. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:04:00 -
[292] - Quote
Khors wrote:I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates.
Where are these tears you mention? I don't see any. I see loads of people who don't really care either way, the people who suicide gank being mostly indifferent about the change, while a few forum regulars troll or try to debate the issue on a theoretical basis just for the pleasure of debating it. If you truly believe what you see here are tears, you haven't actually ever read a tear filled thread in your life.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:18:00 -
[293] - Quote
Well, Gankers have been saying forever "its not about the insurance" Time to put your money where yer mouth is
tho; Goons are winning EVE by making CCP break it by making it carebear land lol They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Phantom Slave
Cryogenic Creations
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. Mmm, I love the smell of pod goo in the morning. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1420
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:48:00 -
[295] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:You do realize goons pay their suicide gankers in tech goo right? This does nothing to save ye little mining carebears. no we don't have any tech
highsec is safe |
Anna Hyperthron
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:50:00 -
[296] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Khors wrote:I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates. Where are these tears you mention? I don't see any. I see loads of people who don't really care either way, the people who suicide gank being mostly indifferent about the change, while a few forum regulars troll or try to debate the issue on a theoretical basis just for the pleasure of debating it. If you truly believe what you see here are tears, you haven't actually ever read a tear filled thread in your life.
Your answer is full of tears. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
261
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
I for one plan on ganking more often
insurance... feh The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
162
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
This will simply seperate the true career Gankers from the wannabe's. It won't stop suicide Ganking - it will just highlight the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention".
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:59:00 -
[299] - Quote
This is a stealth boost to ganking, more pilots will fly asleep at the wheel believing a little more isk lost will keep them safe. The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.
One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:34:00 -
[300] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals Get rid of everything .. and make one prefitted ship given after each death. No skills, no industry, no market.. pure PvP however noone would pay for such game and probably noone will play it.
gotta get rid of PVP
they already a have it AND it has WIS its called Star Trek Online. AND its gonna be F2P AND it has P2W too! They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
|
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:36:00 -
[301] - Quote
pmchem wrote:This insurance change is part of CCP's drive to protect their highsec bot userbase.
Because that's all it does.
because thats what makes sense to you.
and goon tears are best tears |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:36:00 -
[302] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets.
unfortuneatly self destruction noobs still get insurance pay outs.
i tested it on the sisi server with a thanny. Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:39:00 -
[303] - Quote
With the Tier 3s reducing the cost of ganking it probably balances... |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:40:00 -
[304] - Quote
The tears I like are those from the big alliances who know CCP is going to respond to them trying to rig things directly in favor of them vs the smaller alliances and corps.
This is a symbolic first step. The next needs to be to change the structure HP of mining craft by several orders of magnitude in order to stop the "Alpha before concord" crap. Make it many times more expensive to take down mining craft in hisec involving concord and the direct market manipulation will slow. |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:41:00 -
[305] - Quote
I'm predicting that it will take 2-3 weeks before players who seriously engage in ganking have adapted to to minimise their financial loses.
The first thing that comes to mind is that with concord payouts removed, it means a higher gank success to gank faliure ratio is needed, to either provide or financial return, or minimise loses to maintain enjoyment periods for longer. To ensure a higher successful ratio expect more concord baiting and more overkill ganking. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:45:00 -
[306] - Quote
I hope they add a smarter concord AI, they should never chase an Ibis. Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:45:00 -
[307] - Quote
David Grogan wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets. unfortuneatly self destruction noobs still get insurance pay outs. i tested it on the sisi server with a thanny.
Should be immediately ended!
Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:49:00 -
[308] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The tears I like are those from the big alliances who know CCP is going to respond to them trying to rig things directly in favor of them vs the smaller alliances and corps.
This is a symbolic first step. The next needs to be to change the structure HP of mining craft by several orders of magnitude in order to stop the "Alpha before concord" crap. Make it many times more expensive to take down mining craft in hisec involving concord and the direct market manipulation will slow.
Supposedly CCP are going to "look at the CONCORD AI" to "tweak" them because theyre "too easy" and this "needs fixing" according to Hilmar via Twitter They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
The F Word
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:56:00 -
[309] - Quote
This is a good change.
Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP.
As it's been said ad nauseum, the majority of players stick to Empire space. These people enjoy the benefit of less risk, it's why they continue to play.
It may come as a surprise, but a lot of folks don't PVP. They don't want to PVP, and they avoid it - however this isn't to say they want it removed from the game - as without it there's no suspense.
This is a logical change - suicide ganks for the lulz will still occur, albeit with a little less frequency. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:56:00 -
[310] - Quote
Institute in station ganks so market traders have to pvp too They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
|
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:03:00 -
[311] - Quote
Oh man! This is one of the best forum debates I have ever seen!
Okay, so first thing first.
Tippia, Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play the game, I don't tell you to stop ganking so you don't get to tell me how to fit a ship. I don't get it, after all these years and we still punish new players for being new, way to keep a player base.
Second.
Expecting some sort of sanctioned payout for suicide ganking makes no sense in both reality and fiction, debating that it was some sort of incentive is grasping for straws, you don't get money from committing a crime in a game that has it's own system of law and order...wow, so unfair.
Keep the tears coming griefers, we don't have to blow up your ships to see you cry. |
Phantom Slave
Cryogenic Creations
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:07:00 -
[312] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP
Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. Mmm, I love the smell of pod goo in the morning. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:15:00 -
[313] - Quote
Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air.
they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either. They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:19:00 -
[314] - Quote
It is good that CCP gives message to all that Highsec will be secure again, after insurance nerf.
Now we can all run missions with officer fitted ships without fear. |
Scalar Angulargf
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:22:00 -
[315] - Quote
The F Word wrote:This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP.
What?
Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:23:00 -
[316] - Quote
Scalar Angulargf wrote:The F Word wrote:This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP. What? Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it. If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
And why do you care ?
|
Nypheas Azurai
Azimuth Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:27:00 -
[317] - Quote
HEYY YOU GUYYYSSS!!!!! |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:43:00 -
[318] - Quote
ITT: Suicide gankers QQ trying to convince people that it will be harder to suicide gank when in fact it requires the EXACT same firepower as it does now, just with a price tag. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:45:00 -
[319] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:ITT: Suicide gankers QQ trying to convince people that it will be harder to suicide gank when in fact it requires the EXACT same firepower as it does now, just with a price tag.
Actually it would become easier ...
destroyers buffed / screw brutixes
gank tornado. /screw maelstroms/tempests
|
REDNECKMINING
Black Prophecy Red Skull Society
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:47:00 -
[320] - Quote
People are just going to have to change the way they gank... thats all.
Right now I pop Hulks with an Artillery apoc fit with t1 damage mods, cheap t1 named guns, and 3x t1 gardes. This will insta-pop a untanked hulk (or tanked mack) in any security space, on my gank character with CX-2 damage implant does 8719 volley.
Each gank costs 40m isk after insurance payouts, not including what I get from scooping the loot and salvaging the wreck and harvesting the tears.
So while a battleship may become to expensive to use to make it worth my time, stealth bombers will become a great new alternative.
A Purifier bomber costs about 17.3m isk 3x T2 ballistic controls cost about 2m isk 3x T2 Siege Missile Launchers cost about 7m isk
Using the 5% ZMT2000 implant this does almost 5000 volley damage. Overheated rate of fire is 6.44 seconds so in the lower-tier of highsec systems you should be able to get 2 volleys out and kill hulks.
In the high-tier highsec systems just use 2 characters to insta-pop them.
Total cost is 26.3m isk for that... cheaper than gank bs, easier to haul around, can fit 4000000 of them into an Orca... Will I still do this? ABSOLUTELY. It will just be a *little* bit more expensive to gank them in the really high security systems because you will need to use 2 characters. BUT STILL WORTH IT. |
|
Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:51:00 -
[321] - Quote
Scalar Angulargf wrote: Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
I can gatecamp in lowsec, run scams on a disposable character, and missions on a third one to have access to LPs stores and highsec markets. I can even gank from time to time with the 3rd one, since running missions keeps his sec status in the positive. And when some goody-two-shoes come to bust my camp, I just dock up waiting for them to go, refresh my scams and continue running missions. I just need three accounts, but between the gateganking, the scams and the missions, I have more than enough to buy plex with isk.
Why would I need to HTFU ? I risk nothing, and am always safe. What do you mean exactly ? The sad truth about morality in EvE : eve-search.com/search/author/EpicFailTroll |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:58:00 -
[322] - Quote
I think its a good move.
Immersion: Your actions has consequenses. You shouldnt get insurance if killed by police for your crimes. Want to be a bad boy? Sure, go right ahead. But dont expect the insurance company to give u a refund.
EVE needs to grow: Yeah yeah, higsec carebears needs to HTFU yada yada yada. But EVE needs more new players. EVE is unlike any other MMO out there. So, new players need time to adjust to the realities of EVE. Personally i used 6 months before accepting piracy, scamming etc as legit playstyles. Dont throw them into deep water immediately ffs. Most will drown.
ISK proliferation: EVE players are richer than ever before. More isk is coming in than flowing out. What was probably a good policy when EVE was brand new and players had to really consider if they could afford that Thorax, is completely invalid today. Removing a faucet only makes sense. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:00:00 -
[323] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:It is good that CCP gives message to all that Highsec will be secure again, after insurance nerf.
Now we can all run missions with officer fitted ships without fear.
Why not, its not like Goons have the sack to actually kill em :p Or Incursion runners either
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:09:00 -
[324] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:Scalar Angulargf wrote: Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
I can gatecamp in lowsec, run scams on a disposable character, and missions on a third one to have access to LPs stores and highsec markets. I can even gank from time to time with the 3rd one, since running missions keeps his sec status in the positive. And when some goody-two-shoes come to bust my camp, I just dock up waiting for them to go, refresh my scams and continue running missions. I just need three accounts, but between the gateganking, the scams and the missions, I have more than enough to buy plex with isk. Why would I need to HTFU ? I risk nothing, and am always safe. What do you mean exactly ?
Lets hope plex prices rise enough and then stabilise at a level that makes your solo gameplay strategy broken.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:10:00 -
[325] - Quote
Remove security status gain from killing NPCs in null space and we will have a winner. Concord does not give a **** about you being bad out there (no sec loss), why should they care about the good things you do? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:15:00 -
[326] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either.
ISK faucet - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK from a NPC wallet to yours ISK sink - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK out of your wallet and into a NPC's
Ice / Minerals do neither of the above. Nor do mission drops. Bounties paid out when you kill a NPC rat do result in ISK being transfered from the NPC's wallet to yours (therefore they are a faucet).
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
574
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:32:00 -
[327] - Quote
high-sec will be safe now guys!!! feel free to undock your badgers full of BPOs, your officer fit tengus and don't bother upgrading your clone ever, it's not necessary at all and a massive waste of ISK |
Forest Hill
WDGAS Holding MPA
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:46:00 -
[328] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
Not sure that makes sense from a business point of view. Ganking noobs has cost CCP a lot of subs over the years, as not everyone enjoys it when they are getting ganked, in their new mining ship, when they're three weeks old and basically defenseless.When I was in a highsec starter corp we used to regularly lose new members due to can flippers/gankers/serial wardeccers etc.
New player retention is important to CCP, as new subscriptions bring in the money, and I think they're taking some steps to protect that source of income. Of course gankers are also subs, but I'm not sure what the bigger revenue stream is.
Personally I'd like to see a more granular approach, where noobs have more protection in - say - 0.8 to 1.0 space, but no changes for 0.7 and lower. Or something like that. New Eden shouldn't become too safe for everyone. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1268
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:55:00 -
[329] - Quote
Forest Hill wrote:Not sure that makes sense from a business point of view. Ganking noobs has cost CCP a lot of subs over the years, as not everyone enjoys it when they are getting ganked, in their new mining ship, when they're three weeks old and basically defenseless. If the problem is retaining newbs, then the correct route to take is to (to a small extent) protect and (to an immensely large extent) educate those newbs on how to survive GÇö not to break highsec and heaping even more advantages over older players.
Activities in highsec need to be easily disrupted, or you might as well dismantle large parts of the game including its economy. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
187
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:59:00 -
[330] - Quote
Andski wrote:high-sec will be safe now guys!!! feel free to undock your badgers full of BPOs, your officer fit tengus and don't bother upgrading your clone ever, it's not necessary at all and a massive waste of ISK
after you sir after you Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:08:00 -
[331] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either. ISK faucet - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK from a NPC wallet to yours ISK sink - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK out of your wallet and into a NPC's Ice / Minerals do neither of the above. Nor do mission drops. Bounties paid out when you kill a NPC rat do result in ISK being transfered from the NPC's wallet to yours (therefore they are a faucet).
so... turn all high sec rats into drones then yer good
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Banechild
The New Knighthood The Polaris Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:11:00 -
[332] - Quote
So how does losing an insurance payout changes anything ? Well it doesn't just because you get 40-60mils less per gank mean nothing, it only means you have to gank some more targets or get more picky with your targets.
And people who cry that this is somehow making high sec more safe. Well it won't, you can still gank all the ships you like but now you have to make isk to replace those ships (like the rest of us) for your "PvP" habits.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:16:00 -
[333] - Quote
Banechild wrote:So how does losing an insurance payout changes anything ? Well it doesn't just because you get 40-60mils less per gank mean nothing, it only means you have to gank some more targets or get more picky with your targets.
And people who cry that this is somehow making high sec more safe. Well it won't, you can still gank all the ships you like but now you have to make isk to replace those ships (like the rest of us) for your "PvP" habits.
well like was said earlier. Those gankers that have said tat its not about the insurance for years will be put to he test lol They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
983
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:27:00 -
[334] - Quote
Banechild wrote:
And people who cry that this is somehow making high sec more safe.
It certainly won't make hi-sec safer for miners.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Smidsy Honest
They never saw me coming
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:28:00 -
[335] - Quote
I'm kinda expecting an increase in suicide ganks when the winter patch hits down. At least short term. I know a few people that are starting to stack up ready for a bit of "you thought this would stop it?" action.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know what you're thinking. Fresh alt, trying to get in quick before insurance is removed. Or maybe it's just a case of brushing up on some ganking? |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:35:00 -
[336] - Quote
This change will magically stop groups of arty thrashers. I Support the Goons! |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:39:00 -
[337] - Quote
Note to self: drop more isk into the corp wallet this year to fund our yearly Christmas suicide ganking campaign.
Won't change much, just shows CCP's consistent desire to protect carebears more and more and make highsec safer and safer. A shame to see them drifting away from the original intent of the game, but you can't really expect differently when they're trying to expand their player base and bring in the WoW types.
The carebear elation in the thread is kinda funny though. Think I'm gonna take some time off to gank miners in highsec just for the tears after this change goes through and ask miners think they're safer. :D |
Gorion Wassenar
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:45:00 -
[338] - Quote
Don't need the bs's now, we got the tier 3 bc's coming. |
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:55:00 -
[339] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Yeah, learn to fit your freighters properly noobs! What idiot flies an unfit billion ISK ship??
(That was irony)
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:57:00 -
[340] - Quote
GJ CCP A good step in the right direction.
Better would be to remove 'default' insurance payout as well.
Better still would be to remove insurance for self-destruct as well.
Best of all would be to remove insurance for all ships flown by toons> 1 year old. Insurance is stupid and should only benefit noobs in t1's (and you could even create a good RP explanation for that.) |
|
Hyacinthous
Sibyl Cadre
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:58:00 -
[341] - Quote
You know sometimes people are in the process of picking up fittings or moving between markets and by saying generalizations it just makes you look incredibly stupid.
On topic, they should punish gankers and they should fix the rest of the game as well because honestly this could be a lot better than it is now. If this is broken eve, imagine what a Functional and Good Eve would be like.
This game has much potential, but it is being robbed by greedy people and lowlife scum. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:58:00 -
[342] - Quote
what I dont get is theyre putting new ships in the game that are in essence designed to be suicide gankers and then take away insurance... give with one hand take with the other? They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:03:00 -
[343] - Quote
Changes the Charon cargo vally to +1 billion I guess. Hulks are still worth ganking cause a shield boosting one dies to two thrashers before concord kills them and tbh, who pays for insurance on anything smaller then a BS? Whats the ******* point? waste of good ammo money. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
574
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:18:00 -
[344] - Quote
"Hey man, could you rep me real quick?"
"Sure!"
*shoots a can*
i am going to have so much ~fun~ |
Vigdis Thorisdottir
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:20:00 -
[345] - Quote
Wow. All I ever see in these threads are "pvpers" whining about carebears, over and over again. Have a problem with corps escaping wardecs? Try deccing a pvp corp for once instead of a corp full of n00b miners. Have problem with getting insurance taken away for being concorded? Suicide gank anyways. It's not like it got any harder to do. If anything, it will be even easier due to the carebears feeling "safer" now.
Seriously listen to yourselves. A group that is always first to spout "adapt or die" should take their own advice for once. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
574
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:22:00 -
[346] - Quote
Vigdis Thorisdottir wrote:Wow. All I ever see in these threads are "pvpers" whining about carebears, over and over again. Have a problem with corps escaping wardecs? Try deccing a pvp corp for once instead of a corp full of n00b miners. Have problem with getting insurance taken away for being concorded? Suicide gank anyways. It's not like it got any harder to do. If anything, it will be even easier due to the carebears feeling "safer" now.
Seriously listen to yourselves. A group that is always first to spout "adapt or die" should take their own advice for once.
only the idiots are whining, the rest of us can't wait |
Shade Millith
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:23:00 -
[347] - Quote
Nalia White wrote: CONCORD will act the same,
And this is the problem. CONCORD is still massively buffed.
Suicide ganking has been nerfed over and over and over. This is just another in a long line of nerf intending to make highsec glorious carebear land.
Increase CONCORD's arrival timer by double, that should make up for it. |
Belloche
The Dark Tribe Checkmate.
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:24:00 -
[348] - Quote
Andski wrote:"Hey man, could you rep me real quick?"
"Sure!"
*shoots a can*
i am going to have so much ~fun~
If I remember correctly, this was fixed in a previous patch. If you are repping someone who then gets a GCC the remote repps automatically shuts down.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:27:00 -
[349] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:Note to self: drop more isk into the corp wallet this year to fund our yearly Christmas suicide ganking campaign.
Won't change much, just shows CCP's consistent desire to protect carebears more and more and make highsec safer and safer. A shame to see them drifting away from the original intent of the game, but you can't really expect differently when they're trying to expand their player base and bring in the WoW types.
The carebear elation in the thread is kinda funny though. Think I'm gonna take some time off to gank miners in highsec just for the tears after this change goes through and ask miners think they're safer. :D
I think its funny how divisional you are thinking there is carebears in here claiming they will now be safe. No one has said that. It is also amusing to watch you spout off with intentions to try and harvest tears after the change. You say it will change nothing, but say it is a step closer to WoW. I'm confused. One thing for sure that is that suicide banking will no longer produce ISK out of thin air.
In the mean time...
/fills another cup of suicide gankers tears
mmmmmmmm.... |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:32:00 -
[350] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. That already happened with the policy change allowing dec shields and wardec shedding. Wardecs are 100% consensual these days. So yes, if this turns out not to be a bug, it is indeed heading further down the wrong roadGǪ Well, wars are still chugging along, but CCP is definitely treading the razor's edge. One more little nudge, and it will all come crashing down. Here, a little snippet from a mail I received very recently from one of our targets: A Recent War Target wrote:I would ask you to have your corp remove the dec as you will be wasting your money. I'd like you to look at this thread right here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22792&p=4CCP stated no longer an exploit. So yeah. You can dec every 24 hours, and we jump into alliance and out every 24. Your call. Makes no matter to me. We are still recruiting noobs, and industrial types. I get it that your guy's idea of pvp is to station camp, and blow up noobs with 3 weeks in game and such but I am not feeding you kills to pad your battleclinic stat's. This isn't some learning experience and your not trying to help us. Balls in your court. Drop the dec and you only lose the money once and can likely find some easy target who doesn't know a damn thing about metagmaing or how game mechanics work presently. Or keep the decs rolling and we just keep losing them. Your isk, your choice. I can't help but wonder how this forest would fare if all the predators disappeared...
My 2 isk - Empire wars and most empire pvp has largely been a consenusal affair for a considerable period of time. If wars are to be made viable, the target of the war has to feel that they have some stake in the fight. As long as the target of the war has nothing to lose then there is simply no reason for them to want to stay and fight. Pos are not the answer in this respect because they are too easy to take down before the war even begins. Personally, to make wars viable I think ccp needs to add a little piece of null sov to empire space. People need to be able to own stuff that they can lose during a war. Otherwise wars are going to be fail because the targets will not participate, i.e. switch, corps, dock up for the duration, etc...
|
|
Aggressive Nutmeg
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:51:00 -
[351] - Quote
I think most of us define a 'carebear' as someone who engages in activity within EVE that has little or no risk attached to it. By that definition you'd have to say suicide ganking is probably the ultimate carebear activity. Removal of insurance helps, but suicide ganking is still pretty cheap.
Miners take a huge risk every time they undock their Hulks. Hisec is crawling with carebear suicide gankers.
But I'd be happy to see CONCORD removed. The idea that CONCORD can magically appear anywhere in empire and instantly catch and kill the 'baddies' is a bit far-fetched.
But it is also far-fetched that any 'baddy' can suicide gank an innocent ship quite cheaply and then magically get re-born, without suspension or gaol time, to go ahead and kill the next innocent ship.
Empire can be just as safe if we fix the above stupid game mechanics. Very few players are going to REGULARLY gank innocents if it means their character will be suspended (in some way) for a period of time - and then perhaps be 'shadowed' by the faction police when they're released on parole. :) |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:54:00 -
[352] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. That already happened with the policy change allowing dec shields and wardec shedding. Wardecs are 100% consensual these days. So yes, if this turns out not to be a bug, it is indeed heading further down the wrong roadGǪ Well, wars are still chugging along, but CCP is definitely treading the razor's edge. One more little nudge, and it will all come crashing down. Here, a little snippet from a mail I received very recently from one of our targets: A Recent War Target wrote:I would ask you to have your corp remove the dec as you will be wasting your money. I'd like you to look at this thread right here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22792&p=4CCP stated no longer an exploit. So yeah. You can dec every 24 hours, and we jump into alliance and out every 24. Your call. Makes no matter to me. We are still recruiting noobs, and industrial types. I get it that your guy's idea of pvp is to station camp, and blow up noobs with 3 weeks in game and such but I am not feeding you kills to pad your battleclinic stat's. This isn't some learning experience and your not trying to help us. Balls in your court. Drop the dec and you only lose the money once and can likely find some easy target who doesn't know a damn thing about metagmaing or how game mechanics work presently. Or keep the decs rolling and we just keep losing them. Your isk, your choice. I can't help but wonder how this forest would fare if all the predators disappeared... My 2 isk - Empire wars and most empire pvp has largely been a consenusal affair for a considerable period of time. If wars are to be made viable, the target of the war has to feel that they have some stake in the fight. As long as the target of the war has nothing to lose then there is simply no reason for them to want to stay and fight. Pos are not the answer in this respect because they are too easy to take down before the war even begins. Personally, to make wars viable I think ccp needs to add a little piece of null sov to empire space. People need to be able to own stuff that they can lose during a war. Otherwise wars are going to be fail because the targets will not participate, i.e. switch, corps, dock up for the duration, etc... This. Precisely. The reason HiSeccers do not war is there is nothing to fight over. Changes in the mechanics of insurance or Concord (and tarded attempts to change their minds through ganking) do not affect this dynamic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
575
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:55:00 -
[353] - Quote
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:I think most of us define a 'carebear' as someone who engages in activity within EVE that has little or no risk attached to it. By that definition you'd have to say suicide ganking is probably the ultimate carebear activity. Removal of insurance helps, but suicide ganking is still pretty cheap.
Miners take a huge risk every time they undock their Hulks. Hisec is crawling with carebear suicide gankers.
But I'd be happy to see CONCORD removed. The idea that CONCORD can magically appear anywhere in empire and instantly catch and kill the 'baddies' is a bit far-fetched.
But it is also far-fetched that any 'baddy' can suicide gank an innocent ship quite cheaply and then magically get re-born, without suspension or gaol time, to go ahead and kill the next innocent ship.
Empire can be just as safe if we fix the above stupid game mechanics. Very few players are going to REGULARLY gank innocents if it means their character will be suspended (in some way) for a period of time - and then perhaps be 'shadowed' by the faction police when they're released on parole. :)
"high-sec is not intended to be safe" |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:10:00 -
[354] - Quote
Smidsy Honest wrote:I'm kinda expecting an increase in suicide ganks when the winter patch hits down. At least short term. I know a few people that are starting to stack up ready for a bit of "you thought this would stop it?" action. I suspect this will be more a case of idiots having to prove they can still cause misery and grief to players so they can saciate their own sadistic desires. I am certain they'll ramp up their suicide ganks because they have some macho stuff to prove.
This is a small symbolic victory for miners (ie carebears) which means it's a huge kick in the nuts to the Schadenfreude bunch. In a sense their "tear-collecting" flow has been slightly reduced and they will make noise and cry lots of tears to make themselves heard and attention be paid. So yes, I expect misery to beget company. |
baltec1
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:17:00 -
[355] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Smidsy Honest wrote:I'm kinda expecting an increase in suicide ganks when the winter patch hits down. At least short term. I know a few people that are starting to stack up ready for a bit of "you thought this would stop it?" action. I suspect this will be more a case of idiots having to prove they can still cause misery and grief to players so they can saciate their own sadistic desires. I am certain they'll ramp up their suicide ganks because they have some macho stuff to prove. This is a small symbolic victory for miners (ie carebears) which means it's a huge kick in the nuts to the Schadenfreude bunch. In a sense their "tear-collecting" flow has been slightly reduced and they will make noise and cry lots of tears to make themselves heard and attention be paid. So yes, I expect misery to beget company.
wow...
man are you a bitter one. |
baltec1
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:44:00 -
[356] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Silly goon. You gank for the "lulz" dontcha? Grief play and misery make you happy. And you are planning to ramp up suicides, aren't you? Nothing bitter about these truths. But I see what you are trying to do .
Nah I gank for isk, the tears are just a bonus. If ganks are going to go up them my investment in more thrasher and med neutron blaster BPOs will bring me even more profits. I may even get a retriever BPO in time for hulkageddon |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:50:00 -
[357] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
My 2 isk - Empire wars and most empire pvp has largely been a consenusal affair for a considerable period of time.
Yeah, all you had to do was dock up a while, if that got TOO long, you put on a long skill an played world of tanks or something for a few days. Not like wardecs ever were the end all be all of empire nonconsentual pvp lol. I never saw ppl qq about making docking up a exploit like they do about decshield
Andski wrote:Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:I think most of us define a 'carebear' as someone who engages in activity within EVE that has little or no risk attached to it. By that definition you'd have to say suicide ganking is probably the ultimate carebear activity. Removal of insurance helps, but suicide ganking is still pretty cheap.
Miners take a huge risk every time they undock their Hulks. Hisec is crawling with carebear suicide gankers.
But I'd be happy to see CONCORD removed. The idea that CONCORD can magically appear anywhere in empire and instantly catch and kill the 'baddies' is a bit far-fetched.
But it is also far-fetched that any 'baddy' can suicide gank an innocent ship quite cheaply and then magically get re-born, without suspension or gaol time, to go ahead and kill the next innocent ship.
Empire can be just as safe if we fix the above stupid game mechanics. Very few players are going to REGULARLY gank innocents if it means their character will be suspended (in some way) for a period of time - and then perhaps be 'shadowed' by the faction police when they're released on parole. :) "high-sec is not intended to be safe"
apparently CCP disagrees now
Plus, you guys should be happy as hell, youre getting CCP to break the game FOR you like Goons have been trying to do like forever
"Grief play and misery make you happy."
lol find any definition of this in EVE
It basically doesnt exist
Unless you can flip in a starter system oooo then watch out. They put it in the EULA (or somesuch) an everything lol They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:53:00 -
[358] - Quote
Wow, holy threadnaught batman!
There one thing people seem to have forgotten though. Firstly, it's on the test server, ok. All that means is that they know they can do it. Secondly, CCP hasn't mentioned this at all. Not one word. So even though it's unlikely, this change may not go live.
Even so, I think it's pure irony that Ankhesentapemkah isn't here to see this. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:58:00 -
[359] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Wow, holy threadnaught batman! .
wow THAT definition has fallen
18 pages is not a TN lol
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:05:00 -
[360] - Quote
Cpt Fina wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:Cpt Fina wrote:Terrible change.
CCPs dogma "No space is safe" is only true aslong as nobody is complaining about it on the forums. High sec isn't completely safe. Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game. What are principles good for if you abandom them when things get rough? Eve online is a special, unique MMORPG to the enxtent that we the playerbase allows it to be... and that's bullshit. What's next GÇô instanced missions or PvP arenas. PvP flags maybe?
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
576
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:10:00 -
[361] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:apparently CCP disagrees now
Plus, you guys should be happy as hell, youre getting CCP to break the game FOR you like Goons have been trying to do like forever
"Grief play and misery make you happy."
lol find any definition of this in EVE
It basically doesnt exist
Unless you can flip in a starter system oooo then watch out. They put it in the EULA (or somesuch) an everything lol
you're dumb if you think this will curtail or do anything to limit suicide ganking |
baltec1
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:10:00 -
[362] - Quote
Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed.
EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:21:00 -
[363] - Quote
Andski wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:apparently CCP disagrees now
Plus, you guys should be happy as hell, youre getting CCP to break the game FOR you like Goons have been trying to do like forever
"Grief play and misery make you happy."
lol find any definition of this in EVE
It basically doesnt exist
Unless you can flip in a starter system oooo then watch out. They put it in the EULA (or somesuch) an everything lol you're dumb if you think this will curtail or do anything to limit suicide ganking
point to where I said that
oh wait you cant cause I didnt.....
swing and a miss
try again
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:22:00 -
[364] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed. EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft.
Odd, Ive been reading articles as to how theyve been bleeding subs since cata... like 300,000-600,000 at a time
That in itself is kinda funny cause any other mmo loses that many subs an theyd straight die
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:34:00 -
[365] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:baltec1 wrote:Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed. EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft. Odd, Ive been reading articles as to how theyve been bleeding subs since cata... like 300,000-600,000 at a time That in itself is kinda funny cause any other mmo loses that many subs an theyd straight die
Cata made the game harder, more of a grind fest again apparently, casuals left in droves - the new expansion they've previewed caters to the casuals again...tell you anything?
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but the writing's on the wall.... the player base dictated to CCP, Hilmar won't forget that and the easiest fix is to flood the game with hello kitty space captains. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:57:00 -
[366] - Quote
One issue with Cata was "we want to make the upper end harder" - then they made the previous 80 levels so badly unbalanced that you could just zerg-rush entire dungeons and never stop. Get to 80, step into your first Cata dungeon, and get face-planted repeatedly because the older dungeons never taught you how to work as a team. Ooops...
(Combine that with the absolute cess-pool that was cross-server random dungeon groups and the constant money grabs in the form of trading card items or RMT items. No surprise that there are a lot of very ticked off long-time subscribers who said "enough is enough".)
Between the removal of insurance for ganks and the introduction of the glass cannon BCs, it will probably end up as a wash for the freighters, orcas and jump freighters of EVE in terms of "ganking for profit". The question will be "is Red Frog going to change their max collateral level?".
But it will do nothing for the T1 industrials or the mining barges and exhumers. Those are still easy prey for cheap destroyers, which cost so little that insurance isn't part of the "gank or do not gank" decision process.
And of course, the "for the lulz" gankers won't stop just because things got a bit more expensive. They're not in it for profit, they just want to watch the world burn. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 03:31:00 -
[367] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed. EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft. goin' soft? you mean gankers have to htfu and stop cryin'? |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 03:36:00 -
[368] - Quote
K Suri wrote: goin' soft? you mean gankers have to htfu and stop cryin'?
Who is crying? The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Belloche
The Dark Tribe Checkmate.
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 03:43:00 -
[369] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote: goin' soft? you mean gankers have to htfu and stop cryin'?
Who is crying?
Tippia, on almost every page so far.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:04:00 -
[370] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:They're not in it for profit, they just want to watch the world burn.
The Jokers of EVE They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:10:00 -
[371] - Quote
Belloche wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote: goin' soft? you mean gankers have to htfu and stop cryin'?
Who is crying? Tippia, on almost every page so far. Tippia has been playing devil's advocate for the people saying that removing insurance is necessary but as far as I know he or she isn't even a suicide ganker. Based on what I've seen from these threads most gankers either don't care about the insurance or agree that it doesn't make sense that they get reimbursed when they get killed by concord. All the "tears" that certain posters keep smugging about seem to be imaginary. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
119
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:13:00 -
[372] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:... All the "tears" that certain posters keep smugging about seem to be imaginary.
Oh go on, pretend to be upset at least. People will like you for some signs of humanity. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Letrange
Red Horizon Inc Cascade Probable
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:30:00 -
[373] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed. EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft. um... That's just the point - eve shrank like 8%. The constant griefing suicide ganking in high sec allows is what stops people from trying EVE out and gets them to quit withing the first 3 months. EVE has a VERY BAD newbie retention rate. It used to have a good veteran retention rate (which is what allowed it to grow) but ****** that up recently. CCP is now highly motivated to: a) fix outstanding issues to appease the long term player. b) get newbies to stick around. Hence what's going on. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:38:00 -
[374] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:... All the "tears" that certain posters keep smugging about seem to be imaginary. Oh go on, pretend to be upset at least. People will like you for some signs of humanity. Oh go on, pretend to be smart at least. She's a Goon. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
119
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:40:00 -
[375] - Quote
K Suri wrote: Oh go on, pretend to be smart at least. She's a Goon.
"She"? *Arches eyebrow.* "It" you mean? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Naari Talvanis
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:51:00 -
[376] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:The cheap ride for highsec ganks is coming to and end, like it should have 7 years ago. Why should it?
Honestly, alot of your posts have some sense of logic to it and contain actuall arguments, but c'mon.. It's quite logical why this should end.. everybody knows it.. it's just a matter of which side you belong to.
Highsec was designed as the area's for casual players, industrialists, new players, etc, etc. Nobody says it has to be 100% safe, but there should be safety to some degree. At the very least it should not be easy and relatively effortless to destroy what players not as far into the game as yourself, new guys or casual players have worked very long to attain. Cause that's what it is.. easy. Nearly NO skill involved in hanging around a gate while being untouchable and blowing up random stuff that comes through... without a realistic option for your target to defend. It would be different if while you were (essentially) pirating and preying in a highsec system you were actively hunted by faction navies and actually had to do stuff. Like avoiding patrols, attacking faction navy outposts etc. (increase penalty for criminal behaviour in highsec!) But just hanging around unchallenged untill you can blow something up..? Kinda cheap way of play, and can hardly be described as PvP. You want more pew, move to low or 0.0. Think the rewards in highsec are too high and people shouldn't be safe there? Buff low and 0.0 and give people a reason to go there, like it used to be.
Ofcourse ganking should still be possible, but only if there are genuine motivationspowering the effort such as;
-Extremely valuable loot in 1 fragile ship. -Wanting to hurt a certain corporation that you've been clashing with, either in highsec or outside of highsec. (improve wardec mechanics.) -Wanting to be a dangerous enough group of pirates to actually fight your way into protected empire territories and organise raids there. (People can actually anticipate and defend against that. ) -Wanting revenge bad enough for some reason.
The last bringing me to the type of players who want the act of suicide ganking to be as easy as it is. I'm really unable to believe that gankers actually believe there is some art to ganking when it's this easy. It's more probable that in reality they're people who get crapped on alot in daily life and find the ability to lash out against others online in a way they can't otherwise. Poorly.
To a degree that's fine I guess, as it's a game and everyone should play it like they want. Be the ******* they aren't in RL. But there should be some rules.. If you don't think so, I wonder how you'd like to live in a country where 10 people armed with clubs can stand around your house waiting for you to come out and violently rob you if you've got something valuable on you. Calling the police is no use since they haven't technically robbed you yet, (they did so a number of times in the past though) and when the police come they'll take the guys to a shop where they buy them new clubs (fracturing your skull takes it's toll on clubs you know) and release them again. After which the police will tell you they feel sorry for you, but that you should really make sure you park the car right next to your frontdoor next time, have a friend be on the lookout for the thugs and wear a medieval suit of armor to the office. "Don't worry though Sir, if they do it 2 more times this week they'll get a slap on the wrist, and can't come near your house again untill they've done 12 hours of community service work, removing graffity from neighbourhood walls."
It's (defending) a mentality like this that puts alot of people who'd potentially like to play EvE off.. You could say they shouldn't play then, but you could also say this is what keeps a lot of potential new players, targets, contributors and subscription money that can be used to our benefit away.
EvE being a dark and cold game and place to live is not the same as it being a madhouse. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:54:00 -
[377] - Quote
Letrange wrote:baltec1 wrote:Gealla wrote:
Probably, if CCP's goal is to increase the eve playerbase numbers to the point where it once again afford to diversify into other title production, so all of thier eggs aren't in the same proverbial basket, then catering to the casual masses is the only way to go.
Wow may not be hard core sandbox like eve, but it has over 11million paying subs....something ccp is sure to have noticed. The cold hard business facts are, cater to the majority if you want to make money, the minority will either adapt or find something else.
Having there business direction dictated to them by a bunch of online gamers who suddenly decided to unsub etc due to incarna will have, if nothing else, opened their eyes to the pitfalls of catering to the minority..
tldr - Eve will go casual, so ccp can grow.
Everyone that has chased after WOWs subs has failed. Every MMO that changed its makeup to go after WOW subs has collapsed. EVE has done nothing but grow year on year so there is no need to change and go soft. um... That's just the point - eve shrank like 8%. The constant griefing suicide ganking in high sec allows is what stops people from trying EVE out and gets them to quit withing the first 3 months. EVE has a VERY BAD newbie retention rate. It used to have a good veteran retention rate (which is what allowed it to grow) but ****** that up recently. CCP is now highly motivated to: a) fix outstanding issues to appease the long term player. b) get newbies to stick around. Hence what's going on.
c) Get newbies that don't suck and that intend to do something else with EVE unlimited potential than shoot lasers at rocks eternally to make space cash.
And that's coming from someone with levels in astrogeology.
|
yumike
Eve of Madness
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:58:00 -
[378] - Quote
Tippia wrote:yumike wrote:You don't suicide gank much do you? I don't suicide gank at all, so no, not muchGǪ
Well then, let me assure you - suicide ganking is fine and frankly needed this.
I will continue to do it when I feel like sitting at a gate waiting for something juicy enough to gank as i've been 5.1 sec status for way too long now, The only thing this change will effect is the lulzy suicide ganking. (And with the destroyer buffs incoming, there is room for arguement there) Sub ten mil isk to pop exhumers? Even lulzy ganking will do just fine. Profitable ganking is going nowhere. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1271
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:04:00 -
[379] - Quote
Belloche wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Who is crying? Tippia, on almost every page so far. Humour. Also, no.
So, who is crying?
yumike wrote:Well then, let me assure you - suicide ganking is fine and frankly needed this. How so? Why do they need this? Because it will give people an even more false sense of security? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1271
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:06:00 -
[380] - Quote
Naari Talvanis wrote:Highsec was designed as the area's for casual players, industrialists, new players, etc, etc. DebatableGǪ and even if it were, why does that mean that cheap ganks should have come to an end 7 years ago?
Quote:At the very least it should not be easy and relatively effortless to destroy what players not as far into the game as yourself, new guys or casual players have worked very long to attain. Why not? Everything should be relatively effortless to destroy, or it will stifle demand.
Quote:But just hanging around unchallenged untill you can blow something up..? Kinda cheap way of play, and can hardly be described as PvP. It most certainly is PvP GÇö it's another player that gets blown up after all. It just isn't fair, but that is kind of the whole point of doing it (and very much in line with how the game works in general). Moreover, if you can GÇ£just hang around unchallengedGÇ£, then a fair amount of work has gone into that, so the cheapness isn't really there.
Quote:Think the rewards in highsec are too high and people shouldn't be safe there? Buff low and 0.0 and give people a reason to go there, like it used to be. That's a particularly bad solution for an economy that is already out of whack. Nerfs are often a far better solution than buffs, and people need to stop being so afraid of them.
Quote:I'm really unable to believe that gankers actually believe there is some art to ganking when it's this easy. If it is as easy as that, how come people are so utterly unable to uphold the consequences of ganking, in especially since it's made even easier by not even having to take CONCORD into consideration when doing so? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
119
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:21:00 -
[381] - Quote
Tippia wrote:quote=Naari TalvanisHighsec was designed as the area's for casual players, industrialists, new players, etc, etc./quote DebatableGǪ and even if it were, why does that mean that cheap ganks should have come to an end 7 years ago? Does
Tippia wrote:quoteAt the very least it should not be easy and relatively effortless to destroy what players not as far into the game as yourself, new guys or casual players have worked very long to attain./quote Why not? Everything should be relatively effortless to destroy, or it will stifle demand. no one
Tippia wrote:quoteBut just hanging around unchallenged untill you can blow something up..? Kinda cheap way of play, and can hardly be described as PvP./quote It most certainly is PvP GÇö it's another player that gets blown up after all. It just isn't fair, but that is kind of the whole point of doing it (and very much in line with how the game works in general). Moreover, if you can GÇ£just hang around unchallengedGÇ£, then a fair amount of work has gone into that, so the cheapness isn't really there. else
Tippia wrote:quoteThink the rewards in highsec are too high and people shouldn't be safe there? Buff low and 0.0 and give people a reason to go there, like it used to be. /quote That's a particularly bad solution for an economy that is already out of whack. Nerfs are often a far better solution than buffs, and people need to stop being so afraid of them. find this
Tippia wrote:quoteI'm really unable to believe that gankers actually believe there is some art to ganking when it's this easy./quote If it is as easy as that, how come people are so utterly unable to uphold the consequences of ganking, in especially since it's made even easier by not even having to take CONCORD into consideration when doing so? absurd? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1271
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:26:00 -
[382] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Does no one else find this absurd? Do you mean your quoting style or what I said? If it's the former, then yes. If it's the latter, what is it you find absurd about it?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:29:00 -
[383] - Quote
This simply makes solo-ganking impossible, and encourages, yet more blobbing style attacks.
Even with an isk penalty implemented, people will still suicide thrashers/rifters etc to kill people.
The only way to solve this problem is to ether make highsec completely safe, (ie: no players can damage another player) or we debuff concord and teach the newbies how to play eve like it was made to be played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBVH6IVxas |
Jenshae Chiroptera
120
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:30:00 -
[384] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Does no one else find this absurd? Do you mean your quoting style or what I said? If it's the former, then yes. If it's the latter, what is it you find absurd about it?
You see a difference between our quoting styles? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
yumike
Eve of Madness
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:41:00 -
[385] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So, who is crying? yumike wrote:Well then, let me assure you - suicide ganking is fine and frankly needed this. How so? Why do they need this? Because it will give people an even more false sense of security?
Because as it stands now, If something drops more then 15ish mil depending on my module drop from my wreck - I made money.
At least after this i'll have to hit things that are worth 50mil or more (aka be a bit more intelligent about my ganks.) to pull a profit. (Which, to be honest I already did. If it isn't worth more then 200mil that's in 2 or more seperate items, I didn't gank it.) Now it's a little bit more rolling the dice then it was before, and that's not all bad. (Hell I popped a nearly 5bil isk cnr raven and only saw 25mil module drop, was slightly annoyed but I only lost ~20 mil on the two t1 bs trade for it)
There's no reason they should take that much risk when i'm virtually risk free (I go into every fight knowing I will die.) It doesn't make sense.
If your arguement is "they shouldnt be using autopilot" then I do agree, but intelligent people isn't what this topic is about.
I risk giving kill rights to a bear for 30 days (And only ever had one drake pilot actually come hunt me down to try, which I applauded him for)
They risk.. Their ship + whatever isk is in their cargo hold. As it stands right now on tq, I risk 10/20mil isk usually depending on my module drop/salvage (bc/bs). When my potential earnings are in the billions (Got a geddon BPO my third week of suicide ganking, I was pretty pumped!)
Risk vs reward, They have all the risk already - all I have is potential and people are whining about 30mil insurance payouts being taken away?
It's mind blowing to be honest. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:43:00 -
[386] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tippia wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Does no one else find this absurd? Do you mean your quoting style or what I said? If it's the former, then yes. If it's the latter, what is it you find absurd about it? You see a difference between our quoting styles?
I dont in some cases... thats what i thought when i looked up to your post from Tippia response.
Seriously i got my smile for the morning. |
Alxea
DARKNESS RISING. IMPERIAL LEGI0N
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:54:00 -
[387] - Quote
If you believe this will effect suicide ganking, you would be sadly mistaken. Suicide ganks will increase prob more with the ones who are -10.0. Because people are under the impression they are safer in highsec space and think people will not fork over the money to do it. Oh they can and they will. If not for profit but for the tears. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
680
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:01:00 -
[388] - Quote
Naari Talvanis wrote:Ofcourse ganking should still be possible, but only if there are genuine motivationspowering the effort such as;
-Extremely valuable loot in 1 fragile ship. -Wanting to hurt a certain corporation that you've been clashing with, either in highsec or outside of highsec. (improve wardec mechanics.) -Wanting to be a dangerous enough group of pirates to actually fight your way into protected empire territories and organise raids there. (People can actually anticipate and defend against that. ) -Wanting revenge bad enough for some reason. So is economic warfare by denial of resources a good enough reason or motivation? The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:08:00 -
[389] - Quote
It's better than (ugh, I just noticed I have only one like...bleh....anyway) nothing, but it's not quite what is appropriate, which is all pirates are enemies of any sovereignty where they commit their crimes, and are shot on sight. C'mon. Blackbeard had to deal wivvit. So should you wannabee Blackbeards out there. Until that's a feature in this game, ganking is a child's enterprise carried out by children clomping around in their daddy's shoes trying to look like big guys. Smear that on your thumb and suck it diapered tough guys. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Handsome Hussein
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:11:00 -
[390] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:This simply makes solo-ganking impossible, and encourages, yet more blobbing style attacks. Please explain this. I can solo-gank all day in Thrashers from money I make on my alt doing L3s (he's not in an L4-capable boat yet) WITHOUT insurance. Leaves only the fresh scent of pine. |
|
Handsome Hussein
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:12:00 -
[391] - Quote
Handsome ******* wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:This simply makes solo-ganking impossible, and encourages, yet more blobbing style attacks. Please explain this. I can solo-gank all day in Thrashers from money I make on my alt doing L3s (he's not in an L4-capable boat yet) WITHOUT insurance.
Hell, I can go out an run a single anom in 0.4 and get enough off bounties to buy and fit a gank Thrasher. Ten minutes tops, if I'm being lazy.
Quote button right next to edit... Stupid. Leaves only the fresh scent of pine. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:15:00 -
[392] - Quote
Handsome ******* wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:This simply makes solo-ganking impossible, and encourages, yet more blobbing style attacks. Please explain this. I can solo-gank all day in Thrashers from money I make on my alt doing L3s (he's not in an L4-capable boat yet) WITHOUT insurance. I should have chosen my words better... it doesnt make it impossible, just much more costly.
I could gank a hulk in a single tempest, but without insurance im not very likely to do this. Instead, i'll use thrashers, and be forced to team up with a bunch of other people to gank what my tempest could have done alone |
Handsome Hussein
93
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:18:00 -
[393] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:I should have chosen my words better... it doesnt make it impossible, just much more costly.
I could gank a hulk in a single tempest, but without insurance im not very likely to do this. Instead, i'll use thrashers, and be forced to team up with a bunch of other people to gank what my tempest could have done alone It really depends on what the target is. If I want to gank a Hulk, I get the gang together in Thrashers. If I want to gank a Retriever, I do it myself. Sometimes I get to can-clip and lose nothing.
Insurance changes nothing, except to create a false sense of security. Leaves only the fresh scent of pine. |
Mistah Ewedynao
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:21:00 -
[394] - Quote
You guys actually WORK for a living in Eve?
Might wanna spend a little more time thinking about how to make iskies easy instead of ganking badgers.
Buncha tards. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:21:00 -
[395] - Quote
Handsome ******* wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:I should have chosen my words better... it doesnt make it impossible, just much more costly.
I could gank a hulk in a single tempest, but without insurance im not very likely to do this. Instead, i'll use thrashers, and be forced to team up with a bunch of other people to gank what my tempest could have done alone It really depends on what the target is. If I want to gank a Hulk, I get the gang together in Thrashers. If I want to gank a Retriever, I do it myself. Sometimes I get to can-clip and lose nothing. Insurance changes nothing, except to create a false sense of security. But then, by now in this conversation, everyone should know that.
I completely agree insurance changes will do absolutly nothing to the number of ships suicide ganked. Infact i'd bet there will be an increase for a while, just out of spite. But It does change the methods used to gank. I would much rather use a team of cheap thrashers then my lone tempest. I'll actually be saving isk by being forced into this method.
And the encouragement of these blob techniques in additional gameplay areas, is only going to make it that much harder for new players to get into it on their own, or in their small corps.
I'm just a bit saddened that i cant use my tempest anymore (not cant, but... for price reasons, wont) |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:24:00 -
[396] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Handsome ******* wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:I should have chosen my words better... it doesnt make it impossible, just much more costly.
I could gank a hulk in a single tempest, but without insurance im not very likely to do this. Instead, i'll use thrashers, and be forced to team up with a bunch of other people to gank what my tempest could have done alone It really depends on what the target is. If I want to gank a Hulk, I get the gang together in Thrashers. If I want to gank a Retriever, I do it myself. Sometimes I get to can-clip and lose nothing. Insurance changes nothing, except to create a false sense of security. But then, by now in this conversation, everyone should know that. I completely agree insurance changes will do absolutly nothing to the number of ships suicide ganked. Infact i'd bet there will be an increase for a while, just out of spite. But It does change the methods used to gank. I would much rather use a team of cheap thrashers then my lone tempest. I'll actually be saving isk by being forced into this method. And the re-inforcement of these blob techniques in additional gameplay areas, is only going to make it that much harder for new players to get into it on their own, or in their small corps. I'm just a bit saddened that i cant use my tempest anymore (not cant, but... for price reasons, wont) boo hoo
Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Renturu
Tribal Spirit Tribal Unity Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:53:00 -
[397] - Quote
I posted about this in another forum, er... post. I feel insurance, period, is dumb. If you have been playing for more than a year and cannot figure out how to properly fit ANY ship, nor afford to replace it, you should not play this game. I think for players less than a year old, would be fine... Scratch that... ACCOUNTS less than a year old (to avoid alt isk sinks).
I tell all of our noobs: "If you cant afford to lose it, don't use it." |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:08:00 -
[398] - Quote
Renturu wrote:I posted about this in another forum, er... post. I feel insurance, period, is dumb. If you have been playing for more than a year and cannot figure out how to properly fit ANY ship, nor afford to replace it, you should not play this game. I think for players less than a year old, would be fine... Scratch that... ACCOUNTS less than a year old (to avoid alt isk sinks).
I tell all of our noobs: "If you cant afford to lose it, don't use it."
The insurance system is a way to know that the loss of your very pricey Machariel (sp?) will not be such a heavy burden because you will get something to compensate for the loss, will it cover the whole ship? no, but it will help you get yourself in another in less time.
I love how everyone has this really funny idea that this game should not be fun, but work. I do not play this game to feel like I have to juggle another stressful career or to have more money issues than I already have. I play this game for fun and prefer that I can lose a ship and get back in the saddle pretty quick with a platinum policy payout.
The problem with your attitude and the attitude of many on this thread is that you have some funny idea of how EVE "should be played". You think that unless they use your favorite fits and ships that they are just being dumb. I even have seen some (cough, cough, Tippia) who seem to think that this game should only be played a certain way and that you should be punished for trying anything else.
What do you think this is? Different people take different things from the game and sometimes they don't do what you want everyone to do, you just gotta relax and get over it. |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:21:00 -
[399] - Quote
Before I go to bed for the night.
Does anybody else find the whole thread utterly absurd?
I mean, some are really loudly complaining because they won't get a payout from a insurance organization in EVE when they get blown up by the INGAME POLICE for doing things that are illegal INGAME.
Are we not supposed to consider the fact that New Eden is NOT some sort of savage post apocalyptic wasteland but more along the lines of a Mafia controlled city during the 20's and 30's. The ingame universe gives us a structure of law and order that cannot keep up with the demands that Capsuleer's put on it, we can go round and round about the who "gets EVE" more but in the end we cannot deny that concord is the police in the game and if they destroy you for breaking the law than it makes perfect sense to not expect your insurance company to give you a payout blindly.
I don't care if you gank, but don't act like that is the only thing you should be doing in EVE and that doing anything else makes you no better than a target.
besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum KUGUTSUMEN.
283
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:24:00 -
[400] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:
besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
Thats what alts are for. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:46:00 -
[401] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:48:00 -
[402] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts.
Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight.
PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game. |
Renturu
Tribal Spirit Tribal Unity Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:59:00 -
[403] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Renturu wrote:I posted about this in another forum, er... post. I feel insurance, period, is dumb. If you have been playing for more than a year and cannot figure out how to properly fit ANY ship, nor afford to replace it, you should not play this game. I think for players less than a year old, would be fine... Scratch that... ACCOUNTS less than a year old (to avoid alt isk sinks).
I tell all of our noobs: "If you cant afford to lose it, don't use it." The insurance system is a way to know that the loss of your very pricey Machariel (sp?) will not be such a heavy burden because you will get something to compensate for the loss, will it cover the whole ship? no, but it will help you get yourself in another in less time. I love how everyone has this really funny idea that this game should not be fun, but work. I do not play this game to feel like I have to juggle another stressful career or to have more money issues than I already have. I play this game for fun and prefer that I can lose a ship and get back in the saddle pretty quick with a platinum policy payout. The problem with your attitude and the attitude of many on this thread is that you have some funny idea of how EVE "should be played". You think that unless they use your favorite fits and ships that they are just being dumb. I even have seen some (cough, cough, Tippia) who seem to think that this game should only be played a certain way and that you should be punished for trying anything else. What do you think this is? Different people take different things from the game and sometimes they don't do what you want everyone to do, you just gotta relax and get over it.
Wow!! Settle down there Trigger! I was stating what MY opinion was. Yours is fine. But many who play EVE are well vested into this game and desire that there be more of a "grown up" mindset when playing. No Nanny-Statism involved. It is a PLAYER RUN community and CCP shouldn't step in to "make it more fun" or easier. Many who have been in this game for a while have fun at their expense, no matter the cost - To include losing pricey ships worth more then than they are now.
I prefer to play the game on MY TERMS. I.e., no involvement from CCP to make it easier for me, to protect me. That is up to me to be more ingenious and to have better decisiveness when mining, missioning or otherwise. If I, from my experience and from others who, I've no doubt, have greater wisdom to pass on, I will not keep secrets.... EVEN if it means passing on a favor'd fit (B/C IT WORKS).
Personally, I feel, If you make a Dumb mistake and AFK Mine, Gank, Solo in Low/Null sec without first comprehending the consequences of YOUR OWN actions... you deserve whatever comes your way. Concordokken'd, ganked or straight up popped in a mission... you decide your fate... NOT CCP answering to Carebears, Gankers or and Coalition to STEAR the game into what one single culture in the game wants.
This is a "Sandbox," but the more CCP gets into making changes to MECHANICS, the more this game will be watered down and become Mud.
|
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 08:27:00 -
[404] - Quote
I'm rich and I can get even more space rich quickly. Losing out on that 3.8m reimbursement from my T2 fit Omen isn't going to stop me in the least. |
Shirah Yuri
Allied Assault Universal Constant Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 09:22:00 -
[405] - Quote
Modified Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
Rule 34: "More suicide ganks" is good for business Rule 35: "Less suicide ganks" is good for business
Ponder this :) |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 09:27:00 -
[406] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:This simply makes solo-ganking impossible, and encourages, yet more blobbing style attacks. Even with an isk penalty implemented, people will still suicide thrashers/rifters etc to kill people. The only way to solve this problem is to ether make highsec completely safe, (ie: no players can damage another player) or we debuff concord and teach the newbies how to play eve like it was made to be played. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBVH6IVxas
How does this make solo ganking impossible? |
Generals4
Caldari State
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:04:00 -
[407] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts.
But wouldn't said alts be carebears? -Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:06:00 -
[408] - Quote
Generals4 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. But wouldn't said alts be carebears?
The player is the carebear, not the character. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:08:00 -
[409] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game.
Yes all "PvP" players are exactly the same
No seriously though, most of the "PvPers" I know have at least one industry/market/$_ISKACTIVITY alt. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:25:00 -
[410] - Quote
We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. |
|
|
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:32:00 -
[411] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Since you guys have had that "feeling" for such a long time, it's a pity you were too meek to act on it sooner. |
inexistin
Rubbish and Garbage Removal Cascade Imminent
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:37:00 -
[412] - Quote
So we won't be seeing any other gank ships except for thrashers and uberfitted lvl4 running faction bs' will be pretty much forever safe. Newsworthy.
Although I hate the thought of so many headless chickens driving their bling through the neighbourhood in nearly complete safety. |
Cedric deBouilard
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:40:00 -
[413] - Quote
I work in insurance sector and let's be honest; you won't get any insurance payout from any company in my country if you wreck your car while robbing a bank. period.
thanks CCP for fixing this silly mistake.
oh and don't get me wrong, suicide ganking WILL continue; Goons or TEST will reimburse / pay for / offer free ships for suicide ganking just for the lulz and tears. They're already doing that.
Even when they don't or you're not part of a big troll alliance, losing 10-20mil from the insurance is insignificant when compared to the tasty tears. If you like tears, you'll keep ganking pubbies. HTFU. |
Shnejder
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:43:00 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
1) Is it logical i get a standard Insurance payout if i havent insured my ship? 2) Is it logical to build weapons with minerals just to reprocess them on destination cause its smaller in the amount of cargohold need to be moved? 3) is it logical the ship scanner is the only scanning module with a not clear result ofcourse u are in optimal?
if i would sit in a billion isk expensive ship in highsec you (ccp) would take care of me^^ |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:46:00 -
[415] - Quote
inexistin wrote:So we won't be seeing any other gank ships except for thrashers and uberfitted lvl4 running faction bs' will be pretty much forever safe. Newsworthy.
Tornadoes. Loads of Tornadoes. Effectiveness of 1400s + fitting for a lock time of 1 second on a pod at battlecruiser prices. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
83
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:51:00 -
[416] - Quote
inexistin wrote:So we won't be seeing any other gank ships except for thrashers and uberfitted lvl4 running faction bs' will be pretty much forever safe. Newsworthy. You forget tier 3 BCs.
The cost of losing an apoc or tempest hull right now is around 35 mil with insurance (before fittings). A tornado will be worth around 40 mil once price settles, and be just as good if not better for ganking.
A price increase of 5 mil per gank is not game changing. The tier 3 BCs with insurance would have been. |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:54:00 -
[417] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
thnx CCP Soundwave |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
195
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:57:00 -
[418] - Quote
I'd be perfectly happy with them making it impossible to suicide gank for profit, strategic advantage or any reason other than making a statement.
Mostly for the massive rage it would cause from the gankers. The most delicious tears by far are those of people who make it their job to harvest tears from others. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Inbrainsane
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:01:00 -
[419] - Quote
Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:[...]
If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
[...]
Botters rejoice. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:06:00 -
[420] - Quote
Inbrainsane wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:[...]
If you get concorded, you get no insurance payout, period.
[...]
Botters rejoice.
Care to elaborate ? It gives nothing to the one who has been killed by the other player ? |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
581
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:13:00 -
[421] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game.
Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:20:00 -
[422] - Quote
Inbrainsane wrote:Botters rejoice.
Botters already rejoice, they rent space from alliances, plus of course plenty of "PvPers" use bots, the number of hypocritical nulltards is hilarious. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
581
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:25:00 -
[423] - Quote
please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:30:00 -
[424] - Quote
Andski wrote:please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty
Cleverer than the nulltard hypocrites who only whine about bots in hi-sec... |
Jenshae Chiroptera
126
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:04:00 -
[425] - Quote
yumike wrote:... There's no reason they should take that much risk when i'm virtually risk free (I go into every fight knowing I will die.) It doesn't make sense.
If your arguement is "they shouldnt be using autopilot" then I do agree, but intelligent people isn't what this topic is about.
I risk giving kill rights to a bear for 30 days (And only ever had one drake pilot actually come hunt me down to try, which I applauded him for)
They risk.. Their ship + whatever isk is in their cargo hold. As it stands right now on tq, I risk 10/20mil isk usually depending on my module drop/salvage (bc/bs). When my potential earnings are in the billions (Got a geddon BPO my third week of suicide ganking, I was pretty pumped!) ...
Quoted for highlighting purposes. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
682
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:06:00 -
[426] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Andski wrote:please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty Cleverer than the nulltard hypocrites who only whine about bots in hi-sec... You're going to the 'nulltard' well a bit too often. If you're shooting for clever and witty you'll need to learn to mix it up a bit.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:41:00 -
[427] - Quote
So, it finally came to be. No surprise either. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:41:00 -
[428] - Quote
inexistin wrote:So we won't be seeing any other gank ships except for thrashers and uberfitted lvl4 running faction bs' will be pretty much forever safe. Newsworthy.
Although I hate the thought of so many headless chickens driving their bling through the neighbourhood in nearly complete safety.
Then I promote you to be the bringer of death to these pimped out faction bs'.
Show these lowly cretins what happens if you get too lulled by a false sence of security! |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:05:00 -
[429] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:Takashi X2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor. Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. ask Tippia: - her hulks are not-killable by 2-3 alpha-tempest - her scounts are able to detect any links between chars in game to detect if they are in 1 gank or not (even if they are from different corps and not in one fleet)
|
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:23:00 -
[430] - Quote
Andski wrote:please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty
thanks i would, however i leaved that carebear paradise, because it stopped to be sanctum paradise
So now its for few people who actually want PvP, altho i miss the point of null sec in this case, they can go with low sec with it.
Generally carebear 0.0 nerf was good for "general economy" however its bad for population of nullsec. Since carebears actually provided intel they were the eyes. Now its like it "should be" ?? questionable.
|
|
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:27:00 -
[431] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote: You're going to the 'nulltard' well a bit too often. If you're shooting for clever and witty you'll need to learn to mix it up a bit.
Twice isn't often... If you don't like it stop crying and HTFU... The only thing I'm shooting for is pointing out the hypcriscy of many members of nullsec alliances when it comes to their whining about botting in hi-sec... |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:31:00 -
[432] - Quote
Andski wrote:please keep coining more portmanteaus involving "nullsec", it makes you look clever and witty omnomnom goon tears are sweet |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:36:00 -
[433] - Quote
Andski wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game. Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves.
true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
83
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:43:00 -
[434] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above.
An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:45:00 -
[435] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself.
Thats the whole point.
EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote.
Yet somehow some people feel that they play-style is only way how to play EVE. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:54:00 -
[436] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that they play-style is only way how to play EVE.
Not only that.
EvE is a PvP-game and that makes every EvE player a PvPer even if some are in a state of denial. |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:55:00 -
[437] - Quote
Supporting this change, hope its real, hope it goes live. Make insurance more realistic, and support a better risk vs reward model. |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:01:00 -
[438] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that their play-style is only way how to play EVE.
The irony is strong in this post |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
83
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:06:00 -
[439] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out.
I would like to know the answer to this as well.[/quote]
50 BS is a very high estimate. It'll take more like 15 BS to alpha a freighter (you can get away with less, but bring a few extra to make sure).
For each BS, you can count on a 30 mil loss or so, plus, as a bare minimum, 100 mil profit per pilot. So it takes a minimum of 2b in loot to justify the gank. Now, on average, only half the cargo will drop, meaning you need a target with at least 4b in cargo. Not something freighter pilots do every day.
Now, 15 BS waiting around on a gate are easy enough to spot. Just have a friend or alt run 1-2 jumps ahead of you checking the gates and short range scan for a bunch of BS. If you find something suspicious, dock up, take a detour, or split your cargo in smaller chunks.
You will complain other people are forcing you to change your playstyle, but that's just the nature of the game. It's a multiplayer game, and you need to take other people's actions into account. Refusing to do it is like complaining about paying rent to other players in Monopoly. |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:20:00 -
[440] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Montevius Williams wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well.
Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking. |
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:28:00 -
[441] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Montevius Williams wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking.
This ^^
I am amazed that so many are lacking common sense. Maybe you all can learn a real lesson in EvE.
EvE is real.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
990
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:40:00 -
[442] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. This change makes complete sense and should be implemented. I can't imagine why any insurance company would want to reward someone for breaking the law. Last time I checked...if your car is shot up because it was the getaway car in an armed robbery the insurance company does not pay for your repairs.
A little more common sense in EvE. This is a good thing.
No insurance company would pay out for just about any of the shiploss scenarios that currently get an insurance payment.
You're saying it's "common sense" that we get do insurance for a ship we lost to self-destructing, taking a ship into a known warzone, deliberately hunting pirates, bubbling yourself in the middle of an enemy fleet, etc, but not for shooting a hauler? No "real" insurance company would pay for any of those losses.
Just about the only common ship-loss scenario that a "real" insurance company would pay out for is, ironically, one for which EVE Insurance doesn't pay - when a ship is stolen from a hangar.
Indeed, one might almost think that "common sense" would bring us to the conclusion that EVE insurance is nothing in common with "real" insurance except the name. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
yumike
Eve of Madness
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:43:00 -
[443] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. Simply put, You are wrong. The biggest advocater in this thread how this is a bad idea has self-admittedly never suicide ganked.
I've easily suicide ganked 80~ or so ships across 4 characters and think this is a great change.
Stereotypes are bad okay? |
Generals4
Caldari State
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:54:00 -
[444] - Quote
I don't get why people complain. Sure it might dissuade a couple of suicide gankers but lets not forget dessies are getting a buff and tier 3 BC's will be awesome suicide gankers. So we have two changes which favor suicide ganking and which dissuades it and people whine about the death of suicide ganking?! The only thing this will change is a reduction in isk creation through insurance, which is good. -Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1278
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:56:00 -
[445] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Why does Tipsy keep harping on about "false sense of security"? Most high sec dwellers don't read dev blogs fully or come on the forums, so they will be unaware of this change. It is really just the gankers that will notice it. Because safety in highsec is what you create for yourself. It seems more and more common that people expect the game to keep them safe, when it is in fact they themselves that have that responsibility. Highsec is no different from any other kind of space in this regard, and that's what they are missing. It is this false sense of security I'm talking about: people who assume that they don't/shouldn't have to do anything to protect themselves because they are in GÇ£safeGÇ¥ space.
The best thing that can happen to these people is not to make the space they're in safer GÇö it's to teach them how to make it safe. Why do you keep hearing the GÇ£the real carebears are in deep nullGÇ¥ bitterwhine? Because it's true, because those people are part of groups who have made their space safe. Nothing beats the safety you create for yourself. Nor should it, imo GÇö if you can't create that safety, you should be left with your arse hanging out.
Pandering to their false sense of security by fiddling with the mechanics they (incorrectly) think are there to make them safe will only make them even less inclined to create any actual safety for themselves and will thus make them less safe. They will engage in far more risk behaviour than before and get even more upset when it turns out that their behaviour got them killed.
This is why I think highsec safety needs to be rolled back: because as CONCORD and insurance have been adjusted over the years, people have just become more and more stupid in how they think about their own safety. Easing off on those adjustments would send the signal that, no, you are indeed not safe unless you do something about it yourself, and thus increase people's use of safety tactics and techniques. Making the space less safe will (seemingly paradoxically) make the people in it more safe (or, rather, more risk-aware, which leads to safer behaviour).
March rabbit wrote: ask Tippia: - her hulks are not-killable by 2-3 alpha-tempest - her scounts are able to detect any links between chars in game to detect if they are in 1 gank or not
Three is iffy, two is definitely possible to tank against (unless they get lucky with the die rollsGǪ but on average). And it's not about detecting some kind of link GÇö it's about detecting a situation; noticing things that are not as they should be; noticing people who behave oddly; in short, about a healhty(?!) dose of paranoiaGǪ
Remember the old adages: it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:06:00 -
[446] - Quote
Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic.
So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one
Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son! Rated ARG for Pirates. **** you. |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:23:00 -
[447] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic.
So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one
Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son!
Im starting to think people who post things like this arn't being entirely honest about reading this topic. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:23:00 -
[448] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Scalar Angulargf wrote:The F Word wrote:This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP. What? Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it. If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW And why do you care ? it's maybe because everyone ignores him? |
Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries Bloodbound.
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:32:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Quoting for prosterity.
So Tippia, them apples??? I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg |
Kheper Ra
Industrial Strength Killers Enlightened Violence
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:38:00 -
[450] - Quote
A little late on this post..
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff?
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
|
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:51:00 -
[451] - Quote
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:56:00 -
[452] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?
Actually it gets easier, even without insurance the money spent will be at best equal to the current state.
Unless we are speaking about 5 mil ISK, dessie, which is quite pointless honestly. |
Drakarin
Paladin Nine Eternal Pretorian Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:01:00 -
[453] - Quote
It makes logical sense, because no police force would allow an insurance payout to a criminal they just destroyed.
Imagine for instance you were in a death match race with another car and won but it was unprovoked. The police arrive and as punishment destroy your vehicle. Do you honestly think they would allow the insurance company to pay you anything? Of course not.
It makes no sense at all that you get insurance all the time, let alone from breaking the law. Personally, I say remove insurance entirely. It's one HUGE isk faucet and makes the game much easier. |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:01:00 -
[454] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?
No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:02:00 -
[455] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff?
in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.
It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.
If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:04:00 -
[456] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.
Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care and how much you aren't crying about it . |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:04:00 -
[457] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.
Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post.
Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ???
Just cant get it.
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:06:00 -
[458] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it.
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? |
baltec1
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:07:00 -
[459] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:baltec1 wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.
Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."? No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting. Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care .
Im waiting for night to finish on minecraft so I can get back to building my temple without the creepers getting me |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:15:00 -
[460] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote:Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. See post 426 above.
Quote:That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (GÇ£freeGÇ¥ as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games.
Quote:After reading the QEN and finding out that 75 [percent] of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. There are quite a few ways to slice that number, and you should not that it does not count playersGǪ
Quote:Can I have your stuff? Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:15:00 -
[461] - Quote
useless ******* forum software GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
228
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:20:00 -
[462] - Quote
I'm gay. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
158
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:21:00 -
[463] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.
Please remove it as well. Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Victor Fenris
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:25:00 -
[464] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!
GJ CCP Victor Fenris
To the victor goes the spoils.... To Victor, not you!!!! |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:33:00 -
[465] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Inbrainsane wrote:Botters rejoice. Botters already rejoice, they rent space from alliances, plus of course plenty of "PvPers" use bots, the number of hypocritical nulltards is hilarious.
Mostly known as Goons lol They have ppl IN CCP and ppl are surprised they get away with it? Lol Goons have BECOME BoB so... if Goons won EVE but Goons are the same as BoB were... BoB WON EVE
Victor Fenris wrote:
Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!
GJ CCP
lol yes. To the qqing:
ADAPT OR DIE They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1282
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:41:00 -
[466] - Quote
Apollo Gabriel wrote:Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.
Please remove it as well. Insurance for self-destruct is what gives mineral value. Stop being mean to the miners. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
992
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:46:00 -
[467] - Quote
Tippia wrote:useless ******* forum software
PEND Insurance should insure forum posts c/d? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:47:00 -
[468] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space.
Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
|
Anna Hyperthron
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:49:00 -
[469] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it. EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, its not.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:55:00 -
[470] - Quote
I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.
In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification
Bye-bye freighter ganking.
High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.
You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.
Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.
You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change.
Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. |
|
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:01:00 -
[471] - Quote
The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post. In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification Bye-bye freighter ganking. High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot. You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most. Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly. You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is.
htfu or cry some moar your choice |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:02:00 -
[472] - Quote
Apollo Gabriel wrote:Insurance is SILLY.
Please remove it as well.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:12:00 -
[473] - Quote
Jack All'Trade wrote:The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post. In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganker gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self. Bye-bye freighter ganking. High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot. You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most. Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly. You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. htfu or cry some moar your choice
I'll got for option C; make another post quoting your post quoting my post.
|
Kheper Ra
Industrial Strength Killers Enlightened Violence
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:01:00 -
[474] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kheper Ra wrote:Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. See post 426 above. Quote:That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (GÇ£freeGÇ¥ as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games
The lower security areas of the game promote PvP. From the time a pilot joins EVE, they hear about the lack of safety in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. In fact when a pilot jumps from hi-sec to lo-sec or into w-space they are given a warning of how Concord can't protect them there. Hi-Sec is all about "relative safety" -- meaning that there are consequences for unsanctioned aggression. Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play.
Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all. ("free" as in speech, not beer). That is why we have the other "less secure" regions of space, and I use the term "less secure" very loosely. After all, it is a known fact that null-sec is relatively safe when everyone around you two and three regions over is blue. In fact it's quite a shame that null-sec is actually safer than lo-sec...but I digress.
As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers.
My favorite...
Quote:Can I have your stuff? Quote: Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over.
I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. Don't be that guy who picks on the 95 pound weakling. It's not good for your Battleclinic stats. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1283
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:29:00 -
[475] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote:The lower security areas of the game promote PvP. Nah. All of EVE is, largely because it's a PvP game. That's also why PvP is allowed everywhere.
Quote:Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play. Not quite. The starting areas are about learning how to play the game GÇö highsec is just an area where certainy types of gameplay are not available. Anyone who thinks he will be ineffective for the first 6-12 months is a fool and have failed to learn how the game works.
Quote:Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all. Of course it is. That's why you're free to attack anyone you like. In fact, it must be like this in order for the game to work. It is just an area where aggression costs, which makes people not be aggressive unless they can stomach paying for it. Hence why it's not free as in beer. The fact that you are entirely free to attack other players if you choose to is why it's free as in speech.
Quote:As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers. It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.
Quote:I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. So why did you try to make yourself out to be one?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Nikollai Tesla
Crytec Enterprises SRS.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:46:00 -
[476] - Quote
As long as there are people stupid enough to move high value cargo in weak tanked ships there will be ganks. This just moves the stupid cutoff mark.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11441587 |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
687
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:56:00 -
[477] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? No, its not. That's certainly a compelling and well-reasoned argument.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[478] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, its not.
The fact that players are ganked even in high-sec proves me right. |
Jita Alt666
467
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[479] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
Define safe and unsafe: If 6 players die in a 0.8 system with 600 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 1% death rate If 3 players die in a 0.0 system with 30 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 10% death rate Which one is more dangerous?
Define "ships destroyed in the last hour": How many died in missions? How many died to gankers? How many self destructed? How many died in consensual PVP?
Taking a map image as evidence of safety is not the most accurate way of gaining knowledge. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:05:00 -
[480] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:21:00 -
[481] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:
Taking a map image as evidence of safety is not the most accurate way of gaining knowledge.
Hey thanks for the tip....I'll make sure I don't do that in the future.
Offer whatever assessment you like.....just try it. At any given hour, where are the majority of ships destroyed? Forget your "stats" and "percentages"....where is the huge majority of ships being destroyed? Try and overlook the obfuscation of population, reason for destruction, etc.
Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?
I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? Especially that there are people desiring to see more ships destroyed in hi sec?
I'm just throwing it out there.
Why are people hanging around hi sec when stuff's going kablooey all around 'em? Has it become so stagnant in low and null sec that the residents are bored? |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:24:00 -
[482] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?
I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:24:00 -
[483] - Quote
Richard Aiel wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was. you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?
I don't think so....otherwise many more systems would show results as a result of ratting.
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:26:00 -
[484] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?
I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment.
Yeah it is.....One commonly held belief is "safety in numbers." Doesn't seem to hold true here. |
Diosas
Comply Or Die
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:29:00 -
[485] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kheper Ra wrote:Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. See post 426 above. Quote:That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (GǣfreeGǥ as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games. Quote:After reading the QEN and finding out that 75 [percent] of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. There are quite a few ways to slice that number, and you should not that it does not count playersGǪ Quote:Can I have your stuff? Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over.
Why should the be forced to do what your suggesting? what if they like their bad habits? what if they like just carebearing? What gives you the right to force them to do anything? |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:30:00 -
[486] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Richard Aiel wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was. you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning? I don't think so....otherwise many more systems would show results as a result of ratting.
Try looking at "Escape pods destroyed" instead and you see a different pattern.
Also, to estimate risk you need to standardize your estimate by number of pilots e.g. by calculating a ratio of kills/no of pilots in space. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:33:00 -
[487] - Quote
Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.
Where are the majority of ships destroyed?
I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:36:00 -
[488] - Quote
Lexmana wrote: Also, to estimate risk you need to standardize your estimate by number of pilots e.g. by calculating a ratio of kills/no of pilots in space.
I'm not trying to estimate risk. I'm woolgathering as to how a large chunk of the hi sec herd can be moved out of that space. Changing perceptions is a start.
|
baltec1
181
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:36:00 -
[489] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?
I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment. Yeah it is.....One commonly held belief is "safety in numbers." Doesn't seem to hold true here.
Get in a ship, any ship will do and go park yourself on the perimiter gate in jita. Make a note of how long it is before someone kills you. Now do the same in a 0.0 pipe.
Notice the difference. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:37:00 -
[490] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.
Where are the majority of ships destroyed?
I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.
Why not take a trip to null and see for yourself. You can survive in highsec right , so null should be like a walk in the park for you. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1286
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:37:00 -
[491] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Try and overlook the obfuscation of population, reason for destruction, etc. They're not obfuscations GÇö they're key factors in determining how secure something is.
Quote:the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? No.
Diosas wrote:Why should the be forced to do what your suggesting? what if they like their bad habits? what if they like just carebearing? What gives you the right to force them to do anything? Because the option is that they get destroyed. They don't have to learn how the game works, but then they forfeit any credibility and right to complain when things don't work the way they incorrectly assume that they work.
If they like their bad habits, they should understand that those bad habits will get them killed. If they can't accept that, then maybe they should find a game where those habits are not as bad.
Finally, just because they're carebearing doesn't mean they can't do it intelligently (although sometimes, one has to wonderGǪ ). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Kheper Ra
Industrial Strength Killers Enlightened Violence
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:12:00 -
[492] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. So why did you try to make yourself out to be one? I almost died laughing...
Really? You're promoting suicide ganking, being a bully, and all around EVE tough guy/girl all in the name of 'game mechanics', and this is how EVE is played, etc...yet as I counter your points (and other posters), somehow I'm making myself out to be the Internet Spaceship tough guy.
That sir/ma'am was an amazing leap of logic.
At least when Goon organized suicide ganks in hi-sec (ice miners) they had a specific reason...even if I don't agree with it, I can respect it.
Seriously, contrary to popular belief suicide ganking noobs and indy pilots does not make anyone a legitimate PvP'er. Technically, it may have been PvP combat at that moment, but it's like saying you were intimate with a member of the opposite sex...even though they did not consent...and then justifying the actions.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
1905
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:13:00 -
[493] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? No, its not. Oh but it is, Eve was designed to be PvP centric.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1286
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:18:00 -
[494] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote:yet as I counter your points (and other posters), somehow I'm making myself out to be the Internet Spaceship tough guy. No. It was your GÇ£can I have your stuffGÇ¥ nonsense that made you that.
Quote:That sir/ma'am was an amazing leap of logic. It's your logic, so that's your problem. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jita Alt666
472
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:24:00 -
[495] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.
Where are the majority of ships destroyed?
I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.
I understand what you are attempting to do - recolour discussion regarding safety in a manner so that high sec players see the risk vs reward opportunities in a different light. I think that intent it useful and productive. Breaking out from high sec is not actually that difficult (in eve terms) it requires investment in skills and taking the time to learn the fundementals.
Your argument however is akin to saying; "There are more deaths of people in fully enclosed motor vehicles (cars) each year than people on motorbikes, therefore it is safer to ride a motorbike than drive a car."
This I can not agree with.
|
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:27:00 -
[496] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it. EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP...hence the player controlled market, economy, industrialism, META game..... EVE is all of these things and to simply say "EVE IS PVP" show's a complete lack of understanding of how this game works.
I've had a toon for 4 years that hasn't left a station, he holds a corp for me....I also have toons that lost ships 3 days ago in lowsec and another that PVP'd last night in 0.0
Does this make me a PVP player or a Carebear? TBH I'm both and that's how I enjoy the game...not how you tell me too. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1287
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:31:00 -
[497] - Quote
Gealla wrote:No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP No. EVE is an MMORPG where everything you do is in competition with other players GÇö PvP.
There are exactly two thing in EVE that are not subject to PvP: accepting missions and handing missions in. Everything else is PvP in one form or another, and everything (including those two non-PvP actions) feeds the great war machine that keeps the market flowingGǪ a market, by the way, that is all PvP the way that it is set up, even when you interact with NPCs. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:37:00 -
[498] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gealla wrote:No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP No. EVE is an MMORPG where everything you do is in competition with other players GÇö PvP. There are exactly two thing in EVE that are not subject to PvP: accepting missions and handing missions in. Everything else is PvP in one form or another, and everything (including those two non-PvP actions) feeds the great war machine that keeps the market flowingGǪ a market, by the way, that is all PvP the way that it is set up, even when you interact with NPCs.
Yes EVE is PVP centric, but it is not purely PVP, as you stated it has components that are not PVP.
There is no "correct" way to be involved in this game. |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:50:00 -
[499] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gealla wrote:No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP No. EVE is an MMORPG where everything you do is in competition with other players GÇö PvP. There are exactly two thing in EVE that are not subject to PvP: accepting missions and handing missions in. Everything else is PvP in one form or another, and everything (including those two non-PvP actions) feeds the great war machine that keeps the market flowingGǪ a market, by the way, that is all PvP the way that it is set up, even when you interact with NPCs.
With that logic, the "carebears" are engaging in PvP all the time, who are you to tell us how to play the game or even to assume that you somehow know the best and only way to play EVE.
I am gonna play the game my way, you are going to play it your way, no one way is right or wrong. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:52:00 -
[500] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Why not take a trip to null and see for yourself. You can survive in highsec right , so null should be like a walk in the park for you.
Been there, done that. With the right attitude and a cov ops ship.....it's as close as one can get.
Well, I guess getting more players to try low or null sec isn't the point.
Is there any point at all?
|
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
2020
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:55:00 -
[501] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:With that logic, the "carebears" are engaging in PvP all the time. Why? Do you think they are not?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1287
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:55:00 -
[502] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:With that logic, the "carebears" are engaging in PvP all the time Indeed they are.
Quote:who are you to tell us how to play the game or even to assume that you somehow know the best and only way to play EVE. Good thing I'm not doing that, then, aside from giving tips on how to play it safely. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:56:00 -
[503] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Lexmana wrote:Why not take a trip to null and see for yourself. You can survive in highsec right , so null should be like a walk in the park for you. Been there, done that. With the right attitude and a cov ops ship.....it's as close as one can get. Well, I guess getting more players to try low or null sec isn't the point. Is there any point at all?
No...it's a computer game, games are pointless other than playing for entertainment. That's the point. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:01:00 -
[504] - Quote
Gealla wrote:No...it's a computer game, games are pointless other than playing for entertainment. That's the point.
Thanks for the "wut?" today.
|
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises Spectrum Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:03:00 -
[505] - Quote
SMOKE HULKS EVERYDAY!! |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:38:00 -
[506] - Quote
Tippia wrote:"who are you to tell us how to play the game or even to assume that you somehow know the best and only way to play EVE." Good thing I'm not doing that, then, aside from giving tips on how to play it safely.
Sure you're not:
Tippia wrote:they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
Tippia wrote:Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
Tippia wrote:Activities in highsec need to be easily disrupted
Tippia wrote:Everything should be relatively effortless to destroy
The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:47:00 -
[507] - Quote
Have to give Tipsy some endurance medal or something. I doubt they have slept in days with the fervent replies to this thread. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:52:00 -
[508] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
What about when people self destruct and time it for an alpha or two before CONCORD arrives? Is there a way to prevent payout for that? |
CyberRaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:58:00 -
[509] - Quote
lol, it stops nothing
Not my thrasher :( NOES |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:58:00 -
[510] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Sure you're not: [GǪ] The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Cur
Militaris Industries Cascade Imminent
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:03:00 -
[511] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible.
That means a hulk isnt worth suiciding on unless you have something personal against the pilot. 99% of eve's highsec miner's sing and dance with glee.
Scum that stroke e-peen over killing said hulks and others purely because they can go "lololol i kiled dis nub im teh bestest" will cry like mistreated newborn babies and will probably quit eve as the concept of killign something that can shoot back and a chance of killing them would have the same effect as them realising their current girlfriend (if any) is actualy a transvestite. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:16:00 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Sure you're not: [GǪ] The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game? You're so predictible. I was just about to add "In before your How so?", but you beat me to it.
Let me explain it, because you tend to think that using "how so" is some form of a get-out-of-jail-free card that some how automatically gives you the upper hand, even though I think you very well know the answer to your own question . But here it is, I'll spell it out slowly.
Implementing your ideas is restricting the plays of other people, specifically those that play in hi sec. I think you've made it redundently clear you want hi sec to be highly intrusive and disruptive, as in PVP should come effortlessly from lazy/lulz PVPers to those darn "carebears", regardless on how they would like to play the game. You see, you've made it clear that you don't care that hi sec should be safer and that many players are there because of this higher security benefit. Your concern is to make hi sec easily destructible and disruptible by a few.
My hunch is that your game play hugely benefits financially from suicide ganks and destruction in hi sec. Hell, I own a few moons myself and I don't complain when there are wars going on :). But I also understand that this game needs to remain enjoyable for the majority of players (not just the grief players). You either seem to lack this understanding or simply don't give two ***** about it. My bet is on the latter.
You have no real advice for miners other than "don't fly drunk and fit your hulks properly" () and your answers usually just consist of a generic "how so?" because you think that lets you off the hook some how. Well, it doesn't. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:18:00 -
[513] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Sure you're not: [GǪ] The very least you could do is keep it honest, Tippia. And where in those quotes do I tell people how to play the game?
Someone is testing Cleverbot on these forums, aren't they? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
164
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:19:00 -
[514] - Quote
Cur wrote:Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible. That means a hulk isnt worth suiciding on unless you have something personal against the pilot. 99% of eve's highsec miner's sing and dance with glee. Scum that stroke e-peen over killing said hulks and others purely because they can go "lololol i kiled dis nub im teh bestest" will cry like mistreated newborn babies and will probably quit eve as the concept of killign something that can shoot back and a chance of killing them would have the same effect as them realising their current girlfriend (if any) is actualy a transvestite.
Here I am at work...I "LOL'd"...and of course my boss wants to know why...
She "LOL'd" too... Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |
Sarah Ichijou
Regional Park Services Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:31:00 -
[515] - Quote
So my 1.5 mil thrasher loss (after insurance) is now 2 mil?
I can accept that. |
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:37:00 -
[516] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. What about when people self destruct and time it for an alpha or two before CONCORD arrives? Is there a way to prevent payout for that?
From memory, it takes 2 minutes to self destruct. I can not remember whether you can warp and keep self destruction ticker counting - if so then good on the self destruct pilot. The timing to do so shows competent game play. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:39:00 -
[517] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Implementing your ideas is restricting the plays of other people, specifically those that play in hi sec. How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear.
Quote:I think you've made it redundently clear you want hi sec to be highly intrusive and disruptive, as in PVP should come effortlessly from lazy/lulz PVPers to those darn "carebears" No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected.
Yes, that might make it harder to go it alone as a highsec dweller, but on the other hand, you're such a small fish at that point that it should be rather easy to stay unnoticed. Of course, this opens up a new route to try to hide your alliance's support activities, and it is a difficult balance to strike between the two, but just making it increasingly safe in highsec and giving less and less incentive to do stuff locall outside of those areas, seems like the wrong way to go. It just ends up leaving those other areas largely pointless.
Quote:you've made it clear that you don't care that hi sec should be safer and that many players are there because of this higher security benefit. Should it? According to whom? As for the higher security, it will still be there, most notably because people will be made aware of the risks and thus stop having that false sense of security that makes it much less safe than it isGǪ
Quote:My hunch is that your game play hugely benefits financially from suicide ganks and destruction in hi sec. Your hunch is wrong. Or, wellGǪ I benefit financially from them just as much as everyone else, but no, it is not something that is particularly needed for my finances to work out.
Quote:You have no real advice for miners other than "don't fly drunk and fit your hulks properly" ( ) and your answers usually just consist of a generic " how so?" because you think that lets you off the hook some how. Well, it doesn't. It's sound advice, if people would just heed it, and no, I'm notr trying to get GÇ£off the hookGÇ¥ GÇö I'm trying to get answers. That's why I'm asking. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jenshae Chiroptera
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:45:00 -
[518] - Quote
500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
143
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:52:00 -
[519] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Has you often say, don't bring reality in to an MMO.
And it's a nice way to burn some isk for those who have too much like big alliances, also those who gank for profit need to learn some accounting skills if this is implemented. Those who don't? -go pvp in low sec or null
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:55:00 -
[520] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew? The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics.
The GǣsafeGǥ character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way. The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvPGǪ but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.
If the former is allowed to be safe from pew pew, then the latter needs to be allowed to be safe from the market, and at that point, the whole game collapses because of how central both market and pew pew are.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. Where do you get GǣfrothingGǥ from? I think you're imagining thingsGǪ And why am I in plural? (Yes, I'm aware of the singular they, but that particular uncertainty shouldn't exist here). Oh, and I have slept plenty over the last few days, thank you very much, so you're imagining that too.
Are you sleeping well? They say you get a bit delirious if you stay up for too longGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
97
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:56:00 -
[521] - Quote
Minor effect really. When you play long enough you get to a point where you stop insuring ships, especially when the modules plugged into it are at such a greater loss being able to absorb said loss leaves the loss of the hull price seemingly trivial.
But the griefer tears in here sustain me and I relish in them.
Oh oh. That makes me a griefer!!!1!!! Oh nooooes!
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:13:00 -
[522] - Quote
Tippia wrote:How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear. You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here? You really don't know how converting hi sec into 0.0 will affect hi sec players? I just don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. I'm sorry.
Quote:No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected. All this at the cost of hi sec players. Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style. Some people just aren't interested in having to buy a second account to get an scout alt or joing a mega alliance just move in hi sec because Tippia wants CONCORD removed from hi sec (and fails to see how this change affects hi sec players).
Quote:Should it? According to whom? According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null. That you disagree with this, well, that's just fine by me.
|
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:27:00 -
[523] - Quote
Tippia: Your posts in this thread make sense and are reasonable (although off topic). You are being trolled (repeatedly) by a few forum dwellers who are not interested in expanding their understanding, but merely in arguing. Please don't feed them.
Matrix: The hub of the matter is that Eve Online is one continuous universe that embraces different player styles/types. Some feel changes that are occurring in Empire are the thin end of the wedge in creating different player zones with Empire looking increasingly like completely safe space. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:32:00 -
[524] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here? Ah, I understand what's confusing you now. No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier.
Quote:All this at the cost of hi sec players. Not necessarily. That all depends on how well they can learn to deal with the risks and to mitigate them.
Quote:Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style. And I'm asking, why can't it accommodate their play style and still be dangerous? Why are their play styles so utterly incompatible with taking precautions and planning for safety? I'm sure someone will try to twist what I said above into some kind of Gǣaha! so you are trying to force people to play a certain wayGǥ, but that hinges on an assumption that what they're doing now is utterly impossible to do safelyGǪ and I reject that assumption as absurdly false.
Quote:According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null. And it is, nor am I suggesting that it shouldn't be. I read your GÇ£should be saferGÇ¥ as GÇ£should be safer than it isGÇ¥ not as GÇ£should be safer than low/nullGÇ¥. If you think that I'm arguing for a removal of highsec, you haven't read what I'm writing. I'm simply arguing that it should only be GÇ£highGÇ¥ sec GÇö no the complete-sec that it's edging towards and that some people want to see. I'm arguing that it has already moved too far in that direction and that it can be dialled back quite a bit and still offer the relative safety that some players like GÇö in fact, doing so will actually make those players safer because it makes them understand the need and usefulness of various safety behaviours.
Nullsec shows us this already: safety for the player is something rather different than the safety of system and its mechanics. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Vordel
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
412
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:38:00 -
[526] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
Awww, suicide gankers are gonna hafta grow up and pull away from the Pend Insurance teet? POOR BABIES! |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:41:00 -
[527] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
That is an interesting point. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:43:00 -
[528] - Quote
[quote=Tippia]blab[quote] How did you get to be such an expert in the game? You are a 5.0 sec status player in a 4 man corp running at 100% tax. It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Yet your opinions seems to cover every facet of the game with quite incredible detail.
Amazing stuff Tippia. Simply amazing.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:45:00 -
[529] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.
This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Denidil
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:45:00 -
[530] - Quote
ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.
I'm enjoying the tears. MM Bombers, Best Bombers |
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:50:00 -
[531] - Quote
Denidil wrote:ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.
I'm enjoying the tears.
It's such a refreshing reversal of fortunes, isn't it? Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:50:00 -
[532] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
The old guideline was 5000 ISK/EHP (freighters basically have 200k EHP) - which is why Red Frog sets a 1B ISK as the max collateral. Except that with the advent of the tier3 BCs, damage per million ISK spent was going to go up drastically. Removal of insurance will probably even that out a bit.
So, basically a wash - and the 1B ISK number will probably still stay as the tipping point for freighter ganks. |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:51:00 -
[533] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
413
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:51:00 -
[534] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
Queue Tippia's usual "Eve is not the real world" spiel followed by 20 uses of the word "Why?" as an arguing tactic. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:53:00 -
[535] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company.
That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:57:00 -
[536] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fille Balle wrote:Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew? The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics. The GǣsafeGǥ character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way. The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvPGǪ but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.
So... nobody is allowed to stay docked and use alts for transporting stuff etc.? And it's ok to force people to pew pew but it's not ok to force people to pvp in other manners?
No, I don't see a problem here. Move along, nothing to see here. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:06:00 -
[537] - Quote
Warning! Long post ahead; ignore if illiterate!
As always, the problem with this forum's posters isn't a lack of decent arguments, but a lack of foresight. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses isn't the problem here, and never was. It's not going to stop the majority of gankers from carrying on with their craft. The "carebears," while loathe to admit this, already feel it in their bones. Hence why they're slowly moving towards other arguments, such as:
"But the concept of high-sec is that it's meant to be inherently safe. There's a reason why 75% of EVE players live there: it's because they want to avoid pvp, and focus on industry-oriented activities instead. If "pvpers" want to pvp, they should go to low/null and do that there, and leave us alone."
Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole? I went on a solo null roam recently, and didn't encounter anyone in about 80 jumps, save for a bunch of botters, and two Dramiels on the final exit gate. Meanwhile, in high-sec, I have tens to hundreds of targets from my wars, as well as plentiful opportunities from baiting and ganks. Why should we go away, when it's so good here?
"Because you need us; we make your ships, your ammo, and your modules. Without us, you're nothing."
Do we? We can manufacture stuff just fine. In fact, because we know how to defend ourselves, we can engage in higher forms of industry that's less accessible to you, such a T2/T3/drug manufacturing. Besides, what are you without us? How will you engage in your current play style if the people you sell your crap to suddenly disappear, because the game changes too drastically in your favor, and no longer keeps us interested?
And it's not like the carebears are willing to compromise. They want to play risk-free, while at the same time demanding that the pvpers both create a demand for carebear goods by obliterating each other in low/null, and also make enough money to buy those goods. When was the last time a carebear said "well, I need you guys to buy my stuff, so how about I give you a free ship here and there, or maybe join your activities for a bit, since I have the cash to spare?"
If you're not willing to compromise, then we aren't either, and we'll continue to gank you. We'll keep ganking you right up to the point when ganking is no longer a sanctioned mechanic, at which point we will leave, and EVE's economy will collapse. Of course, you're not obligated to compromise; we're not going to tell you how to play the game, but you're not going to tell us how to play it either. We won't leave you alone, because it's not in our best interest to do so.
"Whatever. The point of this thread is that insurance to CONCORD-caused losses has been removed, and that's a good thing, because it got rid of an ISK faucet. ISK faucets are inherently bad, so this is beneficial for the player base as a whole."
It's nice to see the armchair economists come out of the woodwork. I suppose there's no such thing as a "mineral faucet." Also, supply/demand curves and equilibrium are just words that act as oppression tools used by the rich corporate fatcats who got us into this whole real-life economic crisis thing. Let's get rid of all the ISK faucets, because they're really evil. Then the game's economy will be really healthy, right guys?
"None of that matters because as good as this change is, it still won't get rid of suicide-ganking altogether, unfortunately. Just look at the destroyer buffs and the new tier 3 battlecruisers that are coming soon."
And this is perhaps the grandest foresight-related oversight in this entire debate. To think that CCP won't "re-balance" the new ships after they become the de facto suicide-gank boats is the greatest folly of all. The removal of insurance for CONCORD-caused losses, even though entirely rational from a gameplay perspective, is still a nerf to suicide-ganking. If they're willing to nerf suicide-ganking now, why wouldn't they be willing to nerf it even further at some point in the future?
tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:10:00 -
[538] - Quote
K Suri wrote:How did you get to be such an expert in the game? By trying out a vast array of different play styles.
Quote:It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Funny how GǣobviousGǥ and GǣfalseGǥ have become synonymsGǪ
Quote:Yet your opinions seems to cover every facet of the game with quite incredible detail. Yes? That's not particularly strange, now is it?
Andreus Ixiris wrote:This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers. That's because the real-world economies are not 100% war economies and because, in the real world, the Broken Window Fallacy is just that: a fallacy. Not so in EVE. It also comes inherent with the mechanical limitation of not being able to build better products, so the only way to beat the industry of the opponent and take his business is to smash it.
Fille Balle wrote:So... nobody is allowed to stay docked and use alts for transporting stuff etc.? And it's ok to force people to pew pew but it's not ok to force people to pvp in other manners? Of course they're allowed to GÇö in fact, that's the whole point: they should do those things because that means they're risk-aware and are taking precautions. It's when they don't need to do those things because the system itself is keeping them safe, rather than their own tactics and planning, that we have a problem.
As for the bit about forcing people, I think you missed the point. If it is not ok to force people to pew-pew, then it is also not ok to force them to PvP in any other way. Yes, in the best of worlds, it would all be consensual (and some will argue that, in a way, it already is: you consent when you log in), but that's not going to happen. So the only balance is to have both be ok and not let either party be arbitrarily safe beyond what safety they can create for themselves.
Also, Jada, it's GÇ£cueGÇ¥. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:13:00 -
[539] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. Tippia, these are your comments from a different thread:
Tippia wrote:You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right?
Tippia wrote:Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).
Are you now saying that all this time you haven't really meant what you've been so vehemently claiming wasn't a troll?
So, basically, you're finally admitting you've been trolling this entire time. |
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:19:00 -
[540] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Jita Alt666 wrote:I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes.
Precisely.
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:20:00 -
[541] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers. Real-world economies are also based on limitless innovation. Economies are driven by constant invention and quality-of-life improvements. Imagine a real-life economy where innovation and improvement were removed; the very first Ford Model T is the car that humanity would have to live with for the rest of its existence. How would the automotive industry exist after the first few years, then? The few cars that need to be replaced from accidents wouldn't necessitate the existence of giant automotive plants, therefore the industry would collapse.
This is essentially how EVE is like. We have a set amount of things we can build, and can't create new ones by ourselves. Therefore, unlike real-life economies, EVE's economy is fueled by destruction of existing items.
Comparing EVE's economy to real-life economies is a ridiculous endeavor. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:25:00 -
[542] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia, these are your comments from a different thread: [GǪ] Are you now saying that all this time you haven't really meant what you've been so vehemently claiming wasn't a troll? What?
In that thread, I said that with a nerfed CONCORD, miners would have an easier time bringing the pain to the gankers. In this thread, I say that with a nerfed CONCORD would encourage safer behaviour in those who are playing it unsafe today.
One does not contradict the other. Where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Quote:So, basically, you're finally admitting you've been trolling this entire time. Why would I admit to something that isn't true, and why would I do it when I'm being quite consistent in what I'm saying? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:29:00 -
[543] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
A precedent? I'm watching a trend lately where some people that resent any change are reverting to lore and "the past" as a defense because no other argument carries weight anymore. Regardless of whether any changes suggested might actually improve the game and increase subs, game potential and ultimately game life.
The largest volume of "don't break what works for me" is fighting an "it's broken, fix it for me" brigade which is becoming more and more vocal. Why? Because more of them are stating a POV that was never "allowed" by vets who think they know better. Is this because the "noobs" are starting to be a majority now? I simply don't know but something is brewing that's for sure.
We are definitely shifting from the very polarised view of what Eve "should be" to what Eve "could be" and we seem to be at a crossroads where the defense of "Eve principles" is being tested.
I personally prefer my games to evolve and not sit in some quaint fantasy land with idealogical stagnation. Is the acceptance/non acceptance of suicide ganking one of those stagnated gamestyles that could change?
I think the topic does need to have an airing and belligerent attitudes against those with contrary views is not the way to do it.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:32:00 -
[544] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD
I see that you meant nerfing CONCORD (as in not being invinsible) and not removing them. But the point still stands. Do you or do you not want CONCORD nerfedin hi sec? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:37:00 -
[545] - Quote
Tippia wrote:K Suri wrote:It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Funny how GǣobviousGǥ and GǣfalseGǥ have become synonymsGǪ Suck it up and answer the question.
I have read this entire thread and you quote repeatedly using Eve INTENT as a basis for your arguments and yet the very concept of an MULTIPLAYER game is alien to you. What gives?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:37:00 -
[546] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:38:00 -
[547] - Quote
Suicide ganking is just beginning with new BC cruiser hulls |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:39:00 -
[548] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not?
If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players?
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:42:00 -
[549] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
A precedent? I'm watching a trend lately where some people that resent any change are reverting to lore and "the past" as a defense because no other argument carries weight anymore. Regardless of whether any changes suggested might actually improve the game and increase subs, game potential and ultimately game life. The largest volume of "don't break what works for me" is fighting an "it's broken, fix it for me" brigade which is becoming more and more vocal. Why? Because more of them are stating a POV that was never "allowed" by vets who think they know better. Is this because the "noobs" are starting to be a majority now? I simply don't know but something is brewing that's for sure. We are definitely shifting from the very polarised view of what Eve "should be" to what Eve "could be" and we seem to be at a crossroads where the defense of "Eve principles" is being tested. I personally prefer my games to evolve and not sit in some quaint fantasy land with idealogical stagnation. Is the acceptance/non acceptance of suicide ganking one of those stagnated gamestyles that could change? I think the topic does need to have an airing and belligerent attitudes against those with contrary views is not the way to do it. One thing about EVE that we can't deny is that it was meant to be a pvp-focused MMO, with a heavy emphasis on non-consensual pvp. This isn't just something I'm pulling out of my buttocks; it was original developer intent, stated and confirmed by the developers.
So, here's a litmus test we should apply to the situation:
- Have the past changes (see: CONCORD buffs, lofty, insurance nerf #1, dec shields), and the proposed changes (see: insurance nerf #2, CONCORD buffs) been more or less conductive toward maintaining the original intent and core integrity of the game?
- Have the above changes changed the game for the better, or for the worse?
The second question can be possibly answered in terms of evaluating proportional subscription growth, and the overall approval rating that CCP gets from EVE players. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[550] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier? Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not? If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players? Why even ask his opinion, he's a freakin' carebear! 'Bout time you all stop getting your chain yanked. He has no idea of the implication to gankers or otherwise because he's not even involved in it.
He does missions all day ffs. |
|
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[551] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players?
You expect some one to answer that question and cover off all possible permutations in the space of 6000 characters?
|
Yvan Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[552] - Quote
About time lol WTF are the cops reinbursing your ship after killing you for breaking the law lol |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:45:00 -
[553] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not? I would like to see it nerfed, yes. So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Quote:If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players? GÇ£StillGÇ¥ presumes that I have claimed so in the past. What I've said is that it will not force them to adopt a new play style.
K Suri wrote:He does missions all day ffs. Incorrect. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:46:00 -
[554] - Quote
As a past Highsec ganker (Alts of course) I can say I never decided to gank or not gank based on an Insurance payout. It should be removed, or at least modified for illegal activity. If your being punished, concord should void, or take the resulting payout as a fine....or they could institute a sliding scale fine depending on the sec status of the shot pilot. Perhaps even a Concord insurance bonus for negative sec characters, make sec status pay!
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:49:00 -
[555] - Quote
Arthur Frayn wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. Since you guys have had that "feeling" for such a long time, it's a pity you were too meek to act on it sooner.
You see? No matter what CCP does, they will -never- please the highsec bears. The bears will not be happy untill all of eve is available to them at zero risk. Im not kidding, or exaggerating. That is just what they're used to. Every game they've ever played has never had nearly the same level of risk as Eve does. These are the people who are unwilling or unable to cope with new concepts.
You could make their ships respawn 100%, with zero losses, and they will still complain about killmail record showing they died... or they'll complain that it took them 5 whole minutes to get back into the asteroid belt and continue mining. They wont ever stop whining. Its just their mentality. They want to be able to achieve 100% of the game with perfection. They want to get every single achievement and never die once. These are the guys who ragequit in L4D because they dont want to damage their Win/Loss ratio with another loss. These are not true eve players. These are not the players eve was intended to appeal to. By changing the game mechanics to suit these players, you are effectively destroying what made eve unique.
Please CCP, give the carebears their own shard. I know EVE's major feature is that everyone is on one shard, but at this rate, you have to ether destroy what makes eve great to keep the people who want godmode or singleplayer, or give them their own shard with the rules they will enjoy.
Its already done with the Chinese server. Please give the carebears their own universe so they dont have to destroy mine |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:49:00 -
[556] - Quote
Tippia wrote:K Suri wrote:He does missions all day ffs. Incorrect. So a 4 man corp on 100% tax does?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:54:00 -
[557] - Quote
K Suri wrote:So a 4 man corp on 100% tax does? At the moment, I mainly do S&I and trade with a sprinkling of exploration. I'm also gearing up for providing decshield services (but that won't be within SLOPS).
The others are being lazy bums by not providing any corp income. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:55:00 -
[558] - Quote
. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:02:00 -
[559] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole?
Which suggests the game is either broken (assuming the idea of the game is for players to get acquainted with things in hi-sec, then move on to low/null) or is based on a flawed premise that people want to play a game in an environment like null/low sec (at least with the level of risk vs reward in Eve).
It is either up to CCP to come up with something innovative to make it more attractive and/or up to those large alliances out there to adapt, come up with things that will attract people (offer to take groups out there and give free training on the rookie channel?) because their current behaviour doesn't seem to be working.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And it's not like the carebears are willing to compromise.
Which isn't true, there are plenty of "carebear" posts that state hi-sec should not be risk free, but that the risk / reward is too much in favour of the ganker and that is what needs adjustment.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: If you're not willing to compromise, then we aren't either, and we'll continue to gank you. We'll keep ganking you right up to the point when ganking is no longer a sanctioned mechanic, at which point we will leave,
Speak for yourself, I PvP sometimes, I don't bother ganking in hi-sec, for the same reasons I don't bother whacking low level newbs on PvP servers in other games with my end-game raid geared character:
1- It is just about the dullest excuse for PvP out there. 2- It is counter-productive in terms of keeping/attracting players.
The fact that ganking in hi-sec is many peoples "PvP" in this game, just shows how broken this game is.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
Being a little melodramtic aren't we? It is just another adjustment, they happen all the time. |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:05:00 -
[560] - Quote
The reality is, most of the points made in this thread are good points, from both sides.
Unfortunately, and I think CCP have realized this, maintaining EVE if a form such as it's original concept dictated would eventually spell the death of the game.
The type of players who enjoy that model are few and far between, this is demonstarted in EVE's absurdly bad Noob retention numbers. Subs now are not much different to when I started 6 years ago, but the cost to CCP has increased every year.
If CCP wants to survive as a company, they will need to make their cash cow into something that attracts the majority of new players and keeps them interested for more than the initial 14 day free period and, unfortunately, a safe highsec is the most likely to do this. This has been demonstarted in the recent layoff's, and the fact that the subcription level is so low that a few thousand vet's canceling their subs could force this to happen.
Making Highsec more dangerous would bring the game back closer into it's orignal concept, but it won't do anything to increase new subscriptions. |
|
Barakach
R-ISK EVE Trade Consortium
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:19:00 -
[561] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
Yes, lets remove high sec and low sec and just have null sec everywhere!
Or lets just call it "high sec" and actually make it low sec.
Carebears aren't real people and shouldn't have a voice anyway. I should automatically be able to blow them up and laugh.
If you want to PvP that much, war dec them, or go play in low/null. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:21:00 -
[562] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Which isn't true, there are plenty of "carebear" posts that state hi-sec should not be risk free, but that the risk / reward is too much in favour of the ganker and that is what needs adjustment. I don't want to argue about semantics, but those players aren't exactly carebears. Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.
Ryllic Sin wrote:Speak for yourself, I PvP sometimes, I don't bother ganking in hi-sec, for the same reasons I don't bother whacking low level newbs on PvP servers in other games with my end-game raid geared character:
1- It is just about the dullest excuse for PvP out there. 2- It is counter-productive in terms of keeping/attracting players.
The fact that ganking in hi-sec is many peoples "PvP" in this game, just shows how broken this game is. While you're more than entitled to your playstyle, those statements, aside maybe from point #2 (it hasn't really been proven, though), are simply opinions. Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.
Ryllic Sin wrote:Being a little melodramtic aren't we? It is just another adjustment, they happen all the time. Adjustments can be good and bad. Fixing hybrids is an adjustment. The addition of a pvp flag would also be an adjustment. Just because adjustments happen all the time, doesn't mean all of them should. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:27:00 -
[563] - Quote
EvE is real?
Well, in real life .. - Police don't pay your gun or destroyed car if they catch you and take it away - you would get into yail for years when Police catches you after a crime
No refound is the first step ... now bring some sort of yail too!
After suizid gang and concorded ... you can't undock & use market & use contracts & direct trade & send/recive money for 48 hours (minimum, better 2 weeks).
Do I care if gangers lose the fun? No, in no way! They don't care about the fun of their targets too! |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:28:00 -
[564] - Quote
I'm bored and taking the opportunity to post in a bunch of threads I've been eyeing for a while....
So here's my take, coming from someone who's only suicided a pod before, and hasn't lived in highsec in like 2 years. So you can either call me a neutral 3rd party, or say I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I think both sides have a strong argument for ganking. Insurance payout for a CONCORD kill never really made sense. Yes, I know, the insurance program in Eve doesn't really make sense to begin with, so we could start with that, but this part REALLY doesn't make sense. So yea, just from an immersion breaking standpoint it probably needed to be fixed. They would also make the argument that highsec is suppose to be less-risky (notice I didn't say safe, there should be no such thing in Eve), but there is less risk involved the higher into sec stat you move. So yea, gankers should probably only be ganking truly worthwhile targets, and not everyone that happens by because after insurance it only costs them pennies (comparatively, really I don't know because I'm not really into that profession).
Now, on the flip side, ganking is a legitimacy profession that has long been recognized by CCP. They don't give the persons stuff back when they get ganked, they respond with "such is Eve, it's dark and cold and ruthless". While this doesn't completely remove that profession, we should recognize that it puts a significant ding in their operation. While they've made precious few friends, we should all be able to recognize that Eve is a sandbox and even though others may not like them or what they do, they have the option of doing that as their Eve. That is their sandcastle, they should be allowed to build it.
So here's my attempt to satisfy both parties. Remove the insurance, but as compensation make a ship designed around suicide ganking (one might argue that this is the Tornado, but I really don't think it is). Every other profession has their specialized ships, from the Noctis to the frighter to the cov ops to the interceptor there is a ship that you can train for that makes what you do somehow better and easier. Design a ship (and I really couldn't begin to give you balanced specs) around their profession. What do you gankers think? would this be a worthwhile trade off, instead of having to borrow high alpha battleships that are more suited for 0.0 warfare and very cost ineffective, have something balanced to your specific needs? |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:34:00 -
[565] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.
It may be a matter of perception but I haven't been seeing that sentiment with any frequency on the forums.
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
69
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:36:00 -
[566] - Quote
Its not really any single one of these changes. If it was just the suicide ganking/insurance thing, ok fine, it does kinda make sense.
But its not just insurance, its every rule in eve slowly changing one little bit, like this, at a time. You cant even wardec highsec corps anymore. It was made legal by CCP to abuse the mechanics and evade wardecs. This also made all those expensive research towers in highsec effectively invincible. Pirates now get concorded when they're ganking corpmates... because now they can be kicked from corp while they're in the middle of their gank.
Next up is warp-to-0 autopilot, taking away entry level highsec ganking
And Cloaks have been whined about forever, and CCP has recently hinted at cloak changes, so god only knows what kind of nerfs thats going to get as well.
Its not just the insurance, its all of these things. Every single one of them all combined total up to WOW-In-Space future for eve. |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:38:00 -
[567] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what griefer tears taste like. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:39:00 -
[568] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.
A 1+ year old miner is a "low level newb" if it comes to fights.
A Hulk is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survibility (hell, some T1 frigs and cruisers can tank better AND are much easier to fitt!!).
You don't need to haul 500m ISK of faction gear to be ganged ... more often it is enough to have 1 (ONE) BP-COPY of some rocket + a bit of POS fuel in your cargo to be ganged! (which is in fact less then 5m of ISK).
Allways this STUPID advices like "don't use autopiolt" or "don't carrie expensive stuff" ... we ALL know, that this false advices are nothink but bad attamps to excuse agressive gameplay! - gangers are BEHIND the cates where hauler need to alligne for 10+ seconds (no manual fly will ever help you!!) - gangers attack for much less then 5m worth of cargo - gangers ALLWAYS chose targets where they know, they will get a 100% sure kill - NO mining or transport ship can be fitted for decent tanks ... you know it and it's FAIL balance (check out Perpetuum hauler/miner ... they can be tanked like creazy!)
Until now gangers have SERO risk in your FAIL "risk v. reward" calculation .. and every damn ganger know this! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:50:00 -
[569] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:So here's my attempt to satisfy both parties. Remove the insurance, but as compensation make a ship designed around suicide ganking (one might argue that this is the Tornado, but I really don't think it is). Every other profession has their specialized ships, from the Noctis to the frighter to the cov ops to the interceptor there is a ship that you can train for that makes what you do somehow better and easier. Design a ship (and I really couldn't begin to give you balanced specs) around their profession. What do you gankers think? would this be a worthwhile trade off, instead of having to borrow high alpha battleships that are more suited for 0.0 warfare and very cost ineffective, have something balanced to your specific needs? While this would be awesome, it will never happen. In fact, the exact opposite will come to pass at some point: the newly-buffed destroyers and awesome tier 3 battlecruisers are going to get nerfed because their primary utility is going to be suicide-ganking.
Terminal Insanity wrote:Its not really any single one of these changes. If it was just the suicide ganking/insurance thing, ok fine, it does kinda make sense.
But its not just insurance, its every rule in eve slowly changing one little bit, like this, at a time. You cant even wardec highsec corps anymore. It was made legal by CCP to abuse the mechanics and evade wardecs. This also made all those expensive research towers in highsec effectively invincible. Pirates now get concorded when they're ganking corpmates... because now they can be kicked from corp while they're in the middle of their gank.
Next up is warp-to-0 autopilot, taking away entry level highsec ganking
And Cloaks have been whined about forever, and CCP has recently hinted at cloak changes, so god only knows what kind of nerfs thats going to get as well.
Its not just the insurance, its all of these things. Every single one of them all combined total up to WOW-In-Space future for eve. Pretty much. Hence my argument of a "precedent" in my long post on the previous page. |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:57:00 -
[570] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: While this would be awesome, it will never happen. In fact, the exact opposite will come to pass at some point: the newly-buffed destroyers and awesome tier 3 battlecruisers are going to get nerfed because their primary utility is going to be suicide-ganking.
You're probably right (I hope not, but probably). However, you have a voice same as all the people that got insurance removed. Start a threadnaught and get TEARS and crew to really get in on the idea. Make it balanced so the 'bears really don't have anything to come back at you with (nothing reasonable anyway, I know it won't stop them from trying). If you believe, as most level headed people do I think, that ganking is indeed a mini-profession in it's own right, then it shouldn't be treated any differently from any other mini profession.
1% systems get traveled by 99% of the players! Occupy Niarja! (am I doing it right?) |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 03:04:00 -
[571] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:A 1+ year old miner is a "low level newb" if it comes to fights. You can be pvp-capable within roughly 51 days (free trial + 1 month of sub for the invite-a-friend thing). That includes the five main ship skills at 4, the relevant gun skills at 4, and most relevant support skills at 4. One more month, and you can have T2 drones and stuff like Hull Upgrades 5. Nothing is stopping the miner from devoting a fifth of his training time to combat skills (many of which he will train incidentally as a part of his mining regimen). The rest is willpower.
Jojo Jackson wrote:A Hulk is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survibility (hell, some T1 frigs and cruisers can tank better AND are much easier to fitt!!). By that same logic, a Vigilant is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survivability (hell, many T1 cruisers can tank much better, at 1/100th of the cost). The difference is that just like the Hulk justifies its cost with its extreme mining capability, the Vigilant justifies its cost with its extreme damage-dealing capability. EVE is a game where little perks carry significant price premiums.
Besides, ship prices are set by players, not CCP. Blame your carebear buddies for the 200m price tag.
Jojo Jackson wrote:You don't need to haul 500m ISK of faction gear to be ganged ... more often it is enough to have 1 (ONE) BP-COPY of some rocket + a bit of POS fuel in your cargo to be ganged! (which is in fact less then 5m of ISK). This is a ridiculous claim. I am a part of some prevalent suicide-gank communities, and not a single person I know would bother to suicide-gank a hauler carrying that little. You basically pulled this claim straight out of your ass. And don't tell me "Hulks carry even less and get ganked all the time!" Hulks get ganked for a set of different reasons. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 03:13:00 -
[572] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.
I disagree, but then I guess it doesn't matter much either way, as only a tiny unrepresentative fraction of the Eve population post on the forums.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:While you're more than entitled to your playstyle, those statements, aside maybe from point #2 (it hasn't really been proven, though), are simply opinions.
As this issue is very subjective, most of my statements were opinons, as were most of yours, I thought it went without saying....
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.
Putting aside I disagree (for instance a hulk doesn't take long to acquire / train for and in combat terms and being ganked is low-level), I should of been clearer, it wasn't the low level as such in the comparison I gave, but the ease.
I find ezmode, one-sided, faux PvP like ganking miners to be dull, unsatisfying and pointless. The ISK is irrelevant, I play a game with PvP, to PvP not to earn isk, I prefer proper PvP - i.e. reasonably competitive, a challenge and exciting. (roll on GW2) |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 03:18:00 -
[573] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:I prefer proper PvP - i.e. reasonably competitive, a challenge and exciting. (roll on GW2) Tell us more about this hounourable proper PvP.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 03:52:00 -
[574] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You can be pvp-capable within roughly 51 days (free trial + 1 month of sub for the invite-a-friend thing). That includes the five main ship skills at 4, the relevant gun skills at 4, and most relevant support skills at 4. One more month, and you can have T2 drones and stuff like Hull Upgrades 5. Nothing is stopping the miner from devoting a fifth of his training time to combat skills (many of which he will train incidentally as a part of his mining regimen). The rest is willpower. IF you build and spec a char purly for PvP ... you can do somethink with 51 days ... and if it is just to be canon-fooder for your friends.
But noone gangs PvP chars ... you gang Miner, Hauler, PvE chars which use PvE fittings!
So stop publishing this FAIL!
It's as you would claim Wardecs are done against PvP corps and not against eazy targetz Production/Miner/Trader corps.
You know it's a 100% LIE! Stop try to publish this FAIL arguments lier!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:By that same logic, a Vigilant is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survivability (hell, many T1 cruisers can tank much better, at 1/100th of the cost). The difference is that just like the Hulk justifies its cost with its extreme mining capability, the Vigilant justifies its cost with its extreme damage-dealing capability. EVE is a game where little perks carry significant price premiums.
Again ... you talk about ship fitted for PvP with chars trained for PvP.
Ever tryed to fitt some Mining gear + defens gear (meqans SPEED for Vigilant) + PvP gear (means EW+guns for Vigilant) on a Hulk? Hell it's not even posible to fitt it with T2 stuff as you NEED officer/deadspace stuff to do it -> MEGA FAIL DESIGNE!!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Besides, ship prices are set by players, not CCP. Blame your carebear buddies for the 200m price tag. Slot layout, CPU/Grid is done by CCP and no player can change it!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:This is a ridiculous claim. I am a part of some prevalent suicide-gank communities, and not a single person I know would bother to suicide-gank a hauler carrying that little. You basically pulled this claim straight out of your ass. And don't tell me "Hulks carry even less and get ganked all the time!" Hulks get ganked for a set of different reasons. Check the different killboards. No, I don't do it for you. It's absolut common to see gang targets worth less then 3m "for the lulz". |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:02:00 -
[575] - Quote
Oh, I get it; the above poster is trolling me. People warned me this would happen when I first decided to try out this whole new internets thing. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:06:00 -
[576] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Oh, I get it; the above poster is trolling me. People warned me this would happen when I first decided to try out this whole new internets thing. I don't troll you as much as you try to troll the Hauler/Miner/PvE players.
You want to FORCE everyone to play and like your sandbox ... but in fact there are many more player who HATE your playstyle then player who like it. It's just a well known fact, that common PvE player don't use forums as often as common Ganger (wannabe PvP player). This might give you the false impress, that there are more PvP then PvE player.
You are the troll, not me. Fail attamp to let me look bad ;). |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:13:00 -
[577] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Oh, I get it; the above poster is trolling me. People warned me this would happen when I first decided to try out this whole new internets thing. I don't troll you as much as you try to troll the Hauler/Miner/PvE players. You want to FORCE everyone to play and like your sandbox ... but in fact there are many more player who HATE your playstyle then player who like it. It's just a well known fact, that common PvE player don't use forums as often as common Ganger (wannabe PvP player). This might give you the false impress, that there are more PvP then PvE player. You are the troll, not me. Fail attamp to let me look bad ;).
I will bite, out of curiosity. Could you please point out to me a few excerpts from my posts that you consider to be trolling?
Also, you said you don't troll me as much as (you assume) I troll others. So, you admit to trolling, then? |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:24:00 -
[578] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: I will bite, out of curiosity. Could you please point out to me a few excerpts from my posts that you consider to be trolling?
Also, you said you don't troll me as much as (you assume) I troll others. So, you admit to trolling, then?
You say: Any miner should waste (yes, for a miner it's wasted) time to train PvP skills -> troll Would you wast your training time for Mining or Indutrie skills? For sure not!
You say: no ganger would gang low value haulers -> troll Simply check the killboards to profe your fail!
You compare PvP ships with low defense but high offensive potential with helpless mining ships -> troll You know it, I know it, every EvE player know it. But you still troll the forum with this ****!
And nice try with the last sentence. If you say I troll you admit you are trolling harder and bring false informations by intend? |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:27:00 -
[579] - Quote
Just to point out... a Hulk may not be good at survivability, like the Vigilant is, but it sure beats a cruiser in mining ability and cargo.
If you don't want non consensual PvP to occur, then you are playing the wrong game. As much as I dislike getting ganked when I mine ice, it is a key part of the game.
If you don't like CCPs sandbox, get out. It is that simple.
And gankers do have risk. They lose their ship (guaranteed, while the target may not). The insurance does not cover the cost of the ship (unless they got it below mineral value) completely, and doesn't cover modules (which can get damned expensive). However, I don't have a problem with the decision to remove insurance from ganks... then again I personally think that after 6 months insurance should not be available at all to a given character. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 04:50:00 -
[580] - Quote
Alright, for the sake of consistency, I will address your points.
Jojo Jackson wrote:You say: Any miner should waste (yes, for a miner it's wasted) time to train PvP skills -> troll Would you wast your training time for Mining or Indutrie skills? For sure not! No, what I said was that the skillpoint barrier to entry for pvp is very low. You only need about 2-3 months of training to be well-rounded with T1 ships. If you focus on something specific, like say, your favorite battlecruiser (mine happens to be the Hurricane), it will take even less. Within about three months, you could equip the proper T2 gear, and be able to hold your own, even against older players, especially if you fit properly.
Also, a lot of skills that miners/industrials train overlap with the skills that pvpers train. Stuff like navigation, engineering, electronics, capacitor skills, and shield/armor tank skills is used by pvpers and miners/industrials alike. A 1-year-old miner should have a lot of those skills trained up, even if he doesn't intend to pvp. All he's missing is a few weeks in gunnery.
Jojo Jackson wrote:You say: no ganger would gang low value haulers -> troll Simply check the killboards to profe your fail! If you provide me concrete proof of this (this was your claim, after all), then I will take your words at face value. Make sure to remember that killboards don't differentiate between suicide-ganks and kills that were made during wars.
Jojo Jackson wrote:You compare PvP ships with low defense but high offensive potential with helpless mining ships -> troll You know it, I know it, every EvE player know it. But you still troll the forum with this ****! You were the first to make this comparison when you said
Jojo Jackson wrote:A Hulk is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survibility (hell, some T1 frigs and cruisers can tank better AND are much easier to fitt!!). The reality of the matter is that mining barges are inherently different from combat-oriented ships, and therefore such a comparison can't be made. All I did was point out the fallacy.
The point that I actually made was that although a Hulk is weak defensively, it has other traits that justify its high price tag, and its status as a high-end ship.
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
97
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 06:12:00 -
[581] - Quote
Long long ago, back when you had to put a small dinosaur in the computer on a treadmill to make it work, suicide ganking was a last-resort tactic usually reserved for leverage or revenge. Indeed, there were times when anybody would consider it for such cases, as an example, someone filling up a Wreathe with say T2 modules or something really really expensive. I have met NPC corpies who were mainly miners who have done suicide ganks at least once.
And in such cases, the cost of ship and insurance was but a mere drop in an ocean.
But, like the high-sec wardec, the toy was abused.
Now, mommy, in the form of CCP, is taking the toy away.
You see, when you want to just bother people for no real reason, if it IS a sandbox, mommy don't want you taking the pale and shovel and constantly hitting the other kids over the head with it. So here's mommy, coming to take it away.
So dec-sheilding is here as a policy, and Concord-related ship loss is not going to be covered. These were two elements used by people who like to have targets but in places (high sec) where they are as safe from being targets as their own targets.
Honestly, I don't think this is going to be the end of suicide ganking. The reasons for it, regardless of what the griefers who cannot admit to who and what they are say, was never about ISK and those who do it have indy/missioner alts who finance them.
This changes nothing.
The next thing we will see is when you try to attack someone in high sec you get a dialog that says "you cannot attack that target here". When that happens, it won't change anything for me, but these forums will be very colorful.
But I would like to add - how come I could go to prison tomorrow if I sent money to a terrorist organization or even one that was never proven to be but merely suspected but in 23000 years you can send lots of ISK through a electronic means to a known criminal and nothing happens? Sending money to people with low status should be a status hit to the sender. Just saying. |
Nephilius
Pillage and Plunder Salvage Co.
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 06:23:00 -
[582] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:i will read all your tears when you find me one real insurance company which wont call ER to throw you in madhouse when you tell them they must pay you for damages when police shoot your car after you killed few hundred persons with it and dont want to stop... So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed? Dondoran wrote:The new battle cruisers would mean solo ganking is cheaper as thay will cost less than a BS. The more powerfull destroyers will mean less are needed to gank a target all of which benefits gankers greatly. How is this lost on you?
It's not lost on me. It's just not something I see as a balancing problem. Where is the imbalance?
Who said anything about imbalance? Honestly, it's about risk vs reward, something that is crowed about on a regular basis on these forums and in-game. A suicide ganker risks little in reality...a ship and some sec status. The ship is an expected loss, calculated and factored in and sec status is pretty much the same. Short of those two things, there is no real risk involved in a suicide gank, because for the most part, the ship is covered by insurance. So by removing insurance for criminal activities, the risk is actually increased, and closing the disparity of risk vs reward somewhat. It's not going to stop it, but for some, it will make them think twice before opening fire because the chance for a return may not always be there anymore. Sooner or later, if you gratuitously fire on every ship you see, you may end up in the red faster than before the insurance change.
Honestly Tip, I've been watching this thread purely for your responses. You say they aren't tears, but you seem awfully invested in it, even if you are intending to troll. The best trolls fire off a shot in the forums and sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. The truly butthurt pipe up every few posts, and you got that to a tee. For the most part, I enjoy your posts in general, but I'm sensing a whole lot of angst here.
The insurance change is welcome to me. I believe that it will balance out the incidents of ganks and make it a truly relevant profession, because like salvaging, it is a profession. I wouldn't want it to end, but it's like saying the F word repeatedly...sooner or later, it loses any real meaning and becomes more annoying than edgy or relevant. Eve Online: The only kung-fu pandas here are the ones mission grinding for RMT. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 06:34:00 -
[583] - Quote
Nephilius wrote: Honestly Tip, I've been watching this thread purely for your responses. You say they aren't tears, but you seem awfully invested in it, even if you are intending to troll. The best trolls fire off a shot in the forums and sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. The truly butthurt pipe up every few posts, and you got that to a tee. For the most part, I enjoy your posts in general, but I'm sensing a whole lot of angst here.
More to the point, Tippia is a highsec carebear who plays Eve solo and ignores the entire multiplayer concept. And yet he's defending the PRINCIPLE of Eve while not even practising one of it's primary principles, that of an MMO. He neither PvP's nor ganks. What his vested interest is has escaped me.
Perhaps he's in the group of people who just argue because they enjoy the argument more than the outcome or intent.
Something about ones own voice. |
Black Dranzer
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 06:35:00 -
[584] - Quote
Suicide Gankers, pre-nerf wrote:Lol HTFU crybabies deal with it adapt or die
Suicide Gankers, post-nerf wrote:WTF CCP fix it you're ruining the game why won't you subsidize my ganking BAWWWW THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 07:11:00 -
[585] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The next thing we will see is when you try to attack someone in high sec you get a dialog that says "you cannot attack that target here". When that happens, it won't change anything for me, but these forums will be very colorful. It will change things for you. If the above happens, then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions. You can call it tears or rage-quitting, if you wish. The game would be so fundamentally changed that labels become irrelevant. Mean ship-splodin' griefer bastards will leave, along with a lot of pvpers who aren't into the empire stuff, but have no interests vested in RMT networks. What will happen next is up for speculation, but I would venture to guess that the game's economy wouldn't fare too well. I can tell you for a fact that there are games out there that do riskless arena pvp much better than EVE does. If that one category will be the sum total of the MMO market, switching will be a no-brainer.
Meanwhile, if all carebears quit, the pvpers would just spend a bit more time building stuff. You see, we don't mind industry like the carebears mind pvp. Thinking otherwise shows a massive lack of judgment and foresight.
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:But I would like to add - how come I could go to prison tomorrow if I sent money to a terrorist organization or even one that was never proven to be but merely suspected but in 23000 years you can send lots of ISK through a electronic means to a known criminal and nothing happens? Sending money to people with low status should be a status hit to the sender. Just saying. Because it's 23,000 years to the future is exactly the reason why you can't make this comparison. Who is to say what form morality and laws will take on at that point?
But that's beside the point. Tell me, how many real-life criminality punishment parallelisms can we introduce to EVE Online before it's not a videogame anymore?
I don't know what other games you play, but would you find it a good idea, for example, to implement a many-week-long boot camp course in Battlefield/CoD games, that absolutely must be completed before your first-ever online match? How about half an hour of gearing up before each respawn?
It seems to me that people forgot that EVE is, at its core, a videogame. Maybe the people who treat mining as a second job, religiously so, are indeed not getting that idea. |
baltec1
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 08:23:00 -
[586] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Suicide Gankers, pre-nerf wrote:Lol HTFU crybabies deal with it adapt or die Suicide Gankers, post-nerf wrote:WTF CCP fix it you're ruining the game why won't you subsidize my ganking BAWWWW THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH.
This made me giggle.
|
Jita Alt666
481
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 08:28:00 -
[587] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Suicide Gankers, pre-nerf wrote:Lol HTFU crybabies deal with it adapt or die Suicide Gankers, post-nerf wrote:WTF CCP fix it you're ruining the game why won't you subsidize my ganking BAWWWW THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:45:00 -
[588] - Quote
Tippia wrote:As for the bit about forcing people, I think you missed the point. If it is not ok to force people to pew-pew, then it is also not ok to force them to PvP in any other way. Yes, in the best of worlds, it would all be consensual (and some will argue that, in a way, it already is: you consent when you log in), but that's not going to happen. So the only balance is to have both be ok and not let either party be arbitrarily safe beyond what safety they can create for themselves.
Also, Jada, it's GÇ£cueGÇ¥.
So there's no problem here then. Move along, nothing to see here. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:57:00 -
[589] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole? I went on a solo null roam recently, and didn't encounter anyone in about 80 jumps, save for a bunch of botters, and two Dramiels on the final exit gate. Meanwhile, in high-sec, I have tens to hundreds of targets from my wars, as well as plentiful opportunities from baiting and ganks. Why should we go away, when it's so good here?
Sorry, I didn't actually bother reading past this point. I'm just curious, how excactly would a boost to pew pew pvp in highsec improve on this issue? The way I see it, we need to nerf it further, so that all the people who want to pew pew pvp will be encouraged to go to low/null.
And nobody is telling you to leave highsec, but if you don't like it as it is and want to change somehting that many players are perfectly happy with, then I think it's time you left. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Mysteriax
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:41:00 -
[590] - Quote
All those no skilled ganker Tears, I love them, Come to 0.0 if you want pvp. Gankers only go for the easy 100% kills, 0 skill involved. Please answer this if you in real life kill someone and your gun breaks does the insurance cover that?
I love how they say that this game is catered to the carebear, If so why cant you tank any of the indy ships?
But all you crybabies will prolly pass over this post since the questions are to hard to answer... |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:53:00 -
[591] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Sorry, I didn't actually bother reading past this point. I'm just curious, how excactly would a boost to pew pew pvp in highsec improve on this issue? The way I see it, we need to nerf it further, so that all the people who want to pew pew pvp will be encouraged to go to low/null. So you're saying that if CCP makes high-sec as boring and unconductive to pvp as low/null, all the high-sec pvpers will head out in droves for the latter? Flawless logic, my friend.
"I serve two dishes at my restaurant; one is great, but the other is terrible! Boy, I'd sure like for the terrible one to start selling more, so my restaurant can stay afloat...Oh, I know! I'll drop the good dish's quality down to the level of the terrible one, so the terrible one can start selling better!"
*6 months later*
"Oh no, all the patrons who liked the good dish immediately stopped ordering entirely, and the ones who liked the terrible dish before the change all got bored and left for the place down the street! I never even knew how quick the patron turnover was for the terrible dish, because I was too busy attracting new patrons by pouring my heart and soul into the good one! Now my wife is sleeping with the gardener. "
Fille Balle wrote:And nobody is telling you to leave highsec, but if you don't like it as it is and want to change somehting that many players are perfectly happy with, then I think it's time you left. Until a week ago, I was perfectly happy with high-sec. For the past eight years in fact. Then suddenly, people come in and want to change something I'm perfectly happy with. I mean, "nobody is telling you guys to leave high-sec, but if you don't like it as it is and want to change somehting that many players are perfectly happy with, then I think it's time you left." |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 10:59:00 -
[592] - Quote
Mysteriax wrote:I love how they say that this game is catered to the carebear, If so why cant you tank any of the indy ships?
But all you crybabies will prolly pass over this post since the questions are to hard to answer...
Perhaps the real issue here is the relative frailty of mining barges and T1 haulers? You know, if you guys were campaigning for a power grid boost so that you could have the possibility of fitting plates/extenders on your industrial boats, I doubt you'd see even a tenth of the outcry you see now.
There we go, I answered your question. Keep the tissues. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 11:00:00 -
[593] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: If you don't like CCPs sandbox, get out. It is that simple.
really applies to all parties. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:28:00 -
[594] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Suicide Gankers, pre-nerf wrote:Lol HTFU crybabies deal with it adapt or die Suicide Gankers, post-nerf wrote:WTF CCP fix it you're ruining the game why won't you subsidize my ganking BAWWWW THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH. LOL This pretty much sums it up. Well said. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
311
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:48:00 -
[595] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Perhaps the real issue here is the relative frailty of mining barges and T1 haulers? You know, if you guys were campaigning for a power grid boost so that you could have the possibility of fitting plates/extenders on your industrial boats, I doubt you'd see even a tenth of the outcry you see now.
Maybe because every time we complain about having less PG on a mining barge/exhumers then what you have on a destroyer, the trolls come out in droves saying that we don't need all that PG? (Barges/Exhumers have 43.75MW of PG at max skills, the T1 strip miners are 10MW each and the T2 strips are 12MW each.)
On a more serious note - the barges/exhumers are badly in need of a powergrid boost. Destroyers have about 60MW, cruisers are in the 300-450MW range. So taking retrievers up to about 150MW, covetors up to 200MW and giving the T2 exhumers 300MW (Mack) and 400MW (Hulk) would not be unreasonable.
At which point the "you should have tanked it" complaint would have a lot more validity. |
Warzon3
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:55:00 -
[596] - Quote
fun thing is ccp is now introducing battlecruisers with bs sized weapons so they will be nice ganking platforms for a cheaper cost |
Urian Dealian Amarr
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:57:00 -
[597] - Quote
I am just amazed to see all those elite pvp fighter tears here.
A broken illogical from any point of view problem being finally addressed. That is how I see it and all the no testicle pvp elite that call suicide ganks pvp is crying about it LOVE IT.
It is not even going to influence anything the overpriced Faction fit ships are still going to be juicy targets all you need to do is change the calculations.
Are you all whiners really that lazy ?
How about Concord webbing and scraming the Hulk for you would that make you happy.
Kids these days always want to have everything on a silver platter. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:30:00 -
[598] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So you're saying that if CCP makes high-sec as boring and unconductive to pvp as low/null, all the high-sec pvpers will head out in droves for the latter? Flawless logic, my friend. "I serve two dishes at my restaurant; one is great, but the other is terrible! Boy, I'd sure like for the terrible one to start selling more, so my restaurant can stay afloat...Oh, I know! I'll drop the good dish's quality down to the level of the terrible one, so the terrible one can start selling better!" *6 months later* "Oh no, all the patrons who liked the good dish immediately stopped ordering entirely, and the ones who liked the terrible dish before the change all got bored and left for the place down the street! I never even knew how quick the patron turnover was for the terrible dish, because I was too busy attracting new patrons by pouring my heart and soul into the good one! Now my wife is sleeping with the gardener. "
Your analogy fails. There are more people in hisghsec that like the dish that you feel is inferior. And yes, if the people that liked the inferior dish complained about the people that liked the superior dish, then I would stop serving the inferior dish and tell those customers to GTFO.
Well, what was it that changed a week ago? I'm curious. If you mean the insurance nerf that hasn't been implemented yet, then I can only say it was brought in as a rebalance. CCP didn't feel it was fair to get double payout on suicide ganks. Again, don't like it, you can either go someplace else, or go play another game.
Judging by the comment made by CCP it had nothing to do with forum discussions. The stament clearly said it had been planned for quite some time.
Things change, deal with it. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:31:00 -
[599] - Quote
Suicide ganking in high sec to me is the only area of Eve were true piracy happens. Dont get me wrong in low or 0.0 you can ransom someone for their goods or just blow them up. In fact in 0.0 this happens usually but without penalty to sec status and no reprisals. Yet the fact is that the vast majority, probably in the 70%+ category of goods is only shipped or reshipped from the main trade hubs like jita, amarr and the like. Now piracy is the liberation of goods and wealth from one to another for profit. The old pirates of the world and the new ones in somalia do this on a daily basis. And the fact remains that you go where the money is or the isk in this case. That area is high sec.
In high sec you cannot ransom someone for their loot so you are forced to blow their ship up to get at it and is the way the game mechanics have made it. And given that this game was build on piracy and the theme of blowing ships up I dont see a single issue with the suicide gank. I have both ganked and been ganked in my eve career and hated when I lost and loved when I won. I also learned. Just like real life theres shipping lanes and areas to avoid and that you just realize that risk is a part of the world and the game.
I liked that ganking was cheap to encourage piracy. I liked that there was a penalty towards suiciding. So Im not upset but just pouting a bit that itll be more expensive in the future, I want my profits. LOL Not that itll stop me from doing so when I want a change of venue and Im bored of what Im doing at the time and I already look at the ship loss and fittings as a business "expense". So no tears here only the it costs more now gotta make more profit then ideology.
What I DO support are tradeable killrights. Or at least a bidding system on the existing unused killrights, perhaps if unused they become available on a system where players can bid on a weeklong extension to the killright for a straight fee or auction. Or just if someone gets one they can auction them off on a system like the bounty office system currently to encourage player retailiation. And to prevent the abuse of low SP alts make the thieves of the loot also available to be killrighted for a shorter time. Youd have to do a time limit on how the server would log the thieves or just anyone that takes anything. All fees either going to the player or Concord as a possible reimbursement of the ganked items to the player or an isk sink to Concord.
I think this would encourage players to go after other players as full fledged "pirate hunters" like in the old days. |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:39:00 -
[600] - Quote
Tippia wrote: No, why would I? Do I have a history of agreeing with unfounded assumptions? AT LAST! ahem. YES, you do. You have founded this gargantuan input of yours, presenting yourself as being in possession of expertise of some sort, completely on your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." That, obviously, is YOUR opinion and is certainly not a FACT. Ergo...it's an assumption. As this assumption has no foundation it naturally cannot be FOUNDED on a foundation...thingy. But, you've never let that bother you before. Why let it bother you now?
Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:59:00 -
[601] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: What I DO support are tradeable killrights. Or at least a bidding system on the existing unused killrights, perhaps if unused they become available on a system where players can bid on a weeklong extension to the killright for a straight fee or auction. Or just if someone gets one they can auction them off on a system like the bounty office system currently to encourage player retailiation. And to prevent the abuse of low SP alts make the thieves of the loot also available to be killrighted for a shorter time. Youd have to do a time limit on how the server would log the thieves or just anyone that takes anything. All fees either going to the player or Concord as a possible reimbursement of the ganked items to the player or an isk sink to Concord.
I think this would encourage players to go after other players as full fledged "pirate hunters" like in the old days.
I endorse this idea. Fix the bounty system, or as this gentleman (sic) suggests, make kill rights trade-able.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:09:00 -
[602] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Stuff Your analogy fails. There are more people in hisghsec that like the dish that you feel is inferior. And yes, if the people that liked the inferior dish complained about the people that liked the superior dish, then I would stop serving the inferior dish and tell those customers to GTFO. Destiny Corrupted wrote:Stuff Well, what was it that changed a week ago? I'm curious. If you mean the insurance nerf that hasn't been implemented yet, then I can only say it was brought in as a rebalance. CCP didn't feel it was fair to get double payout on suicide ganks. Again, don't like it, you can either go someplace else, or go play another game. Judging by the comment made by CCP it had nothing to do with forum discussions. The stament clearly said it had been planned for quite some time. Things change, deal with it.
My apologies if this comes off as insulting, but you've completely misinterpreted both sections of my post. To quickly summarize:
The first section (the analogy) deals with a potential future of EVE online, in which pvp becomes much more restricted, causing a lot of pvp players to bail. My prediction is that the players that remain (the carebears) would then exhibit very quick turnover rates, as they quickly reach their peaks and get one of each barge, hauler, etc., and lose all interest in the game. They already exhibit this trend, by the way. But at least right now, losing ships always gives them something to work for besides an ever-fatter wallet. I shoot a lot of them, but in the process talk to a lot of them as well. In fact I've had hundreds of conversations with these players regarding what they think about the game, and their opinions are fairly uniform.
The second section's intent was to show you that it's not the pvpers who don't like (and want to change) the high-sec that all of the non-pvpers are happy with, but the exact opposite of that. Every single change throughout the past few years that dealt with high-sec wars, ganking, and aggression mechanics has been a pvp nerf. CONCORD buffs #1 and #2, removal of lofty, increased security penalties for criminal aggression, restructuring of war fees, recent legalization of "decshield," relatively recent insurance nerf #1, upcoming insurance nerf #2, potential upcoming CONCORD buff #3, the list goes on and on. I'm not looking to change something that many players are perfectly happy with, but for many years now I've had to put up with those changes.
Whether you agree with them or not, those were the two points I was trying to make.
|
rootimus maximus
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:22:00 -
[603] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe."
If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:32:00 -
[604] - Quote
rootimus maximus wrote:Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec. And where did he say he wanted complete safety?
On the other hand, I can point to you exactly where Tippia has stated numerous times he wants hi sec less safe, which in fact is an opinion of his. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:33:00 -
[605] - Quote
rootimus maximus wrote:Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec.
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:34:00 -
[606] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:rootimus maximus wrote:Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec.
Ugh....pretty much what matrix just said. You need to go back and read what was written.
CCP please fix your forums. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:35:00 -
[607] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: What I DO support are tradeable killrights. Or at least a bidding system on the existing unused killrights, perhaps if unused they become available on a system where players can bid on a weeklong extension to the killright for a straight fee or auction. Or just if someone gets one they can auction them off on a system like the bounty office system currently to encourage player retailiation. And to prevent the abuse of low SP alts make the thieves of the loot also available to be killrighted for a shorter time. Youd have to do a time limit on how the server would log the thieves or just anyone that takes anything. All fees either going to the player or Concord as a possible reimbursement of the ganked items to the player or an isk sink to Concord.
I think this would encourage players to go after other players as full fledged "pirate hunters" like in the old days.
I endorse this idea. Fix the bounty system, or as this gentleman (sic) suggests, make kill rights trade-able. Agreed.
There should be a contract you can put up that:
- Records time of the contract being created.
- Checks for the kill mail when someone tries to redeem the contract and makes sure it happened after the contract was made.
- Holds the ISK in collateral for the bounty hunter.
- You can make it public to be redeemed or private to a particular person
- You can also assign a ship class range, such as battle cruisers, T2+ so that friends don't redeem cheap kills on each other.
CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:39:00 -
[608] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote:Tippia wrote: No, why would I? Do I have a history of agreeing with unfounded assumptions? AT LAST! ahem. YES, you do. You have founded this gargantuan input of yours, presenting yourself as being in possession of expertise of some sort, completely on your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." That, obviously, is YOUR opinion and is certainly not a FACT. Ergo...it's an assumption. As this assumption has no foundation it naturally cannot be FOUNDED on a foundation...thingy. But, you've never let that bother you before. Why let it bother you now? Pardon my intrusion into your fierce debate battle with Tippia, but I'd like to bring to your attention that an opinion and an assumption are two entirely different things. Simply put, an opinion is a personal view on a matter that one isn't sure of enough to claim as fact, while an assumption is something a person believes to be fact, when there's either insufficient proof in favor of the belief, or plentiful proof to the belief's contrary.
Tippia has definitely expressed an opinion, which was likely founded on personal observation of the game economy, and the statements of intent made by the developers of EVE Online. While I don't agree with everything Tippia says, or all of his/her methods, I've so far yet to see this person assume anything. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:48:00 -
[609] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:My apologies if this comes off as insulting, but you've completely misinterpreted both sections of my post. To quickly summarize:
The first section (the analogy) deals with a potential future of EVE online, in which pvp becomes much more restricted, causing a lot of pvp players to bail. My prediction is that the players that remain (the carebears) would then exhibit very quick turnover rates, as they quickly reach their peaks and get one of each barge, hauler, etc., and lose all interest in the game. They already exhibit this trend, by the way. But at least right now, losing ships always gives them something to work for besides an ever-fatter wallet. I shoot a lot of them, but in the process talk to a lot of them as well. In fact I've had hundreds of conversations with these players regarding what they think about the game, and their opinions are fairly uniform.
I understood your analogy perfectly. I simply pointed out that your interpretation of the situation is incorrect, and responded in a way that was supposed to enlighten you as the reality of the situation.
Firsty, you have no proof. There is no guarantee that the "carebears" will quit if pvp becomes more restricted. Secondly, I regularly speak to many "carebears", and none of them have uttered the words you claim they do. Some of them just like running missions and buying bigger/better/more expensive ships/modules. Some of them use highsec as a means to an end. They fund their other activities through mission/mining/trade/manufacturing.
Many of these "carebears" have been playing this game for a very long time, and none of them have claimed that the game is booring or hinted at their intention to jump ship.
In another thread you started, you claim to represent the entire industrialist community, yet not one person has supported your claim in that thread, which leads me to question your integrity.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The second section's intent was to show you that it's not the pvpers who don't like (and want to change) the high-sec that all of the non-pvpers are happy with, but the exact opposite of that. Every single change throughout the past few years that dealt with high-sec wars, ganking, and aggression mechanics has been a pvp nerf. CONCORD buffs #1 and #2, removal of lofty, increased security penalties for criminal aggression, restructuring of war fees, recent legalization of "decshield," relatively recent insurance nerf #1, upcoming insurance nerf #2, potential upcoming CONCORD buff #3, the list goes on and on. I'm not looking to change something that many players are perfectly happy with, but for many years now I've had to put up with those changes.
Whether you agree with them or not, those were the two points I was trying to make.
Yes, and the highsec population has steadily increased. So obviously it's the right course to take. Making highsec less safe won't solve anything. That would only mean that people no longer had a safe income stream, and there would be even less poeple looking for pew pew in low/null.
Part of the reason why those changes were implemented was because mechanics were being abused to the point of breaking the game. Everytime I speak to someone outside the eve community that knows of eve/has played eve, I get the same response:
"Eve? Oh yeah, it's that game where the older players pick on the newer ones and think they're cool. And then the devs just look the other way."
Obviously this is not a good thing for player retention or for the growth of the game. Belive it or not, eve needs new players, now more so than ever. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:59:00 -
[610] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Pok Nibin wrote:Tippia wrote: No, why would I? Do I have a history of agreeing with unfounded assumptions? AT LAST! ahem. YES, you do. You have founded this gargantuan input of yours, presenting yourself as being in possession of expertise of some sort, completely on your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." That, obviously, is YOUR opinion and is certainly not a FACT. Ergo...it's an assumption. As this assumption has no foundation it naturally cannot be FOUNDED on a foundation...thingy. But, you've never let that bother you before. Why let it bother you now? Pardon my intrusion into your fierce debate battle with Tippia, but I'd like to bring to your attention that an opinion and an assumption are two entirely different things. Simply put, an opinion is a personal view on a matter that one isn't sure of enough to claim as fact, while an assumption is something a person believes to be fact, when there's either insufficient proof in favor of the belief, or plentiful proof to the belief's contrary. Tippia has definitely expressed an opinion, which was likely founded on personal observation of the game economy, and the statements of intent made by the developers of EVE Online. While I don't agree with everything Tippia says, or all of his/her methods, I've so far yet to see this person assume anything. Pardon my intrusion, but Tippia has made baseless assumptions on more than one occasion. In fact, his arguments are mostlyl nothing but baseless assumptions. He's claimed that suicide gankers are worse off than miners (let me know if you need proof and I'll be happy to look it up where he states this explicitely, not that it will make a difference to you either way) and failed to even explain himself. He's also claimed on numerous occasions that CONCORD needs to be nerfed.
Tippia wrote:You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right? He's not even making an effort to present his opinions as opinions, but rather as unfallible assumptions based on fact, which they really aren't. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:13:00 -
[611] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Many of these "carebears" have been playing this game for a very long time, and none of them have claimed that the game is booring or hinted at their intention to jump ship. So, if the "carebears" have no intention to jump ship, even though the game is apparently very harsh and unforgiving toward their playstyles, why should CCP continue to make changes to the game that inhibit non-consensual player interaction? They're obviously unnecessary, since the carebear retention rate is fine as it is. However, these changes definitely drive the pvpers away, which results in a loss in subscriptions.
Fille Balle wrote:Yes, and the highsec population has steadily increased. So obviously it's the right course to take. Making highsec less safe won't solve anything. That would only mean that people no longer had a safe income stream, and there would be even less poeple looking for pew pew in low/null. If high-sec population has steadily increased despite high-sec being much less safe than its name implies, then why is an increase in safety necessary?
Unless you mean that high-sec population increased proportionally to the high-sec pvp nerfs I outlined in my previous post. But then, we see a direct correlation between making high-sec more safe, and high-sec becoming more populated. An increase in high-sec population means a decrease in low-sec/null-sec population. So, making high-sec more safe would have the exact opposite effect of enticing people to look for pew pew in low/null.
Fille Balle wrote:Part of the reason why those changes were implemented was because mechanics were being abused to the point of breaking the game. Everytime I speak to someone outside the eve community that knows of eve/has played eve, I get the same response:
"Eve? Oh yeah, it's that game where the older players pick on the newer ones and think they're cool. And then the devs just look the other way."
Obviously this is not a good thing for player retention or for the growth of the game. Belive it or not, eve needs new players, now more so than ever. Every time I speak to someone outside of the WoW community who knows of WoW/has played WoW, I get the same response:
"WoW? Oh yeah, it's that game where the older players prance around as Night Elves ganking level 30s in Stranglethorn and think they're cool. And then the devs just look the other way."
Outsiders will be outsiders. I can tell you for a fact that when I used to log into EVE in 2004, I was amazed to see 3,000 people online. Now, on a good afternoon, I see 45,000. Sure, EVE needs new players, like any other MMO. But you can't say that EVE hasn't been getting them. Aside from the 18-month Incarna fiasco, EVE's player retention and growth rates have been doing just fine.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:29:00 -
[612] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Pardon my intrusion, but Tippia has made baseless assumptions on more than one occasion. In fact, his arguments are mostlyl nothing but baseless assumptions. He's claimed that suicide gankers are worse off than miners (let me know if you need proof and I'll be happy to look it up where he states this explicitely, not that it will make a difference to you either way) and failed to even explain himself. He's also claimed on numerous occasions that CONCORD needs to be nerfed. Tippia wrote:You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right? He's not even making an effort to present his opinions as opinions, but rather as unfallible assumptions based on fact, which they really aren't. If CONCORD was nerfed in Tippia's image (where players themselves are given more tools and incentives to pursue criminals), I, as a ganker, can vouch for the fact that the universe would become a much colder and harsher place for me. Having to contend with vengeful players would be a much more difficult ordeal than to coldly write off 40 million ISK as the sunk cost of a suicide battleship. Also, the more you mitigate a safety net, the more people are forced to adapt. I doubt my ganking would be nearly as successful if CONCORD nerfs woke players up to the necessity of precautions. My ganking efficiency might, however, increase with the removal of CONCORD insurance, for the exact same reason. Hence why I, much like other gankers, am not against the removal of insurance. We simply want to be assured that ganking itself will not be made impossible.
Tippia doesn't gank, but I do. It's not exactly an assumption if I confirm his claims. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:39:00 -
[613] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Pardon my intrusion, but Tippia has made baseless assumptions on more than one occasion. In fact, his arguments are mostlyl nothing but baseless assumptions. He's claimed that suicide gankers are worse off than miners (let me know if you need proof and I'll be happy to look it up where he states this explicitely, not that it will make a difference to you either way) and failed to even explain himself. He's also claimed on numerous occasions that CONCORD needs to be nerfed. Tippia wrote:You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right? He's not even making an effort to present his opinions as opinions, but rather as unfallible assumptions based on fact, which they really aren't. If CONCORD was nerfed in Tippia's image (where players themselves are given more tools and incentives to pursue criminals), I, as a ganker, can vouch for the fact that the universe would become a much colder and harsher place for me. Having to contend with vengeful players would be a much more difficult ordeal than to coldly write off 40 million ISK as the sunk cost of a suicide battleship. Also, the more you mitigate a safety net, the more people are forced to adapt. I doubt my ganking would be nearly as successful if CONCORD nerfs woke players up to the necessity of precautions. My ganking efficiency might, however, increase with the removal of CONCORD insurance, for the exact same reason. Hence why I, much like other gankers, am not against the removal of insurance. We simply want to be assured that ganking itself will not be made impossible. Tippia doesn't gank, but I do. It's not exactly an assumption if I confirm his claims. Not only are you stating an assumption on itself. But your assumption has already been proven wrong. CONCORD hasn't always been all invincible. When CONCORD wasn't the force it is now grief players and hi sec gankers/PVPers made it a habit to make hi sec a living hell for everyone and a griefer's paradise for themselves. So your misleading assumption that nerfing CONCORD is bad for grief/gank players is simply ridiculous. And really, you need to stop propagating this trash because I don't think anyone is buying it. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:49:00 -
[614] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So, if the "carebears" have no intention to jump ship, even though the game is apparently very harsh and unforgiving toward their playstyles, why should CCP continue to make changes to the game that inhibit non-consensual player interaction? They're obviously unnecessary, since the carebear retention rate is fine as it is. However, these changes definitely drive the pvpers away, which results in a loss in subscriptions.
Way to go missing the point. Sure, older player know how to mitigate risks. This isn't, and never was, and probably never will be about older players. This is about newer players. Besides, I just proved your point wrong, wich means your arguementation has lost it's footing.
I know for a fact that many newer players left the game because they got ganked by some random ganker, or because they felt it was too much hassle to mitigate risk. I've heard many individuals state that "highsec should just be safe".
Destiny Corrupted wrote:If high-sec population has steadily increased despite high-sec being much less safe than its name implies, then why is an increase in safety necessary?
Unless you mean that high-sec population increased proportionally to the high-sec pvp nerfs I outlined in my previous post. But then, we see a direct correlation between making high-sec more safe, and high-sec becoming more populated. An increase in high-sec population means a decrease in low-sec/null-sec population. So, making high-sec more safe would have the exact opposite effect of enticing people to look for pew pew in low/null.
You said it yourself. Highsec has been getting safer and safer over time, and the popultaion count has been steadily increasing. So it's obviously the right course of action. Unless you have some magical data that proves it wrong, that will remain a fact.
Again, you make some baseless claim which you have no proof for. Low/null population does not decrease because highsec has been made safer. The last time it was because of sactum nerfs. Before that I suspect it's mainly due to powerblocks. In fact, that is the most common answer I've read when people are asked why they left null.
Lowsec has a low population count because lowsec is completely pointless.
Besides, you there was no option to pew pew in highsec, are you saying that all those people would quit the game rather than go pew pew in low/null? They didn't leave the other times highsec pew pew got nerfed, so I don't see why they should all of a sudden at the next nerf.
Fille Balle wrote:Part of the reason why those changes were implemented was because mechanics were being abused to the point of breaking the game. Everytime I speak to someone outside the eve community that knows of eve/has played eve, I get the same response:
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]Every time I speak to someone outside of the WoW community who knows of WoW/has played WoW, I get the same response:
"WoW? Oh yeah, it's that game where the older players prance around as Night Elves ganking level 30s in Stranglethorn and think they're cool. And then the devs just look the other way."
Outsiders will be outsiders. I can tell you for a fact that when I used to log into EVE in 2004, I was amazed to see 3,000 people online. Now, on a good afternoon, I see 45,000. Sure, EVE needs new players, like any other MMO. But you can't say that EVE hasn't been getting them. Aside from the 18-month Incarna fiasco, EVE's player retention and growth rates have been doing just fine.
First off, your integrity went just went from bad to "out the window". I don't know if that's the case, because I've never interacted with the wow community in any way, and I have no intention of doing so. But there are a few things that make your counter agruement completely useless:
1. wow is not a single shard persistent universe. There are non-pvp servers. 2. Safe zones that are actually safe occur in wow. 3. A higher level player is inherantly better than a lower level player in wow. I eve this is not always the case. 4. wow has 12 million subs. eve has 400k.
If the player retention rates were fine, I'm sure CCP wouldn't be jumping over corpses in order to get more subs. That they are fine is and will remain your opinion and nothing more.
And again, subs have been steadily increasing, and highsec has been steadily made safer. Once again, it seems like a good path for CCP to take in order to increase subs. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:53:00 -
[615] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Not only are you stating an assumption on itself. But your assumption has already been proven wrong. CONCORD hasn't always been all invincible. When CONCORD wasn't the force it is now grief players and hi sec gankers/PVPers made it a habit to make hi sec a living hell for everyone and a griefer's paradise for themselves. So your misleading assumption that nerfing CONCORD is bad for grief/gank players is simply ridiculous. And really, you need to stop propagating this trash because I don't think anyone is buying it.
I never stated that I believe CONCORD should be reverted to its pre-first-nerf state. Nor did anyone else who advocates a CONCORD nerf, including Tippia. We never demanded a rollback; game balancing isn't a binary system. We want CONCORD to be nerfed, but only if it's done in such a manner that it's improved as a game mechanic. An instant-death trigger is about as rational as insurance paid out for losses sustained during criminal acts.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, and following that up with some ad hominem to boot. I wouldn't expect anything less from a forum alt leetposter.
Hang on, I'll save you the trouble of a reply: I'm very mad, and also crying. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:54:00 -
[616] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:Who said anything about imbalance? Honestly, it's about risk vs reward, something that is crowed about on a regular basis on these forums and in-game. Dondoran did, although the post I quoted seems to have been lost in the flame purge that took place at that point in the thread. It is repeated a bit above the post you quoted, though. Also, you did, just now, and you did it again, quite explicitly, at the end of your post.
All of this topic is a question of balance. Be it risk vs. reward; gankers vs. victims; highsec safety vs. other parts; the impact of uniterruptible highsec production vs. the impact of interruptible production highsec.
Quote:A suicide ganker risks little in reality...a ship and some sec status. The ship is an expected loss, calculated and factored in and sec status is pretty much the same. Short of those two things, there is no real risk involved in a suicide gank, because for the most part, the ship is covered by insurance. So by removing insurance for criminal activities, the risk is actually increased, and closing the disparity of risk vs reward somewhat. That's somewhat contradictory, don't you think? With or without insurance, the ship is still just an expected loss and adjusting it doesn't alter the risk. The actual risk factors for a ganker GÇö a competent mark, a vengeful mark, the risk of interdiction, the loot drop GÇö are all completely unaffected (wellGǪ maybe not the competence part, that risk tends to go down as security increases).
Quote:Honestly Tip, I've been watching this thread purely for your responses. You say they aren't tears, but you seem awfully invested in it, even if you are intending to troll. GǪand again, I'm not intending to troll. If I were, you would notice it and it would not be nearly as civil as this.
Of course I'm invested in it GÇö it affects my gameplay in what I perceive as a negatively beneficial way. But I think you're confusing GÇ£butthurtGÇ¥ with GÇ£worried about the direction of the gameGÇ¥. I'm not shedding any tears over this (because, over all, the change does indeed benefit me), any more than I was shed tears over the NeX, and in that case I even wrote a 5,000-word piece that generated some 30,000 views (and heaps upon heaps of cheers, reposts and various material rewards) because of how worried it made me about the direction of the game (and about CCP's handling of their IP).
The thing is, just because it benefits me GÇö my risk now goes from +¦ to nil GÇö doesn't mean that I automatically believe it will benefit the game as a whole. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of things that benefit me because I'm already sitting pretty in a highly beneficial situations, and I sincerely doubt that I need more benefits. I'd rather see the game revert to an older state of affairs where it was actually slightly risky to fly in space, because that risk encouraged safety behaviour. That is a ridiculously common paradox: an increase in risk often actually makes the people more safe because they take it upon themselves to mitigate that risk. There's a difference between the safety of the system and safety of the person.
I only see this change as something that further reinforces people's false sense of security, makes them less safe, and at the same time does not affect the risks of those who create that unsafety.
K Suri wrote:More to the point, Tippia is a highsec carebear who plays Eve solo and ignores the entire multiplayer concept. And yet he's defending the PRINCIPLE of Eve while not even practising one of it's primary principles, that of an MMO. He neither PvP's nor ganks. What his vested interest is has escaped me. That is not so much Gǣto the pointGǥ as it is Gǣa complete fabrication based on ignorance andGǪ let's charitably call it guessworkGǥ, and if you had actually taken the time to read what I write, you would know this. Doing so would also have made you aware of what my vested interests are, since I've only explained themGǪ what?GǪ four or five times in this thread alone.
If the apparent conflict between my assumed status as a carebear and my objections to this change give you pause, then that's good. Take a moment to consider what causes this perceived conflict and what might resolve it. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:55:00 -
[617] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:So there's no problem here then. Move along, nothing to see here. Quite incorrect. The problem is that one party is trying to force its gameplay on the other just as much as they accuse that other party of doing the same, when the latter is not actually forcing anything at all.
Pok Nibin wrote:AT LAST! ahem. YES, you do. You have founded this gargantuan input of yours, presenting yourself as being in possession of expertise of some sort, completely on your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." Yeah, no. That's not an assumption on my part. Also, if you had actually lurked enough to warrant that GÇ£at last!GÇ¥ comment, you would know by now that I reject that claim when presented as an assumption and annoy those who make it with just as many GÇ£whyGÇ¥s as I do those who express the opposite viewpoint.
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Pardon my intrusion, but Tippia has made baseless assumptions on more than one occasion. In fact, his arguments are mostlyl nothing but baseless assumptions. He's claimed that suicide gankers are worse off than miners (let me know if you need proof and I'll be happy to look it up where he states this explicitely, not that it will make a difference to you either way) and failed to even explain himself. GǪyou mean aside from the part where it wasn't an assumption and where I explained how I came to that conclusion?
Quote:Tippian isn't even making an effort to present his opinions as opinions, but rather as infallible assumptions based on fact, which really aren't facts. Fun fact: that is not presented as an infallible assumption. It's a conclusion derived from the facts of how CONCORD work and how these workings can be made to work in your favour.
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:When CONCORD wasn't the force it is now grief players and hi sec gankers/PVPers made it a habit to make hi sec a living hell for everyone GǪin other words, it make EVE a colder and harsher place for gankers too, since they could be caught by these mass murder sprees just as well as everyone else. The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:57:00 -
[618] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:Way to go missing the point. Sure, older player know how to mitigate risks. This isn't, and never was, and probably never will be about older players. This is about newer players. Really? A lot of this seems to be about people in Hulks GÇö not new players GÇö and about how to punish older players who know how to work the system (and screw the newbies who actually could use the insurance to mitigate their newbie mistakes).
It rather sounds like a perfect case of Malcanis' Principle at work. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
99
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:01:00 -
[619] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:It will change things for you. If the above happens, then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions. You can call it tears or rage-quitting, if you wish. The game would be so fundamentally changed that labels become irrelevant. Mean ship-splodin' griefer bastards will leave, along with a lot of pvpers who aren't into the empire stuff, but have no interests vested in RMT networks. What will happen next is up for speculation, but I would venture to guess that the game's economy wouldn't fare too well. I can tell you for a fact that there are games out there that do riskless arena pvp much better than EVE does. If that one category will be the sum total of the MMO market, switching will be a no-brainer.
You tripped my double-standard alarm.
How come that whenever there is some "geddon" against miners and indies the prospect of "you need these people" is constantly shot down, no pun intended, by the so-called "PVP crowd", but now I have to fear the griefbears leaving and EvE dying because they could not gank in high sec?
If we could take a player-wide vote on who the game needs less, which group would it be? Would it be the carebears who produce the ships and ammo or would it be the griefers who blow things up "for the lulz"?
I don't think we have to try real hard to find out who we would throw overboard first.
People vote with their wallets and their metagame actions. Griefers like to think they "griefed some carebear out of the game" but in reality they came up to someone who saw what kind of people they were dealing with and decided not to have to put up with them. The people who hide behind the whole "it's a sandbox" cliche seldom admit that their real goal is to drive people away.
These are the people who put their cars into the left lane, match speed with a slow truck, and enjoy watching people get frustrated.
Again, who's butt would the player base at large be more happy seeing get hit by the door?
CCP might be realizing something: profit. And since it's perfectly OK for some people to kill everything that moves and say "EvE is harsh! I do it for profit!!!!1! GBTQ carebear! Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!", it also perfectly OK for CCP to say "we are a for-profit organization looking to expand and having a game that is a noob-harvester heaven is not helping".
I suspect that most of the people who want to have their cake and eat it too are Americans who do the same thing with the political process: clamor for rules and mechanics that benefit them and screw others, and emorage when there is even the slightest change that might make their "game" a little harder.
So to the gankers and griefbears I say , go back to Guild Wars. Or how about "bullies with inferiority complexes online is that way -->" |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:02:00 -
[620] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fun fact: that is not presented as an infallible assumption. It's a conclusion derived from the facts of how CONCORD work and how these workings can be made to work in your favour. Again, your assumptions aren't fact. They're horribly misleading assumptions that cater to your style of play.
Tippia wrote:The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does. Yes, much harsher than the instant death CONCORD is already providing. Right. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:05:00 -
[621] - Quote
Fille Balle wrote:And again, subs have been steadily increasing, and highsec has been steadily made safer. Once again, it seems like a good path for CCP to take in order to increase subs. Okay, for the sake of not getting into a long-winded argument about my credibility and the baselessness of my arguments, let's simply forget about all of the above. I've played WoW for almost as long as I've played EVE, and while I can address your points, I'd rather not turn this thread into a discussion about that.
So, just tell me this one little thing. You say that subs have been increasing proportionally with the increase of high-sec's safety. Now, I'll absolutely agree that more subs is better. Therefore, will making high-sec absolutely safe result in an absolute increase in subscriptions, or not? If not, what is, or should be, the cutoff point? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:11:00 -
[622] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:How come that whenever there is some "geddon" against miners and indies the prospect of "you need these people" is constantly shot down, no pun intended, by the so-called "PVP crowd", but now I have to fear the griefbears leaving and EvE dying because they could not gank in high sec? Because the PvP crowd can easily replace the industrial activities that a loss of carebears would entail, but not the other way around (because the carbears, by very definition, do not want to engage in the wholesale destruction that is needed to keep the economy rolling).
CCP may very well need both; the game in and of itself does not.
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, your assumptions aren't fact. So you are unwilling to believe that making it easier to kill people will also make it easier to kill gankers? May I ask what godlike abilities you attribute the gankers that they may set themselves apart from everyone else in such a way?
Quote:They're horribly misleading assumptions that cater to your style of play. Really? And what is my style of play, exactly?
Quote:Yes, much harsher than the instant death CONCORD is already providing. Yes. Multiple deaths is a harsher punishment than a single one.
Fille Balle wrote:And again, subs have been steadily increasing, and highsec has been steadily made safer. Once again, it seems like a good path for CCP to take in order to increase subs. This is not true by the way. Subs have gone both up and down and stayed stagnant, irrespective of and unconnected to the move towards a safer highsec. In fact, an argument could be made that the stagnation really started around the time the last set of safety-increasing measures were put in placeGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jenshae Chiroptera
147
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:11:00 -
[623] - Quote
Good work keeping Tipsy occupied guys. Next shift will be with you in 30 minutes. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:14:00 -
[624] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Good work keeping Tipsy occupied guys. Next shift will be with you in 30 minutes. It's so cute how you seem to think that I'm in this thread 24/7, even when it's so readily apparent that I'm not here for long stretches of time. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:17:00 -
[625] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes. Multiple deaths is a harsher punishment than a single one. And how is CONCORD stopping suicide gankers from being killed multiple times exactly ? |
Lens Thirring
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:19:00 -
[626] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Not only are you stating an assumption on itself. But your assumption has already been proven wrong. CONCORD hasn't always been all invincible. When CONCORD wasn't the force it is now grief players and hi sec gankers/PVPers made it a habit to make hi sec a living hell for everyone and a griefer's paradise for themselves. So your misleading assumption that nerfing CONCORD is bad for grief/gank players is simply ridiculous. And really, you need to stop propagating this trash because I don't think anyone is buying it.
You are being selective in what you read. They are not proposing simply to nerf CONCORD, but also to accompany that with some sort of kill-rights game mechanic which allows players to act as police.
Although CONCORD is a very efficient police force, they are also completely predictable, and (aside from a standing loss) they forget about you as soon as you've "paid your dues". Players are unpredictable and occasionally smart. It might be harder to live with a price on your head in hi-sec than to replace your destroyer once it's been CONCORDed. (Though bounty systems are notoriously easy to exploit, of course, so any kind of new mechanic would have to be considered carefully.)
It's all a question of balancing the game to that a variety of activities are able to flourish. Gankers factor the loss of their ship into their profit/loss (or tears/loss) calculations. Similarly haulers and miners can estimate how many loads are likely to go missing, factor that into their calculations and learn to shrug off the occasional loss and/or take some steps to mitigate that. These are the type of optimizations and compromises which make the game interesting beyond just "press button, collect money."
As long as there is a path for every profession to be profitable, the game is doing well. And in my anecdotal experience, hi-sec ganks are extremely rare compared to the profit that can be made. Some players do, however, persist in carrying around a big "gank me" sign, and presumably these are the repeat victims. Why should the game be modified to accommodate that? Even in hi-sec, the game should reward moderately skilled players over perpetual inflexible victims. |
Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:22:00 -
[627] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Not only are you stating an assumption on itself. But your assumption has already been proven wrong. CONCORD hasn't always been all invincible. When CONCORD wasn't the force it is now grief players and hi sec gankers/PVPers made it a habit to make hi sec a living hell for everyone and a griefer's paradise for themselves. So your misleading assumption that nerfing CONCORD is bad for grief/gank players is simply ridiculous. And really, you need to stop propagating this trash because I don't think anyone is buying it.
While I despise griefplay and would enjoy seeing GM resources devoted to banning from the game people who repeatedly and unmistakably use this game not as a end in itself (roleplaying a capsuleer out for riches, fame, etc), but as a means to get cheap kicks out of complete strangers, I wouldn't mind seeing CONCORD completely removed from the game. If such were to happen, what we'd witness would be, apart from a massive drop in subscribers -which CCP deserves, see below- :
- People would organize to repel gankers, everywhere would be a warzone and sandbox would mean something - The spontaneous organization to safekeep space would soon hit a brick wall : every vigilante or antipie assembly would be prey to infiltration and eventually disbanded. - Players would realize that the real problem lies in the unaccountability of alts, that there is no ingame way to check whether this gung-ho good samaritan is really out to expel gankers and griefers, or if he is not really a griefer's alt, lying in wait to destroy a vigilante assembly from inside.
CONCORD removal would be a great thing. While EvE is graphically awesome, and the single server a beautiful paradigm for MMOs, CCP does deserve to crumble and fall, because they thrive on people buying and supporting multiple accounts, and those multiple accounts allow condoned griefplay. Yes, EvE is Pay-to-Win (with real money or PLEX, which amounts to the same thing since PLEX has to be bought from someone)
What happens is: Online sociopaths buy and fund multiple accounts. One for their e-peen ganker, another for disposable scammers and seemingly innocuous scouts/probers, a third for mission running. Those accounts synergize, the ganker removes mission running competition in juicy lowsec hubs, thus keeping LPs prices high, the scouts tackle the threat of would-be vigilantes busting gate/dock camp, and the access to high sec on + sec status chars voids the consequences of being -10 on their main. Gatecamp is not a boring activity anymore, since you can do other stuff with secondary accounts at the same time. So you can just stay logged at the gate, waiting for the activation noise. Which means those camps are here to stay, and passerbys need to scout ahead... therefore, they buy and fund secondary accounts.
Also, people who do enjoy the game, and who do not have a lot of free time but are kinda well-off, buy PLEX and sell it for isk... which helps to fund secondary accounts of the people who will scam and gank them, forcing them to buy and sell more PLEX -since they don't have a lot of free time but don't mind spending RL money to get ISK-.
Therefore, I for one wouldn't mind complete removal of CONCORD. The garbage that is the possibility of having multiple unrelated accounts would clearly appear. Now, there's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts, as long as they're all related, and there are ingame ways of seeing the links. Scouts and scammers related to obvious griefers would raise red flags, as long as you'd take a few minutes to check the characters.
At the moment EvE is only cold and harsh and hardcore if you play it in a civil manner, and don't abuse alts. It however makes sense from a financial point of view that CCP allows such pitiful double and triple or more play, since it allows dodging of negative consequences, helps hardcore scamming and ganking, which will in turn push a certain category of people to buy PLEX.
This policy is disgusting on many a level, if you consider this should be game. But hey I probably ask too much of decency from people born in a country which idea of a hobby is alcoholism, and who inflicted Bjork upon the world ! The sad truth about morality in EvE : eve-search.com/search/author/EpicFailTroll |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:23:00 -
[628] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:If we could take a player-wide vote on who the game needs less, which group would it be? Would it be the carebears who produce the ships and ammo or would it be the griefers who blow things up "for the lulz"? Here's my hypothesis:
Getting rid of the pvpers would skyrocket CCP's revenue in the short term, then decrease it down to pre-current levels in the long term. If the pvpers disappear, the carebears will not suddenly take up "sociopathic" activities. They will, however, become bored as they accumulate all of the items they wish to have, and lose interest in the game. Word of mouth would be negative. EVE will either have to be radically reworked, or will die a painful death.
Getting rid of the carebears would cause an immediate drop in CCP's revenue, which would to some extent be immediately offset by pvpers creating more alts to plug a market externality. This would be fueled by a decrease in PLEX prices. Over time, EVE's growth would be slow but positive, as its players, in this case, wouldn't grow bored too fast. Word of mouth would be positive. EVE wouldn't need to be reworked, but would certainly need more new features to accelerate growth.
Keep in mind, when EVE was brand new, it was much less "safe" than it is today. Yet it grew, because people were attracted to the gameplay it offered. It grew much faster back then, when it was less safe, than it does today, when it is more safe.
Now please don't go ahead and call the above an assumption. A hypothesis is not an assumption. Doing so will make you look like an idiot. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:50:00 -
[629] - Quote
Lens Thirring wrote:You are being selective in what you read. They are not proposing simply to nerf CONCORD, but also to accompany that with some sort of kill-rights game mechanic which allows players to act as police.
Although CONCORD is a very efficient police force, they are also completely predictable, and (aside from a standing loss) they forget about you as soon as you've "paid your dues". Players are unpredictable and occasionally smart. It might be harder to live with a price on your head in hi-sec than to replace your destroyer once it's been CONCORDed. (Though bounty systems are notoriously easy to exploit, of course, so any kind of new mechanic would have to be considered carefully.) Tippia has not mentioned anything in the form of fixing kill-rights mechanic, at all. So how exactly is that me being selective? And even if he was advocating a nerf to CONCORD with a buff to hi sec space dwellers he treats his assumptions as facts when they aren't. They're mere assumptions.
With that said, I personally would love to see a revamp to the bounty system. However, having CONCORD as the force they are now and revamping the bounty mechanics are NOT mutually exclusive. Revamping the whole bounty mechanics is something that all space securities can benefit from, not just hi sec.
Quote:It's all a question of balancing the game to that a variety of activities are able to flourish. Gankers factor the loss of their ship into their profit/loss (or tears/loss) calculations. Similarly haulers and miners can estimate how many loads are likely to go missing, factor that into their calculations and learn to shrug off the occasional loss and/or take some steps to mitigate that. These are the type of optimizations and compromises which make the game interesting beyond just "press button, collect money." It's funny you mention this because I view suicide ganking as exactly that: "press button, collect tears".
Quote:As long as there is a path for every profession to be profitable, the game is doing well. And in my anecdotal experience, hi-sec ganks are extremely rare compared to the profit that can be made. Some players do, however, persist in carrying around a big "gank me" sign, and presumably these are the repeat victims. Why should the game be modified to accommodate that? Even in hi-sec, the game should reward moderately skilled players over perpetual inflexible victims. "Perpetually inflexible" like the suicide gankers that are currently having ***** attacks over a change that is barely scratching their bottom line? Or did you mean just those other "carebears"?
Listen, I'm not necssarily against making the game harsher, as long as there is still room for players looking to minimize their risk at the cost of rewards. What I find extremely hypocritical is these idiotic grief players yelling "RISK VS REWARD!!1 COLD HARSH UNIVERSE ROCKS!1" while flooding the forums with tears every time CCP even attempts to add a tiny bit of risk to their own professions. FFS, look at all the tears being shed because of this little change. |
baltec1
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:52:00 -
[630] - Quote
Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was away |
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:55:00 -
[631] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It will slightly alter what targets people select when they suicide for profit. The affect it will have on suiciding done for LOLs or for strategic reasons is propably even more negligible.
this
I seriously doubt that the cost of hulls plays such a huge roll in the whether to gank or not decision.... probably less bs's used in the future ganking though |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:03:00 -
[632] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was away
For once I'll agree on your statement.
If some guys want their eve to be harder than it is, without concord: Go live in null, go live in low sec.
Stop crying about concord and say there's no concord in null and high sec should be alike, it's not needed. Just go there, live there and don't think about high sec. That's it you've got your perfect eve.
Ho w8, true there's no concord in null/low |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1294
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:15:00 -
[633] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:And how is CONCORD stopping suicide gankers from being killed multiple times exactly ? Yes, because I mentioned GÇ£stoppingGÇ¥.
The fact remains: a nerfed CONCORD would allow for much more and much harsher retributions against the gankers than the current system does.
Quote:Tippia has not mentioned anything in the form of fixing kill-rights mechanic, at all. Incorrect, of course.
Quote:he treats his assumptions as facts when they aren't. No. It's just that you treats my conclusions and opinions as assumptions because you skip and/or ignore the reasoning behind them.
Quote:"Perpetually inflexible" like the suicide gankers that are currently having ***** attacks over a change that is barely scratching their bottom line? I don't know if you've noticed, but the gankers who have chimed in in this thread have responded with a pretty resounding GÇ£mehGÇ¥ and explained how they'll adapt. So that perceived inflexibility and the censored attacks rather seem like yet more of your presumptions about what is supposed to happen instead of what is happening.
Quote:Listen, I'm not necssarily against making the game harsher, as long as there is still room for players looking to minimize their risk at the cost of rewards. Well good! Then we are in agreement on one point at least. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Morar Santee
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:25:00 -
[634] - Quote
Oh Lord... stfu already with the tears.
You're getting tier 3 BCs with BS damage output. At the same ISK you currently lose to insurance anyway when suicide ganking in a BS. On any other hull it makes **** all difference anyway.
Just S T F U. What this translates to is:
"LOLOL WHEN WE GET TORNADOES WELL ONLY LOSE 3 MIL INSTEAD OF 30 FOR SAME PERFORMANCE LOLOL"
Then the shock:
"OH WOW WTF NO THINGS STAY EXACTLY THE SAME OMFG THIS IS SO HORRIBLE THE END OF EVE OMFG TEARS TEARS TEARS WORLD ENDS MORE TEARS!!!!" |
Lens Thirring
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:04:00 -
[635] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Quote:As long as there is a path for every profession to be profitable, the game is doing well. And in my anecdotal experience, hi-sec ganks are extremely rare compared to the profit that can be made. Some players do, however, persist in carrying around a big "gank me" sign, and presumably these are the repeat victims. Why should the game be modified to accommodate that? Even in hi-sec, the game should reward moderately skilled players over perpetual inflexible victims. "Perpetually inflexible" like the suicide gankers that are currently having ***** attacks over a change that is barely scratching their bottom line? Or did you mean just those other "carebears"? Listen, I'm not necssarily against making the game harsher, as long as there is still room for players looking to minimize their risk at the cost of rewards. What I find extremely hypocritical is these idiotic grief players yelling "RISK VS REWARD!!1 COLD HARSH UNIVERSE ROCKS!1" while flooding the forums with tears every time CCP even attempts to add a tiny bit of risk to their own professions. FFS, look at all the tears being shed because of this little change. I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. But people are pointing out that absurdly profitable hi-sec professions are being made progressively less challenging by changes which reduce their already minimal risk. Nobody thinks this little insurance change is particularly important except as possibly an indicator of a trend. Taken together with the avoidable war-decs and other changes, it makes people worry about the direction in which the hi-sec game is drifting.
Whether or not "COLD HARSH UNIVERSE ROCKS!1", principles like "Never fly what you can't afford to lose" make the game interesting. Every new player who goes through the tutorial is aware of this, and it is mentioned in many introductory guides. So it almost comes as a disappointment to enter space in your first hauler chock-full of L1 mission loot, tanked with the best Tech-1 shield booster you can afford, and realise how trivial it is to transport that load of goods to the local hub. Apparently people very quickly develop a sense of entitlement that it should always be this way, and you can use that same hauler and same over-populated trade route to ship 100M ISK of L4 mission loot.
The fact that there is a tiny bit of tension even in hi-sec, and the fact that you always have to think about what you're doing, are a big selling point of Eve. It might be scary to the average WoW player who is stuck in the artificial mindset of "PVE" and "PVP" which don't even apply here. But they've already got their game (or will switch to SWTOR), so CCP offer a different experience. It may be a bit more niche, but by sticking to principles of providing a deeper more competitive game, there's probably still a significant audience who appreciate and are attracted by that. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:22:00 -
[636] - Quote
Lens Thirring wrote:I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. . Really? I clicked on a random page within this thread with no effort found this:
Quote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit. Now if you're just playing semantics well, that's a different story. |
L'ouris
Have Naught Subsidiaries
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:28:00 -
[637] - Quote
hypothetically:
If concord was removed, gateguns in highsec actually had tracking and the like, kill rights were transferabble; wouldn't that open up a more lively mercenary profession? In effect allow for the possibility of hiring mercenaries to protect your badger to protect you on your way to market?
Curious if this is the line of reasoning for some in the thread. |
Lens Thirring
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:37:00 -
[638] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Lens Thirring wrote:I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. . Really? I clicked on a random page within this thread with no effort found this: Quote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit. Now if you're just playing semantics well, that's a different story. Well, this individual seems to be more upset about war-dec mechanics than insurance. And babbies, he clearly doesn't like babbies at all. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1295
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:44:00 -
[639] - Quote
Malka Badi'a wrote:Tippia, you're trying too hard. People respect your opinion on any given day, but you're tarnishing it right now by just being a devil's advocate where one isn't needed.
Move the **** along. Since I don't play the devil's advocate, I think I'll stick around, thankyouverymuch.
If doing so GÇ£tarnishes my opinionGÇ¥ in some people's eyes, then they didn't actually respect it to begin with so any kind of tarnish will be entirely inconsequential. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:49:00 -
[640] - Quote
nearly 75% of the eve universe is in pvp zones, i really dont understand why ppl complain about having a area were new players can learn and casuals can roam, imagine with no concord, no gate guns. i KNOW ppl would just sit at the neeb starting points waiting for a new player to join the game and pop them instently before they even have a chance to learn anything about the game.
Ppl who want to remove concord are basically saying they want the game to have no more ppl in it. I find it shocking and degrading at the arrogence of these ppl, your saying " its my game no one else is allowed to join in"
i remember what the game was like before gate guns and the trade blockades of MoO , it nearly destroyed the game.
theres a saying "put your brain into gear before your mouth is in motion" |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:53:00 -
[641] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Lens Thirring wrote:I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. . Really? I clicked on a random page within this thread with no effort found this: Quote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit. Now if you're just playing semantics well, that's a different story. And that was not *random* - that was basically the only *real* whine here.
:CCP: ate my post (DAMMIT! FIX THAT TOO!)
****.
Until CCP removes the ability to aggress other players in hi-sec, ganking is an implicitly allowed activity. I get that people don't like this (and they certainly don't like the people who do it), it is within the mechanics of the game.
All I can hope is that CCP is making these changes to hi-sec, while at the same time, reviewing aggression and war-dec mechanics. Hi -sec is "safer", not "invulnerable".
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
L'ouris
Have Naught Subsidiaries
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:54:00 -
[642] - Quote
decaneos wrote:nearly 75% of the eve universe is in pvp zones, i really dont understand why ppl complain about having a area were new players can learn and casuals can roam, imagine with no concord, no gate guns. i KNOW ppl would just sit at the neeb starting points waiting for a new player to join the game and pop them instently before they even have a chance to learn anything about the game.
Ppl who want to remove concord are basically saying they want the game to have no more ppl in it. I find it shocking and degrading at the arrogence of these ppl, your saying " its my game no one else is allowed to join in"
i remember what the game was like before gate guns and the trade blockades of MoO , it nearly destroyed the game.
theres a saying "put your brain into gear before your mouth is in motion"
Actually I was thinking about a scenario where even 2 hr newbs in condors would be able to web a GCC frigate who had tackled a badger on a gate and let the sentries pop him. Talk about cheap support.
Im certainly not averse to starter system exceptions, however there was a trailer for eve about some poor scrub in a rifter saving some other poor scrub in a barge from a gank which was the inspiration. Laughable yes, but interesting to me to mull. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:02:00 -
[643] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:And that was not *random* - that was basically the only *real* whine here.
Right. . Clicked on Page 23:
The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.
In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification
You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganking gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self
Bye-bye freighter ganking.
High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.
You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.
Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.
You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change.
Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:06:00 -
[644] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:And that was not *random* - that was basically the only *real* whine here. Right. You're not trying hard enough. Clicked on Page 23: The Economist wrote:I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.
In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification O.o You call that a *whine*? O.o
No wonder you don't like ganking, you can't even take conversation that doesn't agree with you!
Matrix, I used to think you have a few good points, and have even agreed with you in the past on some things...
But good lord dude...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
100
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:07:00 -
[645] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:If we could take a player-wide vote on who the game needs less, which group would it be? Would it be the carebears who produce the ships and ammo or would it be the griefers who blow things up "for the lulz"? Here's my hypothesis: Getting rid of the pvpers would skyrocket CCP's revenue in the short term, then decrease it down to pre-current levels in the long term. If the pvpers disappear, the carebears will not suddenly take up "sociopathic" activities. They will, however, become bored as they accumulate all of the items they wish to have, and lose interest in the game. Word of mouth would be negative. EVE will either have to be radically reworked, or will die a painful death. Getting rid of the carebears would cause an immediate drop in CCP's revenue, which would to some extent be immediately offset by pvpers creating more alts to plug a market externality. This would be fueled by a decrease in PLEX prices. Over time, EVE's growth would be slow but positive, as its players, in this case, wouldn't grow bored too fast. Word of mouth would be positive. EVE wouldn't need to be reworked, but would certainly need more new features to accelerate growth. Keep in mind, when EVE was brand new, it was much less "safe" than it is today. Yet it grew, because people were attracted to the gameplay it offered. It grew much faster back then, when it was less safe, than it does today, when it is more safe. Now please don't go ahead and call the above an assumption. A hypothesis is not an assumption. Doing so will make you look like an idiot.
Yes I can see the points you are trying tio make but we are overlooking something: this is about high-sec.
The harsher play you describe as being attractive works in the same interest curb you describe if there was more carebear to the game than gankbear.
So the game has attracted already "only so many players" and then when you reach a certain level of griefplay, few new players come in. At the same time, the griefbears, like the carebears, also get bored and eventually leave, just as you describe what the carebears would do. A valid premise, but it can happen either way.
If it was all grief all the time, or all carebear all the time, the end result is the same: attraction on a certain level that plateaus eventually.
But we are leaving out that there are three different zones and this is only about one of them. Stronger Concord, no insurance, and other features real or imagines that carebear up high-sec would not have much effect, if any, on lowsec or 0.0.
In the meantime, we see a lot of 0.0 and lowsec topics surface where there is much lament for a lack of population in these areas. If EvE had say 1 million players instead of 300K, that would have a greater effect on 0.0 and lowsec than the present conditions where it's static at 300K and people are getting griefed before they even have the skills or ISK to consider leaving highsec. We cannot predict what people will do but a greater mass of people means a rising tide that lifts all boats. In other words, if there were only say 10 women to hit on in my county, I would have a better chance of being out of luck than if there were 10000 - meaning that at least a few more would be dumb enough to go out with me. So even if we admitted that 0.0 or lowsec would not be appealing to 700K more players, not all 700K of them are going to turtle up in highsec. If even less than a quarter of that left high sec that would still have a positive impact to the desires of 0.0 and low (bigger fleets, more targets, more commerce to pirate, etc).
Quite often in topics like this I see that people who care about the game and the future of it want to see a safer place for noobs but are not looking to eliminate PVP in low and 0.0, but those who take pride in driving people away from the game make the same tired argument that their style if highsec PVP - griefing - is necessary. It's time for people to be honest and admit that driving people away is their goal. I think that the baseless nature their arguments is starting to show more to CCP and CCP, being a for-profit organization, is starting to realize that catering to people who want to drive people away from a game is not profitable. A game where it's "join with a power bloc or die horribly on day one" might sound like major e-peen fodder but it will eventually kill a game and the people saying that's what the game is all about are going to have a little pang of pride when the game shuts down.
Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. The ISK faucet should be turned way down so the bots don't exploit the safety. So while I think it would work to make highsec completely safe, we would need a progressive tax system for noob corp members and also for all activities in high sec. Why? Because in the US I watch people MOVE their homes and businesses from one state that taxes their income too much, to others that tax them less. Taxes are enough to make people change their lives in RL, it would be enough to change their game too. Make highsec the complete safety zone for noobs but don't let it be profitable for bots and ISK hogs (those who think the game is all about the bigger number in the wallet - these are the people who don't tank their haulers). |
Jenshae Chiroptera
147
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:09:00 -
[646] - Quote
Predator and prey populations and how they affect each other. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:09:00 -
[647] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:The Economist wrote:You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. O.o You call that a *whine*? O.o What would you call it then? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1295
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:10:00 -
[648] - Quote
decaneos wrote:nearly 75% of the eve universe is in pvp zones, i really dont understand why ppl complain about having a area were new players can learn and casuals can roam, imagine with no concord, no gate guns. You got that number wrong. Nearly 100% of EVE is PvP zones (99.84% to be exact), and the remaining 12 systems still allow for PvP, except with some newbie-friendly restrictions.
The problem with trying to section space off into a PvP and a non-PvP zone is that, on its own, it would severely imbalance a large array of activities. Since the builders in the non-PvP zone would be completely safe from any kind of disruption of their work, they would have an inordinate advantage over those who do the same thing on the PvP server (not to mention near-infinite resources at their disposal at bargain prices). This is where you'll see the complaints start, and the only way to cure that problem is to disallow any interaction between the two parts of space GÇö no import or export of goods and services.
This would essentially mean that you'd create strict rules of separation GÇö one part of space where you basically play on Sisi; and a different part of space where you play on TQ, except that, unlike those two servers, nothing you do on one carries over to the other. And just like on Sisi, none of what you did in the non-PvP zone would have any meaning or purpose. Why accumulate ISK when everything is basically free? Why build or collect stuff when there are no buyers?
EVE is built from the ground up to be a full-PvP game with exactly two things that are not done in competition with other players. Trying to remove the PvP from that design leaves you with nothing.
As for the newbiesGǪ well, yes, they might need an area where they're less exposed, but at the same time, unless they're exposed to the realities of EVE, they will never learn, so protecting them too much will just make them less ready to deal with the universe that surrounds them. As a result, they already have areas where they are offered additional protection, but where they also more or less immediately get exposed to the world they're about to live in. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jenshae Chiroptera
147
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:12:00 -
[649] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:... Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. [...]- these are the people who don't tank their haulers).
Nice theory but what about the masses who will always chose the safest option or quit? CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:14:00 -
[650] - Quote
L'ouris wrote:decaneos wrote:nearly 75% of the eve universe is in pvp zones, i really dont understand why ppl complain about having a area were new players can learn and casuals can roam, imagine with no concord, no gate guns. i KNOW ppl would just sit at the neeb starting points waiting for a new player to join the game and pop them instently before they even have a chance to learn anything about the game.
Ppl who want to remove concord are basically saying they want the game to have no more ppl in it. I find it shocking and degrading at the arrogence of these ppl, your saying " its my game no one else is allowed to join in"
i remember what the game was like before gate guns and the trade blockades of MoO , it nearly destroyed the game.
theres a saying "put your brain into gear before your mouth is in motion" Actually I was thinking about a scenario where even 2 hr newbs in condors would be able to web a GCC frigate who had tackled a badger on a gate and let the sentries pop him. Talk about cheap support. Im certainly not averse to starter system exceptions, however there was a trailer for eve about some poor scrub in a rifter saving some other poor scrub in a barge from a gank which was the inspiration. Laughable yes, but interesting to me to mull.
wasn't that a wolf in the "Butterfly Effect" video?
Either way ... it's enough to get one thinking "hey, I could do this cool stuff too!" Actually, they try to do that with nearly all of the trailers.. |
|
decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:17:00 -
[651] - Quote
come on guys lets just be honest, this is about pvpers wanting cheap free kills that they dont have to work for.
its got nothing to do with pve vs pvp
its all down to the i want a cheap easy kill to make my score look good. gankers dont want to fight in lowsec cause the other guys have a chance to fight back.
im a pver, ill eventually go pvping but at the moment im quite happy doing a few missions here and there to pay for my sub, i dont have much time to play so i do what i can with what i have.
even if the rewards in low sec were better, and pvers went there, gankers wouldnt follow simply becuase there targets would be much better prepered, also the whole point of suicide ganking is to alpha stike the player , meaning thay have no chance to fight back at all. i fail to see how this change makes it safer? it just means it costs a bit more to gank thats all which takes us back to the addage
IF YOU CANT AFFORD TO LOSE IT DONT FLY IT! |
Velicitia
Open Designs
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:18:00 -
[652] - Quote
Tippia wrote: EVE is built from the ground up to be a full-PvP game with exactly two things that are not done in competition with other players. Trying to remove the PvP from that design leaves you with nothing.
Ship spinning and ....
...
OK, I give up, what's the second one? |
L'ouris
Have Naught Subsidiaries
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:19:00 -
[653] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:
wasn't that a wolf in the "Butterfly Effect" video?
Either way ... it's enough to get one thinking "hey, I could do this cool stuff too!" Actually, they try to do that with nearly all of the trailers..
Imagine if the reality of the game was a bit closer to that thought :) |
decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:20:00 -
[654] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:... Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. [...]- these are the people who don't tank their haulers). Nice theory but what about the masses who will always chose the safest option or quit?
i will admit tho that the money made from high sec is proberbly to much, especially from mining and missions when compared to lowsec. if there was a clear advantage to running missions in low sec then i might take advantage of it but as it stands its just not worth trying to run missions in a pvp boat. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:26:00 -
[655] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:The Economist wrote:You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. O.o You call that a *whine*? O.o What would you call it then? He even goes as far as claiming that this change will no longer allow for freighter ganking. You don't find it even a tad bit emo? C'mon man. Read the post. Missed that - yeah, he's emo, should htfu or stfu or gtfo (imho) - and he's wrong about the freighter thing too... vOv didn't even register on my whine-o-meter...
However, some of the entire comments (and more than one or two) from people lauding the change certainly read far more emo-ishly... Frankly, I live in wormholes, and this change will not directly impact me. The *knock-on* effects are where my concerns lie...
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:... Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. [...]- these are the people who don't tank their haulers). Nice theory but what about the masses who will always chose the safest option or quit?
I chose the safe route for 8 months or more, I didn't quit... vOv
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
711
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:32:00 -
[656] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:highsec PVP - griefing You invalidate all your other statements when you keep insisting that highsec PvP is griefing.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
100
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:33:00 -
[657] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:... Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. [...]- these are the people who don't tank their haulers). Nice theory but what about the masses who will always chose the safest option or quit?
They can stay poor.
The chief complaint, and one seen by lowsec and 0.0 dwellers, that I agree with is that highsec is too safe for the ISK it yeilds. Highsec should be very very safe for noobs, but those noobs who eventually become veterans and can earn big ISK would be motivated to leave if there was a progressive tax system. If I can suck roids at 100M ISK an hour (I don't know a thing about mining so I am reaching into my butt for numbers) that should be taxed enough that staying in high sec is not profitable. For example, a noob with Navitas or Burst pays a tax rate of something like 5 percent on their income, but as the income hits certain thresholds, they join a higher tax bracket. So the noob who earns say 100 ISK in an hour is paying 5 percent but the 100M ISK/hr veteran would be paying something like 50 percent or more. This could also go for selling items in high sec (giving reason to take goods to low to get not only a higher price, but pay less in taxes).
I see people move their lives across states, thousands of miles away, due to taxes, in RL. So when I can earn 100M ISK an hour and get say up to 70 percent taxed in exchange for the safety on principle alone the other zones would start to look real good. Even if I don't want to corp up and be a renter the drone regions and playing cat and mouse with the Russians would look good.
There should be 0 taxes in 0.0 and lowsec of course but SOV holders with the power to set tax rates could make things interesting (attract people or drive them off).
Again, I am not for carebearing the game up, but if we want a game to grow and become more interesting, we have to have a good noob incubator so they don't leave. When noobs leave because they are getting griefed before they even deserve to be a target for any reason, the game is suffering and on the account of people who like to grief others. That's what they are after, even if they never admit it. I am glad that CCP is starting to notice that griefing is a playstyle that is meaningless to the future of the game. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
100
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:34:00 -
[658] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:highsec PVP - griefing You invalidate all your other statements when you keep insisting that highsec PvP is griefing.
I cast thee back to 0.0.
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
711
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:36:00 -
[659] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:highsec PVP - griefing You invalidate all your other statements when you keep insisting that highsec PvP is griefing. I cast thee back to 0.0. Sorry I have blue ice to interdict. If you feel that is griefing then you should report it to CCP.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:23:00 -
[660] - Quote
Why do people assume that by suiciding someone in high sec with hundreds of millions in their cargohold or a 100-200mil mining barge you are chasing off newbies from the game? I know that isk is easy to make in game but by the time you are skilled enough to have that much isk or fly such ships you should a) know enough about the game already to protect yourself and understand the consequences if you dont, b) have in game friends to help you out both financially and security wise or c) have financial methods to recoup the losses in a short time frame.
The vast majority of the people getting ganked are far from newbies. And with the explosion of alt accounts even the low sp players tend to be alts rather than true newbies anyway. So much so that I really have never understood this "new player retention" argument coming from people on the forums at all. Especially when people are hauling around 0.0 deadspace items around in their holds or flying freighters, nevermind T2 indys, jump freighters and orcas.
This has absolutely nothing to do with new player retention at all. Ive scanned enough cargo holds to know a true new player doesnt have anything worth ganking in their holds. Its the hauler alts of null/low sec mains that are targeted. Its the alt corporations of established jita trade alts, WH corps, high sec POS corps that hold the better loot and are targets of gankers. You dont go after the newbs cause they dont have anything worth going after. So to worry about subs is a ridiculous argument.
As it stands there is absolute no way to find out who someones alt is beyond a certain level. And if someone wants to hide their alts they can and its very easy. Its only gotten easier over the years. My last gank was 9 gallente small control towers. Now a newb doesnt know the first thing about owning ONE tower let alone 9 of them. Sorry but I hurt someones entire POS operation on a LARGE scale with that gank. It is one of the only ways to hurt peoples bottom line in a universe where shell corporations, alts and hiding your isk making accounts are alive and well.
And until theres a better way to wage economic warfare upon the high sec alt armies of null/low sec mains ganking will continue in all its better forms to redistribute wealth. |
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
712
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:25:00 -
[661] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: Why do people assume that by suiciding someone in high sec with hundreds of millions in their cargohold or a 100-200mil mining barge you are chasing off newbies from the game? Because they don't like the idea of ganking in general and think by using the "think of the newbies" line that they will get more sympathy for their cause. The people who use that line of reasoning are usually low-intelligence posters and you can safely ignore everything they say. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
StillBorn CrackBaby
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:35:00 -
[662] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: I see people move their lives across states, thousands of miles away, due to taxes, in RL. So when I can earn 100M ISK an hour and get say up to 70 percent taxed...
If I get taxed in a bloody game at 70%, I'm not moving anywhere except to a different game...
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:36:00 -
[663] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:... Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. [...]- these are the people who don't tank their haulers). Nice theory but what about the masses who will always chose the safest option or quit? They can stay poor. I don't know a thing about mining so I am reaching into my butt for numbers.
Our Hulk miners make about 20-22M a day. In worm holes, I make 27M an hour. They operate with buffs more frequently than I do.
I think missions do need some changing. L4s seem to pay a bit much and are getting farmed. Low sec needs improvements on that I would like to see NPC pirate factions protecting or assisting members with high standing with them in PVP. (You would get killed a lot in the beginning but things should improve as you progress)
CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:43:00 -
[664] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:highsec PVP - griefing You invalidate all your other statements when you keep insisting that highsec PvP is griefing. I cast thee back to 0.0. Sorry I have blue ice to interdict. If you feel that is griefing then you should report it to CCP.
Kinda looks like you kids have failed at Ice interdiction....tons of macs in the belt in Ard...
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:45:00 -
[665] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: ... This has absolutely nothing to do with new player retention at all....
The most common newbie ganking I have seen is in missions with those piots that jump into a battle ship very quickly with T1 fits. Minimal skilling it. Quite a few have rage quit, never to return after that. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
713
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:45:00 -
[666] - Quote
Lord Wiggin wrote:Kinda looks like you kids have failed at Ice interdiction....tons of macs in the belt in Ard... You might want to check the current price of oxygen isotopes before you start making yourself look even dumber.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:48:00 -
[667] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote: You might want to check the current price of oxygen isotopes before you start making yourself look even dumber.
Yeah, yeah. That is only temporary. At some point your enthusiasm for it will wane, the whole thing will lose momentum; then everything will go back to the way it was. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
598
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:58:00 -
[668] - Quote
Lord Wiggin wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:highsec PVP - griefing You invalidate all your other statements when you keep insisting that highsec PvP is griefing. I cast thee back to 0.0. Sorry I have blue ice to interdict. If you feel that is griefing then you should report it to CCP. Kinda looks like you kids have failed at Ice interdiction....tons of macs in the belt in Ard...
thanks for the intel |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:01:00 -
[669] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: ... This has absolutely nothing to do with new player retention at all.... The most common newbie ganking I have seen is in missions with those pilots that jump into a battle ship very quickly with T1 fits. Minimal skilling it. Quite a few have rage quit, never to return after that.
Tbh thats been the case since the very beginning of Eve. So to say that it affects player retention is absurd. I remember a guy R3fug33 in fact that spent everything he had and sold all his other ships the moment he could fly a BS. He got it killed within 15 mins of having it. Emorage quit. He was back, sure it took him a while. Few weeks or a month iirc. And this was probably 6 or 7 years ago. Eve has been growing even with people like this being frankly stupid all these years. Itll survive this as well.
As for newbs running missions in BC and getting ganked thats not a large part of the population and I frankly would like to quote PT Barnum here: Theres a sucker born every minute. And tbh without them something would be missing in life in general. Getting ganked once or twice as a newb isnt heartbreaking. Having it done repeatedly in the same ways proves only one thing.... your stupid enough NOT to learn from the experience. Good riddance, dont let the door hit you on the way out.
So though I can understand your lack of motivation from the other thread and agree with a lot of what you say there, in this one your way off base to claim that the newb suffers at the hands of the older players. Its those who dont know, like in life, that fall prey to those who do know. Intelligence and knowledge trumps all. In game or out of game and frankly quitting because you dont know instead of finding out and making it work for you isnt a loss. In game or in real life. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
714
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:02:00 -
[670] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: You might want to check the current price of oxygen isotopes before you start making yourself look even dumber.
Yeah, yeah. That is only temporary. At some point your enthusiasm for it will wane, the whole thing will lose momentum; then everything will go back to the way it was. All things eventually come to an end. But it's still funny to see people running to the forums because they saw somebody mining some blue ice and decided that it meant our interdiction was over.
Another thing...if you look at how those people are mining you'll see some hilarious things. The other day I ran across a guy mining ice using a supertanked Hulk which meant he could only fit a single harvester. He had a scimitar giving him shield reps and a Dominix with armor reps and he was using an Orca for bonuses and ore storage. He was using four accounts to run a single ice harvester and he still managed to lose his Hulk to a couple Goons. It was amazing. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:13:00 -
[671] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:... He was using four accounts to run a single ice harvester and he still managed to lose his Hulk to a couple Goons. It was ...
... highlighting how bad the tanks on mining barges are. CSM do you think? No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:14:00 -
[672] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:... He was using four accounts to run a single ice harvester and he still managed to lose his Hulk to a couple Goons. It was ... ... highlighting how bad the tanks on mining barges are. Why do they need to be higher? Why should miners be able to afk mine while everybody has to be atk to play the game?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:25:00 -
[673] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because the PvP crowd can easily replace the industrial activities that a loss of carebears would entail, but not the other way around (because the carbears, by very definition, do not want to engage in the wholesale destruction that is needed to keep the economy rolling).
CCP may very well need both; the game in and of itself does not.
Bollocks, what utter complete rubbish.
What defines a carebear Tippia? What defines a PVP'er? Which one of these would you consider yourself to be? Neither? Both?
This cubbyhole approach to other peoples playstyles is the absolute worst form of ignorance, and you know it.
I'm a carebear, I mine in highsec and build stuff, I also have a 0.0 home and enjoy a good roam or gatecamp with the rest of my corpmates.
If all of the so called "hardcore pvp'ers" pissed off tonight, I would keep on happily playing my game, building stuff and blowing stuff up/getting blown up..
One thing I wouldn't miss is having to spend hours manually moving crap around highsec when I'd rather be roaming or ratting in 0.0
Edit: Oh and I pay for my three accounts each month, because it's easier for me and money is not a problem. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:28:00 -
[674] - Quote
Gealla wrote:Tippia wrote:Because the PvP crowd can easily replace the industrial activities that a loss of carebears would entail, but not the other way around (because the carbears, by very definition, do not want to engage in the wholesale destruction that is needed to keep the economy rolling).
CCP may very well need both; the game in and of itself does not. Bollocks, what utter complete rubbish. What defines a carebear Tippia? What defines a PVP'er? Which one of these would you consider yourself to be? Neither? Both? This cubbyhole approach to other peoples playstyles is the absolute worst form of ignorance, and you know it. I'm a carebear, I mine in highsec and build stuff, I also have a 0.0 home and enjoy a good roam or gatecamp with the rest of my corpmates. If all of the so called "hardcore pvp'ers" pissed off tonight, I would keep on happily playing my game, building stuff and blowing stuff up/getting blown up.. One thing I wouldn't miss is having to spend hours manually moving crap around highsec when I'd rather be roaming or ratting in 0.0 Edit: Oh and I pay for my three accounts each month, because it's easier for me and money is not a problem. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that when Tippia talks about carebears that he or she is talking about the people who live in highsec full time and have zero interest in low or null.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:38:00 -
[675] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that when Tippia talks about carebears that he or she is talking about the people who live in highsec full time and have zero interest in low or null.
Yes, but the others spouting the same drivel in here aren't brain surgeons, they just parrot what Tippia says without any understanding...
In fact, haven't seen many brain surgeons in general forums at all lately.....
The reality is, if the greifers all left in droves (god know's where they'd go.....goons wanna answer that?) the game would survive and would would quite probably continue to increase it sub numbers as it becomes more casual friendly..casual is where the money is.... |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
718
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:51:00 -
[676] - Quote
Gealla wrote:The reality is, if the greifers all left in droves (god know's where they'd go.....goons wanna answer that?) Griefing is against the ToS and is bannable. What we do in-game isn't griefing.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:58:00 -
[677] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The thread is about insurance for Concord incidents and it got to be all about "without ganking, EvE would have never been. Ganking is the wellspring from which EvE Online flows" and other such concepts.
Nobody says that a high SP veteran player who can vacuum roids out of space with small effort AFK should be safe. That's a target, if they are using such a worthy ship, where having no insurance payout of the attacking vessels is a small matter.
What has players a bit perturbed is when the target is not someone who should know better, but someone who actually does not.
But I see how you set up the argument: depict a target that could not possibly be victimized or deemed so, and make the case that they are not noobs.
Problem is we see a lot of griefers hiding behind PVP and the legitimate goals of such actions deemed PVP. Sure not all who get ganked are noobs, but how many are and for what reason?
It's like the high-sec wardec. There are good reasons for it such as leverage, wanting to get someone out of the way, domination, revenge, you name it. But when tears flowed over CCP ceasing to call decshielding an exploit, I asked "how often are those decced actually capable corporations in any position to be leveraged out of ?" In other words: team of experienced miners who can defend themselves or pay mercs, or one or two-man noob corps barely out of NPC corps and targeted or easy kills?
So I bring up "here comes mommy to take the toy away!". When you keep hitting the younger kids with the pale and bucket in the sandbox, the excuse "it's a sandbox and therefore I have a pale and bucket and I am using it!!1!!" is shallow. Yes you can wardec, yes you can suicide gank, but who you do it to and why has a lasting effect on the game. Someone who can fly a Hulk and fit it all T2 should know better. Nobody says otherwise, and the new destroyers not covered with insurance would be paid for well enough when the T2 modules (hopefully) drop.
It's when you have the noob in the burst or navatas who can be easily ganked and it's nearly cost free for the ganker because you get nothing from such a target.
I am not the one who abused mechanics and used the game as my get-back-at-the-world tool so all of this is entertainment for me.
Honestly I dont see a lot of burst or navitas kms on the boards. What I do see from suiciders are a lot of high value targets. T3 cruiser parts, moon minerals, dead space mods.... things that a brand new player does not use nor should be able to afford. And honestly I dont see a lot of lolz in ganking such ships. You do pose and interesting question as to the amounts of lol worthy or abuse ganking of frigate miners etc. Now you could argue that retriever or covetor ganks could be styled as griefing of the noob, though covetors really need to be out of the equation imo as if you can skill a covetor your really only 8 hours away from a hulk and you should be 2-3 months into your training and therefore competent to understand the risks inherent in the system of Eve.
But to say that anyones hitting someone over the head with a pail and a shovel when it happens and that it should be disallowed is rather amusing to me. Mostly in the fact that Eve is billed as a pirate game from the get go. Now Im sure youll return with the not everyone wishes to play that way. But as one thats been on the flip side and seen both sides of the game I think I can safely say that you do learn and quickly to mitigate risk but you can never take it all away no matter what you do. Nor should someone be able to.
Now as for the depicting of targets to be victimized issue I entirely disagree yet again. Any ship in eve will die if the proper amount of firepower is applied to it. Whatever they may be. This is a fundamental reason Eve is what it is today, the ability to destroy someone elses toys in a violent and ruthless way. If you undock you do so with the single reality in mind: what I have that I undock in CAN and might be destroyed, do I really want to undock and "play" this game? This is a lesson people learn, often the hard way. Myself included, and I learned it.... *gulp* as a NOOB.
To say that all people use the suicide gank as a means to get back at the world is the farthest thing for me. Im certain some do and will continue to. That is life and how humanity works. Id suggest getting used to that fact in this game, any game you play and life in general or else things will go very hard for you.
I dont ever want to see Eve go safe play. I got blown up by m0o back in the old days running through low sec to our manufacturing bases often. In many "unfair" and mean ways. Ive been blown up by blues in gate camps in null because I had something worth stealing in my hold. Ive been blown up by blues because I was probably killing their neutral cyno alts at a gate camp too many times for their liking. Ive had hundreds of millions of isk go poof in suicide ganks. Been can flipped and lost hours of mining or entire jetcans of ore. Ive been the noob and Ive stayed in game and learned and now use many of the same tactics and more Ive thought of and learned along the way. I dont want to see a nice safe, sane, consensual gaming style. Im sure 90% of the players out there were noobs once too and Id love them to chime in and say how they learned how to deal with and overcome things. Player retention is not a valid argument. Oh the poor noobs!!! Is not a battlecry worthy of anything as they have so little to do with the overall gaming picture regarding suiciding, insurance and the like to even make it worthy of comment imo. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:00:00 -
[678] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Okay, for the sake of not getting into a long-winded argument about my credibility and the baselessness of my arguments, let's simply forget about all of the above. I've played WoW for almost as long as I've played EVE, and while I can address your points, I'd rather not turn this thread into a discussion about that.
So, just tell me this one little thing. You say that subs have been increasing proportionally with the increase of high-sec's safety. Now, I'll absolutely agree that more subs is better. Therefore, will making high-sec absolutely safe result in an absolute increase in subscriptions, or not? If not, what is, or should be, the cutoff point?
I can't say for sure if making highsec completely safe would increase subs more than any other rework/balance/feature. It certainly wouldn't increase subs as much as adding arenas would. But ther would be an increase, allthough it would take time for the news to spread. Player retention would increase for sure, and more new players would sub after the trial.
I'm not saying, and in fact I never did say make highsec absolutely safe. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I guess I got a bit carried away at some point. Make it a bit safer? I'm not against it, as I believe all in all it will serve the game well. Make it less safe? No. There are already so many people complaining that it is not safe enough, so making it less safe would be a huge step backwards.
I know eve used to be a lot less safe in terms of game mechanics at some point. I've read quite a few articles on how eve used to be. Intersting stuff. But there is one other huge difference. Back in those days there were alot less poeple playing. You could fly through many many systems and not bump in to a single soul.
This is no longer the case. Even from the time I started playing things have changed drastically. There were some systems I used to visit regularly in my earlier days. I had my reasons for going there, and it was not only profitable, but ther was never a sould there. It was always empty. Now, however, there are at least 20 people hanging around there.
So you see, even though from a game mechanics perspective the game was less safe, it is now a lot less safe, simply because there are not only more people to worry about, the people also have more tools to play with. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1295
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:22:00 -
[679] - Quote
Gealla wrote:Bollocks, what utter complete rubbish. In what way? I'm not talking about activities here, but about personality.
Quote:What defines a carebear Tippia? Attitude and (commonly) a sense of entitlement. These two tend to restrict them to a select few activities, but it is not the activities that define the bear.
Quote:What defines a PVP'er? Attitude and (commonly) an ability to detach gameplay from RL. In most other games, the activity would be a defining factor, but since everything in EVE is PvP-like, that becomes a rather useless distinction to try. Some will want to ascribe combat as a defining characteristic, but I feel that leaves out too many other vicious battlefieldsGǪ
Look, you can be as huffy as you like about what I said, but you know full well what I mean by those two categorisations. If you stop overdramatising the whole thing for a second and just use the conventional meanings of the words, and then re-read what I wroteGǪ can you honestly say that it isn't true?
Quote:I'm a carebear, I mine in highsec and build stuff, I also have a 0.0 home and enjoy a good roam or gatecamp with the rest of my corpmates. No, you are not really a carebear. You are simply someone who enjoys the activities that are often associated with the carebear attitude, but you don't actually share that attitude. That's why I said what I said in that post: if the dyed-in-the-wool carebears were to leave, people like you would happily step in and take their place, while still engaging in PvP on the side.
If, on the other hand, everyone but those carebears were to leave, there would be nothing left for the carebears to do since their activities only deal with (at best) a third of the economic cycle. The whole thing would collapse in no time.
What category am i? Probably neither. I would probably say that I subscribe to the PvPer attitude and detachment, but I don't currently engage in the activities that are traditionally associated with them, nor am I vicious enough in the other PvP areas to fully qualify. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Barakkus
1015
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:33:00 -
[680] - Quote
Seeing the dev tag on the topic list in the GD board, I came here hoping to see a comment from a developer, left disappointed. |
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:54:00 -
[681] - Quote
Tippia wrote:more and more bla ba bla I'm still asking how, by refusing to join the multiplayer fraternity in a multiplayer game, not being involved in ganking or ship to ship PvP, that you feel you should even have a view on ANY of this?
This is like The Mittani explaining how to mine Veldspar when I'm actually looking for an opinion from the likes of Chribba.
Stop cluttering the thread with oft quoted guff Tippia. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:10:00 -
[682] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Tippia wrote:more and more bla ba bla I'm still asking how, by refusing to join the multiplayer fraternity in a multiplayer game, not being involved in ganking or ship to ship PvP, that you feel you should even have a view on ANY of this? This is like The Mittani explaining how to mine Veldspar when I'm actually looking for an opinion from the likes of Chribba. Stop cluttering the thread with oft quoted guff Tippia. So only people who agree with you are allowed to post? Is this another one of your stealth trolling posts?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:15:00 -
[683] - Quote
Andski wrote:
**Snip*
thanks for the intel
Your welcome, I look forward to another half hearted goon effort.
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
719
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:18:00 -
[684] - Quote
Lord Wiggin wrote:Andski wrote:
**Snip*
thanks for the intel
Your welcome, I look forward to another half hearted goon effort. The price of oxygen isotopes is all the proof we need that our efforts (half hearted or otherwise) are effective.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:20:00 -
[685] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Tippia wrote:more and more bla ba bla I'm still asking how, by refusing to join the multiplayer fraternity in a multiplayer game, not being involved in ganking or ship to ship PvP, that you feel you should even have a view on ANY of this? This is like The Mittani explaining how to mine Veldspar when I'm actually looking for an opinion from the likes of Chribba. Stop cluttering the thread with oft quoted guff Tippia. So only people who agree with you are allowed to post? Is this another one of your stealth trolling posts? That's a fair comment but misguided. Tippia doesn't actually seem to have an opinion. He just shreds posts, paraphrases and dissimeninates the context without actually adding.
It's a rather strange phenonema and could quite possibly become a meme - "A Tippia Post". Quote everything, argue everything but say nothing. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
720
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:30:00 -
[686] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Tippia wrote:more and more bla ba bla I'm still asking how, by refusing to join the multiplayer fraternity in a multiplayer game, not being involved in ganking or ship to ship PvP, that you feel you should even have a view on ANY of this? This is like The Mittani explaining how to mine Veldspar when I'm actually looking for an opinion from the likes of Chribba. Stop cluttering the thread with oft quoted guff Tippia. So only people who agree with you are allowed to post? Is this another one of your stealth trolling posts? That's a fair comment but misguided. Tippia doesn't actually seem to have an opinion. He just shreds posts, paraphrases and dissimeninates the context without actually adding. It's a rather strange phenonema and could quite possibly become a meme - "A Tippia Post". Quote everything, argue everything but say nothing. He's more about getting people to support or justify the ideas that they post. He's not always right but he's good at pointing out flaws in a lot of the dumb ideas people come up with. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:31:00 -
[687] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:For once I'll agree on your statement.
If some guys want their eve to be harder than it is, without concord: Go live in null, go live in low sec.
Stop crying about concord and say there's no concord in null and high sec should be alike, it's not needed. Just go there, live there and don't think about high sec. That's it you've got your perfect eve.
Ho w8, true there's no concord in null/low Have you been to low and null? I have. Lived there for a long time actually. Many years. Tried to make the best of it, but let me assure you, there is nothing "hard" about either of those areas. In fact, I felt quite safe in null-sec especially. All of the pvp was entirely consensual, there were never any surprises, and you knew exactly what you were facing. Losses were guaranteed, and were simply calculated into daily profit/loss calculations that determined how much you needed to rat.
High-sec isn't like that. You never fully know who the enemy is, who their spies are, who their logistics alts are. There are no bubbles, so catching your enemies takes skill and cunning instead of Anchoring II. High-sec is by far the harsher and harder pvp environment than null-sec. I've got my perfect EVE here.
Lens Thirring wrote:I haven't seen tears, not from gankers, nor from Tippia. But people are pointing out that absurdly profitable hi-sec professions are being made progressively less challenging by changes which reduce their already minimal risk. Nobody thinks this little insurance change is particularly important except as possibly an indicator of a trend. Taken together with the avoidable war-decs and other changes, it makes people worry about the direction in which the hi-sec game is drifting. Thank you for seeing the bigger picture, and understanding what the gankers consider to be the real issue. I don't know how many times we can repeat that the insurance nerf, in itself, is insignificant for us. I've pretty much given up, however. These people will grasp at whatever straws they can.
L'ouris wrote:hypothetically:
If concord was removed, gateguns in highsec actually had tracking and the like, kill rights were transferabble; wouldn't that open up a more lively mercenary profession? In effect allow for the possibility of hiring mercenaries to protect your badger to protect you on your way to market?
Curious if this is the line of reasoning for some in the thread. As someone who runs an actual mercenary corporation, I feel that this would be one of the best things to happen to this game.
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Highsec should be a noob heaven, and could be, without being an ISK pump. The ISK faucet should be turned way down so the bots don't exploit the safety. So while I think it would work to make highsec completely safe, we would need a progressive tax system for noob corp members and also for all activities in high sec. Why? Because in the US I watch people MOVE their homes and businesses from one state that taxes their income too much, to others that tax them less. Taxes are enough to make people change their lives in RL, it would be enough to change their game too. Make highsec the complete safety zone for noobs but don't let it be profitable for bots and ISK hogs (those who think the game is all about the bigger number in the wallet - these are the people who don't tank their haulers). And NOW, ladies and gentlemen, we finally get to that compromise thing that I mentioned earlier. You see, when you put something like that on the table, insurance nerfs and CONCORD buffs are a lot easier to swallow. Unfortunately for you, you've just alienated yourself from the people you're trying to protect. Proposing a decrease in high-sec rewards makes you carebear public enemy #1. You're one of us now. Might as well suit up one of those Tempests.
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:31:00 -
[688] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Lord Wiggin wrote:Andski wrote:
**Snip*
thanks for the intel
Your welcome, I look forward to another half hearted goon effort. The price of oxygen isotopes is all the proof we need that our efforts (half hearted or otherwise) are effective.
Also prouves how biased game mechanics are and easy to exploit. Ganking, scaming, fake logofski, neutral rep and a lot more should see their use go to extreme numbers, It's the best way to point it out strongly and make (more) people leave = make it be adressed in urgency.
Use mechanics weeknesses to harass categories of players or force game economics is bad, and when the nerf stick hits griefer tears are delicious.
Moar please. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
720
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:34:00 -
[689] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Use mechanics weeknesses to harass categories of players or force game economics is bad, and when the nerf stick hits griefer tears are delicious.
Moar please. I don't know why you keep insisting I'm crying. My alliance reimburses my ship losses and pays a bounty for every miner I kill so the loss of insurance isn't going to affect me at all. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:36:00 -
[690] - Quote
K Suri wrote:It's a rather strange phenonema and could quite possibly become a meme - "A Tippia Post".
How so?
|
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:41:00 -
[691] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:Use mechanics weeknesses to harass categories of players or force game economics is bad, and when the nerf stick hits griefer tears are delicious.
Moar please. I don't know why you keep insisting I'm crying. My alliance reimburses my ship losses and pays a bounty for every miner I kill so the loss of insurance isn't going to affect me at all. An interesting point but how many suicide ganks are funded by a massive alliance with trillions of isk at their disposal? I see that as a massive and unfair advantage.
Of course, if CCP declare that might is right (and it will forever remain) and you use it as justification to destroy small players repeatedly then it's non-arguable isn't it?
Which is the point of debate. Is this kind of mechanic acceptable to the majority and does CCP need to address this? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:42:00 -
[692] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:K Suri wrote:It's a rather strange phenonema and could quite possibly become a meme - "A Tippia Post". How so? Why do you want to know? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1295
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:42:00 -
[693] - Quote
K Suri wrote:I'm still asking how, by refusing to join the multiplayer fraternity Your question is based on a fantasy world that has no connection to EVE, so I suggest you post it somewhere else than on the EVE forums.
Since it is a completely nonsensical question, I can only offer you a nonsensical answer.
Quote:[how do] you feel you should even have a view on ANY of this? Purple banana. This answers your question in full.
Quote:Tippia doesn't actually seem to have an opinion. Ah, so that's the problem: you aren't actually reading what I write. Well, then stop questioning my posts based on your hallucinations. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:58:00 -
[694] - Quote
K Suri wrote:An interesting point but how many suicide ganks are funded by a massive alliance with trillions of isk at their disposal? I see that as a massive and unfair advantage.
Of course, if CCP declare that might is right (and it will forever remain) and you use it as justification to destroy small players repeatedly then it's non-arguable isn't it?
Which is the point of debate. Is this kind of mechanic acceptable to the majority and does CCP need to address this? It's CCP's game and they can declare whatever they want and make any changes they want. They also have to suffer the consequences if after running Eve for several years now they decide to completely change the tone of the game and its mechanics. You can badpost about it as much as you want but at the end of the day the monthly cancellation report is going to speak louder than anything you or I say.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:03:00 -
[695] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:And NOW, ladies and gentlemen, we finally get to that compromise thing that I mentioned earlier. You see, when you put something like that on the table, insurance nerfs and CONCORD buffs are a lot easier to swallow. Unfortunately for you, you've just alienated yourself from the people you're trying to protect. Proposing a decrease in high-sec rewards makes you carebear public enemy #1. You're one of us now. Might as well suit up one of those Tempests.
Who would I be the enemy of?
There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.
Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.
There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:06:00 -
[696] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: The chief complaint, and one seen by lowsec and 0.0 dwellers, that I agree with is that highsec is too safe for the ISK it yeilds.
wooot couldn't ever imagine a single high sec alliance is making trillions per month with single moon goo, some clicks and hauling, indeed high sec is way too rich.
How much serious you guys are to say how much income represents bots in null? -or income from renting, oups sory, small tax going from 1 to several billions per month for space you don't defend when those guys get ganked with the same old rabble "sry we were too late and we don't like baby sitting, here pick a pos PW and location, hugh it when neuts are in local"
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
729
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:09:00 -
[697] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Who would I be the enemy of?
There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.
Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.
There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders. Highsec carebear pubbies are just about the worst people in Eve (roleplayers are still the absolute worst). These are the people that play Eve like its a single player game and provide absolutely nothing to the community at large. They sit and mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours to make isk to buy better ships that they will use to mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours. Then they have the nerve to complain about how nullsec works. Or how aggression mechanics work. Or ***** and moan about missions being boring until CCP gifts them Incursions...the greatest isk-making machine with zero risk ever seen in the game. It's a tragedy that CCP drove so many real Eve players out of the game in the last 18 months because now they *have* to cater to the pubbie hordes just to keep the lights on. It's a sad thing to see.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:15:00 -
[698] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:An interesting point but how many suicide ganks are funded by a massive alliance with trillions of isk at their disposal? I see that as a massive and unfair advantage.
Of course, if CCP declare that might is right (and it will forever remain) and you use it as justification to destroy small players repeatedly then it's non-arguable isn't it?
Which is the point of debate. Is this kind of mechanic acceptable to the majority and does CCP need to address this? It's CCP's game and they can declare whatever they want and make any changes they want. They also have to suffer the consequences if after running Eve for several years now they decide to completely change the tone of the game and its mechanics. You can badpost about it as much as you want but at the end of the day the monthly cancellation report is going to speak louder than anything you or I say. That fact is not disputed. But the reality is that how many WOULD actually quit if suicide ganking were removed from the game?
Even more importantly, why should it even bother a 0.0 alliance? I mean, let's face it, you could merc hire or wardec anyone you like at whatever the cost.
I'm inclined to think that it could be removed PROVIDING other changes to high-sec war mechanics are also made. I do not believe we need Invulnerability Level 6 to play Eve but I do think part of the reason suicide ganking is "neccessary", if that's the right word, is because death by destruction is too easily mitgated by corp hopping and hiding in NCP corps. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
730
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:17:00 -
[699] - Quote
K Suri wrote: Even more importantly, why should it even bother a 0.0 alliance? I mean, let's face it, you could merc hire or wardec anyone you like at whatever the cost.
You don't need to look for any deep meaning. It's fun to make pubbies rage and that's why we do it. Where they live is irrelevant but since most of them live in highsec that's where we go to blow them up.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:19:00 -
[700] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Who would I be the enemy of?
There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.
Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.
There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders. Highsec carebear pubbies are just about the worst people in Eve (roleplayers are still the absolute worst). These are the people that play Eve like its a single player game and provide absolutely nothing to the community at large. They sit and mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours to make isk to buy better ships that they will use to mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours. Then they have the nerve to complain about how nullsec works. Or how aggression mechanics work. Or ***** and moan about missions being boring until CCP gifts them Incursions...the greatest isk-making machine with zero risk ever seen in the game. It's a tragedy that CCP drove so many real Eve players out of the game in the last 18 months because now they *have* to cater to the pubbie hordes just to keep the lights on. It's a sad thing to see. Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.
Your opinion on "highsec pubbies" is just that - an opinion. It is neither the cause or effect of any loss of subs you prattle about. For all the hoohaa, nothing seems to have really changed. |
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
730
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:21:00 -
[701] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything. When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:27:00 -
[702] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything. When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag. So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game?
At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game?
Interesting POV. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
732
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:29:00 -
[703] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything. When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag. So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game? At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game? Interesting POV. I'm not saying either of those things and I'm confused about why you think I am.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:33:00 -
[704] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything. When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag. So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game? At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game? Interesting POV. I'm not saying either of those things and I'm confused about why you think I am. I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?
If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
732
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:01:00 -
[705] - Quote
K Suri wrote:I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?
If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less. Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:12:00 -
[706] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?
If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less. Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it. I'm not confused.
Based on recent 48k logins, either CCP has pulled a huge number of new subs which they may need to cater for OR the 0.0 complainers came back despite all the apparent unsubs you elude to.
Either way, the complaints must have fallen on deaf ears. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
733
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:20:00 -
[707] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?
If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less. Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it. I'm not confused. Based on recent 48k logins, either CCP has pulled a huge number of new subs which they may need to cater for OR the 0.0 complainers came back despite all the apparent unsubs you elude to. Either way, the complaints must have fallen on deaf ears. According to Eve Offline 48k isn't a vast improvement. There are new people coming in but not the huge numbers you seem to think. There are a bunch of older players that are waiting to see what happens with the Winter expansion to see if they're coming back or not.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:29:00 -
[708] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions
PvP = Player vis Player
This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.
Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).
This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP ! It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).
So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!
PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.
And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:31:00 -
[709] - Quote
The only time an activity in game is not PvP is ship spinning, CQing, and sometimes when you gank (if you hit a bot).
Everything else is a player vs another player (or more).
For your benefit, PvP = player verses player, meaning only one side need to participate as long as there are two (or more) players involved.
And there are ways to be safer while mining. Most don't use them because they want to play easymode. Fine, they can do that. It means the gankers get easymode too. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
734
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:33:00 -
[710] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:
PvP = Player vis Player
This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.
Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).
This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP ! It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).
So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!
PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.
And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES!
This has to be a troll. If it's not it's literally the dumbest thing I've read on these forums.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:39:00 -
[711] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions PvP = Player vis Player This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other. Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!). This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP ! It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!). So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way! PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox. And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES! That made me lol. You're very good at this.
I do wonder, though, whether fitting buffers, not autopiloting, not carrying enough stuff to render yourself a good gank target, using the directional scanner and scouts, are all tools that can be used to mitigate ganking.
I guess you should ask someone else, since I'm a "useless Ganger" and therefore my opinion doesn't matter.
10/10 by the way. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
736
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:41:00 -
[712] - Quote
Jerek Mothas wrote:While I agree to some extent (not being much of a PvPer myself) that griefing is a part of the game and should not be completely removed, Griefing is against the ToS and should absolutely be removed from the game. We are talking about suicide ganking in this thread, however, not griefing.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Jerek Mothas
Eleutherian Guard
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:42:00 -
[713] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jerek Mothas wrote:While I agree to some extent (not being much of a PvPer myself) that griefing is a part of the game and should not be completely removed, Griefing is against the ToS and should absolutely be removed from the game. We are talking about suicide ganking in this thread, however, not griefing.
That is what I mean. Apologies. Editing now. |
Lens Thirring
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:42:00 -
[714] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote: PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.
Where is this low/toilet space of which you speak? I feel a sudden urge to visit there. |
Wacktopia
Sicarius. Legion of The Damned.
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 01:49:00 -
[715] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded.
Just to confirm in general; suicide ganking (falling under non-consensual combat) is not in itself considered grief [1]. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:11:00 -
[716] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Tippia wrote:Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. Just to confirm in general; suicide ganking (falling under non-consensual combat) is not in itself considered grief [ 1]. Yet. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
737
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:15:00 -
[717] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Wacktopia wrote:Tippia wrote:Sadayiel wrote:I think there is a difference with PvP and Grief/Punish other players weak tanked ships in *relatively* safe space Yes. There's a difference. Griefers get banned. People who punish other players for not fitting their ships properly or for being drunk at the wheel should be rewarded. Just to confirm in general; suicide ganking (falling under non-consensual combat) is not in itself considered grief [ 1]. Yet. Is that your goal?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:25:00 -
[718] - Quote
1) Is it just me, or is it kind of pathetic that the only time I ever see carebears poasting, trying to claim 'tears' is when CCP changes the rules on their behalf?
2) Also, u sad sad specimens shouldn't be wasting your time in here trolling Tippia. You should be over in the Tier 3 BC balance thread, whining your hardest to get the Tornado nerfed before release.
Cause if it is released in any form resembling the current one, we win - even without insurance.
The tears will flow freely when Tornados blot out the skies in the post-insurance world. The Miner-whiners and Tengu pilots will blister the forums when they realize ganking is just as affordable (and even more convenient) in the new Tier 3 BC package.
I look forward to those days.... |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:25:00 -
[719] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote: This has to be a troll. If it's not it's literally the dumbest thing I've read on these forums.
ROFL.
No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP!
Is is PvI at best (Player vis Items).
And as long as it's imposible for one side to effective counter ganging WITHOUT meta gaming or 2 3 100 alt-accounts (yea, I know, CCP is a company and loves to earn money from alt-acc) the balance is 100% broken!
Balance? You know balance? Hell yes you know it ... forum whine about "XY weapon system is OP FIX IT NOW!!!!111" ... we all know them. But hey, we talk about GANGING Miners, they aren't first class people like you PvI guys right? They do not deserve to be able to do propper fittings to defend their hard earned stuff right?
You can call me "troll" as often as you like (you == asotial gangers). I know, you are awar, that I tell the trueth and fear CCP might see it too! And with this ... your "troll" is just another "you are right man, but shut up so CCP don't see it. I don't want to lose my e-peen".
I stay with it: ganging is NO PvP! And too with: balance is ******* broken as long as there are no ingame counter biside of 100 scout alt accs!
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:27:00 -
[720] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP First of all the term is 'ganking'. Ganging sounds like some sort of sex party.
Secondly, who is flying the exhumer that I'm blowing up? Is it not another player?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:34:00 -
[721] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP First of all the term is 'ganking'. Ganging sounds like some sort of sex party. Secondly, who is flying the exhumer that I'm blowing up? Is it not another player?
LOL. Look at that guys picture.
He is definitely 'into' ganging. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:39:00 -
[722] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I do wonder, though, whether fitting buffers, not autopiloting, not carrying enough stuff to render yourself a good gank target, using the directional scanner and scouts, are all tools that can be used to mitigate ganking.
"not autopilot" == LIE ... you know tagets get ganged BEHIND the gates when they have to aline 10++++ seconds -> autopilot will NEVER be the factor! And using friendly Webber is concidert "game abuse" ... creat work CCP. Firendly actions are ban reasons, asotial behavior isn't. GREAT WORK!
"fitting buffers" == MUHAHAHA, provide this buffer you fit on mining/hauler ship USEING T2 ONLY! Not able too? ---> another PROVE of FAIL balance!
"not carrying enough" == hell, did you even read some posts in this forum? I don't need to check half the topics to find one where the writer admits, he don't care about value but just do it for LULZ. Or check "Hulkedon" or however this **** is called. They DO NOT CARE about value ... they just want to **** other player! Or the last "Ice-miner-geddon" ... this is NOT for the loot ... it's just to **** off player! (Infact ALL this should be a reason for PERMA BANS @CCP as they are 100% abuse of your FAIL BALANCE!)
"directional scanner" == I warp to 0 NOT autopiloting, jump throught the gate and .. BAM ... 10 sec to alligne warp or 5 mins to slowboat back to gate ... in boths options I am dead UNABLE to defend my stuff -> FAIL BALANCE + MISSING anti-gang tools (anti-cargo-scanner, anti-lock-item, not enough CPU/GRID/SLOTS to fit needed buffer ... fail, fail and more FAIL by designe!)
"scouts" == yes, I know the "we want your money, use 2., 3., 10. acc to protect your stuff as we fail in balance"
|
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:42:00 -
[723] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP First of all the term is 'ganking'. Ganging sounds like some sort of sex party. Secondly, who is flying the exhumer that I'm blowing up? Is it not another player?
And which ACTIVE action can your target do?
As long as he can't ACTIVE do somethink ... there is no "vis"/"against" ... it is just 1 side against item GanKer V Item
The second Player is missing as it doesn't matter if there is somethink in this ship or not.
-> NO PvP -> JUST PvI |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
742
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:44:00 -
[724] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP First of all the term is 'ganking'. Ganging sounds like some sort of sex party. Secondly, who is flying the exhumer that I'm blowing up? Is it not another player? And which ACTIVE action can your target do? As long as he can't ACTIVE do somethink ... there is no "vis"/"against" ... it is just 1 side against item GanKer V Item The second Player is missing as it doesn't matter if there is somethink in this ship or not. -> NO PvP -> JUST PvI You didn't answer my question. Who is flying the exhumer if it's not another player?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:46:00 -
[725] - Quote
I just wanted to say that I've been autopiloting to and from Jita for four hours, with a hold full of giant secure containers, while listening to the Tron: Legacy soundtrack at full blast. I have not been ganked once.
Peacefully cruising The Grid The hero you're stuck with anyways. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:48:00 -
[726] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:No content in this answare, just fail flame attamp.
Show me where ganging is Player vis Player where BOTH sides active contribute to the fight.
As long as you can't show, that BOTH sides are active ... ganging is NO PvP First of all the term is 'ganking'. Ganging sounds like some sort of sex party. Secondly, who is flying the exhumer that I'm blowing up? Is it not another player? And which ACTIVE action can your target do? As long as he can't ACTIVE do somethink ... there is no "vis"/"against" ... it is just 1 side against item GanKer V Item The second Player is missing as it doesn't matter if there is somethink in this ship or not. -> NO PvP -> JUST PvI There are plenty of action he can do, but it doesn't matter. As long as a player is the pilot (ie not a bot), it is PvP. Interaction between them both ways is not required. A player is combating a player.
For possible active things: if a shield booster is fit, it could make the difference between a live ship or a dead one. If a hauler, fit an ECM or 2. Might help.
Though really, I have not once seen a hauler get ganked flying from a gate (not saying it wont happen, just I havent seen it), but plenty do on auto. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:49:00 -
[727] - Quote
Lens Thirring wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.
Where is this low/toilet space of which you speak? I feel a sudden urge to visit there. Just if you aren't trolling ..
00 stands for WC (water closet) or toilet ...
And yes, it's pritty much what a belive from this useless space ... throw it into toilets and flush it away |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:52:00 -
[728] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:There are plenty of action he can do, ..
Which one that is a REAL action?
Scout with alt or friend .... but don't try to bring this fitting & not autopilot lies again. You know they are just that, LIES! |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
742
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:54:00 -
[729] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:There are plenty of action he can do, ..
Which one that is a REAL action? Scout with alt or friend .... but don't try to bring this fitting & not autopilot lies again. You know they are just that, LIES! You should probably find out how the game works before making statements like that. There is never a reason to get ganked if you are being smart about how you're flying.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 02:58:00 -
[730] - Quote
Don't fly what you can't afford to loose. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:00:00 -
[731] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:And using friendly Webber is concidert "game abuse" ... creat work CCP. Firendly actions are ban reasons, asotial behavior isn't. GREAT WORK! No. it's not. Stop making **** up.
You're up to 20/10 by the way. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:01:00 -
[732] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:There are plenty of action he can do, ..
Which one that is a REAL action? Scout with alt or friend .... but don't try to bring this fitting & not autopilot lies again. You know they are just that, LIES! Learn the game before you go off and sound like a moron (too late but try for next time).
Fitting makes a hell of a difference. Look on KB sites for Hulks on the killing side of battles. It happens frequently (though many miners don't bother with KBs...).
Not using autopilot reduces a large amount of the risk of hauling. It won't remove every gank, but most ganks happen in the 5 minutes of travelling 15km rathe than the 10 seconds of speed up to warp.
We aren't saying these methods will make you immune (because that woudl be counter to EVE's purpose), but they reduce risk. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:08:00 -
[733] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:
"directional scanner" == I warp to 0 NOT autopiloting, jump throught the gate and .. BAM ... 10 sec to alligne warp or 5 mins to slowboat back to gate ... in boths options I am dead UNABLE to defend my stuff -> FAIL BALANCE + MISSING anti-gang tools (anti-cargo-scanner, anti-lock-item, not enough CPU/GRID/SLOTS to fit needed buffer ... fail, fail and more FAIL by designe!)
Funny, years ago....when I was a just a pup, the SAME thing happened to me, a couple of Russians popped me on alignment. Lost about 50% of my net worth at the time.
I didn't come on the forums to cry about it like a punk. I learned how to do it to other people, made a mint - and then taught others how to profit from it.
Since then, I've lost multiple freighters to suicide ganks. The two most recent - to the Russian Thunder Squad and the Cardshark Influence.
I don't whine about it to CCP and demand rule changes to make my life easier. I just deal and adjust.
Right now, I am 'adjusting' by burning through my stockpile of Tempests and warming up the old POS labs for some research on a few Tornado BPOs.
You, sir, are pathetic - not even remotely worthy of the name Jojo.
|
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:17:00 -
[734] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:There are plenty of action he can do, ..
Which one that is a REAL action? Scout with alt or friend .... but don't try to bring this fitting & not autopilot lies again. You know they are just that, LIES! You should probably find out how the game works before making statements like that. There is never a reason to get ganked if you are being smart about how you're flying. So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Trying to play this sandbox game in any other way then yours is not smart?
How about this: - using a Passive Targeting System in highsec is from now on seen as hostil action and will result in CONCORD actions + sec loose - using a Gargo Scanner in highsec is from now on seen as hostil action and will result in COCORD actions + sec loose - ANY pirate whos ship is destroyed by CONCORD will from now on be "jailed" and unable to do any action for 48 hours - If he is brought down by CONCORD within the next 30 days again this "jail" time will be expand to 1 week!
- CCP redesignes ALL indutrie/transport ships so they can defend themselve by just using T2 items like ganKers use for their criminal actions - CCP introduce propper anti-cargoscanner, anti-passive targeter items which can ONLY be used on indutrie/transport ships
No more hidden target chosing, no more eazy kills, if you chose to live as a criminal you have to take the consequenz if cought by the police (EvE is real you know? Real criminals are jailed for YEARS when cought!) -> ADDEPT OR KKTHBYE |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
743
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:25:00 -
[735] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them.
But if people really hate themselves so much that they want to mine then they should have to actually play the game like the rest of us do...they shouldn't be able to gather resources and make money while afk'd out doing something else.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:25:00 -
[736] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:There are plenty of action he can do, ..
Which one that is a REAL action? Scout with alt or friend .... but don't try to bring this fitting & not autopilot lies again. You know they are just that, LIES! You should probably find out how the game works before making statements like that. There is never a reason to get ganked if you are being smart about how you're flying. So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Trying to play this sandbox game in any other way then yours is not smart? How about this: - using a Passive Targeting System in highsec is from now on seen as hostil action and will result in CONCORD actions + sec loose - using a Gargo Scanner in highsec is from now on seen as hostil action and will result in COCORD actions + sec loose - ANY pirate whos ship is destroyed by CONCORD will from now on be "jailed" and unable to do any action for 48 hours - If he is brought down by CONCORD within the next 30 days again this "jail" time will be expand to 1 week! - CCP redesignes ALL indutrie/transport ships so they can defend themselve by just using T2 items like ganKers use for their criminal actions - CCP introduce propper anti-cargoscanner, anti-passive targeter items which can ONLY be used on indutrie/transport ships No more hidden target chosing, no more eazy kills, if you chose to live as a criminal you have to take the consequenz if cought by the police (EvE is real you know? Real criminals are jailed for YEARS when cought!) -> ADDEPT OR KKTHBYE PS: just forgot - any player (char) who trys to get the victims goods are also seen as criminal and will therefor taged as CONCORD target too. - any player who trys to trade/sell goods aquierd by hostil actions will seen as criminal too - if this criminals are cought by CONCORD the will recive the same punishment as the ganKer recived Try mining while aligned (I'll leave it to another to state how this works, I've done it 4 times in the past week and its getting tiresome). It actually works!!
|
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:26:00 -
[737] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them.
You mean you help Goon Bots to make more money? |
Jerek Mothas
Eleutherian Guard
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:27:00 -
[738] - Quote
Jojo, I know you probably mean well, but...please learn to spell before you argue with these guys. Does wonders to your credibility. Depending on what your point is, of course. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
743
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:28:00 -
[739] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them. You mean you help Goon Bots to make more money? There are no Goon bots.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1019
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:28:00 -
[740] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them. You mean you help Goon Bots to make more money?
I think you mean DRF bots. Minerals come from dronespace.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:29:00 -
[741] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Try mining while aligned (I'll leave it to another to state how this works, I've done it 4 times in the past week and its getting tiresome). It actually works!! Then your ganKers where noobs not worth to call them selve "Pirate".
Maybe one of this "you can PvP with 1 week" chars some of you allways like to provide. Yea, with 1 week (or month) you can just scare miners ... but not ganK them.
Terrible wasted time to try it with that amount of points *sig*. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:30:00 -
[742] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: I think you mean DRF bots. Minerals come from dronespace.
So Goons are DRF-Pets now and do the dirty work so DRF bots can earn more money with RMTing? |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
743
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:33:00 -
[743] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Maybe one of this "you can PvP with 1 week" chars some of you allways like to provide. Have you ever actually played Eve?
We are currently having a newbie drive in our alliance. We have been running fleets with several players who are less than a week old and they have been having fun shooting evil dudes in Delve. A few of them have also joined the Gallente Ice Interdiction efforts. Why would you think new players can't PvP?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:34:00 -
[744] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Try mining while aligned (I'll leave it to another to state how this works, I've done it 4 times in the past week and its getting tiresome). It actually works!! Then your ganKers where noobs not worth to call them selve "Pirate". Maybe one of this "you can PvP with 1 week" chars some of you allways like to provide. Yea, with 1 week (or month) you can just scare miners ... but not ganK them. Terrible wasted time to try it with that amount of points *sig*. You obviously have not tried it, or even know what I refer to. It works on experienced gankers just as well as noob gankers. Heck, it works on heavy interdictors in WH space. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
743
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:35:00 -
[745] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Malcanis wrote: I think you mean DRF bots. Minerals come from dronespace.
So Goons are DRF-Pets now and do the dirty work so DRF bots can earn more money with RMTing? Goons and DRF have joined forces to create the DCF (Drone Clusterfuck Federation) to completely control nullsec. It's p cool.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:49:00 -
[746] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them. But if people really hate themselves so much that they want to mine then they should have to actually play the game like the rest of us do...they shouldn't be able to gather resources and make money while afk'd out doing something else.
i love how you see fit to judge other players, your a miner you must hate yourself, its a game and game are ment to be fun for all players.
ganking can be fun i have done it.
my question is when does ganking become griefing?
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:55:00 -
[747] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them. But if people really hate themselves so much that they want to mine then they should have to actually play the game like the rest of us do...they shouldn't be able to gather resources and make money while afk'd out doing something else. i love how you see fit to judge other players, your a miner you must hate yourself, its a game and game are ment to be fun for all players. ganking can be fun i have done it. my question is when does ganking become griefing? Generally, when its done to one person continually and/or the person has other evidence of personal (non EVE related) targeting (following them around the universe is a good indication), it is ruled as griefing.
Really, it depends on how well you can talk it up with a GM. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
744
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:55:00 -
[748] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:i love how you see fit to judge other players, your a miner you must hate yourself, its a game and game are ment to be fun for all players. There is not a single thing about the current mining mechanic that is fun. The only reason I ever see people list when asked why they mine is that it's somehow relaxing or something they can do afk. And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
cpu939 wrote:ganking can be fun i have done it. Excellent! Come help us out in the Gallente ice belts!
cpu939 wrote:my question is when does ganking become griefing? Never unless CCP changes their ToS. The absolute best part of the ice interdiction is the several people who have sent us rl death threats after we blew them up which results in their account getting permabanned because rl death threats are against the ToS and suicide ganking is not. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:57:00 -
[749] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Try mining while aligned (I'll leave it to another to state how this works, I've done it 4 times in the past week and its getting tiresome). It actually works!! Then your ganKers where noobs not worth to call them selve "Pirate". Maybe one of this "you can PvP with 1 week" chars some of you allways like to provide. Yea, with 1 week (or month) you can just scare miners ... but not ganK them. Terrible wasted time to try it with that amount of points *sig*. You obviously have not tried it, or even know what I refer to. It works on experienced gankers just as well as noob gankers. Heck, it works on heavy interdictors in WH space.
experiened ganked would look for another target or bump you
cloaky hualer finds the target he is not aligned gankers warp in - dead ship cloaky hualer finds the target he is aligned hual gets in range and bumps ship - no agro you can't fire on him or your concord gankers lol (so do i) - gankers gank your ship
any ganker that wont bump an alinged ship is a noob |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
745
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:00:00 -
[750] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there. Then as long as I pay a subscription I should be allowed to run a courier mission bot?
Just tossing that out there. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:01:00 -
[751] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Try mining while aligned (I'll leave it to another to state how this works, I've done it 4 times in the past week and its getting tiresome). It actually works!! Then your ganKers where noobs not worth to call them selve "Pirate". Maybe one of this "you can PvP with 1 week" chars some of you allways like to provide. Yea, with 1 week (or month) you can just scare miners ... but not ganK them. Terrible wasted time to try it with that amount of points *sig*. You obviously have not tried it, or even know what I refer to. It works on experienced gankers just as well as noob gankers. Heck, it works on heavy interdictors in WH space. experiened ganked would look for another target or bump you cloaky hualer finds the target he is not aligned gankers warp in - dead ship cloaky hualer finds the target he is aligned hual gets in range and bumps ship - no agro you can't fire on him or your concord gankers lol (so do i) - gankers gank your ship any ganker that wont bump an alinged ship is a noob
If a cloaky hauler bumps an aligned miner... the miner could easily regain speed and warp (which he should do immidietly) in less than 3 seconds. Unless they panic... (Note: exception being if the hauler managed to get in front of the miner...)
If not aligned: someone wins the lottery once in a while.
Oh and the rule tends to be if someone decloaks, warp. Depending on speed, the miner would have 1-2 seconds to click warp between the time the hauler decloaked and it actually bumping the miner. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:01:00 -
[752] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there.
Am I entitled to having a Level 80 character in WOW if I subscribe, then leave the game window open with my character chilling in town? The hero you're stuck with anyways. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:18:00 -
[753] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there. Then as long as I pay a subscription I should be allowed to run a courier mission bot? Just tossing that out there.
That's got to be one of the crappiest forum tactics ever.
You made a comment that suggested a possible answer should be provided. I provided a possible answer......a perfectly legitimate answer as well.
Then you draft a question that attempts to rephrase my answer as a conclusion to a different question. Shame on you. Let's break it down.
"why they feel they are entitled"
Because they paid a subscription.
"while not playing the game"
That one's better said truthfully, "while not playing the game the way I want them to."
A "bot", defined as some software or script that automates repetitive actions in a user interface, is genuinely "not playing the game." Warping to a belt, targeting an asteroid, turning on the lasers and waiting, is playing the game in a way you do not like them to.
Unless you're providing the subscription for a particular miner, or have somehow figured out the trick of detecting what is happening on the other side of a particular miner's monitor, and it can't be categorically established that a bot is in use, you, nor I, have any particular authority to pass any judgment on any player's sense of entitlement.
Now, can you answer these specific points? Or do you wish to frame them as a conclusion to another totally different question?
|
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:19:00 -
[754] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there. Am I entitled to having a Level 80 character in WOW if I subscribe, then leave the game window open with my character chilling in town?
Is that supposed to mean something within the context here?
|
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:22:00 -
[755] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:cpu939 wrote:i love how you see fit to judge other players, your a miner you must hate yourself, its a game and game are ment to be fun for all players. There is not a single thing about the current mining mechanic that is fun. The only reason I ever see people list when asked why they mine is that it's somehow relaxing or something they can do afk. And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game. cpu939 wrote:ganking can be fun i have done it. Excellent! Come help us out in the Gallente ice belts!.
i'm not going to help you, wont stop you but will not help you
Ladie Harlot wrote:cpu939 wrote:my question is when does ganking become griefing? Never unless CCP changes their ToS. The absolute best part of the ice interdiction is the several people who have sent us rl death threats after we blew them up which results in their account getting permabanned because rl death threats are against the ToS and suicide ganking is not.
you know i had to look some stuff up and its even on the evelopedia
Suicidegank griefing
a popular practice griefing miners, which are several days in the same System or easy to find with locator service agents. The agressors will try to kill a exhumer with a group of cheap ships.
there are no rules against killing miners in suicideganks
but i still wonder if you kill the same person over and over again if that counts as griffing? |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:27:00 -
[756] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there. Am I entitled to having a Level 80 character in WOW if I subscribe, then leave the game window open with my character chilling in town? Is that supposed to mean something within the context here?
Context: AFK in EVE = AFK in wow = You're not entitled to anything even if you're subbed. The hero you're stuck with anyways. |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:30:00 -
[757] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote: And then I have to wonder why they feel they are entitled to gather resources while not playing the game.
Dunno....maybe because they've paid a subscription? Just tossing that out there. Am I entitled to having a Level 80 character in WOW if I subscribe, then leave the game window open with my character chilling in town? Is that supposed to mean something within the context here? Context: AFK in EVE = AFK in wow = You're not entitled to anything even if you're subbed.
but if in wow i tell my charator (if i had one) to attack an npc or mine and went afk would that not be the same as pressing f1-f8 and going afk in eve
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
746
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:31:00 -
[758] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:but i still wonder if you kill the same person over and over again if that counts as griffing? If you were to follow somebody from system to system, blowing them up each time they found a new belt and did this for months and months I could maybe see a case made for griefing but if it's the same person warping to the same belt in the same system over and over and over again (especially when the gankers are running a well-publicized interdiction in that system) then no it wouldn't be.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:34:00 -
[759] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:cpu939 wrote:but i still wonder if you kill the same person over and over again if that counts as griffing? If you were to follow somebody from system to system, blowing them up each time they found a new belt and did this for months and months I could maybe see a case made for griefing but if it's the same person warping to the same belt in the same system over and over and over again (especially when the gankers are running a well-publicized interdiction in that system) then no it wouldn't be.
can see your point but i might say hours over months depending on both parties playing times |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 04:59:00 -
[760] - Quote
Might have to do with the new BS's being an ultimate gank platform.
Alot of grievers crying under false pretense of no space should be safe they should fight back. Kinda like going to a preschool with a baseball bat whacking kids and claiming they should fight their own battles like men and police should not get involved.
Highsec is supposed to be safe. Why it exist. CCP is punishing some carebears with this, and I of course refer to carebear pvpers that can only pvp in the safety of highsec, because like their mission running prey, are to afraid to enter low sec.
He maybe no High sec war dec would make sense? It will force the carebear pvpers even more so to actually stop being carebears and go to lowsec . Because if they are going to force some carebears into lowsec why not the ones crying 24/7 over lack of PvP opportunities? Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?
Anyone else got Ideas on how to get these carebears into the PvP they claim to crave?
|
|
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:07:00 -
[761] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:
Unless you're providing the subscription for a particular miner, or have somehow figured out the trick of detecting what is happening on the other side of a particular miner's monitor, and it can't be categorically established that a bot is in use, you, nor I, have any particular authority to pass any judgment on any player's sense of entitlement.
Kinda in the same way CCP says we're supposed to report cxharacters we think have been recycled to avoid a sec hit.
Man thats such a ******** idea I just have to say it at least once a day
An yeah there really is no griefing in EVE, and if there is by way of a technicality in a rule somewhere, its NEVER enforced.
To the above poster: Those are BCs - battlecruisers "If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:14:00 -
[762] - Quote
Salah Loveless wrote:Might have to do with the new BS's being an ultimate gank platform.
Alot of grievers crying under false pretense of no space should be safe they should fight back. Kinda like going to a preschool with a baseball bat whacking kids and claiming they should fight their own battles like men and police should not get involved.
Highsec is supposed to be safe. Why it exist. CCP is punishing some carebears with this, and I of course refer to carebear pvpers that can only pvp in the safety of highsec, because like their mission running prey, are to afraid to enter low sec.
He maybe no High sec war dec would make sense? It will force the carebear pvpers even more so to actually stop being carebears and go to lowsec . Because if they are going to force some carebears into lowsec why not the ones crying 24/7 over lack of PvP opportunities? Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?
Anyone else got Ideas on how to get these carebears into the PvP they claim to crave?
So you propose that everyone in high-sec be given absolute pvp immunity? Interesting. I guess I'll start up a few dozen bot alts, run them 23.5/7/365, and flood the market so badly that you won't be able to find a reason to undock ever again, no matter how much you try to rub your two brain cells together.
PS: The reason we don't go to lowsec isn't because we're scared (we're not you, stop self-projecting), but because it's empty. Maybe you should visit it sometime, so you have some qualification to make claims about it. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:18:00 -
[763] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Salah Loveless wrote:Might have to do with the new BS's being an ultimate gank platform.
Alot of grievers crying under false pretense of no space should be safe they should fight back. Kinda like going to a preschool with a baseball bat whacking kids and claiming they should fight their own battles like men and police should not get involved.
Highsec is supposed to be safe. Why it exist. CCP is punishing some carebears with this, and I of course refer to carebear pvpers that can only pvp in the safety of highsec, because like their mission running prey, are to afraid to enter low sec.
He maybe no High sec war dec would make sense? It will force the carebear pvpers even more so to actually stop being carebears and go to lowsec . Because if they are going to force some carebears into lowsec why not the ones crying 24/7 over lack of PvP opportunities? Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?
Anyone else got Ideas on how to get these carebears into the PvP they claim to crave?
So you propose that everyone in high-sec be given absolute pvp immunity? Interesting. I guess I'll start up a few dozen bot alts, run them 23.5/7/365, and flood the market so badly that you won't be able to find a reason to undock ever again, no matter how much you try to rub your two brain cells together. PS: The reason we don't go to lowsec isn't because we're scared (we're not you, stop self-projecting), but because it's empty. Maybe you should visit it sometime, so you have some qualification to make claims about it.
The reason I dont go into 0.0 often is cause low-sec ISNT empty. Its full of gatecamps that make it impossible to GET into 0.0 unless you do it minutes after DT is over lol
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:19:00 -
[764] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Salah Loveless wrote:Might have to do with the new BS's being an ultimate gank platform.
Alot of grievers crying under false pretense of no space should be safe they should fight back. Kinda like going to a preschool with a baseball bat whacking kids and claiming they should fight their own battles like men and police should not get involved.
Highsec is supposed to be safe. Why it exist. CCP is punishing some carebears with this, and I of course refer to carebear pvpers that can only pvp in the safety of highsec, because like their mission running prey, are to afraid to enter low sec.
He maybe no High sec war dec would make sense? It will force the carebear pvpers even more so to actually stop being carebears and go to lowsec . Because if they are going to force some carebears into lowsec why not the ones crying 24/7 over lack of PvP opportunities? Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?
Anyone else got Ideas on how to get these carebears into the PvP they claim to crave?
So you propose that everyone in high-sec be given absolute pvp immunity? Interesting. I guess I'll start up a few dozen bot alts, run them 23.5/7/365, and flood the market so badly that you won't be able to find a reason to undock ever again, no matter how much you try to rub your two brain cells together. PS: The reason we don't go to lowsec isn't because we're scared (we're not you, stop self-projecting), but because it's empty. Maybe you should visit it sometime, so you have some qualification to make claims about it.
Boting, if I am not mistaken is bannable. Seems much like the Iraq war switched from WMD's to freeing the people once WMD proved false all the carebear pvpers are changing from PvP should stay in EvE to we need to stop bots and afk mining profit once it was pointed out that they are more than free to leave their carebear lives and go PvP in null sec. Has anyone else notice the change? |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:27:00 -
[765] - Quote
Salah Loveless wrote:
Boting, if I am not mistaken is bannable. Seems much like the Iraq war switched from WMD's to freeing the people once WMD proved false all the carebear pvpers are changing from PvP should stay in EvE to we need to stop bots and afk mining profit once it was pointed out that they are more than free to leave their carebear lives and go PvP in null sec. Has anyone else notice the change?
New version of Godwin's Law? "If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:31:00 -
[766] - Quote
PS: The reason we don't go to lowsec isn't because we're scared (we're not you, stop self-projecting), but because it's empty. Maybe you should visit it sometime, so you have some qualification to make claims about it.[/quote]
Also been there. It is where I go to PvP. i guess I could just fit a ship woth mass DPS and kill the weakest thing in highsec and scan out mission runners that are near poped before I even arrive but what is the point in that? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:39:00 -
[767] - Quote
But of course you do. |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:57:00 -
[768] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:But of course you do.
I do
But if I did not I am not the one on the forums crying about lack of "PvP opertunities" or that EvE is changing and we can no longer PvP since it will be more costly to force it in Highsec., when the game designed PvP low and null sec is but a few jumps away. You guys are like idiots at a socer game wanting to bounce the ball with your hands and throw it up into a net rather than kick it into a goal and expect everyone to follow suite rather than just going to the basketball game across the park, but of course there the players know how to play basketball and you might have a challange. |
Joshua Aivoras
Tech IV Industries
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:01:00 -
[769] - Quote
Quit crying and just fit a damn cargo scanner. |
Krios Ahzek
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:04:00 -
[770] - Quote
Salah Loveless wrote: Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?
I'm going to go on a limb here and say:
If real life is to be believed, every single one of them? The hero you're stuck with anyways. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:12:00 -
[771] - Quote
Salah Loveless wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:But of course you do. I do But if I did not I am not the one on the forums crying about lack of "PvP opertunities" or that EvE is changing and we can no longer PvP since it will be more costly to force it in Highsec., when the game designed PvP low and null sec is but a few jumps away. You guys are like idiots at a socer game wanting to bounce the ball with your hands and throw it up into a net rather than kick it into a goal and expect everyone to follow suite rather than just going to the basketball game across the park, but of course there the players know how to play basketball and you might have a challange. I know you do. That is why I agreed with you. You go to low-sec to pvp, and you pvp in low-sec a lot, and you are very knowledgeable about low-sec pvp and therefore qualified to discuss it.
Also, it is a matter of public record that CCP designed EVE Online in such a manner that low-sec and null-sec were created for the sole purpose of existing as pvp conduits, while high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.
It is also a commonly-known fact that pvpers only fight when they are absolutely sure they can win. This is why the only form of pvp combat in EVE is suicide-ganking, unfortunately. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
748
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:15:00 -
[772] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.
This is absolutely not true. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:25:00 -
[773] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.
This is absolutely not true.
That was her/his attempt at sarcasm. I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ isk as a reason they should have GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you canGÇÖt add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk????
|
Veronica Kerrigan
Hand Of Midas F0RCEFUL ENTRY
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:38:00 -
[774] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Stealing Honest wrote:This is a nice move. Not because it will reduce ganks, but because it wont effect them at all, and it does reduce an isk faucet. If they want to reduce the ISK faucets, it would be far better to adjust one of the bigger ones and do a very minute adjustment to it instead GÇö same total effect, but far less impact on those affected.
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:38:00 -
[775] - Quote
Salah Loveless wrote: I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ isk as a reason they should have GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you canGÇÖt add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk???? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.
If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.
But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them. |
Dbars Grinding
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:40:00 -
[776] - Quote
CCP needs to help the highsec people and give them more things to do. Make EVE more casual and ccp will get more subs. Actually everyone should move to highsec and run missions together. I would also like mining to be easier. |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:50:00 -
[777] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Salah Loveless wrote: I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ isk as a reason they should have GÇ£risk freeGÇ¥ PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you canGÇÖt add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk???? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment. But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.
Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing.
Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:56:00 -
[778] - Quote
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood. Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets?
Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium?
I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled?
And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
272
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:01:00 -
[779] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:If a cloaky hauler bumps an aligned miner... the miner could easily regain speed and warp (which he should do immidietly) in less than 3 seconds.
Bump a hulk and it takes around 8 seconds to align and warp. Keep bumping the hulk and it will never align and warp out. The time it takes to re-align is more than enough to back off, engage the MWD, and bump the hulk again. Using D-scan at this point is useless, since you're not going to escape even if the attackers are two systems away.
|
Veronica Kerrigan
Hand Of Midas F0RCEFUL ENTRY
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:04:00 -
[780] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood. Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets? Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium? I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled? And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties.
To be perfectly honest, I did not think this in depth. I was saying a potential problem that came to mind, because then, if it's wrong, the next time the situation comes up, my first though will be correct. I was simply stating that currently, there is a stigma that by mining minerals you can only trade wealth, by creating a product and then selling it for ISK made from missions, ratting, incursions, so on. However by my logic, I now see that by turning minerals into ISK, you create a larger problem of inflation. Guess that's what happens when you post after playing in a soccer game, and waiting to check to forums until midnight.
|
|
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:17:00 -
[781] - Quote
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails? |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:21:00 -
[782] - Quote
Ann133566 wrote:A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?
how ever you die you get a killmail, killoards are set to not show them |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:27:00 -
[783] - Quote
Ann133566 wrote:A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails? First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter. |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:29:00 -
[784] - Quote
cpu939 wrote:Ann133566 wrote:A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails? how ever you die you get a killmail, killoards are set to not show them
I haven't died on PVE for a long long time, but I didn't recieve a killmail for it. Well nevermind. |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:34:00 -
[785] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood. Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets? Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium? I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled? And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties. Salah Loveless wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.
If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.
But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them. Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing. Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there. Regardless of what you think I want, do you or do not find what I said to constitute a fair system? Feel free to quote me, but please quote the whole thing, instead of selectively snipping the bits that you can twist to better serve your own context. I pvp because I like pvp, not because I like risk. That is not to say I dislike risk; I will not confirm whether I do or don't because my feelings toward risk do not have a bearing on my feelings toward pvp. I accept risk when the benefits in doing so (chance of gaining cash or possibility of having fun) exceed its costs. I'm not going to fight every battle simply because I feel that it is my obligation as a pvper to do so. If we want to use your sports analogy, we can say that a basketball player likes basketball because of his interest in the game and his drive to win at it, and not because he is looking to increase his chances of failure as much as possible.
Yes but he does not go to a soccor field and demand that everyone play basketball. Also while their could be reward for PvP, if that is what you are driving at, changing Highsec to better suit grievers helps this how?
The games income is based on rewards for missions bounties and by trade and manufaturing. The risk to income is loss of ships. Since PvP will almost always be harder than PvE as a real player with same stats ( or potential for same states) will always pose a bigger threat. Making grieving more available is not going to change this fact.
If PvP is to ever been on par with PvE isk wise minigation of lose and incress of reward would have to be implimented. Of course if you remove the risk in PvP than you change the game as a whole making EvE similar to other MMORPG's such as WoW where you can PvP without lose and gain special rewards for doing so.
The big difference from ganking and PvP in lowsec is that PvP, in most cases, are fit to outlast and win and thus even with insurance isk is lost. Ganking ships are fit knowing they will go pop and insurance normally makes this a 0 or close to 0 lose. While PvP is part of the game as a whole it is supposed to be very Risky to do in Highsec. CCP seems to be fixing this so it is still risky.
I have not been ganked in highsec and think it is on the level it probaly needs to be at. What I think is the mindset behind this proposed change is as been notted the new BC might tip the scales of this ballance and that would not be good for EvE as a whole. |
Salah Loveless
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:35:00 -
[786] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood. Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets? Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium? I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled? And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties. Salah Loveless wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.
If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.
But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them. Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing. Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there. Regardless of what you think I want, do you or do not find what I said to constitute a fair system? Feel free to quote me, but please quote the whole thing, instead of selectively snipping the bits that you can twist to better serve your own context. I pvp because I like pvp, not because I like risk. That is not to say I dislike risk; I will not confirm whether I do or don't because my feelings toward risk do not have a bearing on my feelings toward pvp. I accept risk when the benefits in doing so (chance of gaining cash or possibility of having fun) exceed its costs. I'm not going to fight every battle simply because I feel that it is my obligation as a pvper to do so. If we want to use your sports analogy, we can say that a basketball player likes basketball because of his interest in the game and his drive to win at it, and not because he is looking to increase his chances of failure as much as possible.
Yes but he does not go to a soccor field and demand that everyone play basketball. Also while their could be reward for PvP, if that is what you are driving at, changing Highsec to better suit grievers helps this how?
The games income is based on rewards for missions bounties and by trade and manufaturing. The risk to income is loss of ships. Since PvP will almost always be harder than PvE as a real player with same stats ( or potential for same states) will always pose a bigger threat. Making grieving more available is not going to change this fact.
If PvP is to ever been on par with PvE isk wise minigation of lose and incress of reward would have to be implimented. Of course if you remove the risk in PvP than you change the game as a whole making EvE similar to other MMORPG's such as WoW where you can PvP without lose and gain special rewards for doing so.
The big difference from ganking and PvP in lowsec is that PvP, in most cases, are fit to outlast and win and thus even with insurance isk is lost. Ganking ships are fit knowing they will go pop and insurance normally makes this a 0 or close to 0 lose. While PvP is part of the game as a whole it is supposed to be very Risky to do in Highsec. CCP seems to be fixing this so it is still risky.
I have not been ganked in highsec and think it is on the level it probaly needs to be at. What I think is the mindset behind this proposed change is as been notted the new BC might tip the scales of this ballance and that would not be good for EvE as a whole. |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 07:55:00 -
[787] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ann133566 wrote:A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails? First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter.
So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 08:06:00 -
[788] - Quote
Ann133566 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ann133566 wrote:A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails? First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter. So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking? Wait, when did I ever say that? |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 08:15:00 -
[789] - Quote
So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking?[/quote] Wait, when did I ever say that?[/quote]
When you said:
"Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter"
In other words player either player B's suicide ganks are without any merit, or you believe that suicide ganking isn't really PvP as in it belongs to category altogether. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 08:29:00 -
[790] - Quote
Ann133566 wrote:When you said:
"Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter"
In other words player either player B's suicide ganks are without any merit, or you believe that suicide ganking isn't really PvP as in it belongs to category altogether. I never mentioned merit in any shape or form, I simply answered a question by describing how the killboards are managed. I don't manage those killboards.
I will elaborate for you, however.
The kills made from suicide-ganks are player-vs-player interactions, and as such have "merit" as pvp metrics. One player kills another, meaning that the former's pvp efficiency goes up, while the latter's goes down.
The losses taken from deaths to CONCORD aren't player-vs-player interactions, and as such have no "merit" as pvp metrics. CONCORD is simply a kill trigger, and can't be evaded. Losing a ship solely to CONCORD doesn't mean a player is somehow worse at pvp. However, this is no longer true if a random player manages to take a potshot at someone in the process of being killed by CONCORD. This is now a player-vs-player interaction, and as such has "merit" as a pvp metric.
To make it even simpler: suicide-ganking someone is a pvp activity, while losing your ship solely to an NPC entity isn't a pvp activity. |
|
baltec1
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 08:57:00 -
[791] - Quote
This thread is just getting daft now. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 09:42:00 -
[792] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was away well. at least you was having fun trying to kill carrier..... but had bad luck.... dunno what happened but defence fleet was disbanded before organized because carrier got safe |
baltec1
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 09:52:00 -
[793] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote:Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was away well. at least you was having fun trying to kill carrier..... but had bad luck.... dunno what happened but defence fleet was disbanded before organized because carrier got safe
I was on the BF3 CCP server when that happened
I did get to mess around with 90 IRC last night in our 18 man gang |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 10:11:00 -
[794] - Quote
even with no insurance pay out the suicide gank is till going to continue I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 11:32:00 -
[795] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
You certainly need to find better blues.
In my noob days I used to mission in lowsec and not get popped because there was little to get out of me .
But this is about high sec and insurance and nowhere does anybody want to see across-the-board consensual PVP in all regions. I don't want to see that.
In my statement of making high sec safer, I implied that it comes at a cost, being very high taxes. If highsec was safed up to eliminate non-consensual PVP without any other changes, it would be an ISK Pumping Bot haven. Think of a vending machine that you don't have to put money in.
You point out that there are cargo ships getting destroyed with considerable modules in them. I expect this happens near Jita? But again, if there was a tax on sales in high sec, there would not be a profit to selling it there. Imagine what would happen if, in order to get a good deal and not get raked with taxes, you had to take that to lowsec or 0.0?
It's mainly my idea though, and not likely to happen. At the least, with no reimbursement for hulls, there will be less ganking for lulz.
Was stating my failures over the years with multiple accounts to show that even noobs learn and that player retention isnt a matter of getting ganked in unfair or mean ways.
Yup your correct it would become a botters paradise and to some this game already is given some of the current mechanics available to bots and botters in both high sec and null space.
Yes most of it is within about a half dozen systems on the trade routes too and from jita. The rest will be in belts the Eve-verse wide. Only a small fraction will be anywhere near true noob gatherings. But if youd move trading and manufacturing to low sec youd get an even greater pirate presence on the funnel/ap gates into and from low sec like there already is and make these pirate gangs very happy campers or you get an increase of the same things happening on the 0.0 pipeline systems with bubble camps already. The fact that pirate organizations and 0.0 alliances would camp these routes 23.5/7 then would mean a total trade embargo and the stoppage and would completely collapse the economy in Eve quickly so itd be a bad idea entirely. Youd see T1 good prices going the way price wise of deadspace modules in a hurry.
Tbh therell still be ganking for lulz only the ships used will change to different ships or if a truly cheap thrill is needed without expense youll grab 2 or 3 buddies and do it with them. Other than this nothing will change lolz or for profit ganking will continue and probably be easier to do now in some ways as well. |
Morar Santee
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 11:55:00 -
[796] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:What defines a carebear Tippia? Attitude and (commonly) a sense of entitlement. These two tend to restrict them to a select few activities, but it is not the activities that define the bear.
Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Trollololol
It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread. I'm just a tiny bit afraid they might eventually contribute more to the sea levels rising than global warming melting off the polar caps. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1297
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:00:00 -
[797] - Quote
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. They're not. The largest one is bounties. The second largest is mission rewards. Insurance comes third, and fourth and last comes NPC buy orders.
If you need to GÇ£control the floodGÇ¥ then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go.
Morar Santee wrote:Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no.
Quote:It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread. Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:01:00 -
[798] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veronica Kerrigan wrote:As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. They're not. The largest one is bounties. The second largest is mission rewards. Insurance comes third, and fourth and last comes NPC buy orders. If you need to GÇ£control the floodGÇ¥ then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go. Morar Santee wrote:Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no. Quote:It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread. Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.
How so? |
Morar Santee
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:08:00 -
[799] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you need to GÇ£control the floodGÇ¥ then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go. Morar Santee wrote:Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no. Quote:It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread. Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.
Oh stfu. You've been playing the badly disguised victim for.. uh.. 40 odd pages by now? Bottom line is: There is no change for anyone involved in suicide ganking. Not for gankers, not for targets. Period. As there is no effective change in the ISK investment required to kill any given target, this is not indicative of any direction in game development, either. It is a required balance to introducing tier 3 BCs in their current form. And yet I can open any page in this thread - any page at all - and find a post of you wailing how this change is so terrible because it is indicative of game development going down the wrong direction and BOOOHOHOOOOOOOOOOO.
But, of course, none of that is actually in any way related to insurance (which is why you're posting it on this thread) and you totally have a valid argument because... oh wait, no, you don't.
|
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:14:00 -
[800] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:
PvP = Player vis Player
This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.
Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).
This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP ! It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).
So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!
PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.
And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES!
This has to be a troll. If it's not it's literally the dumbest thing I've read on these forums. it's OK. you are goon so don't need brain. |
|
Mirime Nolwe
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Devil's Warrior Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:16:00 -
[801] - Quote
Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP, lets repeat it, Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP.
|
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:24:00 -
[802] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
And which ACTIVE action can your target do?
There are plenty of action he can do, but it doesn't matter. As long as a player is the pilot (ie not a bot), it is PvP. Interaction between them both ways is not required. A player is combating a player.
For possible active things: if a shield booster is fit, it could make the difference between a live ship or a dead one. If a hauler, fit an ECM or 2. Might help.
Though really, I have not once seen a hauler get ganked flying from a gate (not saying it wont happen, just I havent seen it), but plenty do on auto.[/quote] shield booster will help A LOT against alpha-strike, yea ECM too..... 2 ECMs is A LOT BETTER for sure..... but i advice using 4! Will jam whole system..... Problem is: CONCORD will blow you up if you try to do it EVEN FOR PREVENT obvious incoming attack....
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:24:00 -
[803] - Quote
Mirime Nolwe wrote:Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP, lets repeat it, Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP.
As long as two people are interacting in any way yes technically it is PvP. Maybe not how you like it but it still is.
Now its not much of a fight, but its a challenge in that you have to figure certain mechanics out and use them. But then you could argue that ganking isnt much of a challenge but then setting destination and hitting autopilot, or warping to a belt, locking a roid up and hitting a few keys isnt much of a challenge either. Do you do it for the challenge? or the isk? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1297
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:26:00 -
[804] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Oh stfu. No.
Quote:You've been playing the badly disguised victim for.. uh.. 40 odd pages by now? EhGǪ what? I've never been a victim of ganks, and I've never disguised myself as one GÇö badly or otherwise. My perspective is rather the opposite of that of the victims. So I can't quite see where you got any of that formGǪ
Quote:Bottom line is: There is no change for anyone involved in suicide ganking. Not for gankers, not for targets. Period. Good. Then there's no need to change it to begin with, since that disincentivises ship destruction and makes life harder for new players.
Quote:And yet I can open any page in this thread - any page at all - and find a post of you You haven't tried, have you.
Quote:But, of course, none of that is actually in any way related to insurance Yes it is. If you don't think so, please elaborate on why.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1297
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:26:00 -
[805] - Quote
Mirime Nolwe wrote:Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not is PVP by very definition if there is a player at the other end. Fixed. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:27:00 -
[806] - Quote
You know if ganking a "helpless" pilot in high sec isnt PvP then why is it considered PvP if you jump into a gate camp and get wtfbbqpwnd by a gate camp in a second or two in low or null? I mean you have about as much chance of "winning" there as you do in high sec?
Just a question for the masses. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:39:00 -
[807] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: You know if ganking a "helpless" pilot in high sec isnt PvP then why is it considered PvP if you jump into a gate camp and get wtfbbqpwnd by a gate camp in a second or two in low or null? I mean you have about as much chance of "winning" there as you do in high sec?
Just a question for the masses.
The difference is the: a ganKers target never has a changs (if the ganKer is worth a cent) and the ganKers target NEVER wanted to PvP.
As soon as you enter low/toilet secure space, you KNOW about the risk and ACTIVE decide to take it! This is your acception, that you might run into a blob.
The ganKers victim never agreed to any PvP action but rather decided, to NOT be involved by staying in highsec.
You all talk all the time about sandbox and "my playstyle is part of this game". But all of you denail other players their playstyle and their sandbox when they say: " I do NOT want to fight against other players with my ship".
So either it is a sandbox, then you MUST except, that many players never ever want to fight in space. Or this is no sandbox game and then we all must PvP.
Now it's up to you, is it a sandbox?
If it is a sandbox, CCP MUST balance this game the way, so that player who don't want to PvP in ships and stay in highsec can play their sandbox!
And if you argument with "sandbox", you MUST excempt, that players in highsec can NOT be killed by other players without permission!
-> ganKing shouldn't work in highsec at all -> wardecs can only happen, when BOTH partys agree
Anythink else is NO sandbox! |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:40:00 -
[808] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:cpu939 wrote: experiened ganked would look for another target or bump you
cloaky hualer finds the target he is not aligned gankers warp in - dead ship cloaky hualer finds the target he is aligned hual gets in range and bumps ship - no agro you can't fire on him or your concord gankers lol (so do i) - gankers gank your ship
any ganker that wont bump an alinged ship is a noob
If a cloaky hauler bumps an aligned miner... the miner could easily regain speed and warp (which he should do immidietly) in less than 3 seconds. Unless they panic... (Note: exception being if the hauler managed to get in front of the miner...) If not aligned: someone wins the lottery once in a while. Oh and the rule tends to be if someone decloaks, warp. Depending on speed, the miner would have 1-2 seconds to click warp between the time the hauler decloaked and it actually bumping the miner. how can 1-2 seconds help you when you are in mining barge? 1-2 seconds to warp from 0 is good from frigates |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:47:00 -
[809] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mirime Nolwe wrote:Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not is NOT PVP by very definition if there is a player at the other end. Fixed. Fixed as it doesn't matter, if their is an player in the target ship or not. In both cases the attack shots a static object which has no option to react (defend) - and more often then not the hostil action is over, before the target even notice the hostility thanks to this STUPID pasive targeters (the must be removed from game @CCP).
By defenition PvP (player against player) requiers interaction between both partys -> which is NOT given! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1297
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:48:00 -
[810] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:The difference is the: a ganKers target never has a changs (if the ganKer is worth a cent) and the ganKers target NEVER wanted to PvP. The target had lots of chances to not make himself a target, and if he didn't want to PvP, he shouldn't have created an account. The target is PvP as soon as he logs in.
Quote:The ganKers victim never agreed to any PvP action but rather decided, to NOT be involved by staying in highsec. Staying in highsec does not exclude you from PvP GÇö it's just as prevalent there as it is everywhere else in this PvP game. He decided to become a potential target for combat action the second he undocked.
Quote:So either it is a sandbox, then you MUST except, that many players never ever want to fight in space. Or this is no sandbox game and then we all must PvP. No, it's the other way around: since it is a multiplayer sandbox, you must accept that other players are allowed to do things that you don't want them to do GÇö things like blowing you up. A sandbox does not mean that you can do what you want; it means everyone can do what they want, including things you do not like.
Because it is a sandbox, you are always PvPing. Fortunately, since it is a sandbox, you are given tools to protect yourself from the things you do not like, and it is up to you to choose whether to use them or not. The game will not (and cannot) do it for you.
If you want sandbox game where this is not happening, I would suggest the X series.
Quote:Fixed as it doesn't matter, if their is an player in the target ship or not. In both cases the attack shots a static object which has no option to react No, it is all that matters. The player on the other side has plenty of options to react.
Quote:By defenition PvP (player against player) requiers interaction between both partys Just because the other guy has chosen to not be attentive doesn't mean there is no interaction going on. So no, ganking GÇ£static and harmless shipsGÇ¥ is PvP if there is a player at the other end. The gank is still interaction, player versus player.
GǪoh, and no, passive targeters are important tools for sneaking up on people, so they should stay. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:49:00 -
[811] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: You know if ganking a "helpless" pilot in high sec isnt PvP then why is it considered PvP if you jump into a gate camp and get wtfbbqpwnd by a gate camp in a second or two in low or null? I mean you have about as much chance of "winning" there as you do in high sec?
Just a question for the masses. The difference is the: a ganKers target never has a changs (if the ganKer is worth a cent) and the ganKers target NEVER wanted to PvP. As soon as you enter low/toilet secure space, you KNOW about the risk and ACTIVE decide to take it! This is your acception, that you might run into a blob.The ganKers victim never agreed to any PvP action but rather decided, to NOT be involved by staying in highsec. You all talk all the time about sandbox and "my playstyle is part of this game". But all of you denail other players their playstyle and their sandbox when they say: " I do NOT want to fight against other players with my ship". So either it is a sandbox, then you MUST except, that many players never ever want to fight in space. Or this is no sandbox game and then we all must PvP. Now it's up to you, is it a sandbox? If it is a sandbox, CCP MUST balance this game the way, so that player who don't want to PvP in ships and stay in highsec can play their sandbox! And if you argument with "sandbox", you MUST excempt, that players in highsec can NOT be killed by other players without permission! -> ganKing shouldn't work in highsec at all -> wardecs can only happen, when BOTH partys agree Anythink else is NO sandbox!
Highlighted for truth. You just said it right there yourself. So a person going into low or null inherently "knows" of the risks but you somehow in high sec do not? You DO know or else you could not post on the topic. So therefore you are just trying to get rid of the inherent risks, rather than mitigating them yourself, that do exist in high sec, much like the blob in null and low, which are the suicide ganker.
So might I suggest that if you, who are now aware and know fully the risks of high sec, dont want to lose your stuff you simply do not log in or dont ever undock. Careful... youve been warned you can never claim ignorance to the issue any longer.
There ARE risks in Eve. Man up to them or find a new game. Or else youll just be a victim all your life, one that you continue to be by your own choices of game play. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:55:00 -
[812] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote:Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was away well. at least you was having fun trying to kill carrier..... but had bad luck.... dunno what happened but defence fleet was disbanded before organized because carrier got safe I did get to mess around with 90 IRC last night in our 18 man gang this is what i'm speaking about. I saw you in intel channel. Not sure if it was about rescuing of a carrier or not. Was too lazy to even bother with one more dying carrier.....
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:56:00 -
[813] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Quote:
And which ACTIVE action can your target do?
There are plenty of action he can do, but it doesn't matter. As long as a player is the pilot (ie not a bot), it is PvP. Interaction between them both ways is not required. A player is combating a player. For possible active things: if a shield booster is fit, it could make the difference between a live ship or a dead one. If a hauler, fit an ECM or 2. Might help. Though really, I have not once seen a hauler get ganked flying from a gate (not saying it wont happen, just I havent seen it), but plenty do on auto. shield booster will help A LOT against alpha-strike, yea ECM too..... 2 ECMs is A LOT BETTER for sure..... but i advice using 4! Will jam whole system..... Problem is: CONCORD will blow you up if you try to do it EVEN FOR PREVENT obvious incoming attack.... I just played around with a Mammoth, and made an "autopilot" setup (lows full of cargo expanders) that had about 13,000 EHP, using the minimum resist method. I then made an "at the wheel" setup for a low-volume hauler, and the EHP shot up to slightly less than 20,000, once again using the minimum resist method. It is impossible to hit only the lowest resists, unless you're staggering missiles, which is a ridiculous concept for suicide ganking. Your actual EHP with that second setup would be closer to 30,000, and all you'd have to do would be to hit the DCU II button after every jump. All setups were made solely with T2 mods and T1 rigs.
That's an absolute minimum of three highly-skilled 1400mm volleys. Even going by the current price of about 40 million per suicide battleship, you'd need to be carrying 240 million worth of stuff just for the gankers to break even on average.
To put things in perspective, most haulers I've had a hand in ganking (and I won't gank a hauler unless it's actually profitable) have traveled on autopilot, had absolutely jack all fitted aside from expanded cargoholds, and often carried much less cargo than their capacity allowed for.
And you're going to feed me this bull about how there's nothing these people can do? Give me a break. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:06:00 -
[814] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote: shield booster will help A LOT against alpha-strike, yea
I just played around with a Mammoth , and made an "autopilot" setup (lows full of cargo expanders) that had about 13,000 EHP, using the minimum resist method. I then made an "at the wheel" setup for a low-volume hauler, and the EHP shot up to slightly less than 20,000, once again using the minimum resist method. It is impossible to hit only the lowest resists, unless you're staggering missiles, which is a ridiculous concept for suicide ganking. Your actual EHP with that second setup would be closer to 30,000, and all you'd have to do would be to hit the DCU II button after every jump. All setups were made solely with T2 mods and T1 rigs. That's an absolute minimum of three highly-skilled 1400mm volleys. Even going by the current price of about 40 million per suicide battleship, you'd need to be carrying 240 million worth of stuff just for the gankers to break even on average. ... And you're going to feed me this bull about how there's nothing these people can do? Give me a break. and now.... TADAM!!!! Try to do the same with any other "volks" industrial and retriever. Do your magic please. |
Morar Santee
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:06:00 -
[815] - Quote
Okay, so far we have:
Tippia wrote:Morar Santee wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:What defines a carebear Tippia? Attitude and (commonly) a sense of entitlement. These two tend to restrict them to a select few activities, but it is not the activities that define the bear. Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Trollololol Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no. So you do not feel entitled to Insurance while suicide ganking, but:
Tippia wrote: [...]there's no need to change it to begin with, since that disincentivises ship destruction and makes life harder for new players.
A statement so full of bullshit that it pains me to quote it. As you chose not to include it in your fail selective quoting, here it is again: "[...] there is no effective change in the ISK investment required to kill any given target." Therefore, there is no change in incentive, either. You're just chock-full of tears, and more of a victim than any hauler I've ever seen ganked on any gate.
Independent and reliable sources who will have to remain anonymous have found this quote in Tippia's diary: "BOOHOOOOO CCP TAKE MY INSURANCE AWAY BOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOHOOOOO TEEEEAAARS BUT I'M TIPIA I'M NO VICTIM BOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1298
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:19:00 -
[816] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:So you do not feel entitled to Insurance while suicide ganking Since I don't suicide gank, I most certainly don't feel entitled to insurance. However, I think it would be a nice reward for them to entice them to do it more often and with a bit more reckless abandon.
Quote:A statement so full of bullshit that it pains me to quote it. Yes, the idea that it does not effectively change the ISK investment is bullshit. Sure, the accomplished ganker will not care much about that change because either money is no object, or he has it covered through other meansGǪ but for the nonaccomplished ganker, it might, and with a bit of incentive, he might grow up to be an accomplished ganker.
At the same time if it truly makes no difference, then there is no reason to remove the insurance, since that only needlessly hurts new players.
And I think your independent sources need to check with their forgers GÇö they're not as reliable as claimed. No-one is taking my insurance away, nor have I ever been a victim of ganks. So I don't quite see why I would shed any tears over either of those. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:24:00 -
[817] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote: shield booster will help A LOT against alpha-strike, yea
I just played around with a Mammoth , and made an "autopilot" setup (lows full of cargo expanders) that had about 13,000 EHP, using the minimum resist method. I then made an "at the wheel" setup for a low-volume hauler, and the EHP shot up to slightly less than 20,000, once again using the minimum resist method. It is impossible to hit only the lowest resists, unless you're staggering missiles, which is a ridiculous concept for suicide ganking. Your actual EHP with that second setup would be closer to 30,000, and all you'd have to do would be to hit the DCU II button after every jump. All setups were made solely with T2 mods and T1 rigs. That's an absolute minimum of three highly-skilled 1400mm volleys. Even going by the current price of about 40 million per suicide battleship, you'd need to be carrying 240 million worth of stuff just for the gankers to break even on average. ... And you're going to feed me this bull about how there's nothing these people can do? Give me a break. and now.... TADAM!!!! Try to do the same with any other "volks" industrial and retriever. Do your magic please.
Well first of all, I just established that it would take ~120 million to pop a properly fit T1 hauler using the minimum amount of people. Sure, you can grab 20-odd guys in Thrashers to make it cheaper, but once again, the cost of the suicide ships will still exceed the cost of the hauler (and a lot more overall sec status will be lost). While some of the cheaper haulers have less slots to fit buffers, some actually have more. And not a single hauler, aside from the Iteron Mk. V, has a significant skillpoint barrier to entry that would prevent even a new player from flying one.
How much you put inside your hauler is your choice, and only you, as a player, are responsible for any consequences stemming from your decision. If you put 4 billion ISK worth of implants into a 25,000-30,000 EHP hauler and stick it on autopilot, you, and only you, will be at fault if your ship gets destroyed. If you have a significant amount of stuff to carry, then invest in an Orca (230,000 EHP) or a freighter (a bit less than that). You can also hire a courier. Finally, you can carry low-volume, expensive items in fast/cloaky/super-tanked combat ships.
(I can't stress that last one enough; I once om-nom-nommed a T1 hauler carrying billions in prints. Was literally like 4m-¦ of space ).
As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated
107
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:25:00 -
[818] - Quote
Mirime Nolwe wrote:Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP, lets repeat it, Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP.
I blow up your hauler at a belt. Repeatedly. You give up mining in that locale, and leave. I start mining and sell the minerals you would have sold.
That's player vs player: PVP.
C.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:30:00 -
[819] - Quote
Tippia wrote:but for the nonaccomplished ganker, it might, and with a bit of incentive, he might grow up to be an accomplished ganker. Yep. "Cold harsh universe" shouldn't have to apply to the poor nonaccomplished gankers. On the contrary, the universe should be forgiving to them. We need to hold their hands, show them ponies and rainbows. Those poor things. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1298
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:32:00 -
[820] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank. I'm leaning more and more towards trying to dig up that ancient F&I thread about massively buffing the tank on the exhumers and then restricting them to low/nullsec where you might actually need that tank. People who stay in highsec get stuck with a bit lower yield, but also have the full benefit of insurance on their ships so it won't hurt if anyone bothers to blow them up.
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Yep. "Cold harsh universe" shouldn't have to apply to the poor nonaccomplished gankers. The universe should be forgiving to them. We need to hold their hands, show them ponies and rainbows. Those poor things. They could use a break, like all newbiesGǪ And with a CONCORD nerf, you could make it cold and harsh for them if you think they're having it too easy. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:36:00 -
[821] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank. I'm leaning more and more towards trying to dig up that ancient F&I thread about massively buffing the tank on the exhumers and then restricting them to low/nullsec where you might actually need that tank. People who stay in highsec get stuck with a bit lower yield, but also have the full benefit of insurance on their ships so it won't hurt if anyone bothers to blow them up. I'd like to see something like that. Heck, they can even give all barges a massive power grid boost. Limit them to 1 mid though, for a survey scanner or whatever. This way, they will have the option to either go for paper tank and maximum yield, or be able to shove an armor buffer in the lows instead. It would probably be easier to implement this than a ship/space restriction. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated
107
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:38:00 -
[822] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:but for the nonaccomplished ganker, it might, and with a bit of incentive, he might grow up to be an accomplished ganker. Yep. "Cold harsh universe" shouldn't have to apply to the poor nonaccomplished gankers. The universe should be forgiving to them. We need to hold their hands, show them ponies and rainbows. Those poor things.
You're quite right of course. Ganking can result in feelings of regret, mental anguish and guilt. Luckily these things can be overcome with rainbows and ponies - perhaps you could volunteer to run the self help group, as you seem to have a good handle on the issues?
C.
|
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:38:00 -
[823] - Quote
Wow, Tippia. You have managed to write more than ten percent of the posts on this topic alone though you do not particularly care for it.
For same reason have you also made it to my forum ignore list. Gratz. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:56:00 -
[824] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank.
check retriever info: shield 647 armor 1.16k hull 1.17k 2 high slots 1 mid slot 2 low slots CPU/PG: 156.3TF/43.75MW cargo - 2000 m3.
So. your tanked fit please. "Stop being greedy like monkey to use lows for tank". and don't forget: retriever is a MINING BARGE. It makes ore.
What about balance: it should not be present. At least ganker is initiator of "pvp" and not miner. So it is ok for ganker to have bigger loss. |
Ficus Plant
The Plant Initiative
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 14:03:00 -
[825] - Quote
There has been so much rubbish written in this thread on the insurance changes it is quite amazing!
The change to removing insurance was long overdue. it never made sense in a cold harsh world - which cold harsh insurance company would pay out insurance if they could get away with withholding it?
Anyone who argues differently is a total carebear. And, yes, there are carebear gankers.
Now, do I think this will kill ganking - of course not. It will still happen. One would hope there may be some additional calculations involved, but saying that many in EVE fail at math so I doubt it. The insurance change just removes one of the logical inconsistencies.
Now, is ganking always the gankees fault? Of course not. If you are rich enough to fly 100s of millions of goods around then go buy something to fly them in (like a blockade runner - you can after all cloak these puppies and they do get into warp pretty quickly) that makes ganking almost impossible for higher value smaller items.
Mining afk? Then it is your own fault and you deserve to die if found.
Not mining afk? Fit a tank. Most of us who mine have historically not fitted tanks in high sec - after all what was the point. These days it would seem to make sense to do so and sacrifice a little yield. I can set a hulk up fairly easily with at least 24K EHP (if I remember correctly). Sure my mining slows some, but in the end market prices will rise to compensate as the supply slows down. It is all swings and roundabouts.
A little bit of common sense would basically make ganking, for profit at least, pointless. Fortunately for the gankers there is, and always has been, a lack of common sense in a good portion of the mining and industry community.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 14:37:00 -
[826] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank.
check retriever info: shield 647 armor 1.16k hull 1.17k 2 high slots 1 mid slot 2 low slots CPU/PG: 156.3TF/43.75MW cargo - 2000 m3. So. your tanked fit please. "Stop being greedy like monkey to use lows for tank". and don't forget: retriever is a MINING BARGE. It makes ore. What about balance: it should not be present. At least ganker is initiator of "pvp" and not miner. So it is ok for ganker to have bigger loss.
Okay, off the top of my head, since I don't use EFT:
I will use Mechanic 5, Hull Upgrades 4, and Shield Management 4. I will use thermal resistance for armor and shield EHP calculations, as it seems like a decent common ground. I will use level 4 fleet bonuses for armor and shields, as they are quite accessible even for newer players (all you need is a few days of training and a friend/alt in fleet). No implants.
Lows: Damage Control II, Reinforced Bulkheads II Mids: Variable; I'm unsure if you can fit a medium extender/strip miners, so I'll calculate for a Small Shield Extender II Rigs: 3x Trimark Armor Pump I
EHP (bold number is the multiplier from resists):
1.17k * 1.25 * 1.25 * 2.5 = 4.57k hull 1.16k * 1.2 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.08 * 1.81 = 4.14k armor (.647k + .263k) * 1.2 * 1.08 * 1.43 = 1.69k shields
Combined total: 10.4k EHP, breaks 5 digits, just like I said before. With the relevant level 5 skills and some cheap implants, it's even higher. You can run it through EFT to check on your own time.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 15:15:00 -
[827] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:As far as retrievers are concerned, they're cheap, can be insured for their full value, and you shouldn't have anything expensive inside the cargo when mining. A T1 cruiser or a few T1 destroyers are roughly the same price. I would call this balance. Oh, and you can still push your EHP into five digits if you stop being a greedy little monkey and use your lows for tank. I'm leaning more and more towards trying to dig up that ancient F&I thread about massively buffing the tank on the exhumers and then restricting them to low/nullsec where you might actually need that tank. People who stay in highsec get stuck with a bit lower yield, but also have the full benefit of insurance on their ships so it won't hurt if anyone bothers to blow them up. MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Yep. "Cold harsh universe" shouldn't have to apply to the poor nonaccomplished gankers. The universe should be forgiving to them. We need to hold their hands, show them ponies and rainbows. Those poor things. They could use a break, like all newbiesGǪ Well then, Mr. Tippia, if nonaccomplishged gankers are considered newbies in your book, using your same logic nonaccomplished miners should also be considered as newbies, and by your own extension, could also use a break from this cold harsh universe I keep hearing you spout about.
But instead, when miners get ganked you either accuse them of being "drunk or improperly fitted" and deserve what they get because well, it's their fault and "cold hard universe and all", but nonaccomplished gankers, well, they're just newbies and deserve a break.
Yep, no double standards from you at all . |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 15:35:00 -
[828] - Quote
Tippia, nice threadnaught you have here. But I would like to show a few reasons why I think you are wrong.
You are advocating easier destruction of ships in high security space because it helps EvE economy and in turn also the miners, etc. itself. That would work if people were forced to stay in EvE.
The main purpose of EvE is to create a revenue for CCP. The more subscriber the better. and as you can see many people actually don't want to engage in ship destruction unless they agree to it. Hence removing gank insurance might get more people to subscribe which is good for CPP and EvE. If it screws the EvE economy, only low number of people will care.
But you need not to overdo it. If you screw too many people they will leave and their opinion will be heard (see incarna).
If you want to have better EvE economy you should be advocating changes which will encourage the original progression concept. Not with stick, but with carrot. Then high sec will be mainly inhabited by new players and more people will be in null sec. |
Wight Ithira
MOB Organized Corporation P I R A T E S
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 15:43:00 -
[829] - Quote
This thread makes me want to suicide gank some miners the first day of the winter expansion REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT COSTS ME! |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:25:00 -
[830] - Quote
If we are going to argue about what "makes sense" in a cold universe why would an insurance company also insure your loses to the people you declared war against?
The fact is this was shoved in to "appease" high sec miners and mission runners. Mission runners who make more isk then those in nullsec while being under the protection of concord. CCP soundwave promised a buff to nulls anoms in value so maybe this will help offset yet another buff to empire. I doubt it though. |
|
Jojo Jackson
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:34:00 -
[831] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Fixed as it doesn't matter, if their is an player in the target ship or not. In both cases the attack shots a static object which has no option to react No, it is all that matters. The player on the other side has plenty of options to react. Which one except not to undock?
You keep saying "he has options" but never said which one. And for the common lies about blabla fitting, blabla no autopilot ... I explained way the are LIES! Stop trolling the forums with this bullshit!
Quote:By defenition PvP (player against player) requiers interaction between both partys Just because the other guy has chosen to not be attentive doesn't mean there is no interaction going on. So no, ganking GÇ£static and harmless shipsGÇ¥ is PvP if there is a player at the other end. The gank is still interaction, player versus player.
GǪoh, and no, passive targeters are important tools for sneaking up on people, so they should stay.[/quote] balance?
Isn't it the PvP "comunity" who ALLWAYS whine and cry like babys for balance? Oh sure, it is this PvP "comunity"!
Where is the anti-tool which provides BALANCE? Passive targeters <-> ???????? Cargo Scanner <-> ???????? Volley of Meal (soon BC3) <-> ability to fit propper tanks AND still fit mining/hauler fitt? (you know, mining barks without mining lasers are ... useless!)
Broken??
Again the same old song ... PvP claim stuff but aren't willing to give stuff. "WE want balance ... but just if it favors our playstyle". Is THAT what you understand as "balance"? |
Jojo Jackson
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:41:00 -
[832] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: So a person going into low or null inherently "knows" of the risks but you somehow in high sec do not? You DO know or else you could not post on the topic. So therefore you are just trying to get rid of the inherent risks, rather than mitigating them yourself, that do exist in high sec, much like the blob in null and low, which are the suicide ganker.
Hell I would do anythink to fit a propper tank on my hauler/mining ship ... IF IT JUST WOULD BE POSIBLE!
I would happily alligne in 1 second with my industrys .... IF IT JUST WOULD BE POSIBLE!
I would happily fit this anti-scan modul ... IF THERE WOULD BE ONE!
And yes, I could train combat skills ...
I will do it ... as soon as YOU (the one who sugested it) wast the same amount of EP for indu/mining skills !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And no, doing it with an alt does not count. It must be done with the main chars! |
Jojo Jackson
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:55:00 -
[833] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I just played around with a Mammoth .... DCU II ... So you expect haulers use one less cargo expander and no cargo expander rigs ?
Destiny Corrupted wrote:you'd need to be carrying 240 million worth of stuff just for the gankers to break even on average. It's allready proven, that "carried value" is irelevant ... Hulkadon, Ice Gaddon, for the lulz, etc etc etc "break even" is a myth!
Destiny Corrupted wrote: have traveled on autopilot And again this LIE! You gank BEHIND the gate when they need to alligne ... NOT when they arrive!
As long as guys like you stay with this LIE there is no reason to see anythink else but trolls in anyone who defends ganking.
KKTHXBYE
PS: you == gank defenders - you claim YOUR sandbox but denai other to have their own sandbox - you claim balance but denai propper anti tools for your gank equip - you provide the same LIES over and over again
Who the hell should take you serious??
You = gank defenders! |
Lens Thirring
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:57:00 -
[834] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:You all talk all the time about sandbox and "my playstyle is part of this game". But all of you denail other players their playstyle and their sandbox when they say: " I do NOT want to fight against other players with my ship". Well, that's not really a question of sandbox playstyle, what you're describing there is an "I win" button. (My "playstyle" involves a BS-tanked hulk which mines 80M ISK worth of rocks an hour, but CCP won't listen to me either.)
The sandbox obviously has some limitations set by the rules of the game. Since you have chosen to play a sandbox MMO, one of those limitations is that you have to deal with the fact that others are also playing in the sandbox, and come to some happy compromise with their playstyle. |
Ficus Plant
The Plant Initiative
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:58:00 -
[835] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote: Hell I would do anythink to fit a propper tank on my hauler/mining ship ... IF IT JUST WOULD BE POSIBLE!
Of course you can tank a hauler, if you want to. It is pretty easy, especially if you train up the right ships to haul in - you know train the industrial and transport skills. Now there is a novel idea.
****, used to use an Occator to bait pirates with as you could tank it well enough to survive, and I regularly zip around low sec in a cloaked Viator. You probably don't want to hear that though. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 17:12:00 -
[836] - Quote
It only costs a few million to outfit a gank Thrasher. For bigger targets there will be the tier-3 battlecruisers, which also aren't that expensive if you gank the right targets. CCP is simply no longer going to subsidize suicide ganking, so suicide gankers will actually have to think before they gank a target, instead of shooting at every T1-fit Retriever in sight. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
766
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:27:00 -
[837] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote:so suicide gankers will actually have to think before they gank a target, instead of shooting at every T1-fit Retriever in sight. If that T1-fit Retriever is trying to mine blue ice in violation of the Interdiction Order then they will have to be shot. This includes blue ice in Cobalt Edge, by the way, so we'll be seeing you very soon.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
153
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:27:00 -
[838] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.
You have the same fake argument every single jerk has and this single one doesn't really makes you very popular by normal people. So you think you're a victim from some kind of injustice...
This single argument right mere makes me puke irl...
The internet pirate also is a victim when it gets caught: because it's up to people to defend them selves from him or programmers to do better stuff... put a hole on those and a lot of problems solved.
The guy at the court explaining the judge was up to the kid's parents to protect them from him, doesn't even deserve to breath the same air I do, but he also argues for victims stop being victims...
So this is a game, I'm aware of that, but sometimes thoughts like yours should have serious consequences.
Then you have some paying bounty's for ganking miners in high sec "noes noes we're not grieffers and noes we're not manipulating the market"
Ladie Harlot wrote:Hyacinthous wrote:Try harder, I don't mine and due to dicks like you I don't even play so just stfu chump.
Hehe :D
P.S. you are a loser Mission accomplished!
Seriously... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:27:00 -
[839] - Quote
First.... Mad props to Tippia for having the endurance, patience, and maturity to really depict the benefits of suicide ganking and rally against the armistice of hi-sec.
I understand miners feel victimized because some people learned how to make a profit from ganking their ships. Insurance plays a significant role in the profit margin on ganking any mining vessel larger than a retriever, and this change will significantly reduce those profits. However, the insurance changes are helping the WRONG element of Mining Society.
The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.
On the flip side, the insurance changes move the costs of a hulk-ganking brutix roughly from 6-10m to 25-30m. The truth is, hulk pilots not only represent the more advance players that should NOT need to be coddled, but they ALREADY HAVE OPTIONS to avoid their losses. Unlike a procurer pilot that can't really tank their ship, a hulk pilot can easily fit a mod strip miner II hulk or an ice harvester II hulk with 29k EHP (and thats without faction mods, gang bonuses, implants, logistics help, etc). This is more than enough buffer to survive a single brutix attack.
Essentially, this change is helping the wrong portion of miner society.
If you shitfit your ship for missions, it gets blown up. Contrarily, if you fit it appropriately, you'll be able to survive. If you shitfit your hulk while mining, let it get blown up too, and if the fit it appropriately, they don't have much to worry about!
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
766
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:31:00 -
[840] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:This single argument right mere makes me puke irl... Wow. You might care a little too much about internet spaceships.
Tanya Powers wrote:The guy at the court explaining the judge was up to the kid's parents to protect them from him, doesn't even deserve to breath the same air I do, but he also argues for victims stop being victims... Yes because Eve Online is just like real life
Tanya Powers wrote:So this is a game, I'm aware of that, but sometimes thoughts like yours should have serious consequences. Why? It's a video game.
Tanya Powers wrote:Then you have some paying bounty's for ganking miners in high sec "noes noes we're not grieffers and noes we're not manipulating the market" Griefing is against the ToS and if you see somebody doing it you should report them.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1486
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:31:00 -
[841] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote:It only costs a few million to outfit a gank Thrasher. For bigger targets there will be the tier-3 battlecruisers, which also aren't that expensive if you gank the right targets. CCP is simply no longer going to subsidize suicide ganking, so suicide gankers will actually have to think before they gank a target, instead of shooting at every T1-fit Retriever in sight.
yeah im really gonna be hurting from losing my ability to insure a destroyer or a cruiser |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1486
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:34:00 -
[842] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote: So this is a game, I'm aware of that, but sometimes thoughts like yours should have serious consequences.
what about thoughts like mine |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1486
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:34:00 -
[843] - Quote
they're vile and unspeakable |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
766
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:35:00 -
[844] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.
There is nowhere in the game where it takes Concord 20s to arrive on the scene of a gank. Beyond that, if the miner in the procurer or retriever was at his keyboard and aligned to a warp out point he could have avoided getting shot altogether. The biggest realization I've come to during our ice interdiction is that miners actually feel entitled to be afk while they are gathering resources and take great offense to being told that they never have to lose their ship if they are actually playing the game.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:46:00 -
[845] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: First.... Mad props to Tippia for having the endurance, patience, and maturity to really depict the benefits of suicide ganking and rally against the armistice of hi-sec.
I understand miners feel victimized because some people learned how to make a profit from ganking their ships. Insurance plays a significant role in the profit margin on ganking any mining vessel larger than a retriever, and this change will significantly reduce those profits. However, the insurance changes are helping the WRONG element of Mining Society.
The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.
On the flip side, the insurance changes move the costs of a hulk-ganking brutix roughly from 6-10m to 25-30m. The truth is, hulk pilots not only represent the more advance players that should NOT need to be coddled, but they ALREADY HAVE OPTIONS to avoid their losses. Unlike a procurer pilot that can't really tank their ship, a hulk pilot can easily fit a mod strip miner II hulk or an ice harvester II hulk with 29k EHP (and thats without faction mods, gang bonuses, implants, logistics help, etc). This is more than enough buffer to survive a single brutix attack.
Essentially, this change is helping the wrong portion of miner society.
If you shitfit your ship for missions, it gets blown up. Contrarily, if you fit it appropriately, you'll be able to survive. If you shitfit your hulk while mining, let it get blown up too, and if the fit it appropriately, they don't have much to worry about!
The whole high sec mechanics are helping the wrong pvp crowd more than every other high sec activity and that's a fact.
At this point you should be in low/null making your own place, but you don't, because you're just incapable of. You're uber pvp guys against defenceless players and just has those you like the relative security of high sec while by just creating a player corporation this should mean you have some balls to go fight in null/low, you just don't once again.
You, your corporation, and all of those high sec grieffers are a real plague for this game community development. The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.
You just don't want to follow rules of big alliances, but you want rules to protect you and you sure don't want mechanics to protect high sec miners or whatever from you. You are a terrible human being
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:47:00 -
[846] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote: Hell I would do anythink to fit a propper tank on my hauler/mining ship ... IF IT JUST WOULD BE POSIBLE!
I would happily alligne in 1 second with my industrys .... IF IT JUST WOULD BE POSIBLE!
I would happily fit this anti-scan modul ... IF THERE WOULD BE ONE!
And yes, I could train combat skills ...
I will do it ... as soon as YOU (the one who sugested it) wast the same amount of EP for indu/mining skills !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And no, doing it with an alt does not count. It must be done with the main chars!
Considering that this toon can mine and has in a hulk with almost full skills and that I was a miner for well over 5 years in this game, along with other endevours, and have mined until I dreamed of roids rotating in my sleep and STILL never have gotten ganked I know for a fact that you arent a very good miner. When I mine for hours on end I dont ever worry about getting suicided and Ive mined lots of ice as I used to run POSs as well as ore. So if you have a problem with being killed all the time Id suggest a new line of work in the world of Eve cuz frankly if you have to work so hard at it without getting popped every few seconds in order to make a profit you sir are doing it entirely wrong.
As for training skills Id suggest you do so and get out of your hulk and experience a bit more of what Eve has to offer.
As for antiscan modules something tells me that no tank or module will ever ensure your safety in Eve. You sound like a perpetual victim.
So Id suggest you get to training combat skills then cuz I have already invested lots of SPs into mining/indy skills. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:50:00 -
[847] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:blah blah
So when someone publicly states he doesn't play any more because of you actions (goon perma ganking) adn you publicly answer "mission accomplished" I should rapport you?
Silly roostbeef |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
767
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:52:00 -
[848] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:blah blah So when someone publicly states he doesn't play any more because of you actions (goon perma ganking) adn you publicly answer "mission accomplished" I should rapport you? Silly roostbeef What do you think would happen?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:56:00 -
[849] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:they're vile and unspeakable
From you it's ok, you're my mentor so I think I can handle with
By the way how's you lol cat going? |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:57:00 -
[850] - Quote
If you carebears think that loss of insurance payouts is gonna stop ppl from ganking your ****, you are sorely mistaken.
The only 'profit' I seek is your corpse, and your tears.
Now that being said, I could see this making freighter ganks, or any ganks requiring a battleship less frequent, but when a hulk gank only costs me 5 mil in thrashers it's still worth it. |
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:57:00 -
[851] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:The whole high sec mechanics are helping the wrong pvp crowd more than every other high sec activity and that's a fact. At this point you should be in low/null making your own place, but you don't, because you're just incapable of. You're uber pvp guys against defenceless players and just has those you like the relative security of high sec while by just creating a player corporation this should mean you have some balls to go fight in null/low, you just don't once again. You, your corporation, and all of those high sec grieffers are a real plague for this game community development. The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec. You just don't want to follow rules of big alliances, but you want rules to protect you and you sure don't want mechanics to protect high sec miners or whatever from you. You are a terrible human being
Actually suicide ganking and the destruction of large fleets of ice mining is to me a very interesting gambit on null sec warfare perpetrated by the Goons. Yeah the lil guys will obviously be affected and whine and tell people how bad human beings they are. But why dont you go mine somewhere else? Or a different ice type? Why stay in the same area that you KNOW danger is in and persist and then call it a bad mechanic when you die? The Goons and many of the trade route suiciders have been in game now for quite a while and its no real secret that its happening yet people still insist on going and doing the thing thats most dangerous and claiming that they have some inherent right and CCP needs to fix a bad mechanic for them.
Now you also say that anyone that goes to low or null and gets blown up knows the risks and doesnt have any right to complain one iota about dying there because they KNOW yet those high sec denizens that have been playing for months and years, that also know of suicide ganking and the Goons Ice Interdiction efforts and that still persist are somehow allowed to complain?
As for the natural progression you say must occur is silly. Ive been all over Eve and its kind of stupid to just say that older players must be limited to null sec or low sec. In fact thats you imposing upon a player the playing style they must choose and thats rather stupid. I can then say the same to you; do not mine or haul in high sec or beware the wrath of the suicider.
But let me add as a final something. Why dont you who are so knowledgeable about null sec and the formation of corporations and alliances go there yourselfs far away from the suiciders and mine to your hearts content? All of the things you have said those bad griefers need to do you should do yourselves. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:00:00 -
[852] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:blah blah So when someone publicly states he doesn't play any more because of you actions (goon perma ganking) adn you publicly answer "mission accomplished" I should rapport you? Silly roostbeef What do you think would happen?
Ho very much nothing, was just passing on this forum section to have some fun see you guys posting and make sort you have some reactions, witch you just did.
You're a terrible human being, you should have some lol cats too |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:00:00 -
[853] - Quote
Ok Jojo, let me ask you this.
Lets have a combat pilot, say flying a nice expensive Navy Mega, with really expensive faction guns, filling all his lows with weapon mods, and his mids with prop mods, and his rigs are weapon rigs. No tank. Then he goes and gets his but kicked by 2 people in t1 cruisers.
If he came here and complained, people would tell him to fit a tank. Then, like you he would say, "Can't fit a tank and get the same dps." And we would call him an entitled little twit.
In the same way, if a hauler or a miner wants to improve survivability, they should sacrifice a little efficiency and fit a little tank. This does work, as proven by the numerous Hulks and other industrials that survive ganks every day.
If the miner has it easy (max yield, afk mining) then the ganker should have it just as easy (pretty much what we have now, though there is room for some improvements). When the miner works to keep himself safe, the ganker does not have it so easy. This is a fact. You may not like it, but that doesn't change that it is a fact.
Tanking does work, as does being aware, as does manual piloting. Proven every day that someone survives a gank*.
Anything you say to the contrary is a bold faced LIE (see I can bold it too).
*Note, as with anything in EVE, no method of defense in space will keep you safe 100%. As with everything else it is up to you to take the measures needed to improve your chances. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:02:00 -
[854] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.
There is nowhere in the game where it takes Concord 20s to arrive on the scene of a gank. Beyond that, if the miner in the procurer or retriever was at his keyboard and aligned to a warp out point he could have avoided getting shot altogether. The biggest realization I've come to during our ice interdiction is that miners actually feel entitled to be afk while they are gathering resources and take great offense to being told that they never have to lose their ship if they are actually playing the game.
I honestly don't know concord's response time. I assumed it was 20-30s in 0.5-0.6 systems. If its always under 20 seconds, then losing an exhumer requires stubbornness and/or ignorance, because they can fit decent tanks while still output a decent load.
Quick fit, tanked barges without using faction, gang boosts, implants, etc: Barges: 5.5, 7, & 13k Exhumers: 19, 21, & 29k.
My guestimated DPS from gank-fit ship: catalyst 300-400, Thorax 500-750, brutix 750-1000.
Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!! |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
768
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:05:00 -
[855] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:You're a terrible human being, you should have some lol cats too I think you have me confused for somebody from 4chan.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:12:00 -
[856] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: First.... Mad props to Tippia for having the endurance, patience, and maturity to really depict the benefits of suicide ganking and rally against the armistice of hi-sec.
I understand miners feel victimized because some people learned how to make a profit from ganking their ships. Insurance plays a significant role in the profit margin on ganking any mining vessel larger than a retriever, and this change will significantly reduce those profits. However, the insurance changes are helping the WRONG element of Mining Society.
The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.
On the flip side, the insurance changes move the costs of a hulk-ganking brutix roughly from 6-10m to 25-30m. The truth is, hulk pilots not only represent the more advance players that should NOT need to be coddled, but they ALREADY HAVE OPTIONS to avoid their losses. Unlike a procurer pilot that can't really tank their ship, a hulk pilot can easily fit a mod strip miner II hulk or an ice harvester II hulk with 29k EHP (and thats without faction mods, gang bonuses, implants, logistics help, etc). This is more than enough buffer to survive a single brutix attack.
Essentially, this change is helping the wrong portion of miner society.
If you shitfit your ship for missions, it gets blown up. Contrarily, if you fit it appropriately, you'll be able to survive. If you shitfit your hulk while mining, let it get blown up too, and if the fit it appropriately, they don't have much to worry about!
The whole high sec mechanics are helping the wrong pvp crowd more than every other high sec activity and that's a fact. At this point you should be in low/null making your own place, but you don't, because you're just incapable of. You're uber pvp guys against defenceless players and just has those you like the relative security of high sec while by just creating a player corporation this should mean you have some balls to go fight in null/low, you just don't once again. You, your corporation, and all of those high sec grieffers are a real plague for this game community development. The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec. You just don't want to follow rules of big alliances, but you want rules to protect you and you sure don't want mechanics to protect high sec miners or whatever from you. You are a terrible human being
First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, we gank in Null!! Your baseless accusations are a perfect example of the ignorance that's emanating throughout this thread:
1.) If you are in hisec you are not SAFE. 2.) You have options to protect yourself, use them or lose your ship.
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:29:00 -
[857] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
I hope they don't do this. Suicide ganking needs a boost not a nerf.
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:34:00 -
[858] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:If we are going to argue about what "makes sense" in a cold universe why would an insurance company also insure your loses to the people you declared war against?
The fact is this was shoved in to "appease" high sec miners and mission runners. Mission runners who make more isk then those in nullsec while being under the protection of concord. CCP soundwave promised a buff to nulls anoms in value so maybe this will help offset yet another buff to empire. I doubt it though.
This is not a buff to empire its a nerf. It makes empire even more boring and uneventful. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:40:00 -
[859] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!!
Didn't you just say you're a null alliance with a no highsec gank rule?
So what's it to ya? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:45:00 -
[860] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Tanking does work, as does being aware, as does manual piloting. Proven every day that someone survives a gank*.
The only thing proven when someone survives a gank is that somebody got too ballsy and forgot to scan. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:47:00 -
[861] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote: The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.
It's not and never was, but keep thinking that. |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:03:00 -
[862] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tanya Powers wrote: The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.
It's not and never was, but keep thinking that.
Hate to agree with a Goon but there IS NO progression in this game, and nor should there be IF the game is the sandbox ppl pretend it is.
"If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
787
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:37:00 -
[863] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
327
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:39:00 -
[864] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.
The removal of insurance for ships lost to CONCORD?
The simplest explanation lies at the feet of those new glass cannon, tier 3, battlecruisers that are being introduced. Which will be able to alpha like a battleship, while costing a good bit less. It probably would have resulted in freighters getting ganked for carrying as little as 500-700M ISK worth of goods (instead of the customary 1B ISK number).
Remove of insurance paid out to CONCORD losses restores that balance (mostly... everyone will have to run math once the stats get finalized). |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
787
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:42:00 -
[865] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response. Goons. Goons ruin everything.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:43:00 -
[866] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Cearain wrote:Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response. Goons. Goons ruin everything.
Not yet. But we're working on it.
BTW, it got pushed through because CEO Hello Kitty doesn't have a clue about what game he actually runs anymore. He sees 5000 ice miners crying and reacts, not realizing that 4999 of them hate the game so much they can't be bothered to actually play it. |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
213
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:46:00 -
[867] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:If you carebears think that loss of insurance payouts is gonna stop ppl from ganking your ****, you are sorely mistaken.
The only 'profit' I seek is your corpse, and your tears.
Now that being said, I could see this making freighter ganks, or any ganks requiring a battleship less frequent, but when a hulk gank only costs me 5 mil in thrashers it's still worth it.
Not really. The new T3s will usher in a bold new era of ganking freighters. Hell, we should blockade 1 hop out of Jita, any time we see a Freighter, pop it with our shiny new T3s. We'd make enough money to pay for the ships.
This changes nothing but the perception of CEO Hello Kitty as being even more out of touch with his own game.
Oh, and it might get some idiotic pubbies to try ice mining again. That should be cute, especially once the T3s come out and we can gank Orcas without much effort. |
Russell Casey
One Ton Reverberation Project
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:18:00 -
[868] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.
Easier than figuring it out and picking a playstyle for themselves I suppose. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:26:00 -
[869] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.
Agony Unleashed sets guidelines on its members in order to maintain a positive reputation within the greater community. Given a large portion of our PR centers round our PvP U. classes, we discourage scamming, pirating, and griefing. It helps define our corp culture, something that is moderately unique and quite enjoyable to be apart of. This has similarities to the Goons, which certainly comes with a unique and enjoyable corp culture, centered around its well-known reputation.
K Suri wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!!
Didn't you just say you're a null alliance with a no highsec gank rule? So what's it to ya?
Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. This unbalances "safe" hisec activities, and generally hurts the growth of nullsec. Additionally, I feel these changes are unhealthy, basically encouraging the notion that players innately deserve to fit and operate their ships throughout hisec, however they want, without interference from others. I feel that this viewpoint is grossly incorrect, and in a healthy sandbox, people can fit and operate however they want, but must be weary of interference from others.
Essentially, the tools already exist for miners and haulers to prevent their ship losses. Its ignorance and/or stubbornness to hi-sec threats that result in the majority of these losses, and rather than educate this branch of the community, CCP is capitulating to their whines. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 23:11:00 -
[870] - Quote
Russell Casey wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game. Easier than figuring it out and picking a playstyle for themselves I suppose.
You maintain an image to attract more people to your corp or alliance that you will most probably like. Ideas & stuff No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
634
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:10:00 -
[871] - Quote
Richard Aiel wrote:Andski wrote:Tanya Powers wrote: The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.
It's not and never was, but keep thinking that. Hate to agree with a Goon but there IS NO progression in this game, and nor should there be IF the game is the sandbox ppl pretend it is.
To expand on that, my alliance recruits straight-up newbies on trial accounts from out-of-game communities like Something Awful, gets them out to nullsec, hands them skillbooks, implants, ISK and an endless amount of free frigates, and over time we turn them into jaded bittervets. This "linear progression" is nonsense - I've seen people with their original 2003 characters who still run missions in high-sec all day. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:17:00 -
[872] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.
So ppl DO mine in Goons?
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:36:00 -
[873] - Quote
Andski wrote:To expand on that, my alliance recruits straight-up newbies on trial accounts from out-of-game communities like Something Awful, gets them out to nullsec, hands them skillbooks, implants, ISK and an endless amount of free frigates, and over time we turn them into jaded bittervets. No recruting in GD Goon!!
Besides you don't want to help them. You want them to help you. It's a numbers game ain't it?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:56:00 -
[874] - Quote
Is the ganking over yet? I want to undock this Wreathe full of PLEX over here in Jita 4-4.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:59:00 -
[875] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Andski wrote:To expand on that, my alliance recruits straight-up newbies on trial accounts from out-of-game communities like Something Awful, gets them out to nullsec, hands them skillbooks, implants, ISK and an endless amount of free frigates, and over time we turn them into jaded bittervets. No recruting in GD Goon!! Besides you don't want to help them. You want them to help you. It's a numbers game ain't it?
They dont recruit from EVE see They recruit only targets from EVE. If this wasnt just the oficial channels, theyd be in trouble but as it is lol
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:12:00 -
[876] - Quote
This is amazing, I can't believe this thread is still alive.
So I just spent the better part of the day mining in high-sec, I loaded up a Scythe with some mining lasers and standard missle launchers (for the rats) and went to town mining in 0-7 space. I was never ganked or harassed and I even was able to feel some teamwork as I helped some unarmed miners deal with rats that came into my weapon range.
I never left the keyboard for more than a few minutes or assumed safety (I had no tank so I could haul more).
Yet I feel that according to this thread, I am somehow the death of EVE online, I apparently play the game wrong.
Look, I know the Gankers and griefers (yes you grief, don't even lie about it!) don't like the double profit they have enjoyed for so long get nerfed but I think you need to take a lesson from your own book and deal with it, adapt or else you are no better than the "high-sec carebears" that you have nurtured such a raw hatred for.
I have said it in this thread before and I will say it again, When you commit a INGAME CRIME and then get blown up by the INGAME POLICE you probably will not get rewarded by your INGAME insurance company. This is not about comparing real life insurance to EVE, this is about a obvious flaw in the mechanics of the game that was fixed after being exploited for far to long, so long in fact that everyone seems to think that it was the original intent, the dev team has spoken about this on this very thread and left nothing to the imagination.
I know that all the gankers will hide continue to hide behind the "EVE is supposed to be harsh" statement we hear over and over again, but you have to admit, complaining about losing a pretty small payout from insurance when you know that you can get rewarded in many other ways (the goons will pay you, they pay just about anyone to gank.) so please stop saying that this makes things "unfair" because EVE is not about things being fair.
Do you think that the retriever pilot you just vaporized thinks your ganking is fair? Do you think that he does not often wonder why CCP does not bulk up the retriever so it can stand a chance to escape a well planned gank?
The real issue in this thread has gotten very murky but it seems that some players think that high sec should just be a buffet for suicide gankers, they think that no area of EVE should be safe because you "should know how to fit a ship" and if you don't you get ganked. I have never been ganked and I try to take steps to prevent one if I can but I know that I am still a new player and don't have many of the skills needed to fit T2 gear nor the knowledge I need to fit every ship in the game perfectly to only prevent ganking and nothing else.
That is what you want, right? for us to only fit ships so they can repel your attacks and anything else is just wrong and not only can invite a gank but MUST invite one?
I fit ships to serve the task but since I am a new player, does that mean that I MUST get ganked?
I don't get it, you whine and complain when you lose a insurance payout that was clearly and addressed by CCP as a flaw in the game and blame it on "carebear" outcry to the devs. All the while, most of the "carebears" in this thread have told you that ganking is part of the game and that they understand it, they are only concerned about the way this will affect new players who "don't get EVE" as well as you do.
in short, Gankers, you are not CCP devs and don't know the real intent of everything in the game so don't assume that removing payouts for ganking was just some effort to please the "carebears". also, you are not the fun police in the game, just because you think the party is in null and only in PvP.
I really do like shooting rocks with lasers and building things.
but again, I am the death of EVE because I am a "carebear". |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:17:00 -
[877] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game. So ppl DO mine in Goons? Not that I know of but there's no rule against it. That would be silly.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:18:00 -
[878] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Andski wrote:To expand on that, my alliance recruits straight-up newbies on trial accounts from out-of-game communities like Something Awful, gets them out to nullsec, hands them skillbooks, implants, ISK and an endless amount of free frigates, and over time we turn them into jaded bittervets. No recruting in GD Goon!! Besides you don't want to help them. You want them to help you. It's a numbers game ain't it? Haha you have no idea how good we are to our newbees.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Red Teufel
Eternity Inc
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:34:00 -
[879] - Quote
mmmm tears |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
45
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:53:00 -
[880] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Bunch of tripe
Wow. Way to misconstrue absolutely everything that has been said in this thread by people whose opinion differs from yours. Tunnel vision is a heck of a thing, huh? |
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
851
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:56:00 -
[881] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Look, I know the Gankers and griefers (yes you grief, don't even lie about it!) I don't know why I have to keep saying this but griefing is against the ToS and if you see somebody doing it in-game they should be reported.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:12:00 -
[882] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Look, I know the Gankers and griefers (yes you grief, don't even lie about it!) I don't know why I have to keep saying this but griefing is against the ToS and if you see somebody doing it in-game they should be reported.
you may not grief but you cannot deny that some indeed do. I was not pointing fingers at you. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
851
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:16:00 -
[883] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Look, I know the Gankers and griefers (yes you grief, don't even lie about it!) I don't know why I have to keep saying this but griefing is against the ToS and if you see somebody doing it in-game they should be reported. you may not grief but you cannot deny that some indeed do. I was not pointing fingers at you. But we're not talking about that in this thread since ganking is not griefing.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:24:00 -
[884] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:K Suri wrote:Andski wrote:To expand on that, my alliance recruits straight-up newbies on trial accounts from out-of-game communities like Something Awful, gets them out to nullsec, hands them skillbooks, implants, ISK and an endless amount of free frigates, and over time we turn them into jaded bittervets. No recruting in GD Goon!! Besides you don't want to help them. You want them to help you. It's a numbers game ain't it? Haha you have no idea how good we are to our newbees. You sure? |
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:29:00 -
[885] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:Look, I know the Gankers and griefers (yes you grief, don't even lie about it!) I don't know why I have to keep saying this but griefing is against the ToS and if you see somebody doing it in-game they should be reported. you may not grief but you cannot deny that some indeed do. I was not pointing fingers at you. But we're not talking about that in this thread since ganking is not griefing.
Okay, and nor was that the central part of my post.
I just wanted to illuminate the fact that while you and some others will say that griefing is against the TOS and therefore not a issue, the fact that it is said OVER AND OVER that EVE is a den for griefers and that is made worse when new players have a hard time figuring out what is griefing and what is "normal gameplay".
What I think is interesting is that while the Goonswarm takes it apon themselves to "Fix EVE" and to "educate" players as to the true intent of the game, they seem to never take a stand (with all your mighty power and a fleet of "honorable space pilots") to curb players from behavior that is clearly against the TOS.
and lets be honest, the line between griefing and ganking can get pretty shady with some players.
but again, that was not the main intent or point of the post and your fixation on the subject when it is brought up makes me wonder if you are as quick to enforce it ingame as you are in the forums.
|
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:03:00 -
[886] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: On the flip side, the insurance changes move the costs of a hulk-ganking brutix roughly from 6-10m to 25-30m. The truth is, hulk pilots not only represent the more advance players that should NOT need to be coddled, but they ALREADY HAVE OPTIONS to avoid their losses. Unlike a procurer pilot that can't really tank their ship, a hulk pilot can easily fit a mod strip miner II hulk or an ice harvester II hulk with 29k EHP (and thats without faction mods, gang bonuses, implants, logistics help, etc). This is more than enough buffer to survive a single brutix attack.
problem is: goons don't need to have brain or understand insurance system. They are paid by their owners so they can use as many brutixes as they want to kill 1(!!!) hulk.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Essentially, this change is helping the wrong portion of miner society.
If you shitfit your ship for missions, it gets blown up. Contrarily, if you fit it appropriately, you'll be able to survive. If you shitfit your hulk while mining, let it get blown up too, and if the fit it appropriately, they don't have much to worry about!
you are wrong here. I used to use mixed-gun and mixed-tank fittings for quite some time to run missions before i got understanding about fitting ideology. And i never lost ship in missions that time.
and again: your opinions based on idea that suicide gankers do kill for profit. While they ALWAYS say: "we do it for lulz". So whole cry and whine about insurance is missed its point. Unless these crybabies can't afford lulz.... |
Delirious Grib
Solaroids Another Really Stupid Enterprise
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:34:00 -
[887] - Quote
Sounds like a good policy! |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
882
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:39:00 -
[888] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote:What I think is interesting is that while the Goonswarm takes it apon themselves to "Fix EVE" and to "educate" players as to the true intent of the game, they seem to never take a stand (with all your mighty power and a fleet of "honorable space pilots") to curb players from behavior that is clearly against the TOS. This is absolutely not true. If players are breaking the ToS they should suffer the consequences.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Mnengli Noiliffe
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:55:00 -
[889] - Quote
if they didn't do this, with the new BC suicide ganking would become almost free... I'm glad they still have some of the common sense left. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1372
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:43:00 -
[890] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Which one except not to undock? Tank your ship. Warp out. Use scouts. Get friends. Use intel.
Quote:Where is the anti-tool which provides BALANCE? Passive targeters Gåö High agility, cloak Cargo Scanner Gåö Orca, Cloak Volley of Meal (soon BC3) Gåö tank (because, yes, pretty much all the miners and haulers can be made secure against a Mael volley) No.
Tanya Powers wrote:You have the same fake argument every single jerk has and this single one doesn't really makes you very popular by normal people. So you think you're a victim from some kind of injustice...
This single argument right mere makes me puke irl... Good news: EVE is not real life.
The simple (virtual) reality of EVE is that you are not safe. By very design of the game, and by necessity of the way the world dynamics are set up, you are never safe. If you want to be safe, you have to either not log in or create your own safety. If you choose not to do either of those, then it is a failure on your part that has created the unsafe situation that the other party can exploit to their benefit.
When I say that victims should stop being such victims, this is exactly what I mean: they need to realise that there are indeed things they can do to drastically reduce the chances of something bad happening to them, rather than to give up, throw up their arms, and proclaim that GÇ£onoz, I was a hapless victim!GÇ¥. They were in fact highly complicit in creating the situation that led to their undoing, and there are indeed things they can do to avoid doing that. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:51:00 -
[891] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Cearain wrote: Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.
The removal of insurance for ships lost to CONCORD? The simplest explanation lies at the feet of those new glass cannon, tier 3, battlecruisers that are being introduced. Which will be able to alpha like a battleship, while costing a good bit less. It probably would have resulted in freighters getting ganked for carrying as little as 500-700M ISK worth of goods (instead of the customary 1B ISK number). Remove of insurance paid out to CONCORD losses restores that balance (mostly... everyone will have to run math once the stats get finalized).
The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
Now how much will one of those haulers have to be carrying before they risk getting blown up? 3 billion? How much more boring can high sec transport get??
BTW I have never suicide ganked anyone I do move stuff in high sec for trade though. It seems to me that all the thought I put into how I will tank my ships and move stuff through high sec was wasted time because suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated.
Edit all the markets will be completely homogenous now because there will no longer any risk in transporting through high sec. Now people who don't think when they transport will do just as well as those who do. I hope CCP reconsiders dumbing this game down even further. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:06:00 -
[892] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. ...
It does undermine the rewards of traders/haulers in high sec. Now suicide ganking will be so rare that the complete idiots will be able to do just as well at it as people who used to consider the possibility of a suicide gank. Its not like it took allot of thought to tank a transport ship but now even that tiny bit of thought is no longer required.
Now all the markets will be even more homogenous and it will be even harder to find a decent way to make money hauling stuff.
So the only people who get a buff here are the dumb who don't know any better than always putting cargo expanders on and never think to put any tank on their ship or make a couple of trips. Every time you give a buff to the dumb you make the game less interesting for those who like to some complexity and challenge. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:11:00 -
[893] - Quote
Cearain wrote: The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
/../ suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated..
If you are going to suicide your BC you don't insure it and it will prob only be marginally more expensive to replace an uninsured BC than a BS with insurance. No big change.
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:16:00 -
[894] - Quote
[quote=Michael Holmes Holmes]... I have said it in this thread before and I will say it again, When you commit a INGAME CRIME and then get blown up by the INGAME POLICE you probably will not get rewarded by your INGAME insurance company. This is not about comparing real life insurance to EVE, this is about a obvious flaw in the mechanics of the game that was fixed after being exploited for far to long, so long in fact that everyone seems to think that it was the original intent, the dev team has spoken about this on this very thread and left nothing to the imagination. [quote]
What are you talking about the insurance says you will get repaid if your ship is destroyed for any reason. There is no exploit. This is the mechanics working as intended. It is intended that stupidity in eve has a price. If you do nothing but put cargo expanders on your hauler and fill it with very valuable things expect to pay a price.
You are right to avoid the comparision to real life because no real life insurance company would ever exist in a form anything close to the one that exists in the eve universe. Its an isk faucet and it will continue to be an isk faucet after this change. No real business works that way.
Go ahead into state farm and tell them you are going to equip your car with rocket launchers and go driving around with other people who you are at war with and have their cars similarly equipped. See if they will give you insurance. Is that exploit too? Should people who are in war decs not get insurance? Should people who go gcc and lose their ship not get insurance?
Because there is no real life comparision to insurance, people who want these different things are just giving their own opinions. The only right answer is the answer that makes the game more fun. If you think the game is more fun when dumb people do just as well as those who think a bit then you will like this change.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:24:00 -
[895] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Cearain wrote: The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
/../ suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated.. If you are going to suicide your BC you don't insure it and it will prob only be marginally more expensive to replace an uninsured BC than a BS with insurance. No big change.
I think you may be assuming a tier 3 bc will cost the same as a tier 2 bc. I imagine the price difference will be similar to the price difference between tier 1 bcs and tier 2 bcs.
When you look at the total cost for the 10-15 or so it would take to blow up a freighter it is a substantial nerf to something that needed a buff not a nerf.
If suicide ganking was so profitable more people would be doing it. As it is its pretty much only those who want to grief - because the potential for profit is much less than other methods in game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:24:00 -
[896] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. ...
It does undermine the rewards of traders/haulers in high sec. Now suicide ganking will be so rare that the complete idiots will be able to do just as well at it as people who used to consider the possibility of a suicide gank. Its not like it took allot of thought to tank a transport ship but now even that tiny bit of thought is no longer required. Now all the markets will be even more homogenous and it will be even harder to find a decent way to make money hauling stuff. So the only people who get a buff here are the dumb who don't know any better than always putting cargo expanders on and never think to put any tank on their ship or make a couple of trips. Every time you give a buff to the dumb you make the game less interesting for those who like to some complexity and challenge. Dude, seriously:
THIS CHANGE WILL NOT STOP OR IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY REDUCE SUICIDE GANKS.
There really is no need for this drama.
In your example above, this insurance change is a NON-ISSUE for suicide-ganks-for-profit. So you should still be able to haul stuff for decent isk. |
Ned Black
Driders
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:26:00 -
[897] - Quote
Good change... now change it so that you dont get any insurance if you self destruct either... |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
111
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:37:00 -
[898] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I think you may be assuming a tier 3 bc will cost the same as a tier 2 bc. I imagine the price difference will be similar to the price difference between tier 1 bcs and tier 2 bcs. A Tornado will cost a bit over 40 mil according to the Sisi bpos. A tempest/apoc costs around 35 mil after insurance. Not really a significant increase, and the volley/dps will be the same.
Quote:If suicide ganking was so profitable more people would be doing it. As it is its pretty much only those who want to grief - because the potential for profit is much less than other methods in game. In my experience, suicide ganking haulers is boring. Profit potential is huge, but in practice, you end up scanning ships for two hours before you find a reasonable target. And then the loot fairies do their thing and only 10% of the isk value drops |
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:02:00 -
[899] - Quote
So, let me get this straight.
Because the effective cost of a suicide gank has increased from about 30M per suicide ship to more like 90M per suicide ship, suddenly EVE is happy fluffy bunny sunshine land and the whining carebears have won?
Looks like suicide ganking will still be viable, you just need to hit more juicy targets in order for it to be profitable. Sounds fair to me. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:09:00 -
[900] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:So, let me get this straight.
Because the effective cost of a suicide gank has increased from about 30M per suicide ship to more like 90M per suicide ship, suddenly EVE is happy fluffy bunny sunshine land and the whining carebears have won?
Looks like suicide ganking will still be viable, you just need to hit more juicy targets in order for it to be profitable. Sounds fair to me.
No not really to 90mil, it will if you continue to use a BS when you can just use the new Tier 3 BC instead which will decrease the costs to about 40-50mil a pop including fittings. |
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:14:00 -
[901] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: No not really to 90mil, it will if you continue to use a BS when you can just use the new Tier 3 BC instead which will decrease the costs to about 40-50mil a pop including fittings.
In other words, things have barely changed at all, then? This whole thread is 45 pages of tears and drama over absolutely nothing?
Business as usual in the EVE community then
An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:14:00 -
[902] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:Which one except not to undock? Tank your ship. Warp out. Use scouts. Get friends. Use intel. Quote:Where is the anti-tool which provides BALANCE? Passive targeters Gåö High agility, cloakCargo Scanner Gåö Orca, Cloak it's getting boring.... have you ever heard about frighters? You know it: big ship with 1mil m3 cargohold? "Obelisk" or something like it. You know: it's a very funny ships - they have no slots to put cloak and they have VERY BAD agility
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:16:00 -
[903] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. ...
It does undermine the rewards of traders/haulers in high sec. Now suicide ganking will be so rare that the complete idiots will be able to do just as well at it as people who used to consider the possibility of a suicide gank. Its not like it took allot of thought to tank a transport ship but now even that tiny bit of thought is no longer required. Now all the markets will be even more homogenous and it will be even harder to find a decent way to make money hauling stuff. So the only people who get a buff here are the dumb who don't know any better than always putting cargo expanders on and never think to put any tank on their ship or make a couple of trips. Every time you give a buff to the dumb you make the game less interesting for those who like to some complexity and challenge. Dude, seriously: THIS CHANGE WILL NOT STOP OR IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY REDUCE SUICIDE GANKS. There really is no need for this drama. In your example above, this insurance change is a NON-ISSUE for suicide-ganks-for-profit. So you should still be able to haul stuff for decent isk.
What he said. Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Whack-A-Mole
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:19:00 -
[904] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: No not really to 90mil, it will if you continue to use a BS when you can just use the new Tier 3 BC instead which will decrease the costs to about 40-50mil a pop including fittings. In other words, things have barely changed at all, then? This whole thread is 45 pages of tears and drama over absolutely nothing? Business as usual in the EVE community then
Why you think Ive stuck with this thread so long? Its been great fun watching and listening and posting. Especially Tippia going after everyone.
Serious gankers change ship class, its easier and faster to train for them as well, added perks to the BC hull size, no real downside. Nothing changes for those flying cruiser class or for destroyers. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
112
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:19:00 -
[905] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:have you ever heard about frighters? You know it: big ship with 1mil m3 cargohold? "Obelisk" or something like it. You know: it's a very funny ships - they have no slots to put cloak and they have VERY BAD agility Then use scouts or avoid carrying so much stuff you are worth ganking.. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1377
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:29:00 -
[906] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:it's getting boring.... I know, but if people actually started to listen to the ample useful advice that is being provided, it wouldn't have to be repeated as often.
Quote:have you ever heard about frighters? You mean that ship that can withstand a Mael volley just fine? Yes I have. It's not what he's talking about.
By the way, have you heard about measuring the value of your cargo? About using scouts? About using a support fleet for your capship? About, through highly mysterious and untraceable means gaining undetectable bonus EHP that completely throws off the damage calculations of the attackerGǪ? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:41:00 -
[907] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:This whole thread is 45 pages of tears and drama over absolutely nothing?
Yep, pretty much.
|
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:00:00 -
[908] - Quote
Tippia wrote:March rabbit wrote:it's getting boring.... I know, but if people actually started to listen to the ample useful advice that is being provided, it wouldn't have to be repeated as often. QFT. that's why i repeat again and again.....
Tippia wrote:Quote:have you ever heard about frighters? You mean that ship that can withstand a Mael volley just fine? Yes I have. It's not what he's talking about. By the way, have you heard about measuring the value of your cargo? About using scouts? About using a support fleet for your capship? About, through highly mysterious and untraceable means gaining undetectable bonus EHP that completely throws off the damage calculations of the attackerGǪ? [troll]yea. but is there any freighter which can survive after DD from titan then? [/troll]
and i repeat again (maybe you finally will understand something):
Tippia wrote: Passive targeters Gåö High agility, cloak Cargo Scanner Gåö Orca, Cloak
is there any protection from it for freighters? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1383
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:32:00 -
[909] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: is there any protection from it for freighters?
Sure, but it will cost youGǪ and anyway, that wasn't the question, so you can stop moving the goal posts. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Elson Tamar
Lion Investments
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:43:00 -
[910] - Quote
Yes it's a good idea as insurance companies do not give money for criminal acts. Will it change anything? No Destoyers are cheap enougth to explode without it braking the bank and if a large alliance is going to pay bounties on ganks they will still happen. It changes nothing but does make people happy as CCP is seen to do somthing. Hell suicide ganks are part of the game which i and other 'carebears' need to deal with, thats a fact of eve life.
|
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:03:00 -
[911] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. QUICK! Wear your tinfoil hat! They're getting to you! |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:37:00 -
[912] - Quote
Short answer, no.
http://www.machine9.net/blog/?p=663
We have Goonsurance now, it's better than insurance.
|
Dyner
Midgard Protectorate
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:46:00 -
[913] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Meatbag Pussrocket wrote:What do you think: is this the end of suicide ganking as we know it, or the beginning of something more devious? It had better not be, or they'll need to massively nerf CONCORD to make ganking much easier than it is right now.
:notsureifserious: |
ZedMiner110224
Gem Concordance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 19:42:00 -
[914] - Quote
Ultima Online started out with a "all PvP flagged all the time" except in town design.
They lasted less than 2 years before they saw some serious playerbase erosion start due to the excessive amount of ganking and harrassment.
The only reason Ultima Online SURVIVED is they came up with the "no forced PvP" Tramell shards - and then watched over 80% of their EXISTING playerbase migrate to those shards in the first 6 months they existed, despite having to petition to get manually transfered to them at the time (IIRC UO implimented a "move yourself" mechanic eventually with some serious limitations on it).
Eve online was a MICROSCOPIC in userbase MMORG before highsec. Due to the fact Highsec STILL allows non-consentual PvP ganking and harrassment, Eve STILL has a problem with new player retention.
Hint to all of you "force PvP down everyone's throats" fans. The LARGE majority of MMORG players have ZERO interest in that sort of thing. Just because YOU like it does not mean it's good for the game or the SURVIVAL of the game. Even MMORGS that are almost TOTALLY PvP-centric like Lineage have "no PvP" areas.
IMO one of the few things WoW does WELL is it's "PvP flagged" system. Lets those that are WILLING to risk PvP do so while not FORCING it on those that don't like PvP, have NO INTEREST in PvP, and hate having PvP forced on them. SOme of us want to play vs. the GAME, not get harrassed all the time by PvP-centric types.
IMO suicide ganking has a place in the game - but it's WAY too easy even AFTER the changes that have been made in the mechanics over the years - and along with related "harrass folks" and "screw newbies" methods like can flipping it's one of the things that keeps Eve SMALL enough to fit on one server.
Don't get me started on why LowSec is a wasteland with almost ZERO playerbase that bothers with it. Risk vs. reward for lowsec is so far out of whack I'm often supprised ANYONE bothers with lowsec at all.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1088
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 19:46:00 -
[915] - Quote
ZedMiner110224 wrote:Ultima Online started out with a "all PvP flagged all the time" except in town design.
They lasted less than 2 years before they saw some serious playerbase erosion start due to the excessive amount of ganking and harrassment.
And after it was stopped, some Icelandic UO players thought that was lame and decided to make a game where players were free to decide for themselves. So began a little game you may have heard of, called EVE. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
157
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 19:50:00 -
[916] - Quote
add missioning ships and incursion runners lol
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=255722#post255722
My stance on WiS |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 18:54:00 -
[917] - Quote
I see that Goon and Company are moaning and crying once again about changes but then again anything that CCP does you guys just complain.
Heaven forbid someone says it but i will. in Real Life you commit a crime and get your nice shiny car wrecked in a police chase and arrested.....well good for you will become a prison **** while your insurance provider denies you your claim for illegal activity. OWNED!
Hell you should be happy you are able to still get your ship insured with your security rating. I be happy to deny those with neg ratings. Now that's an idea for CCP. Deial of Insurance due to security Rating. Insurance company would see you as a HIGH RISK will either higher rates or deny you.
But many of the changes everyone voted on. and the one with the most votes got put into affect. Don't like the out come so you whine like little 5 year old, Well then; LEAVE!
The game will improve on a scale CCP has not seen in years!
But seeing that the Goons are part of the CSM they will get some kind of kick back from someone
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:46:00 -
[918] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:The game will improve on a scale CCP has not seen in years! I bet it would.
So, who's going to buy new ships and modules when they stop getting exploded?
Oh, I know! Maybe killboards will be replaced with ISKboards, which will keep track of the money and assets owned instead of the amount of ships destroyed.
Actually, that sounds pretty awesome. Anyone want to fleet up for an incursion? |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
138
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:33:00 -
[919] - Quote
Stitcher wrote: In other words, things have barely changed at all, then? This whole thread is 45 pages of tears and drama over absolutely nothing?
You don't understand PVP.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 02:57:00 -
[920] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:ZedMiner110224 wrote:Ultima Online started out with a "all PvP flagged all the time" except in town design.
They lasted less than 2 years before they saw some serious playerbase erosion start due to the excessive amount of ganking and harrassment.
And after it was stopped, some Icelandic UO players thought that was lame and decided to make a game where players were free to decide for themselves. So began a little game you may have heard of, called EVE. SHUSH YOU!
FFS! Don't bring reality into this!
This isn't going to change the gank-game nearly as much as some people would like to think... And yes, hi-sec is *safer*, not "SAFE". It needs aggression, and combat.
Consensual or not.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
Comrade Commizzar
Eve Revolutionary Army
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 02:57:00 -
[921] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So it finally happened. Oh well.
I am not afraid of this change as much as I am afraid of the precedent this change sets. I shudder to think what the bears will clamor for next, when they realize that their massive gamble did not affect the overall volume of suicide-ganking.
The removal of empire wars and the addition of a pvp flag can't be far behind. That already happened with the policy change allowing dec shields and wardec shedding. Wardecs are 100% consensual these days. So yes, if this turns out not to be a bug, it is indeed heading further down the wrong roadGǪ Well, wars are still chugging along, but CCP is definitely treading the razor's edge. One more little nudge, and it will all come crashing down. Here, a little snippet from a mail I received very recently from one of our targets: A Recent War Target wrote:I would ask you to have your corp remove the dec as you will be wasting your money. I'd like you to look at this thread right here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22792&p=4CCP stated no longer an exploit. So yeah. You can dec every 24 hours, and we jump into alliance and out every 24. Your call. Makes no matter to me. We are still recruiting noobs, and industrial types. I get it that your guy's idea of pvp is to station camp, and blow up noobs with 3 weeks in game and such but I am not feeding you kills to pad your battleclinic stat's. This isn't some learning experience and your not trying to help us. Balls in your court. Drop the dec and you only lose the money once and can likely find some easy target who doesn't know a damn thing about metagmaing or how game mechanics work presently. Or keep the decs rolling and we just keep losing them. Your isk, your choice. I can't help but wonder how this forest would fare if all the predators disappeared... ***********************
Well Destiny your tears are delicious I must say. Looks like you were really outdone at your own game. |
Comrade Commizzar
Eve Revolutionary Army
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 03:03:00 -
[922] - Quote
Skorpynekomimi wrote:This makes ganking mining barges a little less profitable, and bigger targets a chunk less.
I hope they go the whole way, and remove insurance completely. *******
I agree with you. Tight rope walking without a net is what Eve is supposed to be.
CCP should also get rid of crutches like local chat and "stop light" bubbles in zero.
Pilots should have to use scanners to find each other like a real spaceship game should be.
While they are at it they should add cloaks for POS. We cloak ships. Why not POS? Then maybe small corps could move in on zero and operate for longer than it takes to light a cyno. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 03:24:00 -
[923] - Quote
Comrade Commizzar wrote:Well Destiny your tears are delicious I must say. Looks like you were really outdone at your own game. Money set aside for a Tornado BPO plus enough minerals stockpiled for about 40 ME-0 runs; meta 2 guns, CX-2/LX-2.
I know you're thirsty and can't wait, but if you want to have your fill, can you at least wait until the February/March nerfs? I promise you at least a cup or two. |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 04:42:00 -
[924] - Quote
in answer to title, see sig.
I think not GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 21:58:00 -
[925] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.
So insurance payout for wartime losses, being equally silly, will be nerfed yes? Or is this just another nail in the coffin, another entry in CCP's Litany Of Failure?
I think we already know. Prepare for further redundancies. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 22:07:00 -
[926] - Quote
Zowie Powers wrote:So insurance payout for wartime losses, being equally silly, will be nerfed yes? Or is this just another nail in the coffin, another entry in CCP's Litany Of Failure?
I think we already know. Prepare for further redundancies.
Good lord, put some sugar in your coffe. I mean seriously, it just can't be good for your health to be THAT bitter.
Or, as most people here like to say:
HTFU! Stop whining! Adapt or die! Darwinism at work. Have you noticed how some ships are actually blue? Weird isn't it? |
Imrik86
Gypsy Kings Wiki Conglomerates
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:05:00 -
[927] - Quote
1. Take your car to the weekend's destruction derby. 2. Wreck it. 3. Win the prize. 4. Go to the insurance company and get your paycheck.
That's how it worked before the patch. EVE's insurance should have been bankrupt for a long time already.
Hey CCP, why don't you make insurance player-based too? |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:38:00 -
[928] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:The game will improve on a scale CCP has not seen in years! I bet it would. So, who's going to buy new ships and modules when they stop getting exploded? what happened in Eve so ships will not blow anymore?
rats forgot how to shoot to mission runner? low-sec is no more present? 0.0 sov space became CONCORD controlled so no more alliances and blob-wars? NPC 0.0 space is magically disapepared?
/me shocked |
Nerodon
Incapsulated Reality
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:59:00 -
[929] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:The game will improve on a scale CCP has not seen in years! I bet it would. So, who's going to buy new ships and modules when they stop getting exploded?
This is only because you assume that high-sec ganks account for the majority of ships being destroyed in Eve. I believe the impact would be negligible even if all ganks were to cease from one day to another, and they most likely won't.
All this complaining about the market impact is either simply overly pessimistic, or unfounded and used as a sorry excuse to argument against the fact that this change is happening. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1617
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:18:00 -
[930] - Quote
woot |
|
Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:27:00 -
[931] - Quote
Our hero is back! |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:34:00 -
[932] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Cearain wrote:I think you may be assuming a tier 3 bc will cost the same as a tier 2 bc. I imagine the price difference will be similar to the price difference between tier 1 bcs and tier 2 bcs. A Tornado will cost a bit over 40 mil according to the Sisi bpos. A tempest/apoc costs around 35 mil after insurance. Not really a significant increase, and the volley/dps will be the same.
Your only comparing 2 ships you can suicide gank in. Whats the math on other ships like the brutix?
Jack Dant wrote:[quote=Cearain] Quote:If suicide ganking was so profitable more people would be doing it. As it is its pretty much only those who want to grief - because the potential for profit is much less than other methods in game. In my experience, suicide ganking haulers is boring. Profit potential is huge, but in practice, you end up scanning ships for two hours before you find a reasonable target. And then the loot fairies do their thing and only 10% of the isk value drops
It takes a long time and then you have a good chance of having your payday blow up = not very profitable.
Your claim that it has potential to be hugely profitable is only looking at that one in 100,000 gank. Over time its not very profitable.
Ultimately the problem with this change is it goes in the wrong direction. High sec trade hubs need more diversity not less. In order to get this high sec travel needs to be more dangerous not less. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:56:00 -
[933] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:The game will improve on a scale CCP has not seen in years! I bet it would. So, who's going to buy new ships and modules when they stop getting exploded? what happened in Eve so ships will not blow anymore? rats forgot how to shoot to mission runner? low-sec is no more present? 0.0 sov space became CONCORD controlled so no more alliances and blob-wars? NPC 0.0 space is magically disapepared? /me shocked and
Nerodon wrote:This is only because you assume that high-sec ganks account for the majority of ships being destroyed in Eve. I believe the impact would be negligible even if all ganks were to cease from one day to another, and they most likely won't.
All this complaining about the market impact is either simply overly pessimistic, or unfounded and used as a sorry excuse to argument against the fact that this change is happening. We can check this by opening the map, clicking on the "star map" tab, and then selecting the "Ships destroyed in the last hour" option under the "Statistics" menu. And please don't tell me that most of those ships were lost to NPC rats in missions. I've sat in enough carebear corporations to know this rarely happens.
Granted, the mineral values of null-sec losses probably exceed those of empire, what with the capitals and supercapitals and all. But carebears don't exactly produce those either.
It's fairly safe to say that most ship destruction does indeed happen in high-sec. Sure, we can remove high-sec pvp, and at the end of the day there's still null, with its in-house cap and supercap production, and low-sec (lol?). Removing high-sec pvp will still get rid of the majority of ship losses in the game. People in null have RMT farms to run, so ship losses aren't in their best interests unless as a last resort for the defense of space. People in low are too few to make any significant impact. People in high rarely lose ships to NPCs.
What do you think will happen if the demand for stuff suddenly drops, while the supply increases? I really doubt a change like that would represent just a slight shift on the curve. |
Adrenalinemax
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 14:16:00 -
[934] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. What about when people self destruct and time it for an alpha or two before CONCORD arrives? Is there a way to prevent payout for that?
Cause when you hit Self destruct, your can't activate guns, so your alpha will be Zero |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |