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)
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 18:18:00 - [1] The only solution I see is to have looting the can a Concord sanctionable act. You want to suicide gank me, fine, I loose my ship, you do too, your mates come in to collect my loot, they are violating safe space law, concord interveres. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 22:20:00 - [2] Originally by: Radioactive Babe Originally by: Sendraks Why can't you fly a ship that can withstand the attacks of suicide bombers? Well, it has to be said I think he messed up badly by not having his stuff in a decent ship I can't believe how people can honestly say that. Haulers are made for empire, transporters are made for low-sec/0.0. (period). We're talking about a heavily abused design flaw, nothing less nothing more. Yes suicide ganking someone is designed, suicide ganking someone with a trial account and picking up the loot with your main/hauler without any risk whatsoever is not. It's not even PvP, it's a griefers PvE dream, yes that's right PvE. Where is the risk for the so-called pirate? There isn't. Where is the versus part in the PvP, there isn't, hence we're talking looting players where they shouldn't be looted. Mind you it's not the ship destruction that's the issue, it's the ability to loot them without consequence that is the issue. May as well remove Concord all together. I bet plenty of people have quit because of this. IMHO the issue lays with the devs actually taking pride in the controversy that this kind of griefing causes, and therefor not seeing this as a priority to fix (if they want to fix it; that is if they even want to fix it). For the record I have never been ganked like that myself. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 22:32:00 - [3] 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? But we would complain if we'd play a basketball game where the other team doesn't have a basket, and that Sir is the issue. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 22:48:00 - [4] Edited by: DrAtomic on 07/11/2006 22:50:10 Originally by: Arii Smith Originally by: Rekindle Originally by: Ikvar So you lost everything you've owned after playing? Who cares? Why make a thread about it? Move on or quit the game, if you don't like the way EVE works then simply don't play the game. People like you sometimes make me think you get yourself killed in these ways just so you can get all uppity and self righteous. Whos being sell rigteous here? I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in game mechanics which you rebute by flames and insults. You dolt, it is NOT an obvious flaw in the game mechanics that is what everyone is arguing about. It is obvious to me that it is NOT a flaw, and obvious to you that it IS a flaw. Do you see why people are talking in this thread now? If it's not an obvious flaw in the game then why is Concord there? Why does Concord whack the offender into oblivion? You are saying it was designed so that Concord whacks the offender giving people living in 0.0 a false sense of security (even being told so in the tutorial) all to reach the designed use of a scoop up alt on a trial account? Next thing you'll be claiming that haulers are made of paper because of the exact same reason. /hands out tin-foil hat. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:00:00 - [5] Originally by: Alowishus 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. No the reality is that the majority of EvE agrees. However what you'll find on the boards here are the majority of the pirates, pk-ers and pvp-ers. My bet is that the forum posters are 5% carebears (by lack of a better word) and 95% of pirates, pk-ers and pvp-ers. It's called vocal minority versus silent majority. If CCP would do a poll based on one vote per creditcard (so multiple accounts donot get multiple votes) I'm very sure that 80% would judge this kind of gameplay griefing/pk-ing and an unwanted feature that was designed as empire security system. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:04:00 - [6] Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: Alowishus No the reality is that the majority of EvE agrees. Prove it. Fly to jita, explain the question and ask for a vote. Fly to a pirate infested low-sec system and do the same. Add up the numbers of people playing in low-sec versus people playing in empire and viola. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.07 23:51:00 - [7] Originally by: pizdec Edited by: pizdec on 07/11/2006 23:46:22 Originally by: Rekindle Edited by: Rekindle on 07/11/2006 23:07:30 Please for the love of god stop trying to turn this int oa me vs you debate. What just occured to me is that Rekindle is actually trying to be hurt, personally, emotionally. Have you noticed that almost in every reply he repeats: you vs. me, stop calling me idiot, I don't need your judgement. And guess what? It works! He gets slammed once again in the next 10 posts. Bring the flames ppl. The man is in pain. And he likes it. No he's not, he's trying to have a civil debate about his opinion. When people run out of counter arguments they start bashing him, also known as flaming. He has said over and over that he has accepted his losses. He debates however that a game mechanic is flawed. Some people debate with him or against him others resort to flaming and discrediting through lack of argumental skills or maturity. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:19:00 - [8] Edited by: DrAtomic on 08/11/2006 00:23:28 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. Question: is transporting an empty unfitted battleship from A -> B within empire PvE or PvP? ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:21:00 - [9] 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. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:31:00 - [10] Edited by: DrAtomic on 08/11/2006 00:32:32 Originally by: Taaketa Frist Originally by: DrAtomic That was me. Read their description, it says it all. Blokkade running in empire? Empire regarded as deep space now? Its a description not a "Fly this ship this way or you lose Eve" Its a bit of background and a bone to the RPers. Deep Space Transports are the ones I am refering to for the better protection. I have a tendancy to use my Mastodon in Empire and the Prowler in 0.0. It's also an indication of it's intended design as most ships have descriptions hinting their intended fittings. But above all it certainly wasn't designed with the pure intent of providing empire players a hauler that was more secure within empire. If that had been the case then they would have buffed haulers instead of introducing specilized (and expansive) transporters. Transporters were designed to give players a transportship that could withstand some of the hostilities in high risk areas such as low-sec and 0.0, one specifically designed to be able to jump through gatecamps the other for deep insecure space travel; thats what their description reads. It doesn't read transport ship specifically designed to withstand the hostilities that a capsuleers encounters in high traffic empire areas. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:52:00 - [11] 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. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 00:59:00 - [12] Originally by: Dee Ellis Originally by: Weps Oner Edited by: Weps Oner on 07/11/2006 23:20:14 If it were pvp, you would have two parties saying "gg". That sums it up I guess. <dang alt....> You might want to check up on meaning of usage of the term you know... gg stands for good game and was initially intended as honest respect to your oponent, this got changed by kids using gg sarcasticly when they got whooped bad and couldn't handle it. EvE has it's equivalent in gf which is starting to see it's misuse as well. Some people dont ever think it's a gg or gf when they loose. We refer to those people as sore loosers. But it isn't just sore loosers, there's also people using either term to indicate that their oponent was no match at al for them, we refer to those people as poor winners. In a true PvP game you respect your oponents wether you win or loose. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 01:29:00 - [13] Edited by: DrAtomic on 08/11/2006 01:30:11 Originally by: Alowishus 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. 1) I believe suiciding isnot an exploit, before the CONCORD buff and pre-wardec this was the only way to retaliate yourself in empire. However usage of multiple accounts were not taken into account thus causing the situation of suicide ganking for a profit. 2) The game educates players that 1.0 -> 0.5 is safe space/policed space. The game also educates players that 0.4 -> 0.0 is deadly and hostile. So people expect to be killed in 0.4 -> 0.0 and expect to be safe in 1.0 -> 0.5 as the game taught them. 3) I don't see it so much as who's to blame or not and I'd even go as far as to say that Rekindle is there with me, it's a matter of debating a game mechanic that doesn't add up with the way people are taught by the game on how it is supposed to work and suggestions on how to prevent new victims being made and players being lost as a result on a daily basis. 4) Empire suicide ganking actually promotes macro-mining/ebaying isk because if a victim that is hit extremly hard to the extent of loosing most he had and decides to continue playing he's gonna need new funds/bpos/whatever he wont restart in his <insert noobship> doing tutorial agent missions all over again rebuilding from 0 isk -> imperium. I'd even say that empire players are more prone to do this then 0.0 inhabitants who know what is at stake and know how to get back on their feet fast. 5) The usage of the term exploit is not nonsense; the definition of an exploit is unintended option within a game mechanic caused either by a design flaw or coding flaw for ones betterment. The sanctionability of the use of an exploit depends entirely on the company operating the game some companies (perma)ban even the unreported use of an exploit merely for not reporting it and others only act after an official statement (CCP). ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 01:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Wolfways I wish we could get this thread finished with by an answer from a dev. Is suicide attacking an exploit or not? C'mon devs! Pffft I can give you an answer to what their reponse would be "suicide ganking as it stands now is not viewed as an exploit but it is something we would like to do something about". Now did that sound enough Oveur-ish? ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 11:27:00 - [15] Originally by: Sendraks Originally by: Alowishus But the fundamental problem here is in whether one believes that suiciding is an exploit (in CCP terms) of game mechanics or not. I suppose it depends whether you deem the entire process of suicide ganking to exploitive or just a portion of it. I think it would be fair to say that most players consider the part after the hauler is destroyed by the pirate ship, which is subsequently destroyed by concord, and its cargo is floating in space to be scooped by a) friend of pirate or b)alt of pirate, to be the exploit. Anything preceding that point is not, on the grounds that the hauler pilot has measures within the game to defend themselves. Even then the ACTUAL theft of the cargo is not an exploit because stealing a victims cargo is part of piracy, the exploit part is that another party can steal the haulers cargo under the eyes of concord. There is also the small matter of suicide pirates getting insurance payouts on their ships, which could also be considered exploitative. In summary. 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. The issue is how you fix part 2, without effecting all other players. Should cargo theft = sec hit? Intervention by concord in the form of an attack is probably a little extreme, but I suppose stolen cargo could be flagged as "stolen" for a duration (say 24hrs) in which time customs would treat the cargo at jump gates as it would contraband i.e. cargo confiscated, fine imposed. I don't think stolen cargo should be returned. If it was appropriately protected in the first place, it wouldn't get stolen. Carelessness should not be rewarded or risk free. If you implemented a mechanism like this, it wouldn't do away with suicide piracy (and I see NO reason why this should be done away with) and nor would it do away with theft. It would just make it much more difficult. The thief would have to know which gates/stations, if any, did not have customs patrols currently on them to be able to exit the system or dock. Good post, and I fully agree the controversy is not with the ship being destroyed it's witht he cargo being looted. The solution however in my eyes should be that CONCORD confiscates all loot involved which can the be collected at a CONCORD station (all involved parties their own loot). If you steal a car, then get caught the police confiscates the car and all your personal belongings; when you are set free your personal belongings are given back and the car is returned to the original owner. This is the way it should be in EvE as well imho. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.08 19:06:00 - [16] To be honest a lot of the 'pirate' responses in this thread support the statement that started this post and makes me wonder how many pirates even understand the meaning of true pvp. In a true pvp fight two sides engage each other, be it consentual or not where odds are determined by tactics and skill. Ganking/PK-ing is the player killing without him having any chance whatsoever. Ganking/PK-ing defenseless characters is considered griefing in all if not most other MMORPGs. The suicide practise that goes on is just that; griefing. Sadly a lot of people here classify ganking/pk-ing as pvp, something it is most defenitly not. It makes me wonder how those people would stand in true pvp matches, odds are that they'll get creamed hard and fast. I have respect for the true pirates, however I'd never pay them. I'd rather loose my stuff then to grant them their wishes. A lot of people do that and that is most likely why the real pirating has turned into empire ganking/pk-ing defenseless haulers. It doesn't make it a good and acceptable practice though, unless CCP has really intended it to be a griefers paradise. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.09 01:16:00 - [17] I honestly dont believe that it's intended game play. But then again maybe my vision is a bit blurred coming from DAOC where the exact same mechanism is used; kingdom is safe, handfull of dungeons is dangerous where you run the risk to be ganked and then there is the frontier which is deadly. However the safe areas there are safe (except for NPCs). Ow and can we please stop using WoW as an example for PvP... WoW's PvP was an afterthought and just plainly **** poor. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.09 01:19:00 - [18] Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 Oh please stop with the i am raw, and hardcore and bill bad-arse chitchat. It is a flaw, and here is more ammo for you to ingore as you blindly try to beleive it isnt. It is also a major flaw because YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF, until agressed, nor can these suiciders be killed without concord killing you also. I mean these guys are obvious, fly a farking hauler around some day ( empty cargo ), you will load in, there will be a raven, and a hauler sitting at the gate, you will get targeted and scanned.... you have no cargo so you do not get suicided..... great now i know a suicide ganker is there, but he gets to sit safely in his raven and there is no way to put the hurt on him...... Good luck trying to arse around that to justify that empire suicide ganking isnt a flaw or broken or needing fixing, or intended.... What next you gonna argue it should be okay to bomb people from the safety of a station? muhahahahah And that says it all, either make this a 100% pvp game or fix the so called safe space mechanics. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.09 11:06:00 - [19] Edited by: DrAtomic on 09/11/2006 11:13:41 Originally by: Rekindle Edited by: Rekindle on 09/11/2006 03:36:25 Edited by: Rekindle on 09/11/2006 03:35:28 methinks that this has been in the game so long people have concluded its a freakin feature. Maybe CCP should put a log-to-alt button right on the right click menu so people can use that feature in PvP as well. Some day someone is gonna come on the forums and say its lame that people log off in combat and others are gonna scream at them for whining and being a carebear and complain that its a feature of the game and the should live with it. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks along similar lines on this particular issue. My flame suit was actaully starting to get a bit toasty. I'm afraid though that the only way we'll see this fixed is by making a griefers inc corp with trial accounts and start camping starter systems and blowing up noobs over and over again... As in gank every hauler, cargo or no cargo... Should be easily do-able with frigs... ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.11.09 11:14:00 - [20] Originally by: Elvarien reading the op I just think one thing. one does not use a cargotugger to move blueprints. . . actualy one does not move the vasluable mods atall one sells em and re-buys em lower priced in the new location. Sure, and then spend another 2 years re-researching them all... ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery

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.