EVE Search - I've never played a game that cators to grief play as much as this one

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I've never played a game that cators to grief play as much as this one

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 15:30:00 - [1] The thought of moving BPOs in anything that doesn't do at least 4000m/s makes me cringe. I wish I'd been the one who scanned you.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 15:42:00 - [2] Originally by: Wolfways Figuring out how to exploit the game mechanics is just being creative eh? Since when is using an alt an exploit? CCP addressed this by taking cruise missiles away from frigs, it requires much more isk and training time to make a suicide alt, the idea was to make it not worth the effort. It's not CCPs fault that stupid people transport BPOs in a T1 hauler thus making suiciding worth the effort. If people were smart and weren't lazy then suicide alting would not occur. But because there are retards who will put a mess of BPOs in a T1 hauler, this tactic is valid. And using an alt to do what any other third party can do- pick up a random can in space- is not an exploit. It's simply paying money to be two separate people in Eve. When I NPC hunt in a Raven picking up cans, even with a tractor beam, can be a pain. Is it an exploit to use an alt in a Vigil to loot my cans since a Raven was never meant to go 2000m/s? No, of course not. And I am paying $15 a month to be able to do it.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 16:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Bhaal I've never lost anything this way, never will, but I can certainly see something is wrong and needs to be fixed... Already was fixed when Cruise missiles were removed from Kestrels. But the fix assumed people weren't lazy and stupid. How dare CCP assume people wouldn't continue to be lazy and stupid.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 16:20:00 - [4] Edited by: Alowishus on 07/11/2006 16:24:48 Originally by: Rekindle What is more lame is that there is a subset of the community that think this is what pvp is. Piracy /= PvP. Lame is not realizing that. Attacking the inexperienced and deffenseless (or lazy and stupid in this case) to take their assets is not griefing, it's smart piracy.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 16:49:00 - [5] Originally by: Wolfways (if you want to ignore the fact that both characters are owned and used by the same player) I do. When you pay the extra $15 and can use two PCs at once then you're two people in my opinion. Whatever arrangements and agreements these two people have as far as transfer of ingame assets is between them and being controlled by one out of game person is merely a formality.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 17:21:00 - [6] Edited by: Alowishus on 07/11/2006 17:22:48 Originally by: Wolfways If CCP want to keep pirates as they are, with the ability to attack anyone, then they should state clearly on all advertising that EVE does not support pve. Or run two servers. One pvp, one pve I like both pve and pvp. Here's an idea, since CCP advertises that the game has both, how about it still has both and only people who want both should play? And if you only want one or the other, play a different game... CCP is not forcing anyone to pay for a subscription.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 17:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Wolfways It does involve pvp, but it is mainly about attacking those who don't want to pvp. If you don't want the possibility of being killed by other players then other games beckon. Period.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 20:29:00 - [8] I think some of you should quit Eve and play a different game. You don't join a basketball game and complain when it's not football, do you?
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 20:46:00 - [9] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Alowishus I think some of you should quit Eve and play a different game. You don't join a basketball game and complain when it's not football, do you? So are the rules the same today, as when basketball was first invented? Did they add more rules/fouls over the years, to promote better play out of the athletes as opposed to cheating street ball players? So you're playing Eve because you're hoping the rules get changed to match what you believe to be the correct way. Hmmm, ok. I'm playing Eve for different reasons. Before you blither on with anymore of this holier-than-though "PK'er" vs. PvP diatribe you may want to look into the history of some of the prominent corps in your own alliance. You think when Shinra was gatecamping HED-GP 24/7 popping newb haulers and what not all day long they weren't doing it simply because it's fun? What you're trying to do is make your opinion about PK'ers, which I don't agree with, seem as if it were fact. Despite evidence to the contrary, you claim even CCP sees it as you do. I simply don't believe you and you have no actual evidence of this. When CCP changes the game I'll believe you. Until then, you're an idiot.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 20:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Bhaal CCP needs to make it a whole lot harder to do, they need to make it as hard as they plan to make invention... I'm sorry but I don't agree that CCP needs to change the game enough to account for the actions of every stupid, lazy moron. There has to be a balance of rules and intelligent play. I think there is a good a balance now. Suicide alting is much less lucritive and more skill intensive than it used to be. You used to only need a Kestrel with cruise missiles. Now it usually takes at least a T3/4 cruiser, which means you really have to run into someone that is pretty stupid to make any money.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 20:54:00 - [11] Edited by: Alowishus on 07/11/2006 20:54:51 Originally by: Bhaal If you don't like to argue, why are you here? I love to argue. But I'd prefer it be with people of at least average intelligence.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 21:01:00 - [12] Originally by: Bhaal So because my opinion is different than yours, I'm of lesser intelligence? No, it's because I can argue against your points with historical facts, evidence and sane analogies. All you can do is say "PK'ers are bad!"
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 21:23:00 - [13] Originally by: Osia One of the keys though is no matter how big the Tech I ship needed to conduct the business of suicide attacks insurance payout will cover 95% of the cost. I agree with you and don't have a real argument against payouts not being made to people killed by CONCORD. This'll probably hurt as many newbs as it protects, however. I can't tell you how many newbs have accidentally activated a module like a smartbomb or ecm burst in empire simply by mistake and lost their ship. But you see I'm pretty much against rules designed to protect people from being stupid, in life and in Eve, especially when these rules infringe on the joy/comfort of others who are intelligent and responsible.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 22:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Rekindle no more " you stupid idiot you flew an iteron in empire space" responses are required - we're beyond that No more " you should have had module x" fitted - we're beyond that too I was not in .4 space, i was not in 0.0 space, I was attacked and I had no recourse once concord killed them. I dont debate that this is a tactic and I should have known better but taht does not digress from teh fact it was UTTERLY LAME and CHEAP and I'm not afriad to stand up agasinst all the pvp wananbes to say it. Real pvp'rs are off pvp'ing anyway. This issue is best put by Bhaal. This tactic allows you to stand by a guard kill someone and loot thier crap right in front of them. If that is not grief play then wth is? To anyone who is afraid this game will turn into WoW if it forces you to play a balanced and fair game let me buy you a tin foil hat. I think half the people that proport to be pvp'rs are just griefers in sheeps clothing anyway. PvP is a dieing art and is being contaminated with grief tactics and grief players who dont have a pair big enough to play on even playing fields....this is why people are left resorting to tactics like sitting on a gate in jita drooling like a dog just waiting at teh chance to abuse a game mechanic for their benefit. I dont expect to make many friends with my opinions, I found that this community is generally made up of very hostile people anyway. When you boil down this issue to the reality of the situation yes i shoudl have known better but thats not really my point anymore. You're saying piracy is griefing. Maybe piracy does cause you grief but it is an intended part of the game. Griefing as most people know it is something else entirely. Griefing in MMORPGs is something one does only to cause people grief. These people may have caused you grief, but they also stole your stuff. That makes it piracy. If they blew you up for no reason at all and didn't collect your loot, that's griefing. Otherwise it's piracy, and if you don't like piracy then don't play Eve. Additionally only CCP states what is an exploit of game mechanics. Not you. As of now, this is not an exploit. This is using two paid accounts to commit an act of piracy. Just because you disagree with the tactic does not make it wrong or invalid, and it certainly doesn't make it an exploit. And lastly, ffs quit your whining.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 22:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Rekindle Tehre IS an issue and it is a FLAw in the game mechanics that allows this to happen its obvious by the consequences. Your opinion, which CCP and the majority of Eve disagrees with. So I guess your best bet is to quit Eve. And possibly make your own MMORPG where whatever you say goes. But here, the reality of it is your opinion is misguided.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:01:00 - [16] Originally by: Rekindle We just have differing view on what" piracy" is and what risk vs reward is. Saying this is piracy is saying logging in /out during fleet ops is uber pvp. Again, your opinion. One that is not shared by many. We all have our opinions of what is lame. Mine mostly fall in line with the logical majority of Eve and not the rare whiner who transports BPOs in T1 haulers.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Alowishus No the reality is that the majority of EvE agrees. Prove it.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Wolfways Other than still having what he had in the first place, nothing. Then why do it? There must be some reward. Whether it be moving to a new area to join a new corp with better oppurtunities, get a new agent, find a research slot, there is some reward. If not then he's pretty stupid for doing it. That's like saying, "what's the reward for taking an unfitted BS through a chokepoint with 500 BPOs in the hold." Well the lack of reward should be pretty obvious to all and the question doesn't need to be asked.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:08:00 - [19] Edited by: Alowishus on 07/11/2006 23:08:47 Originally by: Rekindle we're here to express opinions on game play mechanis. Yes, you are free to express your misguided and unpopular opinions. But if you're going to assert that your odd opinions are accurate, when reality states otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:13:00 - [20] Originally by: Rekindle Im not against piracy unless your defintion of piracy is equated with exploitation. There you go again with the exploit talk. CCP tells you what the exploits are in this game. CCP also tells you what griefing is in this game. As of now this tactic is neither. You need to learn what an exploit is. You attack someone in high sec and your ship gets destroyed. It's only an exploit if your ship does not get destroyed. What happens after, as far as the looting of your can, whether it was looted by an alt, a friend or a random third party, no exploit has occured. Call it lame if you want. I call transporting BPOs in T1 haulers lame. To each his own. But on the otherhand I whine a lot less than you.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Wolfways Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: Wolfways Other than still having what he had in the first place, nothing. Then why do it? There must be some reward. Whether it be moving to a new area to join a new corp with better oppurtunities, get a new agent, find a research slot, there is some reward. If not then he's pretty stupid for doing it. That's like saying, "what's the reward for taking an unfitted BS through a chokepoint with 500 BPOs in the hold." Well the lack of reward should be pretty obvious to all and the question doesn't need to be asked. So you think that getting to your destination equals the potential reward for the pk? No, but on the otherhand you can limit your risk so that the reward/risk factor is better for you. When you do things in Eve that have extreme risk, with no reward and you are taken advantage of, that's your fault.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:22:00 - [22] Originally by: Bhaal Quote: There you go again with the exploit talk. CCP tells you what the exploits are in this game. CCP also tells you what griefing is in this game. As of now this tactic is neither. You need to learn what an exploit is. Now who's showing lack of intlligence How long have you played this game? Until CCP says it's an exploit, it is not an exploit. There are exploits that people commit that nobody knows is an exploit but when this occurs, historically, CCP makes a statement and begins banning people who continue to use the exploit. Changes to game mechanics are not indicative of an exploit. If that were the case then each time CCP nerfed something it would indicate that anyone who used it prior to the nerf was exploiting game mechanics. Caldari are considered really powerful right now, if missiles are nerfed does that mean using missiles now is an exploit? Please.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:27:00 - [23] Originally by: Wolfways But do you think that the pk, who risks virtually nothing by using this game mechanic, should reap the benefits? That's what smart piracy is, my friend. Do you think sitting in a gate camp of fifty people (thus risking virtually nothing) and insta-popping every person that comes through one by one and looting their can is an exploit? When I'd go around ransoming mining barges in an interceptor, was I exploiting? What about when I'd tank the sentry guns in my Arma and pop haulers and grab their loot with an alt? If it was an exploit, don't you think the sentry guns should instapop me? Low risk vs. high reward, regardless of the risk vs. reward of your victim/opponent, does not make anything an exploit, it just makes you smart.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Wolfways Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: Wolfways But do you think that the pk, who risks virtually nothing by using this game mechanic, should reap the benefits? That's what smart piracy is, my friend. Do you think sitting in a gate camp of fifty people (thus risking virtually nothing) and insta-popping every person that comes through one by one and looting their can is an exploit? When I'd go around ransoming mining barges in an interceptor, was I exploiting? What about when I'd tank the sentry guns in my Arma and pop haulers and grab their loot with an alt? If it was an exploit, don't you think the sentry guns should instapop me? Low risk vs. high reward, regardless of the risk vs. reward of your victim/opponent, does not make anything an exploit, it just makes you smart. Ah thank you. So bigger rewards should not mean a bigger risk. Finally someone from the "other side" who admits that pvp has nothing to do with risk vs reward. In that case hi-sec should have access to everything low-sec has, like better ores, tougher npc's, etc. Or do you mean that risk vs reward matters, unless players can find a loophole in the game mechanics to use? Nope, PvP has nothing to do with risk vs. reward. Only PvE does. But CCP gives you all the tools required to navigate high sec space with almost complete safety and avoid losses to PvPers. In high sec space, maybe PvP isn't voluntary, but dying and losing BPOs is. He didn't have to be lazy and stupid, he chose to do it. He may as well have just jettisoned his cargo in the middle of Jita. If he did that and I looted a BPO would I be exploiting because there is no risk? No. The fact is that you guys don't like the tactic. And I can't even say I'm fond of it really, but I understand it's a valid tactic and if it happens to me I have nobody to blame but myself. On the flip side I won't protest too highly if CCP comes up with a good way to change it. But people need to take some personal responsibility and realize that a lack of total safety is part of this game. And if you think this tactic inidicates the risk in 0.0 is no higher than empire, please bring some BPOs in a hauler out to Curse.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:15:00 - [25] Question: is transporting stuff strictly PvE? To me, I see transporting stuff as PvP, especially if you go to risky areas. That's why it's important to take the necessary precautions with valuable items.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:22:00 - [26] Originally by: DrAtomic Originally by: Alowishus Question: is transporting stuff strictly PvE? To me, I see transporting stuff as PvP, especially if you go to risky areas. That's why it's important to take the necessary precautions with valuable items. Answer: No it's not strictly PvE, in 1.0 through .05 it is strictly PvE (or at least the design was intended as such), from 0.4 through 0.0 it's an PvP operation requiring scouts and protection. If the design was intended as such how come CONCORD/high sec sentries don't instapop people upon activation of aggressive modules? It seems pretty clear that some risk was intentionally left in the game. Risk of being killed by players indicates the the possibility of PvP in high sec is intentional.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:52:00 - [27] Originally by: Wolfways If you're a criminal you're a criminal. Ever wanted to shoot a macro miner or ore thief? Just once? What if you accidentally set off a smartbomb or ECM burst? Do you think doing so should be an automatic ban from high sec?
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 01:01:00 - [28] Originally by: DrAtomic Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: DrAtomic Originally by: vanBuskirk Ship loss to CONCORD should void insurance. No ifs no buts. Plus Concord should confiscate the cans and both parties can collect their own can from the CONCORD station. I have no argument against this. But what about people popped by NPCs in high sec? Why should only people killed by suicide alts get the preferential treatment of having CONCORD protect their can? More questions: Why do cargo scanners exist? In low sec if I see a target I'm going to attack first and ask questions later. The existance of cargo scanners indicates to me that scenarios where the worth of one ship is less than the cargo at stake are intended. Why doesn't CCP just make it so you can't activate high slot modules on non-war targets in High Sec? How idiot proof do we want CCP to make this game? Where is the line drawn? 1) Strangly enough (design wise/background story wise) CONCORD doesn't sanction NPC pirate hostility (bribing CONCORD pays heh), so no CONCORD interverence = cans left in the open. Besides it's not only the victim his cans that are protected but also the criminal his can; just like the police operated on earth in the year 2006. 2) Cargo scanners exist on request of pirates for ransoming purposes in low-sec/0.0. If it were intended for high sec use there would have been a counter module. 3) I do believe that the possibility for suicide attacking was designed as an ultimate means of getting even (pre wardeck way of getting even), heck back in the days you could even fight and defeat CONCORD but CONCORD was buffed because of 1.0 noob griefing getting out of control damaging the influx of new players. 4) This has nothing to do with idiot proofing the game, it has to do with fair play. It has to do with the mindset of the (ab)users of this design flaw. They think of haulers with expansive cargo as idiots where as the haulers feel safe for flying around in high sec for which they are paying the price by making long detours around low-sec areas. All game material helps them think this way starting with the tutorial. I don't disagree entirely with any of that. And I liked your cargo scanner answer, good counter. But the fundamental problem here is in whether one believes that suiciding is an exploit (in CCP terms) of game mechanics or not. An advantage, that's something different. Every fleet that sat and waited, entrenched, with a hundred drones out, forcing the enemy to warp/jump into them had a very distinct advantage that, theoretically is unintended, but is it an exploit when the enemy is the one choosing to put themselves at risk? I guess I think high sec is still a risk, depending on your cargo, and people need to realize it. Whether CCP changes it in the future is up to them. Currently I don't see a problem with it, I don't villainize those who do this, I think they are well within their rights. If anyone is to blame it's CCP for either allowing it if they don't want it -OR- not making it clear that this is possible. All this exploit nonesense is just that, however.
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 19:25:00 - [29] Originally by: Sendraks 1) Attacking as a suicide pirate = not an exploit. The player can defend. 2) Using a 3rd party to steal cargo = exploit. The player cannot defend. A contrast: 1) Following someone around waiting for NPCs to kill them = not an exploit. 2) Looting their can after the NPC kills them = exploit? Players cannot deffend against their can being looted by anyone, ever. So how does the method of destruction of their ship, or the relationship of the looter to the destroyer make any difference?
Alowishus Shadow Company Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.11.08 19:51:00 - [30] Originally by: Taram Caldar Edited by: Taram Caldar on 08/11/2006 19:30:22 Originally by: Rekindle It also makes me sick that by pointing out some obvious flaw - that is a difference between what was intended, and what is actually happening, that i am some how unworthy or I dont understand the game mechanics or that this is how it is and you should live with it. No, you're still missing the point. The DEVS, the DOCS and the Tutorial all state that it is not SAFE anywhere except IN DOCK!... They specifically state that you can be attacked anytime, anywhere, except docked in a station. This isn't an unintended aspect of the game. It is the game. Period. If someone feels it's worth losing a ship to kill you for whatever reason (revenge, loot, whatever) they can. Period. This is not a FLAW. The only flaw is when alts are used to do it, the assets transferred to another character and the alt biomassed. That is a bannable offense. But suicide ganking within the rules is not a flaw or an exploit. That's what you're not getting. It's perfectly within the rules and working as the devs intended or they'd have told players to stop. I understand that you can't grasp that but it is what it is. Suicide killing has been in EVE since BETA. If it was unintended 3yrs into the game (4yrs since beta) you'd think it would have been removed by now or they'd have told people not to do it. I don't do it. I don't like it. I have had friends be on the receiving end of it. But it's PART of the game. I don't run around trying to get the rules altered. I modify my gameplay to compensate for the rules, not try to get the rules altered to compensate for my gameplay. Just because you don't LIKE that it's allowed doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. It's an aspect of the game that everyone deals with. Fly a tech 2 hauler if carrying valuable cargo or fly with escorts (or both) or be willing to accept that you risk getting blasted. It's just that simple. There is only 1 thing I think needs to be done in this entire situation: Remove insurance payouts for ships killed by concord. That's it... end of story. Most objective, valid and accurate post in the thread.

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