EVE Search - Hisec Ganking Roundtable Part 2

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Hisec Ganking Roundtable Part 2 - Participant Request

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jin'taan Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance 53	Posted - 2016.08.22 18:04:09 - [1] - Quote Hello! I recently was able to have a long sit down with several high profile members of the hisec ganking community to discuss the implications of changes that were talked about at fanfest, and the state of ganking in general - with regards to Freighters, Miners & Industrials - as well as the thinking and motivation behind it, and the relationship between Ganker, Gankee & Anti-Ganker. This was something that I felt was really valuable in giving us a lot of needed information on the subject, and was incredibly productive, as they answered a lot of our questions in a fair and self reflective way. However, I feel that I need some input from the other side to truly be prepared to address this issue going forwards. As such, I'm looking for knowledgeable people who are able to discuss the issue with me some time in the next two weeks. Date to be confirmed with the participants of course. Specific people I'm interested in hosting would be representatives from PushX, Red Frog Freight or any of their subsidiaries (especially their high value hauling members) and leaders of Anti-Ganker/Vigilante/etc. communities. However, I'm letting myself be open for applications from all areas on the issue here. If you don't wish to post publically, an ingame mail will more than suffice. I will be looking to keep it small however, as I find this works best for the format of a roundtable. The meeting will be recorded for the purposes of helping the rest of the CSM, but will not be made publicly available, and any information shared will be considered a private matter. If you have any other questions or suggestions, feel free to ask.
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 159	Posted - 2016.08.22 19:13:52 - [2] - Quote I don't suppose we could get a list of who turns up to these?
Ruby Gnollo 7	Posted - 2016.08.22 19:17:05 - [3] - Quote Plase forgive my awful English, which might make my language more abrupt than I would like. Since you're somehow asking for comments, let's try to express some : Eve is a hard game. It's hard for a lot of reasons everybody spends its time talking about. But what makes it even more interesting and unique is also the fact that some players organized themselves to weight in the metagame and bend the whole game towards their views. CCP makes the rules in New Eden, players play the game. If someone finds this too hard, she can join whatever organization of players trying to bend the game towards their views. If she prefers something harder, she can just belong to the vast majority of New Eden dwellers spending their time simply playing the game whatever the rules can be one day or another. That's why, as ironic as I might be, I think whatever might comes out of this gankers roundtable is of little importance. It just adds a little spice to that unique game. And having some players lobbying publicly for rules changes make sit even more interesting, whatever the consequences might be. Nice people will just adapt, whatever comes.
Jin'taan Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance 55	Posted - 2016.08.22 20:51:06 - [4] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: I don't suppose we could get a list of who turns up to these? I prefer to keep the lists of attendees of both these roundtables & focus groups private, as I don't feel it's information that would add to the actual points of the discussion. I do try and keep them as representative as I can though.
Resaec Fitsuga Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact 6	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:59:27 - [5] - Quote This sounds great. I hope the round table goes well. I'd be willing to be there to help point out the concerns of a pilot carrying valuable cargo but delegates from PushX and Red Frog would undoubtedly be more qualified. I have never lost a freighter and don't plan to start but I have moved packages of great value.
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 7	Posted - 2016.08.23 01:24:45 - [6] - Quote You know, there are not always two sides to a debate. Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month. There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 181	Posted - 2016.08.23 06:10:39 - [7] - Quote IMHO one of the problems is the short reaction time of Concord. This will almost always prohibit any player interaction because the target or the ganker is dead before someone even notices what's going on. So you have to prolong the timer. To compensate this for the target they needs additional defenses. Give E-War and slots to freighters. Give weapons and slots to miners. At the moment the whole thing of ganking is to know your target and your timeframe. You can predict very accurately how much Cats you need. Normal fights have a much greater element of surprise. If you can really fit a ship you might fit it for max cargo/yield or tank or even gank: who knows. Maybe they have ewar? Good luck with the round table. Maybe you should include someone from the mining community to get the whole picture.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2917	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:10:29 - [8] - Quote I think there should be a healthy ganking culture. But what is missing is the ability to white knight. I don't know what this would look like but it should be active and engaging, not just hanging around in a cloaky ECM ship. If it could be brought about highsec could be revitalised with quality content. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Sootsia HIgh Sec Care Bears Brothers of Tangra 11	Posted - 2016.08.23 22:21:54 - [9] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: You know, there are not always two sides to a debate. Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month. There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players. One seems to often forget that without the carebears, grinding isk (salvaging, mining, gas harvesting, killing sleepers or other NPC rats for their loot and salvage, blueprints, datacores and sundry other necessary items), no ships would be would be built for PVPers to enjoy using. Without the carebear, PVPers would soon be reduced to PVPing in the CCP funded Noob ships with their civilian guns. Carebears, ensure that PVPers, not only have the shiny ships they want to fly at reasonable prices, and actually would be even cheaper were it not for CODE, doing its best to help keep market prices stable by ensuring that the supplies of goods reaching the markets or builders was not excessive. New players, should have the opportunity to ease into the PVP lifestye when they feel comfortable in so doing, not just unceremoniously ganked the first time they undock. THAT unfortunately leads to a lot of new players giving up when EVE certainly needs new blood. New Blood, not necessarily spilled at the first opportunity. I am all for blowing ships up, and structures such as the KeepStar coming out of anchoring in Nalvula https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4z6gmz/so_ladies_who_is_coming_tomorrow_project_mayhem/ That is a perfect example of proper consensual PVP that should have more folks there shooting each other than are in Jita at any one time (CCP Please reinforce the node ahead of time)
Jin'taan Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance 55	Posted - 2016.08.24 10:48:31 - [10] - Quote Still looking for participants here. Please try and get in touch as there is limited time before the summit in which to organise this :)
Jennifer en Marland Shiny Violent Killing Toys 42	Posted - 2016.08.24 21:56:26 - [11] - Quote Hi and thanks for organising this I won't take part in the roundtable - anyone will tell you that i never speak on comms - but I can mail you any thoughts that I have about gank-related game balance, if that would help Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.
Albrecht Patrouette Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 19	Posted - 2016.08.25 03:59:57 - [12] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: You know, there are not always two sides to a debate. Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month. There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players. How wonderful that you, and you alone! get to define just how a sandbox is played! Congrats! So, according to your singular definitions, a player who is only interested in mining, fabricating, inventing and building --which is, you know, part of the overall sandbox-- must be some sort of failure because they have no desire to "pew pew". You, and others of your ilk, continually bleat that Eve is a spaceship versus spaceship killing game. I have no problem with that, as that is a large part of the sandbox. But it is only a part; it is not, by any means, the sole entirety. Jin'taan, I would very much like to be a part of this round table. Sincerely, Albrecht Patrouette
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 16	Posted - 2016.08.25 08:35:36 - [13] - Quote Albrecht Patrouette wrote: Lawrence Lawton wrote: You know, there are not always two sides to a debate. Worthwhile changes are the type that promote highsec aggression, while counterproductive changes are the type that promote Carebearism. A Carebear, for the purpose of this discussion, is a capsuleer who plays EVE like a solo game and spends all his time grinding for ISK to buy a PLEX and bling modules for his grinding ship so he can grind slightly more efficiently for another month. There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players. How wonderful that you, and you alone! get to define just how a sandbox is played! Congrats! So, according to your singular definitions, a player who is only interested in mining, fabricating, inventing and building --which is, you know, part of the overall sandbox-- must be some sort of failure because they have no desire to "pew pew". You, and others of your ilk, continually bleat that Eve is a spaceship versus spaceship killing game. I have no problem with that, as that is a large part of the sandbox. But it is only a part; it is not, by any means, the sole entirety. Jin'taan, I would very much like to be a part of this round table. Sincerely, Albrecht Patrouette I'm not alone. The culture of EVE is with me. We are not ilk, we are the ruling class. We do not bleat. We preach. You must be an anti-ganker, champion of the AFK miner, protector of the botter.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3548	Posted - 2016.08.26 02:55:31 - [14] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players. Why? If they enjoy that lifestyle who are you to 'save' them from it? m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 19	Posted - 2016.08.26 05:24:49 - [15] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Lawrence Lawton wrote: There are still some capsuleers who have actually spent their entire existence in highsec and never even experienced PvP. The CSM should do its best to ensure that such a fate does not befall our new players. Why? If they enjoy that lifestyle who are you to 'save' them from it? m We are the New Order. It is the Carebears who cast the first stone. They complained and wrote endless petitions to receive nerf after nerf to highsec aggression because they were intolerant of non-consensual PvP in a PvP game. They are a vocal minority of players whose response to losing a ship is not learning and adapting but complaining to the devs. They still demand that highsec be turned into a risk-free theme park. They seek to curtail our lifestyle and destroy the game we love. As a result, we strive to ensure that every pilot is exposed to PvP before he is infected with the curse of Carebearism, and we aggressively attack all Carebears in retaliation for the horrible things they have collectively done, unless they are willing to bend the knee and follow James 315's New Halaima Code of Conduct. Additional reading: Why Do They Gank? Let me tell you why people are killing highsec miners. A manifesto.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2706	Posted - 2016.08.26 05:35:43 - [16] - Quote It seams to me that Highsec ganking is generating a lot of conflict in Highsec. This is evident by the many tear mails we see on this forums and everywhere else. For EVE, conflict is indeed the desired content, it is the motor of the industry and lifeblood of the game. Every part of EVE which creates content will generate tears and people who say it should be nerfed on the forums. The question is, is there actually a problem or is it just people who are not aware of an already pretty good balanced game mechanic? Maybe the answer here is education? I know the first reaction to tear post is to assume we need to fix something in the game. But what about all the other parts of the game which create no tear mails and traffic on the forums because they are pretty much dead? If you want to make EVE a better game the focus should be on this game mechanics I think. Enable the people there to create content for other people since this is what makes EVE interesting. No one joins EVE to become an AFK miner/hauler or to run the same linear mission for the millionth time. Think about it. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 182	Posted - 2016.08.26 08:45:58 - [17] - Quote The Problem is the design of the mining ships and freighters. They are designed to be passive in conflicts. This way of tanking is easily overcome when you know what you have to do because there is no variation. IMHO the ganking culture deserves to die, because it is bad for the game, and be replaced by a fighting culture. There should be no easy ganks but fights. There should be another way for players that don't actively search PvP then just running. Maybe miners can dig in with weapons and some one use shield restoring sentry drones which don't show on the d-scan. Or a freighter can actively Ewar atackers to keep them at bay. Cloaking disruptures that reveal cloakers but need to ankered to asteroids (nope, not for gate camps, sorry )
OwenJ Phildo's Dildos Incorporated 3	Posted - 2016.08.26 11:43:14 - [18] - Quote One thing I found a pain was the mechanic that makes ships invulnerable as they undock from a station. Having attempted to lie in wait for a suspect / criminal to undock, only to find that they can just warp off before you can even start to get a lock on them. Criminals, Suspects, and -10 security status should not have the benefit of an invulnerability timer when undocking in low or high sec.
Sasha Nemtsov Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 153	Posted - 2016.08.26 12:28:29 - [19] - Quote OwenJ wrote: One thing I found a pain was the mechanic that makes ships invulnerable as they undock from a station. Having attempted to lie in wait for a suspect / criminal to undock, only to find that they can just warp off before you can even start to get a lock on them. Criminals, Suspects, and -10 security status should not have the benefit of an invulnerability timer when undocking in low or high sec. ....because Insta-Undock Bookmarks should be reserved for the law-abiding.....?
Irregular Apocalypse Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.08.27 03:00:53 - [20] - Quote The big problem with freighter ganking at the moment is that Concord is too powerful. I write here as someone who has spent some time saving freighters and exacting revenge upon the gankers and their loot ships. I see that first responders to a bumped freighter often struggle to do much about the Machariel that's typically bump-tackling the freighter and have to wait around until the gank fleet turn up, only then can the defenders use logi, ECM etc. While neutral logi go suspect, its inconsistent that bump-tackling ships are carrying out more the rather aggressive action of holding a ship while facing none of the consequences to their actions that others such as third party logi would. As the bump-tackling ships are defended by Concord, this means that the only players that can really engage with these Machariel are players who don't mind giving away a killright on themselves and losing their ship. Because of the killright, the only people who can really engage with the Machariel are those who don't live in hisec but yet somehow happen to be in hisec near the freighter as it was being ganked, or those who are prepared to create a hisec alt purely to reverse-gank Machariels. So we see that engagement with the Machariels is limited to a fairly small pool of players, and this exacerbates the DPS floor that Concord places on prospective defenders (if you don't do enough DPS to the Machariel in X seconds, it survives). In contrast we see a much wider pool of players using ECM, Logi etc in an attempt to save the freighters. These players would surely be interacting with the bumping ships if those tacklers weren't protected by Concord, which shows that Concord is reducing opportunities for player interaction. Concord defending the Machariels is like the police turning up to a robbery and shooting the person who beat off the attacker instead of going after the thief. Its perfectly possible to module-tackle a ship for hours on end, so its completely consistent to be able to bump-tackle a ship for hours on end. CCP have proposed putting a limit on the amount of time for which freighters can be bumped. But as the issue with freighter bumping is not about the time that people can do it for, but that they can do it while defended by concord, I'm sad to say that CCP's proposal entirely misses the root cause of the issue. Concord should not be defending important participants in the gank. How can we resolve this issue then? Bumping has various uses and consequences throughout the game, so any modifications to bumping in order to fix issues around freighters are likely to have consequences on other parts of the game. This means that the natural solution of making bump-tacklers go suspect might have consequences elsewhere in the game (even if its feasible it might be to have decide who is the bumper and who is the bumpee). An alternative change might be to make freighters more heavy, so that the effect of a bump on the freighter's speed and alignment would be lower, and it would take less time to recover from bumps. However this doesn't address the issue around tacklers being protected by Concord so the solution is flawed in the same way as the one that CCP has presented.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 184	Posted - 2016.08.27 06:00:59 - [21] - Quote Irregular Apocalypse wrote: However, the existence of other bump interactions outside freighter ganking means that the natural solution of making bump-tacklers go suspect might have too widespread an impact (even if it was technically feasible to decide who is the bumper and who is the bumpee). An alternative change might be to make freighters more heavy, so that the effect of a bump on the freighter's speed and alignment would be lower, and it would take less time to recover from bumps. As this change only affects the a parameter of freighters, it may not have much effect on other parts of the game, which is an appealing property. However it wouldn't address the issue of tacklers being protected by Concord so the solution is flawed in the same way as the one that CCP has presented. It is not very difficult to decide who is bumping, cause his movement vector is directed at the other ship. If you go suspect after the third bump there will be no problem with accidentally bumping into another ship. Or you can even use the bumping timer that the bumper gets the flag after 30 seconds.Other bumping actions take place in low or Null against capitals where a suspect flag is irrelevant. Making freighters heavier will prevent bumping as a game mechanic for ganking, which is IMHO bad. A suspect flag for bumpers opens up opportunities for player action which is the better choice
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2684	Posted - 2016.08.27 06:18:08 - [22] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: I'm not alone. The culture of EVE is with me. We are not ilk, we are the ruling class. We do not bleat. We preach. You must be an anti-ganker, champion of the AFK miner, protector of the botter. If you were the ruling class, you would not dodge the every wardec that your bumping alts' corps suffer from like carebears do that you loath. In a way, gankers and in particular CODE gankers are worse than carebears because you preach water (don't dodge wardecs, fight, stand your ground, don't crap talk in local, and so on) and drink wine (you do not stay in your corps and fight back against wars, your cuck-flood in local speaks for its own). If CODE was participating in this roundtable, it can't have been all that productive and insightful. Geronimo McVain wrote: It is not very difficult to decide who is bumping, cause his movement vector is directed at the other ship. If you go suspect after the third bump there will be no problem with accidentally bumping into another ship. Or you can even use the bumping timer that the bumper gets the flag after 30 seconds.Other bumping actions take place in low or Null against capitals where a suspect flag is irrelevant. Making freighters heavier will prevent bumping as a game mechanic for ganking, which is IMHO bad. A suspect flag for bumpers opens up opportunities for player action which is the better choice Suspect flags are also irrelevant in high sec. No one engages a target that can shoot back and even targets that can't shoot back are regularly ignored. I have seen so many pirates and suspect people floating around space (outside Jita) that no one engages at all. However, if a freighter goes suspect, you can count on that people flock to whore on it. Furthermore and in light of the above, it is not that easy to find out who the bumper is and who not. A suspect Machariel (that no one cares about) can just bump a freighter into an immobile Catalyst/Talos and really quickly we have the freighter suspect flagged as bumper. The Machariel can just warp off once the freighter is suspect since no one cares. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Irregular Apocalypse Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2016.08.27 09:27:52 - [23] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: Making freighters heavier will prevent bumping as a game mechanic for ganking, which is IMHO bad. A suspect flag for bumpers opens up opportunities for player action which is the better choice An increase to freighter mass could have a range of effects depending on the magnitude of the increase, ranging from making bumping slightly harder, to making it require a full fleet of Machariels... I would suggest that any value of mass that made bumping practically impossible would be too high... Rivr Luzade wrote: Suspect flags are also irrelevant in high sec. No one engages a target that can shoot back and even targets that can't shoot back are regularly ignored. I have seen so many pirates and suspect people floating around space (outside Jita) that no one engages at all. However, if a freighter goes suspect, you can count on that people flock to whore on it. I have seen many ships go suspect on gates away from Jita and get piled on, so I strongly disagree that if bump-tacklers went suspect that noone would get involved. In any case, as go on to say, defending a freighter is tedious because there is so little activity: this would surely change if bump-tacklers were engageable. Rivr Luzade wrote: Right now, anti-gankers can have a fleet ready to kill the gankers (the long response time in 0.5/.6 systems allows for that) once they go criminal and remote repair a freighter. Neither is working properly to save a significant number of freighters because not enough people are interested in it -- and never will get interested in it because it is a boring and tedious activity with nearly no action and a lot of waiting. To defend a freighter you have to wait around and engage almost exclusively on the ganker's terms - i.e. during the same 15-25s window that they are engaging the freighter. Damn right that's tedious, and there's no prospect of getting a 10b killmail which is surely one of the motivations for the gankers. Imagine then if bump-tacklers went suspect (through some simple and non-exploitable mechanic): the window of engagement for defenders would be longer, as they could choose to engage either the tackler or the gank fleet, and it would be slightly more on the defenders terms, which would make the operation more interesting for the defenders. Actually it would be more interesting for the gankers too, as they would perhaps have to decide whether they use some guys to defend the tackler, or perhaps even use cheaper bumping ships (and more of them) to deal with the risk of loss. Currently bump tacklers almost always use the optimal ship despite it costing half a billion isk, simply because the tackler is put at very little risk because it is defended by Concord. There should probably be some opportunities for play and counterplay there too: does the tackler fit for tank? Fit for high dps? Or just go for max bumping? And that would have an impact on how defenders would engage. The entire process would be more interesting for both sides if bumpers weren't defended by Concord!
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2684	Posted - 2016.08.27 12:48:41 - [24] - Quote Irregular Apocalypse wrote: The entire process would be more interesting for both sides if bumpers weren't defended by Concord! Tank doesn't mean a thing, neither for haulers nor gankers. Gankers are risk-averse and would stop bumping all together, or only bump once or twice, but not the third time to prevent the flag. They can just warp around on grid or to a close-by off-grid spot to get rid of the counter and come back to continue bumping. Instead of making it more interesting for defenders, it would just remove bumping altogether. Not that bumping was necessary in the first place. In the past, people just scanned freighters, followed them and engaged them when they wanted to warp off (slow aligntime is slow) or were approaching the gate, completely without bumping. This focus on alts for ganking, however, has seemed to make bumping necessary so that non-iSB'd alts can do that job or actual people. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 21	Posted - 2016.08.27 23:31:20 - [25] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Lawrence Lawton wrote: I'm not alone. The culture of EVE is with me. We are not ilk, we are the ruling class. We do not bleat. We preach. You must be an anti-ganker, champion of the AFK miner, protector of the botter. If you were the ruling class, you would not dodge the every wardec that your bumping alts' corps suffer from like carebears do that you loath. In a way, gankers and in particular CODE gankers are worse than carebears because you preach water (don't dodge wardecs, fight, stand your ground, don't crap talk in local, and so on) and drink wine (you do not stay in your corps and fight back against wars, your cuck-flood in local speaks for its own). If CODE was participating in this roundtable, it can't have been all that productive and insightful. The introduction of NPC corps for dodging wardecs is one of the nerfs I was referring to earlier. Once a mechanic exists it is foolish not to use it. Imagine a bumper who loses a Machariel because he didn't drop his wardecced corp and lets the freighter escape; or an anti-ganker who loses his Falcon in the same way. They would be ridiculed. Nonetheless, we believe that NPC corps should be removed completely for everybody. As far as dodging wars, the purpose of the CODE. alliance was originally to attract wardecs. Our Agents are among the politest and most respectable people in New Eden because we need to set a good example for the unwashed masses. Your second paragraph was pretty good.
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2016.08.30 14:23:13 - [26] - Quote Well good luck with this, Until it's sorted its quite simply good bye new players! I tried a considered and what I though interesting and impartial post on a possible solution but it got nowhere. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6609856#post6609856 As long as this idea of 'only one way to play EVE persists', and gets promoted through these posts, the whole concept is worth naught. CCP need to make a stand at some point, they advertise it as a sandbox, but only promote and endorse one side or aspect of it and fail a lot of the current and potentially new community by doing so. Please keep us updated on how it goes though, great to see someone on the CSM brave enough to take it on.
Irregular Apocalypse Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2016.08.30 14:34:32 - [27] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: The Problem is the design of the mining ships and freighters. They are designed to be passive in conflicts. This way of tanking is easily overcome when you know what you have to do because there is no variation. IMHO the ganking culture deserves to die, because it is bad for the game, and be replaced by a fighting culture. There should be no easy ganks but fights. There should be another way for players that don't actively search PvP then just running. Maybe miners can dig in with weapons and some one use shield restoring sentry drones which don't show on the d-scan. Or a freighter can actively Ewar atackers to keep them at bay. Cloaking disruptures that reveal cloakers but need to ankered to asteroids (nope, not for gate camps, sorry ) This is an interesting point of view - why would certain ships continue to be built without much defence in such a dangerous world?
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2728	Posted - 2016.08.30 19:18:08 - [28] - Quote Irregular Apocalypse wrote: Geronimo McVain wrote: The Problem is the design of the mining ships and freighters. They are designed to be passive in conflicts. This way of tanking is easily overcome when you know what you have to do because there is no variation. IMHO the ganking culture deserves to die, because it is bad for the game, and be replaced by a fighting culture. There should be no easy ganks but fights. There should be another way for players that don't actively search PvP then just running. Maybe miners can dig in with weapons and some one use shield restoring sentry drones which don't show on the d-scan. Or a freighter can actively Ewar atackers to keep them at bay. Cloaking disruptures that reveal cloakers but need to ankered to asteroids (nope, not for gate camps, sorry ) This is an interesting point of view - why would certain ships continue to be built without much defence in such a dangerous world? The skiff has today basically the stats of an heavy attack cruiser which can still mine at the same time. And yet miners are still complaining. If they get yet another buff they will probably be used as combat ships... the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Solecist Project 32718	Posted - 2016.08.30 20:02:02 - [29] - Quote I should absolutely be in this ... ... and someone verbally capable from CODE should definitely a part of this as well. Paranoid Loyd should be in here just as much. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Solecist Project 32718	Posted - 2016.08.30 20:04:43 - [30] - Quote Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote: Well good luck with this, Until it's sorted its quite simply good bye new players! I tried a considered and what I though interesting and impartial post on a possible solution but it got nowhere. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6609856#post6609856 As long as this idea of 'only one way to play EVE persists', and gets promoted through these posts, the whole concept is worth naught. CCP need to make a stand at some point, they advertise it as a sandbox, but only promote and endorse one side or aspect of it and fail a lot of the current and potentially new community by doing so. Please keep us updated on how it goes though, great to see someone on the CSM brave enough to take it on. Yes, we need to get rid of those who want to impose their playstyles on others. You. The first golden rule of EVE ... ... You consent to PvP when you click "undock". You lost. Go. Away. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.