| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
   |
Posted - 2016.10.30 04:59:29 -
[1] - Quote
I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this
since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)
Pilot X ES = 7.2 GǪ Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4
if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be
7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36
this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.
make it even more complexGǪ if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contributionGǪ but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)
Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter. |
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:07:42 -
[2] - Quote
Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1054
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:11:01 -
[3] - Quote
You are going to get flamed hard for this.
My two cents is that use the existing sec status limiter and add warp disruption fields that engage on characters that meet those cut offs in ALL high sec space. Warp disruption fields are set at 20km around the gates. This would mean 8kms burn out after jump tunnel spawn and 20km burn to a gate.
Ultimately it slows down travel for negative factions and limits ship types that can be used to travel around space and again the only threats will be faction police, webs and scrams with webs applying first and being MORE of a detriment than previously, and players ability to freely engage -5s. It means no more -10s podding around high sec and having to fit prop mods to ALL ship fits.
It gives increased risk to all pirate activities as it is now not a free warp around gate to gate and forces everyone to rethink travel around high sec. It is also a throw back to the original Eve burn 15kms to the gates using current technology and only would be implemented on players with low enough sec status.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:12:51 -
[4] - Quote
So, if you where an empire... would you let war happen in your boundaries without someone letting you know it was happening and paying you tribute? |
Nick Bete
The Scope
Gallente Federation
495
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:12:56 -
[5] - Quote
Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
|
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:13:58 -
[6] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this
since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)
Pilot X ES = 7.2 GǪ Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4
if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be
7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36
this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.
make it even more complexGǪ if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contributionGǪ but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)
Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.
I get what your saying but i have to disagree with the whole concept. Lets say you are in Caldari EMpire space and get ganked, lets say you had 5.0 standings with Caldari and your ganker has -2.5 caldari standing. why would the Caldari empire care if a Capsuleer they didnt like killed a capsuleer they did like? it makes sense if say you are apart of Caldari FW and you were ganked but not for an in general gank.
|
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:14:37 -
[7] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah.
Why do you carebears even play this game?
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:15:39 -
[8] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:You are going to get flamed hard for this.
My two cents is that use the existing sec status limiter and add warp disruption fields that engage on characters that meet those cut offs in ALL high sec space. Warp disruption fields are set at 20km around the gates. This would mean 8kms burn out after jump tunnel spawn and 20km burn to a gate.
Ultimately it slows down travel for negative factions and limits ship types that can be used to travel around space and again the only threats will be faction police, webs and scrams with webs applying first and being MORE of a detriment than previously, and players ability to freely engage -5s. It means no more -10s podding around high sec and having to fit prop mods to ALL ship fits.
It gives increased risk to all pirate activities as it is now not a free warp around gate to gate and forces everyone to rethink travel around high sec. It is also a throw back to the original Eve burn 15kms to the gates using current technology and only would be implemented on players with low enough sec status.
yes, good thoughts .. i like them and they make sense, thank you |
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:17:28 -
[9] - Quote
[/quote]
I get what your saying but i have to disagree with the whole concept. Lets say you are in Caldari EMpire space and get ganked, lets say you had 5.0 standings with Caldari and your ganker has -2.5 caldari standing. why would the Caldari empire care if a Capsuleer they didnt like killed a capsuleer they did like? it makes sense if say you are apart of Caldari FW and you were ganked but not for an in general gank.
[/quote]
if you get Ganked .. it does not change, only if you gank |
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:19:55 -
[10] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game?
so that you can have your ships
and for the record, im not really a care-bear i do like security, and progression... accomplishment... building something, actually working to kill someone else stuff, .. |
|
|
Josef Djugashvilis
3476
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:25:26 -
[11] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game?
^^^ Cos I'm proper 'ard, innit.
Folk pay their money and takes their pick.
Deal with it.
This is not a signature.
|
Nick Bete
The Scope
Gallente Federation
497
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:34:40 -
[12] - Quote
I love how some rail against those who play differently from them and in the same breath yell about the virtues of the "sandbox" and how cool it is. Ignorant hypocrites. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45251
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:37:26 -
[13] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game? ^^^ Cos I'm proper 'ard, innit. Folk pay their money and takes their pick. Deal with it.
Yes and no.
Threads like this express a view that some players want to play how they choose; but others shouldn't have that same luxury.
Freedom to choose how I play, means I also need to respect how you or someone else plays.
It's not really fair for me to ask for 100% safe area so I can be left alone in peace, because there are others that like to interact through pvp with everyone.
The current approach is really the most fair approach there is.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:46:10 -
[14] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game? ^^^ Cos I'm proper 'ard, innit. Folk pay their money and takes their pick. Deal with it. Yes and no. Threads like this express a view that some players want to play how they choose; and others shouldn't have that same luxury. Freedom to choose how I play, means I also need to respect how you or someone else plays. It's not really fair for me to ask for 100% safe area so I can be left alone in peace, because there are others that like to interact through pvp with everyone. The current approach is really the most fair approach there is.
well not really, but you still can declare war, or come in through a wormhole... you could even start making stable wormholes, with real blackmarket stations.. lots of things you could do, i want it more realistic ... |
Big Lynx
7625
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:48:48 -
[15] - Quote
Link Lossmail plz |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45252
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 05:52:43 -
[16] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:well not really, but you still can declare war, or come in through a wormhole... you could even start making stable wormholes, with real blackmarket stations.. lots of things you could do, i want it more realistic ...
What is more realistic 20,000 years in the future, in a galaxy where we are immortal superhumans who fly spaceships?
Realistic is a smoke screen, since there is no such thing. What you want is a game that more suits your individual desires.
There's nothing wrong with putting your view of course, but it isn't realism you are asking for. It's just changes that suit you.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:00:53 -
[17] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Xander Jade wrote:well not really, but you still can declare war, or come in through a wormhole... you could even start making stable wormholes, with real blackmarket stations.. lots of things you could do, i want it more realistic ... What is 'more realistic' 20,000 years in the future, in a galaxy where we are immortal superhumans who fly spaceships with Neutonian physics? Realistic is a smoke screen, since there is no such thing. What you want is a game that more suits your individual desires. There's nothing wrong with putting your view of course, but it isn't realism you are asking for. It's just changes that suit you.
no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45253
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:08:36 -
[18] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy.
Ok, so in trying to engage seriously on this, even though I have a very different view; it seems that in your OP, you have picked out bits that you think are realistic in the current mechanics, while proposing changes to mechanics that you don't like.
For example, it's absolutely arbitrary that at some point early on in the game design of Eve, CCP chose to include standings. There's nothing realistic about them, anymore than any other mechanic. It's just a game function CCP decided to include.
However, your OP picks that out as though there is some realism tied to how standings mean something with the empires.
To me, it's just a game mechanic like all game mechanics. It isn't realism as we don't realistically know at all how this would work out in such a dystopian environment about 50,000 generations of humans into the future.
It's what I can't see. You are only seeing realism in the mechanics that personally benefit you and wanting changes made to mechanics that don't benefit you.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5969
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:12:33 -
[19] - Quote
The whle point of EVE is to be a sandbox where you can build sandcastles and kick other people's sandcastles over, beat them up and take their bucket and shovel.
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, OP, but your proposed solution doesn't solve it.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:14:12 -
[20] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game? so that you can have your ships and for the record, im not really a care-bear i do like security, and progression... accomplishment... building something, actually working to kill someone else stuff, ..
Please.
I build my own stuffs, and whatever I cannot build myself, I buy only from people I know do their mfg in null.
Highsec carebears are only needed for targets on me gank alt, and I never support their risk adverse playstyle by shopping in highsec.
On the other hand if you want to talk highsec mechanics, my suggestion is remove CONCORD intervention from any player interaction where both characters are over one month old.
:D
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
|
|
Quenching Waters
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:15:50 -
[21] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
So in essence you want the sandbox to be a fully controlled playground with monitors?
Now I understand the tedium of piloting a slow ship between trade hubs but CCP gives you the option to choose between trade offs.
Actively pilot and reduce the risks to an acceptable level, or autopilot and take your chances. Also having your webber scout ahead for reds is a good idea.
It's called actively playing the game.
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 07:00:30 -
[22] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The whle point of EVE is to be a sandbox where you can build sandcastles and kick other people's sandcastles over, beat them up and take their bucket and shovel.
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, OP, but your proposed solution doesn't solve it.
Relying on faction police to keep you safe is a serious case of self deception. The gankers will start multiple characters, balance their standings, and find other ways to work around your proposed security system.
As it stands the best thing you can do is manage your risk: don't carry more than a billion ISK worth in a freighter. Tank your freighter. Do not autopilot through Uedama. Scout with another ship, if you see flashy skulls in local or Machariels parked on the gates, do not pass through the system.
You can move your trading to lower bulk items which can be safely transported in cloaky ships like blockade runners or exploration frigates. You can offload your hauling to contractors who take the risks while providing you with collateral.
Figure out what the problem is you are trying to solve, then find ways of handling it. Everyone else is playing by the same rules; if they can do things that you can't, the chances are that you are doing it wrong.
ok, so take the aspect of governments, if you go outside, and torch a car in front of police, and get away, but they know who you are, they start impounding your stuff .. you flee the country so you won't be caught ... that is a consequence ... in eve you have no consequence because there is low to no standard, I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying there needs to be a consequence. it needs to be more difficult, not something that a day one noob toon can do, .. if i was an empire that owned systems with gates i would make it so i could stop people i did not like ... criminals ... from comping within my borders, the tech is there but unused, |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45259
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:00:45 -
[23] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The whle point of EVE is to be a sandbox where you can build sandcastles and kick other people's sandcastles over, beat them up and take their bucket and shovel.
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, OP, but your proposed solution doesn't solve it.
Relying on faction police to keep you safe is a serious case of self deception. The gankers will start multiple characters, balance their standings, and find other ways to work around your proposed security system.
As it stands the best thing you can do is manage your risk: don't carry more than a billion ISK worth in a freighter. Tank your freighter. Do not autopilot through Uedama. Scout with another ship, if you see flashy skulls in local or Machariels parked on the gates, do not pass through the system.
You can move your trading to lower bulk items which can be safely transported in cloaky ships like blockade runners or exploration frigates. You can offload your hauling to contractors who take the risks while providing you with collateral.
Figure out what the problem is you are trying to solve, then find ways of handling it. Everyone else is playing by the same rules; if they can do things that you can't, the chances are that you are doing it wrong. ok, so take the aspect of governments, if you go outside, and torch a car in front of police, and get away, but they know who you are, they start impounding your stuff .. you flee the country so you won't be caught ... that is a consequence ... in eve you have no consequence because there is low to no standard, I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying there needs to be a consequence. it needs to be more difficult, not something that a day one noob toon can do, .. if i was an empire that owned systems with gates i would make it so i could stop people i did not like ... criminals ... from comping within my borders, the tech is there but unused,
It's a game, not real life. You can personally desire greater safety for you and more consequence for people who play different to you, but CCP have to consider all play styles that they want to allow.
In relation to what would happen IRL for criminal acts, it's irrelevant. Nothing we do in the game has any real value. It's all just entertainment and totally fictitious. When someone shoots a ship in game, they aren't torching someone's car. Nor is anything we do in RL anything like the society that exists in New Eden. RL and Eve are not comparable.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:05:15 -
[24] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Xander Jade wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The whle point of EVE is to be a sandbox where you can build sandcastles and kick other people's sandcastles over, beat them up and take their bucket and shovel.
I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve, OP, but your proposed solution doesn't solve it.
Relying on faction police to keep you safe is a serious case of self deception. The gankers will start multiple characters, balance their standings, and find other ways to work around your proposed security system.
As it stands the best thing you can do is manage your risk: don't carry more than a billion ISK worth in a freighter. Tank your freighter. Do not autopilot through Uedama. Scout with another ship, if you see flashy skulls in local or Machariels parked on the gates, do not pass through the system.
You can move your trading to lower bulk items which can be safely transported in cloaky ships like blockade runners or exploration frigates. You can offload your hauling to contractors who take the risks while providing you with collateral.
Figure out what the problem is you are trying to solve, then find ways of handling it. Everyone else is playing by the same rules; if they can do things that you can't, the chances are that you are doing it wrong. ok, so take the aspect of governments, if you go outside, and torch a car in front of police, and get away, but they know who you are, they start impounding your stuff .. you flee the country so you won't be caught ... that is a consequence ... in eve you have no consequence because there is low to no standard, I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying there needs to be a consequence. it needs to be more difficult, not something that a day one noob toon can do, .. if i was an empire that owned systems with gates i would make it so i could stop people i did not like ... criminals ... from comping within my borders, the tech is there but unused, It's a game, not real life. You can personally desire greater safety for you and more consequence for people who play different to you, but CCP have to consider all play styles that they want to allow. In relation to what would happen IRL for criminal acts, it's irrelevant. Nothing we do in the game has any real value. It's all just entertainment and totally fictitious. When someone shoots a ship in game, they aren't torching someone's car. Nor is anything we do in RL anything like the society that exists in New Eden. RL and Eve are not comparable.
Yes but by the same token it must follow some kind of logic. EvE many times has been called the wild west of space. Criminals should be dead or alive and the cops should be trying to gun them down and help anyone else that is trying too. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45259
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:10:04 -
[25] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Yes but by the same token it must follow some kind of logic. EvE many times has been called the wild west of space. Criminals should be dead or alive and the cops should be trying to gun them down and help anyone else that is trying too.
Doesn't matter what we as player think they should be. Should be this. Should be that.
The only thing that matters is what is defined by CCP.
The whole notion that it should be somehow different at its root comes back to comparisons to how things are in our society and a kind of expectation that the standards we live by should apply to New Eden.
Well if you go back just 4-5 generations in our real societies, the treatment of people and attitudes towards certain acts was very different. Go back 10 generations and it's very different again.
So we see huge shifts in what is ok, even just within a few generations, so trying to apply current standards to 50,000 generations into the future is completely arbitrary. It's nothing but personal opinion; and personal opinion is fine. It just doesn't mean it is 'realistic', or what 'should' be.
We are all entitled to our different opinions, just not the ability to say that what we think is realistic.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Vigirr
4
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:19:09 -
[26] - Quote
EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:20:06 -
[27] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Yes but by the same token it must follow some kind of logic. EvE many times has been called the wild west of space. Criminals should be dead or alive and the cops should be trying to gun them down and help anyone else that is trying too. The whole notion that it logically should be somehow different at its root comes back to comparisons to how things are in our society and a kind of expectation that the standards we live by should apply to New Eden. Yet if you go back just 4-5 generations in our real societies, the treatment of people and attitudes towards certain acts was very different. Go back 10 generations and it's very different again. So we see huge shifts in what is ok, even just within a few generations, so trying to apply current standards to 50,000 generations into the future is completely arbitrary. It's nothing but personal opinion; and personal opinion is fine. It just doesn't mean it is 'realistic', or what 'should' be. We are all entitled to our different opinions, just not the ability to say that what we think is realistic.
With EvE lore, there society went into barbarism and chaos for the majority of time with the Minmitar only just getting out of slavery. If anything their cultural standards are lower than ours (for the main stream).
Letting mass murdering criminals in time and again is not some version of reality it is the very definition of insanity. As I said it needs to make some logical sense and at the moment it does not. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5970
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:20:15 -
[28] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:ok, so take the aspect of governments, if you go outside, and torch a car in front of police, and get away, but they know who you are, they start impounding your stuff GǪ if i was an empire that owned systems with gates i would make it so i could stop people i did not like ... criminals ... from comping within my borders, the tech is there but unused,
Take, for example, the USA. You can wander the streets in many states with a gun holstered at your hip. The police will only interfere when you take it out and shoot someone.
The game does differ from reality in many ways, mostly because it's intended as a PVP environment (apocryphally EVE stands for "Everyone Versus Everyone"). There are things that need to be possible for PVP to happen that don't really make sense to you and me as citizens of a world were "PVP" type activity is discouraged.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:22:39 -
[29] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game?
Except I started playing it under a different set of rules to those that now exist, as did so many others. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4507
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:23:06 -
[30] - Quote
I'd also like to note that torching a car is not difficult, at all and doesn't require a substantial financial investment or special equipment to do. Any moron can do it with a rag and a lighter. There's also various civil disobedience scenarios where aforementioned morons do it in front of police and get away with it.
And this is without them being immortal, hyper-rich super beings that function entirely outside of the normal concepts of citizenship. |
|
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc
Evictus.
486
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:25:45 -
[31] - Quote
I am an industrial player - also known as "prey". I do not want New Eden to become a safer place. If there were no predators there would be a lot more competition, reducing my profits. In Eve, as in nature there needs to be a balance - to few predators and the prey population increases until everyone starves. To many predators and the prey disappears so the predators starve.
Learning how to survive is part of the challenge in Eve but it can be done. I've lost 1 ship to PVP in highsec in 3 years - that was on the dock in Jita. I learned from the experience and adjusted the way I do things so it's less likely to happen again.
If you want reward, you need to accept some risk. Those who learn to manage that risk effectively will prosper. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1242
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:40:07 -
[32] - Quote
OP is willing to work hard on his standings. But he doesn't want to work hard to get his precious freigter to the next hub.
Let's get rid of standings, so he doesn't need to grind, can focus his time and actually play the game casually. Being nothing but a timesink, standings have always been a stupid game mechanic, no matter the game. And that's true especially for casual gamers.
Remove insurance.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45264
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:42:15 -
[33] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: As I said it needs to make some logical sense and at the moment it does not.
I guess thankfully for my view, there is a company of about 600 employees (across all their games and locations), with the bulk working on Eve Online and they thankfully see some logic in how they design the game.
Hopefully they continue the same path where we all have choice and where if I want to affect you (or vice versa), then it's up to me to personally do it and not rely on CCP to save my behind.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Vigirr
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:49:19 -
[34] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game? Except I started playing it under a different set of rules to those that now exist, as did so many others.
No you haven't, you assumed you did. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:49:48 -
[35] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: As I said it needs to make some logical sense and at the moment it does not. I guess thankfully for my view, there is a company of about 600 employees (across all their games and locations), with the bulk working on Eve Online that thankfully see some logic in how they design the game. Hopefully they continue the same path where we all have choice and where if I want to affect you (or vice versa), then it's up to me to personally do it and not rely on CCP to save my behind.
You mean there used to be a company of about 600 employees, who thought they saw some logic.
Bringing us to today where after that wonderful logic we now are about to have free to play.
If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:50:54 -
[36] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game? Except I started playing it under a different set of rules to those that now exist, as did so many others. No you haven't, you assumed you did.
Please go back to your crayons and finger painting. |
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 10:57:52 -
[37] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game? Except I started playing it under a different set of rules to those that now exist, as did so many others. No you haven't, you assumed you did. Please go back to your crayons and finger painting.
Eve has always been a pvp centric sandbox, just because you didn't realise this and don't want to hear or adapt to that doesn't mean you can just wish it away.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45266
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:00:28 -
[38] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops.
 yeah sure.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:06:16 -
[39] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. yeah sure.
No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:08:34 -
[40] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:EVE is a pvp centric sandbox where anything goes and no one is safe or innocent. Why did you start playing it if you don't like that concept? Why should the players who DO understand what EVE is and DO like it for that have to adapt to someone who started playing the wrong game? Except I started playing it under a different set of rules to those that now exist, as did so many others. No you haven't, you assumed you did. Please go back to your crayons and finger painting. Eve has always been a pvp centric sandbox, just because you didn't realise this and don't want to hear or adapt to that doesn't mean you can just wish it away.
Yes EvE has always been a PvP sandbox. That however does not alter the fact I and many others started playing to different rules than those that exist now. |
|
|
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:16:41 -
[41] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Yes EvE has always been a PvP sandbox. That however does not alter the fact I and many others started playing to different rules than those that exist now.
Feel free to point out the differences. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:23:42 -
[42] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Yes EvE has always been a PvP sandbox. That however does not alter the fact I and many others started playing to different rules than those that exist now. Feel free to point out the differences.
Here is a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansions_of_Eve_Online
Go nuts. |
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:27:20 -
[43] - Quote
Which means what, exactly? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:28:39 -
[44] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Which means what, exactly?
See comment relating to crayons and finger paints. |
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:33:02 -
[45] - Quote
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:42:59 -
[46] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.
No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.
Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. |
permion
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
37
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:44:15 -
[47] - Quote
You do realize that capsuleers are legally above the law in many aspects in lore. Even the freedom loving gallente literally have separate courts for the normal population, and the baseline rich(non-capsuleer rich)... There is a difference of scale between between baseline rich and capsuleer rich, starting at that most planets don't even have the GDP to even make a frigate.
Likewise the empires themselves have signed away most of their ability to enforce laws against capsuleers to concord. |
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:55:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.
Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 11:56:34 -
[49] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now.
Learn. Education of any kind is beneficial. Even if it is the history of an online game. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45266
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:02:22 -
[50] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. yeah sure. No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well.
Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption.
That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
|
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:04:08 -
[51] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. Ok, teach me oh master. How are they different from now. Learn. Education of any kind is beneficial. Even if it is the history of an online game.
Ok so nothing but BS then. Duly noted.
Thank you for your useless contribution to this useless thread. |
Asmodai Xodai
Viziam
Amarr Empire
105
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:11:58 -
[52] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo
I don't agree with the guy's proposed change in any way whatsoever, but no need to be a douchebag either. You are no doubt just as much a carebear as anyone else, tough guy. You show me any gang of low-sec pirate gate-campers who consider themselves doing 'elite PvP' *cough* and I'll show you a bunch of tree-hugging carebears. In real life low-grade scrubs who operate in gangs and jump individuals they outnumber 5 or 10 to 1 aren't considered tough guys, they are considered cowards. You never see these guys taking actual risks, or taking fights they could potentially lose. Nope, it's either they jump unsuspecting individuals they outnumber and outgun 10 to 1 at the most creative and ingenious of all gameplay devices this game has ever seen - the gatecamp - or they don't play. Cowards and carebears, the lot of them. A high-sec miner takes more risk.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not for outlawing it, nor regulating it. Play the game however you want, and do what makes you happy. Just don't be under the illusion that you are any less of a carebear than anyone else. |
Vigirr
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:13:57 -
[53] - Quote
Asmodai Xodai wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo I don't agree with the guy's proposed change in any way whatsoever, but no need to be a douchebag either. You are no doubt just as much a carebear as anyone else, tough guy. You show me any gang of low-sec pirate gate-campers who consider themselves doing 'elite PvP' *cough* and I'll show you a bunch of tree-hugging carebears. In real life low-grade scrubs who operate in gangs and jump individuals they outnumber 5 or 10 to 1 aren't considered tough guys, they are considered cowards. You never see these guys taking actual risks, or taking fights they could potentially lose. Nope, it's either they jump unsuspecting individuals they outnumber and outgun 10 to 1 at the most creative and ingenious of all gameplay devices this game has ever seen - the gatecamp - or they don't play. Cowards and carebears, the lot of them. A high-sec miner takes more risk. Don't get me wrong. I'm not for outlawing it, nor regulating it. Play the game however you want, and do what makes you happy. Just don't be under the illusion that you are any less of a carebear than anyone else.
Most people hide in numbers or behind support alts and whatnot. A gate camper really isn't that different from a miner. Only people who are fine with, and perhaps even seek, to be the underdog aren't carebears.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
2994
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:34:34 -
[54] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy.
Yes, but New Eden is set in a distopian future and the capsuleers are semi-gods who are not bound by the restrictions of the empires. The "realism" you are asking for has nothing to do with the setting we play EVE in. You think the empires are similar to our RL countries and apply this to the game, that's not what they are. Please make yourself familiar with the lore before you try to use it as an argument to make silly game changes
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
130
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 13:26:04 -
[55] - Quote
Big Lynx wrote:Link Lossmail plz
I think I found it.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/51746341/ |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1242
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 13:31:12 -
[56] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Xander Jade wrote:no, fantasy is best when you have something approaching realism... take away the pilot and make a realistic world than add the fantasy. Yes, but New Eden is set in a distopian future and the capsuleers are semi-gods who are not bound by the restrictions of the empires. The "realism" you are asking for has nothing to do with the setting we play EVE in. You think the empires are similar to our RL countries and apply this to the game, that's not what they are. Please make yourself familiar with the lore before you try to use it as an argument to make silly game changes
Apart from that, I doubt he's thinking of the sort of realism we can find in quite some countries across the world right now.
Remove insurance.
|
Keno Skir
854
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 13:53:34 -
[57] - Quote
EvE is supposed to be dangerous, everywhere. That's why it's so fresh.
Without resorting to flaming the OP, i bet his cornflakes are wet n floppy..
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 14:07:07 -
[58] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:EvE is supposed to be dangerous, everywhere. That's why it's so fresh.
Without resorting to flaming the OP, i bet his cornflakes are wet n floppy..
Not entirely true.
EvE was designed on a basic model. High sec was supposed to be "relatively safe" - google that with Oveur, the original lead developer and the developers worked initially to make that so - they repeatedly buffed concord, ships and mechanics to ensure that highsec remained relatively safe.
Low sec was supposed to be unsafe but not terribly so. Gate guns were a viable deterrent to all but the most dangerous criminals.
Null sec was supposed to be lawless and very unsafe.
As time went on CCP dropped the ball on highsec, dps creep went up and CCP didn't respond well to that.
In lowsec dps creep and tankability went up and the gate guns that used to be functional became pretty much worthless.
In null we got cynos, jump bridges, wormholes to high, jump freighters, and clone jumping.
The end result
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it. |
Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1637
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 14:20:49 -
[59] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
followed by wacky maths formula aimed at making hisec a better place for him to live in forever
Just No.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:13:16 -
[60] - Quote
EvE is a more complex game than just a pvp sandbox. If it was just a pvp-sandbox there wouldnt be any carebears around. Pvp is though the most important feature, without it the game wouldnt be as interesting. In the game design the relative safety of hi-sec is balanced with the low outcome of each effort, while the high danger of low- and null-sec is balance with the higher rewards. In everything in EvE except hi-sec ganking. So literaly for little effort you earn billions. Why CCP supports this deviation from the usual game mechanics is beyond me.
There is no issue with the hi-sec safety, the issue is with the high reward of the ganking activity in high sec and I would support a change towards that. |
|
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
2997
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:13:17 -
[61] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Gwenaelle de Ardevon
Ordum Eternam
5075
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:32:46 -
[62] - Quote
Did i read "Autopilot" 
«An hour sitting with a pretty girl on a park bench passes like a minute, but a minute sitting on a hot stove seems like an hour».
Albert Einstein - [11, S. 154]
More Quotes, Poetry & Prose on: https://gwenaelledeardevon.wordpress.com/
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1245
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 16:09:34 -
[63] - Quote
Gwenaelle de Ardevon wrote:
You did. OP wants to grind faction standings to induce the factions to prevent gankers from going after his autopiloting freighter.
Remove insurance.
|
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
664
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 16:22:24 -
[64] - Quote
This is an age old argument it seems - game design of Eve Online. Well, theoretically they have a good balance. There's at least four different zones, arguably a fifth to the sandbox in highsec, lowsec, wormhole, sovereign null / NPC null. There's consequences to each of them.
I don't think highsec should be completely safe unless you removed any and all reasons you live there. You can casually run up to level 5 DED sites in Angel regions in almost relative safety. Outside of clever thwarts of CONCORD mechanics, site thieves and wardecs, highsec is nothing less than an awkward inbetween of what 'Eve really should be' and a 100% safe zone.
If it were up to me, I'd gut highsec so hard you would have to play in the deeper water; but there's a reason like 70-80% of subscribers call highsec home. Talk about imbalanced. And CCP has bills to pay so it's best to maybe leave it like it is. Wars, ganks, etc create the demand for the items you are making and all that.
My solution is totally facetious by the way. Just have to learn to adapt yourself.
@lunettelulu7
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 18:37:11 -
[65] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. yeah sure. No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well. Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption. That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.
I did not say if they change it to how I wish it to be. I said if they carry on as they have been. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 18:51:38 -
[66] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. yeah sure. No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well. Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption. That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.
CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45274
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 19:24:09 -
[67] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.
Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.
Mark Marconi wrote: did not say if they change it to how I wish it to be. I said if they carry on as they have been
I'm sure you would wish, that if CCP were to change from their current roadmap and philosophy for the game, that they go in some other direction you disagree with.
Not at all in the direction that you personally think is the right way to 'save' the game.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
120
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 19:42:27 -
[68] - Quote
I'm a casual too and a lowbear
Xander Jade wrote:...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
Dunno if your are serious, but if some bears act like naive 4 yo they got what they deserve.
Xander Jade wrote: this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,
I play solo in lowsec, lost two ship 600+ days ago, and it has never been a problem in my daily activities, it's part of the fun of the cat and mouse game, HS is boring enough.
Xander Jade wrote:Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
The only change in HS is to supress the magical Concord (teleport / invuln), make it normal, costly for the player who want it, and can be tanked by gankers.
The second solution is to remove it completely.
Xander Jade wrote:Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
No ******* nope, don't touch other sec spaces please.
Xander Jade wrote:this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.
Mining matter, you just must be aware and at the computer, no autopilot, no AFK. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:17:36 -
[69] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game. Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.
My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45275
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:20:15 -
[70] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game. Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though. My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years.
Ah ok. I agree, though to be fair to Mark, he did say Eve has 3 years tops. Not CCP itself.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Signal Cartel
290
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:26:00 -
[71] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
The end result
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
I guess if you are in a war then high (well hubs and pipes) could be very dangerous but while I've seen the results of ganks, I've never been the target of one. Of course, when one views the killmails, a certain pattern emerges.
As for null, depends where you are and who you are.
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
121
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:43:22 -
[72] - Quote
Ah, so you've dug up this dead horse again. Playing solo? Do your homework if you are trvaleing. Stop dying and saying it's someone else's fault. It is indeed a sandbox. It has enough sand that you should be, could be, maybe one day will be, able to learn how not to die. You'll also learn that most,deaths have been brought on by the pilot. This "idea" isn't adding complexity. It's asking to add a free pass to people who don't want to play andbuse their potential or figure things out. Also, stop dying. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:46:52 -
[73] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
High sec is suppose to be for naive new players who are just learning EVE, the main issue with current high sec is its disbalance of risk vs reward. too many players have little to no insentive to leave high sec. I agree high sec needs to be more secure but i also think many of the higher end profit making missions and mining sites in high sec need to be moved to low sec.
Xander Jade wrote:Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Concord shouldnt be invuln but im fine with them teleporting in as long as a player can fairly fight them back. With that said i think Concord should be more responsive in high sec but also destroyable. Of course destroying Concord will be met with negative security standings as accordingly. and the events should be stackable, such as you destroy a Concord BS and another Concord escalated wave warps in as back up. Also if you have huge negative sec status (like -10.0) Concord should probably be scrambling/disrupting you as soon as you appear on that high sec gate. Of course this will just mean gankers will be using more alts in high sec.
Xander Jade wrote:Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
Yes and No, Concord should not be present in Low sec IMO. However Faction ships should be sitting around the warp gates and stations and react to players accordingly to there sec status with a certain delay before response.. They however should not be teleporting any where in low sec.
Xander Jade wrote:this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.
Ice Mining and L4 Missions should be moved to low sec IMO. They can be rather profitable in high sec and disrupt the whole risk vs reward concept.
|
Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1637
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 21:50:47 -
[74] - Quote
UGH. So many people in this thread have echo-chambered themselves away from reality.
EVERYTHING about hisec is designed to kick you out.
EVERY PVE activity makes you PVP content.
Mining and exploration are paltry, you get competent, you look further afield.
Fighting is constrained and costly, aggro is a baffling ordeal and a comedy of errors.
Missions make you KOS with half of hisec within a year or so.
Market pvp is possible mainly because every idiot wants to live and farm within ten jumps of Jita.
NPC null mission hubs are meant to be supported by player owned market hubs.
Stop talking about safety like it's even a thing, hisec (the rookie pond) has been made shallower, SOE explo ships, ninja mining ships, wackily OP PVP ships have all been introduced and still, people cling to hisec like bionic ticks.
When a bird hatches it doesn't patch the eggshell and add a small verandah. It breaks it and departs.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 02:23:26 -
[75] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Xander Jade wrote:...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck. High sec is suppose to be for naive new players who are just learning EVE, the main issue with current high sec is its disbalance of risk vs reward. too many players have little to no insentive to leave high sec. I agree high sec needs to be more secure but i also think many of the higher end profit making missions and mining sites in high sec need to be moved to low sec. Xander Jade wrote:Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Concord shouldnt be invuln but im fine with them teleporting in as long as a player can fairly fight them back. With that said i think Concord should be more responsive in high sec but also destroyable. Of course destroying Concord will be met with negative security standings as accordingly. and the events should be stackable, such as you destroy a Concord BS and another Concord escalated wave warps in as back up. Also if you have huge negative sec status (like -10.0) Concord should probably be scrambling/disrupting you as soon as you appear on that high sec gate. Of course this will just mean gankers will be using more alts in high sec. Xander Jade wrote:Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security Yes and No, Concord should not be present in Low sec IMO. However Faction ships should be sitting around the warp gates and stations and react to players accordingly to there sec status with a certain delay before response.. They however should not be teleporting any where in low sec. Xander Jade wrote:this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter. Ice Mining and L4 Missions should be moved to low sec IMO. They can be rather profitable in high sec and disrupt the whole risk vs reward concept.
i like your reasoning, and i back what you say, except instead of concord make it the system owner, and include Empire standing. ... also you could escalate into concord |
Oolong Turmeric
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 03:32:43 -
[76] - Quote
Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 06:23:01 -
[77] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game. Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though. My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years. Ah ok. I agree, though to be fair to Mark, he did say Eve has 3 years tops. Not CCP itself.
Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.
I just hope they get it together. |
Vigirr
10
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 07:23:36 -
[78] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.
I just hope they get it together.
Ah the old "they better listen to what I have to say, otherwise it'll be dead" routine. Generally coupled with lots of vague statements and used by people who are powerless but want to feel powerful.
EVE will be fine, the reason EVE will be fine is because it has no competition and will not have competition for a looooooong time, especially so because it seems Seagul understands what EVE actually IS, unlike many other people. "But what about Star Citizen., surely it'll crush it" I hear you say, simple... it's not competition. The mistake a lot of people make is that they think EVE is a spaceship MMO and then they look at upcoming other titles in that genre and go "oooh look at that hype, surely this time the hype will be true".
But EVE isn't a spaceship MMO, it's not even a spaceship MMO with PVP in it. It is in fact a cut throat, dog eat dog, balls deep open world PVP MMO drama generator... that happens to have a space ship setting. That is something entirely different and as there are no other true open world PVP MMOs planned EVE has no competition. EVE will of course lose customers to things like SC but that is not a bad thing because it allows CCP to refocus on the PVP world bit instead of somehow trying to please two play styles, which can't be done.
It's somewhat understandable that people think they're playing a spaceship MMO, here's a few reasons:
1) most people simply aren't used to an open sandbox pvp game because there's just not many of those so they don't recognise it as such and won't know what to expect
2) most people don't do any actual research into what they're going to do or play because effort is for boring people, so if they didn't expect it and didn't read up on it properly they're not going to know
3) CCP has for years been trying to market this game as a more mainstream generic MMO, which it simply isn't. Doesn't mean they lied but they've tried to make it more palatable to the generic customer and in many ways they have succeeded, mostly by dumbing down the game and making everyone be "special". But the core of the game is still there and and people are going to run in to that which results in people throwing their toys of of their pram and make rage quit posts. Coupled with continuous denial, in spite of the obvious facts, people simply don't realise that they're playing the wrong game. They do realise the game isn't what they hoped for and thus want it changed but they refuse to accept that they are playing the wrong game.
So to all people who don't like this open world pvp sandbox where no one is safe: Feel free to leave, your threats about "if we leave the game shuts down" is hollow and simply not true. In fact you'll only make the game better by leaving.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 07:40:25 -
[79] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.
I just hope they get it together. Ah the old "they better listen to what I have to say, otherwise it'll be dead" routine. Generally coupled with lots of vague statements and used by people who are powerless but want to feel powerful. EVE will be fine, the reason EVE will be fine is because it has no competition and will not have competition for a looooooong time, especially so because it seems Seagul understands what EVE actually IS, unlike many other people. "But what about Star Citizen., surely it'll crush it" I hear you say, simple... it's not competition. The mistake a lot of people make is that they think EVE is a spaceship MMO and then they look at upcoming other titles in that genre and go "oooh look at that hype, surely this time the hype will be true". But EVE isn't a spaceship MMO, it's not even a spaceship MMO with PVP in it. It is in fact a cut throat, dog eat dog, balls deep open world PVP MMO drama generator... that happens to have a space ship setting. That is something entirely different and as there are no other true open world PVP MMOs planned EVE has no competition. EVE will of course lose customers to things like SC but that is not a bad thing because it allows CCP to refocus on the PVP world bit instead of somehow trying to please two play styles, which can't be done. It's somewhat understandable that people think they're playing a spaceship MMO, here's a few reasons: 1) most people simply aren't used to an open sandbox pvp game because there's just not many of those so they don't recognise it as such and won't know what to expect 2) most people don't do any actual research into what they're going to do or play because effort is for boring people, so if they didn't expect it and didn't read up on it properly they're not going to know 3) CCP has for years been trying to market this game as a more mainstream generic MMO, which it simply isn't. Doesn't mean they lied but they've tried to make it more palatable to the generic customer and in many ways they have succeeded, mostly by dumbing down the game and making everyone be "special". But the core of the game is still there and and people are going to run in to that which results in people throwing their toys of of their pram and make rage quit posts. Coupled with continuous denial, in spite of the obvious facts, people simply don't realise that they're playing the wrong game. They do realise the game isn't what they hoped for and thus want it changed but they refuse to accept that they are playing the wrong game. So to all people who don't like this open world pvp sandbox where no one is safe: Feel free to leave, your threats about "if we leave the game shuts down" is hollow and simply not true. In fact you'll only make the game better by leaving.
No its the old ahh revenue is down, concurrent logins are down and CCP is half the size it used to be.
Its the old CCP has made so many screw ups its unbelievable, promised so much delivered so little, has horrible customer service ect...
If you look at the revenues combined with the fall in concurrent users, it will not be worth it for CCP to run EvE in 3 years if they keep doing things wrong.
Seriously besides of course 2010 they need to look at the falls in concurrent users compare it to their updates and reverse some of those changes or at least alter them back to something closer to what they had.
It is not about being niche or trying to be mainstream or losing newbies, it is about the steps where they went wrong and they need to examine them and change rather than just going down a path blind. |
Avaelica Kuershin
Signal Cartel
290
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 07:45:31 -
[80] - Quote
Oolong Turmeric wrote:Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.
Now just what the hek do you mean by that?
|
|
|
Vigirr
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 07:53:59 -
[81] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:No its the old ahh revenue is down, concurrent logins are down and CCP is half the size it used to be.
Its the old CCP has made so many screw ups its unbelievable, promised so much delivered so little, has horrible customer service ect...
If you look at the revenues combined with the fall in concurrent users, it will not be worth it for CCP to run EvE in 3 years if they keep doing things wrong.
Seriously besides of course 2010 they need to look at the falls in concurrent users compare it to their updates and reverse some of those changes or at least alter them back to something closer to what they had.
It is not about being niche or trying to be mainstream or losing newbies, it is about the steps where they went wrong and they need to examine them and change rather than just going down a path blind.
Business do nothing other than grow in a direction, assess if that direction was ultimately a good idea and if not cut it off, downsize and try again. That is normal business practise and this is no different. EVE did fine with these sub numbers before and they will do fine (after cutting fat) now.
Yes CCP has made a lot of dumb decisions, some of them worked most of them didn't. The big mistake they made was trying to make EVE mainstream, which can't be done. Seagul is moving EVE away from the massive clown fleets filled with carebears and is slowly introducing a leaner and meaner version of EVE, updated and improved ofcourse. CCP seems to be fine with making decisions that short term costs them customers (jump fatigue being one of them) and that is good, because long term they will work out for the better.
I've never had customer service issues, in all my years. All my interactions with them have been reasonable and logical.
Just as N+1 in PVP is a bad solution, purely trying to gain more short term customers while doing one's best to somehow marry two entirely different play styles is another bad idea. The second CCP refocusses on being a niche open world PVP Marmite game is the second they will come out stronger. You can take you silly threats with you, all it is is :words: trying to somehow convince people that EVE would just be better if it wouldn't be full of this nasty open world pvp thing. You're playing the wrong game, go away. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 09:26:38 -
[82] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?
Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 09:54:52 -
[83] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Business do nothing other than grow in a direction, assess if that direction was ultimately a good idea and if not cut it off, downsize and try again. That is normal business practise and this is no different. EVE did fine with these sub numbers before and they will do fine (after cutting fat) now.
Yes CCP has made a lot of dumb decisions, some of them worked most of them didn't. The big mistake they made was trying to make EVE mainstream, which can't be done. Seagul is moving EVE away from the massive clown fleets filled with carebears and is slowly introducing a leaner and meaner version of EVE, updated and improved ofcourse. CCP seems to be fine with making decisions that short term costs them customers (jump fatigue being one of them) and that is good, because long term they will work out for the better.
I've never had customer service issues, in all my years. All my interactions with them have been reasonable and logical.
Just as N+1 in PVP is a bad solution, purely trying to gain more short term customers while doing one's best to somehow marry two entirely different play styles is another bad idea. The second CCP refocusses on being a niche open world PVP Marmite game is the second they will come out stronger. You can take you silly threats with you, all it is is :words: trying to somehow convince people that EVE would just be better if it wouldn't be full of this nasty open world pvp thing. You're playing the wrong game, go away.
Actually after that I cant decide if your playing the wrong game or taking the wrong meds. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1054
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 13:28:43 -
[84] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:
well not really, but you still can declare war, or come in through a wormhole... you could even start making stable wormholes, with real blackmarket stations.. lots of things you could do, i want it more realistic ...
Mini Theras that spawn in low sec with one null sec, one Thera, and one random WH connections as well as 3-5 low sec connections. Pirate stations as well as Sanctuary stations to go with WH/Thera theme. Only pirate stations have black markets.
All gank loot when dropped is flagged as current contraband is and must be "laundered" in one of the mini Thera pirate stations by selling it there. Standard customs officers and confiscation and other issues apply, though I would rework these a bit better if I was CCP  , as well as the added risk of low sec and WH transportation too and from locations.
As long as there are open holes and enough ins and outs itll work without too much trouble and now gives 3 drop rate reductions in possible transit of goods removing more goods from the economy than currently. Gives those who are better at moving contraband a leg up, think rum runners and smugglers.... can you do the Kessel Run? Camping these and those in transit can be EXTREMELY lucrative for you too and gives more risk for the rewards.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1054
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 13:58:13 -
[85] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Keno Skir wrote:EvE is supposed to be dangerous, everywhere. That's why it's so fresh.
Without resorting to flaming the OP, i bet his cornflakes are wet n floppy.. Not entirely true. EvE was designed on a basic model. High sec was supposed to be "relatively safe" - google that with Oveur, the original lead developer and the developers worked initially to make that so - they repeatedly buffed concord, ships and mechanics to ensure that highsec remained relatively safe. Low sec was supposed to be unsafe but not terribly so. Gate guns were a viable deterrent to all but the most dangerous criminals. Null sec was supposed to be lawless and very unsafe.
As time went on CCP dropped the ball on highsec, dps creep went up and CCP didn't respond well to that. In lowsec dps creep and tankability went up and the gate guns that used to be functional became pretty much worthless. In null we got cynos, jump bridges, wormholes to high, jump freighters, and clone jumping. The end result High - very dangerous Low - Very dangerous Null - Extremely safe IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
And the reason they buffed it so much early on was the ease and rampant nature of m0o and others in how effective they could utterly **** up the sandbox. IMO ganking has gotten that rampant. I LOVE ganking and piracy, it has EVERY place in Eve. But the ease... that is my only issue. I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3597
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 14:22:41 -
[86] - Quote
im starting to think these threads are the same irl person with many alts
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
Your killboard reads like a "how to get farmed 101" - Noah Reese
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Strike Witches
85
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 14:39:18 -
[87] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this
since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)
Pilot X ES = 7.2 GǪ Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4
if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be
7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36
this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.
make it even more complexGǪ if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contributionGǪ but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)
Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.
sounds interesting.
it would also make ganking be a bit more lore themed. as gankers investigate their target first and then kill in certain space.
though the one issue i have is "all 4 empires" would be a bit overkill.
i'd say it would only really apply to the highest empire standing you have. as considering Gallente and Caldari relationships, i'd find it hard to believe they'd both like the same person.
but at the same time, caldari would probably be happy with gankers killing gallente alligned people in their own space (concord would be pissed.....but meh)
and eventually gallente would want to step in to protect people alligned to them in their own controlled space.
so 1 empire, not 4.
or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2875
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:00:54 -
[88] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:im starting to think these threads are the same irl person with many alts If only that were true. I'd much prefer that all posts of this nature were the work of a single deranged individual, but alas, I don't think that is the case.
Instead, I think there is a large collection of Eve players who have stumbled into playing an open-world, full-time PvP sandbox by accident. Many of them jumped in without doing any research on what type of game play goes on in Eve, and because of how safe highsec has become, can plod along for months before any of that PvP finds them. They don't like the experience, and come to the forums to shriek how something that makes them feel bad can't be intended and the game is therefore broken.
If they just went away this wouldn't be so much a problem. But instead, either because they lack the courage to admit that their unhappiness is a problem resulting from their expectations rather than the game itself, or they are held hostage by some 'sunk cost fallacy' over their progress that won't let them walk away, they decide to come to the forums and agitate to get the game changed to what they want it to be. This, despite the fact Eve Online has been around for an eternity and has always been a competitive game featuring non-consensual PvP at its heart.
The good news is that CCP tried to water down the game to appeal to these types of players and it failed. I think they have recognized this mistake and we are now entering a cycle of increasing risk and more competition after years of nerfs to content. The new PvE events are proving most excellent at sparking both player interaction, and tears, while the new structures are stamping out some of the most egregious loopholes that allowed players to isolate themselves from the sandbox.
Well, all we can do is hold the line against these incipiently selfish carebears who wrongly believe they can enjoy the benefit of the sandbox and the living universe it enables, while removing themselves to any risk of being bitten by that sandbox. So far so good, as there is no chance any of the inane ideas in the OP will be implemented. We are on a trajectory of the Empires losing their grip, and more player-driven content, not less as the OP is pleading for.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
419
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:02:28 -
[89] - Quote
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)
Dear Reader,
Despite carebears' assertions that they only want "balance" every time they ask for One More NerfGäó to ganking, here you see an example of their true agenda.
In the carebear's above suggestion, where's the balance of slower Concord response if the ganker is the one favored by the empire in question?
Agent of the New Order
http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18167
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:13:12 -
[90] - Quote
Oolong Turmeric wrote:Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.
That's our job, not CCP's.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18880
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:16:06 -
[91] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Oolong Turmeric wrote:Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.
That's our job, not CCP's.
Mate, you know better.
edit : that said , i cant talk i fell for the other one
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14857
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:18:04 -
[92] - Quote
Every time I see a thread like this I think "here is someone else actually proposing something that would make the game less enjoyable...for themselves".
The fact that people like this are playing EVE and living in high sec demonstrates that they must actually like the dangers that make the game interesting, because if they didn't they'd stop playing. Yet in some twisted fashion they think the game would be 'better' if it offered less danger or somehow curtailed the 'bad guys'. People like the op would be better served seeing these 'bad guys' as a challenge (that subsequently adds value to the game) to be countered personally than in imbalance to be nerfed by CCP.
Another thing I find ironic is how some people still cling to the "null is safer" lie despite all the data (like at every fanfest when they show how more value is destroy in null than in high). I say Ironic because people who live in high sec do so mainly for the safety, yet they say null is even safer,while refusing to move to null.
If null is so safe why is everyone in "not safe" high sec? |
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Strike Witches
85
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:32:09 -
[93] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Lasisha Mishi wrote:
or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)
Dear Reader, Despite carebears' assertions that they only want "balance" every time they ask for One More NerfGäó to ganking, here you see an example of their true agenda. In the carebear's above suggestion, where's the balance of slower Concord response if the ganker is the one favored by the empire in question?
that could work as well.
so lets say the ganker is gallente alligned in gallente space attacking a gallente alligned miner. no change in response time
ganker is gallente alligned in gallente space attacking a caldari alligned miner(or freighter). slower response time (as if concord is already present elsewhere in system...or just 1-2 secounds)
ganker is gallente alligned in caldari space attacking a caldari alligned miner. faster response time (1-2 secounds)
ganker is gallente alligned in caldari space attacking a gallente alligned miner. no change.
seems fair enough, encouraging pride in your alligned empire.
but then we get into amarr caldar relations
or gallente minmatar....i guess those would just be normal (as it is now).
eh...i just want empire standigns to mean something =/ |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1220
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 16:26:01 -
[94] - Quote
The one thing you need to add is a better way to improve standings
If you are going to improve the impact of character's standings. For example, I was a Cal navy brat long before anything else. While clueless, I ran countless missions, trashing my Gal standing. I have since trained diplomacy to 5 so I could actually got through Gal space. (this was a necessity as at the time, RvB lived in Gal space.)
Now, even using Sister's if EVE epic arc and a lot of work, it would take me awhile to reach even 0 with Gal. Perhaps if there were better parts to standing improvement (like a lesser arc for each empire faction that could repair standings or something), people may like this idea more.
Also, I'd love to see this carried out in Nul sec to some degree. For example, i should not be able to fly through Gurista space without constantly being shot. Even their stations should shoot me on site. In the least, something like this would make living in NPC nul more interesting. |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
129
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 18:29:52 -
[95] - Quote
Hello Kitty island adventure is that-a-way -------> |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 18:53:39 -
[96] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:The one thing you need to add is a better way to improve standings
If you are going to improve the impact of character's standings. For example, I was a Cal navy brat long before anything else. While clueless, I ran countless missions, trashing my Gal standing. I have since trained diplomacy to 5 so I could actually got through Gal space. (this was a necessity as at the time, RvB lived in Gal space.)
Now, even using Sister's if EVE epic arc and a lot of work, it would take me awhile to reach even 0 with Gal. Perhaps if there were better parts to standing improvement (like a lesser arc for each empire faction that could repair standings or something), people may like this idea more.
Also, I'd love to see this carried out in Nul sec to some degree. For example, i should not be able to fly through Gurista space without constantly being shot. Even their stations should shoot me on site. In the least, something like this would make living in NPC nul more interesting.
the way you gain standings is fine as is. I hate the idea of making it any easier for enemys of certain factions to regain favor any quicker then they already can. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1247
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 19:22:06 -
[97] - Quote
Not that it really matters, but after five years I've updated my sig  .
Remove standings and insurance.
|
Sitting Bull Lakota
SBL Co
190
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 19:56:33 -
[98] - Quote
To suicide a freighter requires the coordination of many parties.
Why should you, solo-aspiring op, be given preferential treatment over the coordinated team in this massively multiplayer online role playing game? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5978
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 21:03:56 -
[99] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Another thing I find ironic is how some people still cling to the "null is safer" lie despite all the data (like at every fanfest when they show how more value is destroy in null than in high). I say Ironic because people who live in high sec do so mainly for the safety, yet they say null is even safer,while refusing to move to null.
If null is so safe why is everyone in "not safe" high sec?
It is true that most destruction happens in nullsec. It is also true that certain activities are far safer in nullsec. This is not a contradiction: it is simply a fact that in nullsec you do not engage in certain activities when there are neutrals or reds in local. There is no unexpected ganking of your mining fleet by suicide gankers. You watch intel channels, you know in advance whether there is danger, and you address the risk.
It is also a fact of life in nullsec that you can't just do what you want on your own schedule. You need to participate in corp activities, comply to alliance mandates, and help maintain your presence, or face eviction by your coalition, alliance or corporation.
So it is hardly ironic that a solo player living in hisec would state that nullsec is safe, but continue to play in hisec. They appreciate the safety of nullsec but do not have the time to engage in the wonton destruction that is required to secure one's position in a nullsec corporation. They don't want to plan their game time around someone else's schedule and live by someone else's rules.
So there's no irony, and there's no contradiction. There is, however, oversimplification of a scenario and a straw man argument.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
129
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 21:05:45 -
[100] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.
lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.
It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!
Take that, logic!
|
|
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders
4471
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 01:04:54 -
[101] - Quote
Why do carebears always want to punish gankers?
They're like that huge crowd in 'Hang'em High'...
If anything, a mechanic that buffs carebears could make more sense. Like faster CONCORD response time for high standings.
Carebears love to grind, it would give them a goal to work towards. Also make things more interesting for gankers, I guess? Not knowing the exact CONCORD response time...
I'm sure the idea has come up several times, so I guess there are downsides to it.
So yeah, OP, no luck there, can't be a casual freighter pilot sorry. You can still be a casual mission runner, I guess.
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
Xander Jade
Division Nine
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 03:56:53 -
[102] - Quote
Lasisha Mishi wrote:Xander Jade wrote:I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.
this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this
since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)
Pilot X ES = 7.2 GǪ Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4
if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be
7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36
this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security
lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.
make it even more complexGǪ if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contributionGǪ but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)
Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter. sounds interesting. it would also make ganking be a bit more lore themed. as gankers investigate their target first and then kill in certain space. though the one issue i have is "all 4 empires" would be a bit overkill. i'd say it would only really apply to the highest empire standing you have. as considering Gallente and Caldari relationships, i'd find it hard to believe they'd both like the same person. but at the same time, caldari would probably be happy with gankers killing gallente alligned people in their own space (concord would be pissed.....but meh) and eventually gallente would want to step in to protect people alligned to them in their own controlled space. so 1 empire, not 4. or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)
so 1 not 4... ok but have it be the territory you are currently in not the highest standing. |
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
504
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 04:49:22 -
[103] - Quote
i am a casual player too and i DON'T support this crap because it promotes autopiloting.
all autopiloting ships should die. if something IMPORTANT came up IRL while freighting/playing, DOCK THE FCK UP.
Just Add Water
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3007
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 06:32:41 -
[104] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
Let me guess, you are a highsec miner? Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE.
Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3007
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 06:44:11 -
[105] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good.
Cool story bro. The wardec system can be dodged so easily it is completely useless if it comes to miners.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
4513
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 06:48:57 -
[106] - Quote
It's not completely useless, just mostly useless.
Sometimes you find an entire group of miners you're at war with sitting totally AFK in a belt and you showed up in a battleship to whack a POS but they're AFK so it doesn't matter and you kill them without them noticing. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 07:46:06 -
[107] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push. It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true! Take that, logic!
As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.
You are just embarrassing yourself. |
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
508
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 07:49:29 -
[108] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push. It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true! Take that, logic! As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game. You are just embarrassing yourself.
the irony, loooool.
ive said this before, ill say it again. we get it dude, you hate the game, so please quit. it would be better for the rest of us. thank you.
Just Add Water
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 07:55:51 -
[109] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good. Cool story bro. The wardec system can be dodged so easily it is completely useless if it comes to miners.
So you dont like effort for your PvP game, you much rather prefer an easyISK gankerWOW. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 07:58:14 -
[110] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push. It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true! Take that, logic! As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game. You are just embarrassing yourself. the irony, loooool. ive said this before, ill say it again. we get it dude, you hate the game, so please quit. it would be better for the rest of us. thank you.
So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.
Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy. |
|
|
Vigirr
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:00:46 -
[111] - Quote
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:06:37 -
[112] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.
No actually I like PvP. Gankers themselves are very good for business.
However I don't like the overpower of the destroyers, nor do I like the lack of effects on for negative sec status and Crime watch and the destroyer rebalance actually killed off some fun things like can flipping, hunting criminals et al.
The destroyers are the biggest problem, not PvP if you need to use a cruiser or above to gank then it would be a lot better for the victims who would then also be more likely to include the gankers.
At the moment the gankers are just on easy isk and they don't want this to change. It is broken and needs fixing. |
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
508
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:12:59 -
[113] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.
Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.
game mechanics of course theres alot of changes, and there will be much more in the future.
but he's not pertaining to that, he's talking about EvE's core which is a PVP-oriented sandbox game and it hasn't changed since the beginning, but you can't obviously comprehend that, so ill just assume your d*mb. 
since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.
Just Add Water
|
Vigirr
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:14:33 -
[114] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts. No actually I like PvP. Gankers themselves are very good for business. However I don't like the overpower of the destroyers, nor do I like the lack of effects on for negative sec status and Crime watch and the destroyer rebalance actually killed off some fun things like can flipping, hunting criminals et al. The destroyers are the biggest problem, not PvP if you need to use a cruiser or above to gank then it would be a lot better for the victims who would then also be more likely to include the gankers. At the moment the gankers are just on easy isk and they don't want this to change. It is broken and needs fixing.
Destroyers being silly, some of them anyway, is true and should be changed. This however does not explain your posting history. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:23:40 -
[115] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:
So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.
Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.
game mechanics of course theres alot of changes, and there will be much more in the future. but he's not pertaining to that, he's talking about EvE's core which is a PVP-oriented sandbox game and it hasn't changed since the beginning, but you can't obviously comprehend that, so ill just assume your d*mb. since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.
Oh look another emotive argument.
Of course EvE is a PvP orientated game but the point was specifically related to changes having occurred.
These forums have gotten very much like arguing with uneducated children. No ability to read or properly comprehend. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1221
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:35:11 -
[116] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.
Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.
We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 08:52:28 -
[117] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts. Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire. We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.
Would you care to pull up this post.
Because it wasn't me. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1221
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 09:17:47 -
[118] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts. Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire. We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates. Would you care to pull up this post. Because it wasn't me.
My apology if that's the case. I thought it was you that wrote it.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 17:35:14 -
[119] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
Let me guess, you are a highsec miner? Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE. Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"?
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
Nat Silverguard wrote:since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.
That logic is itself dumb. Just because someone is dumb doesn't mean an opinion they also hold is dumb. Many dumb people, such as yourself, probably hold the opinion that the sky is blue which is not a dumb opinion, even if it is wrong. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14863
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 17:39:31 -
[120] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.
Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that. |
|
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3018
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 17:40:23 -
[121] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe
IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.
Let me guess, you are a highsec miner? Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE. Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"? Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
Why would I be scared of nullsec. I thought it was "extremely safe"?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
61
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:01:53 -
[122] - Quote
While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:19:10 -
[123] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Steffles wrote:
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.
Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that.
Speaking of dumb...
CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that.
Enter the non-consensual:
Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge.
Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony.
High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die".
All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss.
vs
Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:
1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.
2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.
3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14863
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:31:16 -
[124] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Steffles wrote:
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.
Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that. Speaking of dumb... CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that. Enter the non-consensual: Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge. Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony. High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die". All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss. vs Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as: 1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time. 2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time. 3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.
This is the 'fail' atitude, the attitude that says "hey, look at tyhose other guys i don't like" while totally failing to0 understand their own situation.
Nothing you typed had anything to do with 'consensual pvp',they are simply styles of play you don't like.EVE Online has universal non-consensual pvp mechanics. The ONE exception is a policy exception that isn't enforced by mechanic means (the rule about pvping new players in a new player system, which the game allows but that may be punished at the discretion of the GMs).
The above demonstrates the fundamental truth of EVE, that you are never ever safe in space even in high sec,and that even when you do things 100% right you can still be blown up by other players against your will. THAT is EVE's non-consensual pvp mechanic at work..
It's been that way since 2003 and people have complained about it since 2003, which is stupid because the danger of surprise,unwanted pvp is the single best thing about EVE, it's one of the few things that gives the game any value.
So goon about how terrible f1 monkeys are etc. It's not their fault that they are playing the game correctly (ie being in a fleet with Logi so as to not die easily) while people like you are playing it wrong (ie taking stupid risks and dying in avoidable pvp gank situations in high sec, the place where magical space police spawn to punish your attacker and save you if you just stay alive long enough). |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:37:16 -
[125] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Steffles wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Steffles wrote:
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.
Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that. Speaking of dumb... CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that. Enter the non-consensual: Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge. Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony. High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die". All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss. vs Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as: 1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time. 2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time. 3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey. This is the 'fail' atitude, the attitude that says "hey, look at tyhose other guys i don't like" while totally failing to0 understand their own situation. Nothing you typed had anything to do with 'consensual pvp',they are simply styles of play you don't like.EVE Online has universal non-consensual pvp mechanics. The ONE exception is a policy exception that isn't enforced by mechanic means (the rule about pvping new players in a new player system, which the game allows but that may be punished at the discretion of the GMs). The above demonstrates the fundamental truth of EVE, that you are never ever safe in space even in high sec,and that even when you do things 100% right you can still be blown up by other players against your will. THAT is EVE's non-consensual pvp mechanic at work.. It's been that way since 2003 and people have complained about it since 2003, which is stupid because the danger of surprise,unwanted pvp is the single best thing about EVE, it's one of the few things that gives the game any value. So goon about how terrible f1 monkeys are etc. It's not their fault that they are playing the game correctly (ie being in a fleet with Logi so as to not die easily) while people like you are playing it wrong (ie taking stupid risks and dying in avoidable pvp gank situations in high sec, the place where magical space police spawn to punish your attacker and save you if you just stay alive long enough).
The Oh So Familiar Sound of Jenn Missing the Point
The Missed Points
1. I don't play in highsec as my killboards (Infinity Ziona, L Dopa) so obviously show.
2. Its not non-consensual if its entirely consensual or entirely avoided.
3. Bonobo's are better than CODE at PvP.
Oh PS: I don't care if you're in the bubbled fecked gate, dock at the first sign of danger group. You're entitled to your "playstyle" just don't try to defend it as playing correctly while telling everyone else they're playing incorrectly. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5448
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:41:54 -
[126] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.
Risk is not something that should be imposed simply by mechanics. Gankers impose risk on haulers. If somebody wants to impose risk on gankers...then players should do it, not the game. For example, use an alt to make a courier contract when you are moving lots of individual stacks of items. If I have say 20 stacks of items the chance of none of that dropping is (0.5)^20. That is a very small number--or something is going to drop. However, if I have an alt make a courier contract and then put the plastic wrapped item in my cargo and get ganked the probability nothing drops is now 0.5, and 0.5 >> (0.5)^20. Congratulations you just made that individual riskier. Granted, ganking overall for dedicated gankers will not be any more or less risky as they rely on the law of averages.
Another thing is why in the Hell is nobody pointing out that people post as if the ganked have zero responsibility in this. What do we know:
1. Drop rate is 0.5, that is the probability of any item dropping is 0.5.
2. We know about how long it takes CONCORD to respond to aggression in HS.
3. We know we can calculate the optimal number of gank ships to burn down a freighter.
4. We can attach an ISK value to that gank fleet, call this value X.
5. Based on the ISK value of the gank fleet we can determine the minimal value of cargo to induce a gank. This cargo value is X/0.5 or 2*X.
So...keep your goddamn cargo under 2X and you'll be a less inviting target. It will not make you 100% gank proof. Ganks do happen for the lulz and some gankers might try to ransom you. But, if I am going to gank and I want to make it sustainable, I'll go for freighters carrying at least 2X.
But we will see people with 3X, 4X, 5X, and so forth undocking and flying without a scout, without a webber....You might as well rename your ship the Gankship Lollipop for crying outloud. BTW, there is a term for people who do this: RISK SEEKING.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14863
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:43:41 -
[127] - Quote
Steffles wrote:The Oh So Familiar Sound of Jenn Missing the PointThe Missed Points 1. I don't play in highsec as my killboards ( Infinity Ziona, L Dopa) so obviously show. 2. Its not non-consensual if its entirely consensual or entirely avoided. 3. Bonobo's are better than CODE at PvP. Oh PS: I don't care if you're in the bubbled fecked gate, dock at the first sign of danger group. You're entitled to your "playstyle" just don't try to defend it as playing correctly while telling everyone else they're playing incorrectly.
The highlighted part explains everything. I wouldn't have bothered to reply if I knew who it was, though I should have pinged to it after the 2nd lala land post.
What happened, that 3rd massive public rage quit wore off again and you are back to give money to a company you hate (CCP) to play a game you don't like (EVE), between bouts of motorcycle riding and online threats that is lol.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5448
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:44:17 -
[128] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:
1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.
2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.
3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.
FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:53:39 -
[129] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:
1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.
2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.
3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.
FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking.
That was exactly my point - that the people calling 1 and 2 above risk averse carebears while themselves flying disposable "ammo ships" that nobody will attack because (1) its pointless to attack them because they're supposed to blow up and (2) attacking them elicits a concord response - is the height of irony. That gankers are the true risk averse carebears and 1 and 2 above are the true risk takers. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5450
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 18:58:00 -
[130] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:
1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.
2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.
3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.
FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking. That was exactly my point - that the people calling 1 and 2 above risk averse carebears while themselves flying disposable "ammo ships" that nobody will attack because (1) its pointless to attack them because they're supposed to blow up and (2) attacking them elicits a concord response - is the height of irony. That gankers are the true risk averse carebears and 1 and 2 above are the true risk takers.
Okay....
Risk taking is not a virtue.
Most people are risk averse.
Even in game.
And when the risk takers complain that they are losing to the risk averse....not a problem, working as intended.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 19:17:43 -
[131] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote:While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos. Risk is not something that should be imposed simply by mechanics. Gankers impose risk on haulers. If somebody wants to impose risk on gankers...then players should do it, not the game. For example, use an alt to make a courier contract when you are moving lots of individual stacks of items. If I have say 20 stacks of items the chance of none of that dropping is (0.5)^20. That is a very small number--or something is going to drop. However, if I have an alt make a courier contract and then put the plastic wrapped item in my cargo and get ganked the probability nothing drops is now 0.5, and 0.5 >> (0.5)^20. Congratulations you just made that individual riskier. Granted, ganking overall for dedicated gankers will not be any more or less risky as they rely on the law of averages. Another thing is why in the Hell is nobody pointing out that people post as if the ganked have zero responsibility in this. What do we know: 1. Drop rate is 0.5, that is the probability of any item dropping is 0.5. 2. We know about how long it takes CONCORD to respond to aggression in HS. 3. We know we can calculate the optimal number of gank ships to burn down a freighter. 4. We can attach an ISK value to that gank fleet, call this value X. 5. Based on the ISK value of the gank fleet we can determine the minimal value of cargo to induce a gank. This cargo value is X/0.5 or 2*X. So...keep your goddamn cargo under 2X and you'll be a less inviting target. It will not make you 100% gank proof. Ganks do happen for the lulz and some gankers might try to ransom you. But, if I am going to gank and I want to make it sustainable, I'll go for freighters carrying at least 2X. But we will see people with 3X, 4X, 5X, and so forth undocking and flying without a scout, without a webber....You might as well rename your ship the Gankship Lollipop for crying outloud. BTW, there is a term for people who do this: RISK SEEKING.
This formula is not really accurate:
Take the Fenrir - there are as many or more 1.3b losses of the Fenrir as there are losses with more than 1.3b in cargo.
The average cost of a thrasher or similiar gank ship per pilot is so low that its more than acceptable to kill an empty Fenrir (for the green killmail) as it is to kill one with loot. The total gank fleet cost is irrelevant given the actual cost is time lost not ship value lost.
In short apart from the high value ganks which are not exactly common, you're losing money ganking freighters when you consider time spent that could be spent generating money in more efficient ways. They're not ganked for isk they're ganked because they're easy to gank and they make for nice killboards. Cargo is a bonus that needs to split 30+ ways. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 19:26:23 -
[132] - Quote
But that assumes people care that much about killboards which is rarely the case. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5451
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 19:30:46 -
[133] - Quote
Steffles wrote:This formula is not really accurate: Take the Fenrir - there are as many or more 1.3b losses of the Fenrir as there are losses with more than 1.3b in cargo. The average cost of a thrasher or similiar gank ship per pilot is so low that its more than acceptable to kill an empty Fenrir (for the green killmail) as it is to kill one with loot. The total gank fleet cost is irrelevant given the actual cost is time lost not ship value lost. In short apart from the high value ganks which are not exactly common, you're losing money ganking freighters when you consider time spent that could be spent generating money in more efficient ways. They're not ganked for isk they're ganked because they're easy to gank and they make for nice killboards. Cargo is a bonus that needs to split 30+ ways.
Try taking out all the NS & LS kills.
The first one is a 3 billion ISK kill in a 0.5.
Then the next 3 are LS kills...i.e. not a ganks, although one has a staggering high value cargo. Then a 4.84 billion loss. The another LS kill, then a 2.88 billion ISK kill in 0.6.
Also, the ones that are low value and in HS, check them for plastic wrapped cargo.....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
312
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 20:13:34 -
[134] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Vigirr wrote:For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts. Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire. We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates. Would you care to pull up this post. Because it wasn't me. My apology if that's the case. I thought it was you that wrote it.
That would be another whinebear named Padejus you are thinking of (who by the way posted pretty recently also) |
Keno Skir
858
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 20:15:46 -
[135] - Quote
Ganking is fine, Carebears are food. End.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
313
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 20:23:23 -
[136] - Quote
I have to laugh when I hear people talking about realism in a game set in space in the distant future in what appears to be fluidic space, especially the whole -10s shouldn't be able to dock in high sec, use gates, blah blah, blah. Well, here's a IRL analogy for you:
People released from prison can still go to the mall, ACME, Walmart or wherever. Once a player's criminal timer is up, they have served their time, and are free to return to society. They already have faction police constantly after them, and are free kills for anyone that wants to shoot at them. If anything, real life should be more like this game, not the other way around. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
19
|
Posted - 2016.11.01 20:43:15 -
[137] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:I have to laugh when I hear people talking about realism in a game set in space in the distant future in what appears to be fluidic space, especially the whole -10s shouldn't be able to dock in high sec, use gates, blah blah, blah. Well, here's a IRL analogy for you: People released from prison can still go to the mall, ACME, Walmart or wherever. Once a player's criminal timer is up, they have served their time, and are free to return to society. They already have faction police constantly after them, and are free kills for anyone that wants to shoot at them. If anything, real life should be more like this game, not the other way around. Steffles wrote:
Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)
Please explain how -10s are hiding behind NPC police when anyone can shoot them at any time.
I think what people are getting at is the Crime and Punishment concept that if a criminal kills someone irl they serve 25-life. in EVE sense all capsuleers are immortal. crime and punishment are dealt with a little differently. there complaint is that a killer just gets reduced sec status and a short timer as punishment. Lets be honest here, when you get ganked, you wake up in your clone. the only real loss is your implants, ship, modules and thing in your cargo bay. so if you do get ganked the real crime isn't that you died, its that your gear was destroyed/stolen.
So High sec is really more about protecting you from theft/personal property destruction by the lore. |
Xavier Higdon
Callide Vulpis
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
372
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 00:14:06 -
[138] - Quote
Put simply: No. Why? Because your sand castle doesn't get to exist at the expense of mine.
As for those individuals running around calling people names: I get it. Your life sucks. Would you like to talk about it? |
Xander Jade
Division Nine
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 02:55:56 -
[139] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Vigirr wrote:Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement. No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner. Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something. lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push. It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true! Take that, logic! As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game. You are just embarrassing yourself.
HA HA HA HA ... Galaxy Duck just put a bounty on me.... 315,315 ISK... im guessing its his way of saying that i need to "come to Jesus" |
Xander Jade
Division Nine
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 03:15:53 -
[140] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.
this is a good example of someone who understands what im saying, ... no i don't think it is a good idea autopilot anywhere ... but the number of things in this game that are just not used ... autopilot ... insurance... (some use it i guess) .. standings, i like pvp, it is fun... ganking is awesome .. in its own way, im not saying these things need to go away, ... hell make a skill called corrupt connections where you bribe your standings back to the positive, ... have stations that only appear on your hud when you have negative standings, and it sits next to a stable wormhole, ... the ships do need to be rebalanced ... make non-combat cyno that can be lit inside high sec, ... anyway, you could make anything work, |
|
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 03:43:19 -
[141] - Quote
Steffles wrote: *giving a stern look*
well, that's just d*mb people like you like to think. i thought you quit already? lol
Just Add Water
|
Korobov Tesla
New Eden Nationalist Movement
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 06:44:18 -
[142] - Quote
Asmodai Xodai wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo I don't agree with the guy's proposed change in any way whatsoever, but no need to be a douchebag either. You are no doubt just as much a carebear as anyone else, tough guy. You show me any gang of low-sec pirate gate-campers who consider themselves doing 'elite PvP' *cough* and I'll show you a bunch of tree-hugging carebears. In real life low-grade scrubs who operate in gangs and jump individuals they outnumber 5 or 10 to 1 aren't considered tough guys, they are considered cowards. You never see these guys taking actual risks, or taking fights they could potentially lose. Nope, it's either they jump unsuspecting individuals they outnumber and outgun 10 to 1 at the most creative and ingenious of all gameplay devices this game has ever seen - the gatecamp - or they don't play. Cowards and carebears, the lot of them. A high-sec miner takes more risk. Don't get me wrong. I'm not for outlawing it, nor regulating it. Play the game however you want, and do what makes you happy. Just don't be under the illusion that you are any less of a carebear than anyone else.
As far as I am concerned this is the most useful comment in this whole thread. lol, so very very true. Gate camping scrubs are the biggest carebears. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2881
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 06:53:24 -
[143] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote:While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos. this is a good example of someone who understands what im saying, ... no i don't think it is a good idea autopilot anywhere ... but the number of things in this game that are just not used ... autopilot ... insurance... (some use it i guess) .. standings, i like pvp, it is fun... ganking is awesome .. in its own way, im not saying these things need to go away, ... hell make a skill called corrupt connections where you bribe your standings back to the positive, ... have stations that only appear on your hud when you have negative standings, and it sits next to a stable wormhole, ... the ships do need to be rebalanced ... make non-combat cyno that can be lit inside high sec, ... anyway, you could make anything work, I think everyone acknowledges that criminal gameplay could be improved. There are a lot of mechanics that prevent escalation, player interaction, and continuing conflict between the players, while huge potential places for content - think smuggling, contraband and bounty hunting - lay underdeveloped. I think CCP can, and should completely rethink the highsec/lowsec criminal mechanics at some point in the future and redo that with the goal of enabling more and continued interplay between the players, both criminal, victim and law enforcement.
But this is not what your ideas in the OP do. They pile a heap more of NPC-enforced "consequences" and hurdles for antogonist players to overcome (while adding no additional responsibilities or effort for the defenders) which will limit player-interaction and conflict. The fundamental problem is that CCP has done indeed just this for years, making ganking harder and players safer by tweaking the rules and NPCs, and it has got to the point that criminals can only operate by hiding in stations for most of the time, only briefly emerging to strike at the target leaving only a tiny window for player vigilantes to attack them, while undermining those vigilantes at the same time by having NPC law enforcement that does that better than any player ever could.
Highsec is already extremely safe. Almost all the reasons to attack another player there has been nerfed out of the game, with direct piracy against haulers being one of the last ones left. Making it even more difficult for players to initiate conflict does not seem like a good idea if your a trying to encourage player-driven stories and rivalries to develop and snowball as is the raison d'etre of the sandbox game CCP is developing.
So no, cargo scanning is not "complete crap", it is essential for a pirate to even be able to exist under the current mechanics. If you delete that, then gankers are reduced to mere vandals, just shooting stuff that comes along at random. A pirate needs to be able to assess whether there is profit to be made in hijacking a particular hauler, or they will probably just all go away completely given there is a mandatory cost to attack. Facing vandals rather than pirates looking for ISK is also bad for haulers as it would remove any ability to make yourself safe by carrying a reasonable load of cargo.
If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets. Overloaded/underdefended ships should be the target for pirates, not empty ones, so enabling all players to assess the relative risks vs. rewards is imperative for piracy-hauler cat-and-mouse game play to exist.
So, the TL,DR is that while I sympathize with your desire for more complex, interactive and social criminal mechanics, there is not a simple fix (certainly not but just adding more NPC-enforced hoops for criminals to jump through). All of CrimeWatch will have to be torn out and replaced, much like CCP is doing for structures. I think your ideas would benefit if you play the game some more, including as a pirate, before you start offing up your armchair game change suggestions.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 06:56:58 -
[144] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Steffles wrote: *giving a stern look* well, that's just d*mb people like you like to think. i thought you quit already? lol
Nat after examining some of your posting history, you really should not be bring the intelligence levels of others into question.
Try actually discussing things in a reasoned and rational manner. Unless this is some kind of RP at which case I apologise. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 11:07:05 -
[145] - Quote
Getting back to actually thinking about improving the game take a look at this and then have a think how synergistic it would be in terms of balancing the one way tracking, sig, speed issues introduced by CCP.
This is a system that needs to be implemented ASAP
While it would go a long way to addressing suicide ganking risk vs reward it would also give a significant boost to some of the underperforming ships and ship classes in the game.
|
Old IT Guy
Geriatric Capsuleers Inc
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 16:04:55 -
[146] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge.
EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 16:29:58 -
[147] - Quote
Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave.
I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play. |
Josef Djugashvilis
3478
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 16:35:51 -
[148] - Quote
Stick by the rules as defined by CCP and play Eve anyway you want, whilst accepting that if you undock you run the risk to a greater or lesser extent of being ganked.
This notion of 'play may way or quit' is just childish.
This is not a signature.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14867
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 16:41:23 -
[149] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play.
I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't.
EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.
The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:10:18 -
[150] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play. I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't. EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.
The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game.
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work. |
|
|
The Golden Serpent
The Abrahadabra Institute
211
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:12:09 -
[151] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo
Getting so sick of these sorts of responses on EVERY single idea thread that is worth listening to. Eve players seem to have a meltdown about just about anything that sounds like it isn't about making love to angry young men with psychopathic tendencies. They are like the angry german kid of player bases.
-:¦:-GÇó:'":GÇó.-:¦:-GÇó* K H A N I D GÇó-:¦:-GÇó:''''*:GÇó-:¦:-
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14868
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:20:28 -
[152] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:[
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.
Not it is not and no it does not.
PVE is a facilitator, PVP is the actual engine of the economy and game. Without the destruction caused by combat there is no reason for industry, and nothing to spend the game's currency on. Without the broader aspects of pvp interactions (competition in markets, industry and resource gathering) there is no reason to do anything.
There is nothing to balance between (combat) PVP and PVE anyways, unless it's in the direction of more pvp which creates more demand/material churn which in tern makes our pve activities worth more (as the things we gather and build become more valuable).
While most of us who PVE as a primary activty understand the paramount importance of PVP to our own enjoyment of the game, some PVErs (the one's who falsely call for 'more balance) seem to not understand that nerfing PVP actually nerfs their (our) own rewards structures and lowers the value of PVE.
This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
21
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:36:06 -
[153] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:[
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work. Not it is not and no it does not. PVE is a facilitator, PVP is the actual engine of the economy and game. Without the destruction caused by combat there is no reason for industry, and nothing to spend the game's currency on. Without the broader aspects of pvp interactions (competition in markets, industry and resource gathering) there is no reason to do anything. There is nothing to balance between (combat) PVP and PVE anyways, unless it's in the direction of more pvp which creates more demand/material churn which in tern makes our pve activities worth more (as the things we gather and build become more valuable). While most of us who PVE as a primary activty understand the paramount importance of PVP to our own enjoyment of the game, some PVErs (the one's who falsely call for 'more balance) seem to not understand that nerfing PVP actually nerfs their (our) own rewards structures and lowers the value of PVE. This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.
If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5456
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:41:15 -
[154] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.
No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell.
The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day.
About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I canGÇÖt think of any.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Lasisha Mishi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:42:29 -
[155] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:[
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work. Not it is not and no it does not. PVE is a facilitator, PVP is the actual engine of the economy and game. Without the destruction caused by combat there is no reason for industry, and nothing to spend the game's currency on. Without the broader aspects of pvp interactions (competition in markets, industry and resource gathering) there is no reason to do anything. There is nothing to balance between (combat) PVP and PVE anyways, unless it's in the direction of more pvp which creates more demand/material churn which in tern makes our pve activities worth more (as the things we gather and build become more valuable). While most of us who PVE as a primary activty understand the paramount importance of PVP to our own enjoyment of the game, some PVErs (the one's who falsely call for 'more balance) seem to not understand that nerfing PVP actually nerfs their (our) own rewards structures and lowers the value of PVE. This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap. Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space. If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
small correction
production is taking place in high and null.
not high and low
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_ooGHiiERM
0:46 for mining locations (rip npc null and low sec. they empty)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:47:51 -
[156] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.
If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
I think that you need to look at value destroyed relative to total asset value between NS/W-space and HS/LS. And I also find it rather weird to be lumping LS with HS. I suspect that many people who complain about the supposed dangers of HS oddly enough tend to avoid spending considerable in LS let alone NS/W-space. And it is odd because many of the people who avoid LS/NS/W-space are risk seeking...at least given how they play. Blinged out ratting BS, over loaded haulers, over loaded freighters....these behaviors are all consistent with risk seeking. And that the risk averse take advantage of the risk seeking...well, working as intended.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:52:38 -
[157] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote:While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.
Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.
Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos. Risk is not something that should be imposed simply by mechanics. Gankers impose risk on haulers. If somebody wants to impose risk on gankers...then players should do it, not the game. For example, use an alt to make a courier contract when you are moving lots of individual stacks of items. If I have say 20 stacks of items the chance of none of that dropping is (0.5)^20. That is a very small number--or something is going to drop. However, if I have an alt make a courier contract and then put the plastic wrapped item in my cargo and get ganked the probability nothing drops is now 0.5, and 0.5 >> (0.5)^20. Congratulations you just made that individual riskier. Granted, ganking overall for dedicated gankers will not be any more or less risky as they rely on the law of averages. Another thing is why in the Hell is nobody pointing out that people post as if the ganked have zero responsibility in this. What do we know: 1. Drop rate is 0.5, that is the probability of any item dropping is 0.5. 2. We know about how long it takes CONCORD to respond to aggression in HS. 3. We know we can calculate the optimal number of gank ships to burn down a freighter. 4. We can attach an ISK value to that gank fleet, call this value X. 5. Based on the ISK value of the gank fleet we can determine the minimal value of cargo to induce a gank. This cargo value is X/0.5 or 2*X. So...keep your goddamn cargo under 2X and you'll be a less inviting target. It will not make you 100% gank proof. Ganks do happen for the lulz and some gankers might try to ransom you. But, if I am going to gank and I want to make it sustainable, I'll go for freighters carrying at least 2X. But we will see people with 3X, 4X, 5X, and so forth undocking and flying without a scout, without a webber....You might as well rename your ship the Gankship Lollipop for crying outloud. BTW, there is a term for people who do this: RISK SEEKING.
Ganking is a mechanic, it is the risk imposed. The current problem is that Ganking is a act that can be done so cheaply for a group of people that it is insignificant. Undocking a hauler ship is the equivalent of trying to solo a 50 man Tengu Fleet. You are destined to lose. One person loses a decent load on a hauler it can cripple them, one person loses a gank fit combat ship they replace laugh and keep going. My proposition of a higher sec is really the only idea that I think can mend some of this stuff. I also think people who are hauling without a decent amount of support are asking to get blapped and are crying about making bad choices. But this game is constantly advertised as having a solo experience so I think it is something CCP needs to take a serious look at. Everything in EVE is mechanics Risk is built into every single mechanic in the game.
Personally I would love to see the risk to haulers be more of a are these items legal where I am going, am I going to lose this load to a corrupt official, Can this line up move faster so my fuel costs are low enough. Actual trucking sim stuff. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
21
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:54:05 -
[158] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.
No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell. The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day. About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I canGÇÖt think of any.
You miss my point again. PVE is the only way in the game to generate isk. Note that I said generate and not make, earn, trade, or any other word. This is because you can make isk a lot of different ways in EVE but it will come from another player. only in PVE is isk literally made out of thin air and added to the economy. Thus PVE is the foundation of the economy. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:57:54 -
[159] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems
Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.
Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this
This is exactly the kind of nonsense I am talking about. This pilot is risk seeking. He is making himself a very, very easy target. That the risk averse come along and take advantage of this risk seeking pilot should not bother anyone. Ever. This is how it is in RL and this is how it is in game. Imprudence should be punished and prudence should be rewarded. When this fails to happen you get really bad outcomes. For the pilot above he looses his stuff. For RL we get the financial crisis of 2007/2008.
The solution to the above non-problem is to engage in prudent game play. Not come and ask the developers to make the game safe for imprudent game play. At least not in this game. This is a game where PvP is central to the game. There is obvious and direct PvP where players shoot each other, and there is also anonymous competition via the markets.
The above not a problem that needs to be addressed. In fact, doing so takes away from what EvE is and has been.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14872
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 17:58:23 -
[160] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.
If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. [/quote]
This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.
When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen.
You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea.
Quote:
I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace.
The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough*Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal. |
|
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
71
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:03:04 -
[161] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.
No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell. The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day. About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I canGÇÖt think of any. You miss my point again. PVE is the only way in the game to generate isk. Note that I said generate and not make, earn, trade, or any other word. This is because you can make isk a lot of different ways in EVE but it will come from another player. only in PVE is isk literally made out of thin air and added to the economy. Thus PVE is the foundation of the economy.
This argument is a little weak. For one there is floating currency in the game, I think the only time money is removed from the market is the purchase of CCP seeded items. It is why price inflation is such a thing in EVE. Mission runners infuse ISK and Materials into the game, but so does PVP. LP stores and salvage bring both not in as large numbers but the mechanics are there. Asteroids are mined, Ships are made and they are bought by a steadily rising amount of ISK. PVE is what causes depreciation of prices in EVE, PvP causes them to rise. It is much more complex then just more ISK more stuff.
I think we would both need to be economists for any of this to really be discussed. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:03:57 -
[162] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
You seemed to have completely missed my point.
PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.
No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell. The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day. About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I canGÇÖt think of any. You miss my point again. PVE is the only way in the game to generate isk. Note that I said generate and not make, earn, trade, or any other word. This is because you can make isk a lot of different ways in EVE but it will come from another player. only in PVE is isk literally made out of thin air and added to the economy. Thus PVE is the foundation of the economy.
No, even ratting in NS, which is where the bulk of the ISK comes from, is competitive. This is how it works in alliances in NS. If you get into a sanctum or haven, it is "yours" to rat in. That is, I cannot come in and start shooting stuff. If I do, I'll be asked to get on comms, if I am not already, and get a stern talking too from someone in the leadership. I'll have the rules explained to me, and told not to violate them and if I do what sort of sanctions will be applied. Thus, anomalies are typically "first come, first serve". So that too is competition. Further, holding that space so that you can rat in it and that ISK can enter the game is a direct result of PvP.
The distinction between PvE and PvP is really more of a distinction between direct "shoot them in the face" PvP and other forms of PvP, IMO. About the only pure PvE is running missions.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
71
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:05:30 -
[163] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space. If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space.
This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.
When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen.
You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea.
Quote:
I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace.
The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough*Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal.[/quote]
I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please! |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1162
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:07:10 -
[164] - Quote
Nerfing PVP at this point is pointless because the only ones left playing are bitter vets.
But it wouldn't hurt to add ships with more tank for high sec activities.
But to me that is pointless because I will be playing F2P and won't be able to
Mine or haul anything worth of note.
And I already have several billion in isk and assets so losing a bunch of cruisers won't be a big deal.
I'm trying to think of what this game needs to improve beyond better financial instruments, but I'm at a loss as nothing I can think of will make a difference at this point.
If we have to rely on the forums to save EVE, the game is doomed.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
71
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:09:13 -
[165] - Quote
EVE 2.0 - Strat Sim |
Keno Skir
860
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:10:21 -
[166] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Steffles wrote: *giving a stern look* well, that's just d*mb people like you like to think. i thought you quit already? lol
You shouldn't call someone "Dumb" when you have no idea what it means, it makes you sound uneducated.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1162
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:20:01 -
[167] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space. If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen. You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea. Quote:
I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace. The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough *Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal.
I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please![/quote]
You know I don't think people stay in high sec because of skewed risk/reward ratio, but rather a aversion to getting involved with people and politics.
To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.
I usually like to make lose alliances with people rather than join their own corporation, because when I do the CEO invariably does something stupid and gets us all killed. I suppose there are larger alliances but those have too much politics for my liking.
And it's hard to be a neutral in null.
So my gut feeling tells me that most people don't like interpersonal BS, so they stick to high sec and just solo or keep their Corp small.
Even if you made high sec less profitable, it still would not encourage players to move out of high sec.
They would rather quit, but at this point you can't really quit after the 15th so I don't know if that is valid anymore.
You can just say they will stop paying subs since no point in mining in a exhumed if it's no longer profitable.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:22:22 -
[168] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play. I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't. EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.
The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game.
from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
|
Lasisha Mishi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:25:55 -
[169] - Quote
highsec is fine as it is now =/
if you want pvp. go low sec or null sec
if you want to relax(a little), high sec.
please don't try to force pvp onto high sec.....you have low sec, wormholes, and null sec for that purpose..and war decs
i'm ok pvp (just went on first pvp with bombersbar yesterday), but if i have to deal with it constantly, i'd quit.
highsec profit margins are fine right now. nullsec you can get rich fast. while high sec takes a while. so risk reward is fine. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14872
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:31:44 -
[170] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play. I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't. EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.
The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game. from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
I underlined the parts that include pvp.
|
|
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14872
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:33:54 -
[171] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.
Thisi is untrue,so untrue I'll link someone I actually cannot stand.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:41:24 -
[172] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.
Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK
I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems.
in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again). |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:44:52 -
[173] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.
Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems. in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again).
I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong.
When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:46:43 -
[174] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:
from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
I underlined the parts that include pvp.
you also underlined the parts that are not pvp |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:49:59 -
[175] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:
from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
I underlined the parts that include pvp. you also underlined the parts that are not pvp
Yes, it does make things easier if you hold a nihilistic view.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1163
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:52:57 -
[176] - Quote
Hell, I even ninja'd null rats when I was bored with FW in 2013.
But that's technically not living but rather working in null sec. Sure there are stations that tolerate neutrals but it still requires some politicking for the neutral. And I specifically said live.
If you have to fly back and forth between high sec and null.... Well...
You only visit there.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1163
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 18:58:10 -
[177] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.
Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems. in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again). I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong. When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be.
To be fair, gankers are also risk adverse. They mostly ignore bot fleets with nothing but 20 skiffs and kill the one poor bastard in a hulk.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:07:09 -
[178] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.
Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems. in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again). I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong. When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be. To be fair, gankers are also risk adverse. They mostly ignore bot fleets with nothing but 20 skiffs and kill the one poor bastard in a hulk.
So what? There is nothing wrong with being risk averse. In fact, most of us are.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Merovee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
203
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:21:35 -
[179] - Quote
People are lazy, I've have been ganked 5 times since '03, because I was lazy. Gankers are lazier than I am, always ask "What did I do wrong" after an gank. Learn from it and move on. I lived in low sec from '03 to '11 with stints in null sec and only lived in high sec last few years because of RL politics when my time was limited to doing a once a month lvl 4 missions with my son.
I've been playing Civ5 for a year, trying to get my first King win and thanks to Filthy I'm getting really close. This winter I have no more ties so maybe I'll get to relearn this game again and start playing regular.
To: CCP
Good job on the game  , after playing Civ I was wondering when you will be planning a ground game for eve on the planets?
Merovee
Empire, the next new world order.
|
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
21
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:21:37 -
[180] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.
Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space. If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space. This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen. You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea. Quote:
I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.
if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace. The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough *Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal. I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please!
You know I don't think people stay in high sec because of skewed risk/reward ratio, but rather a aversion to getting involved with people and politics.
To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.
I usually like to make lose alliances with people rather than join their own corporation, because when I do the CEO invariably does something stupid and gets us all killed. I suppose there are larger alliances but those have too much politics for my liking.
And it's hard to be a neutral in null.
So my gut feeling tells me that most people don't like interpersonal BS, so they stick to high sec and just solo or keep their Corp small.
Even if you made high sec less profitable, it still would not encourage players to move out of high sec.
They would rather quit, but at this point you can't really quit after the 15th so I don't know if that is valid anymore.
You can just say they will stop paying subs since no point in mining in a exhumed if it's no longer profitable.
[/quote]
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
|
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1163
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:29:26 -
[181] - Quote
Merovee wrote:To: CCP Good job on the game , after playing Civ I was wondering when you will be planning a ground game for eve on the planets? Merovee
Bwahahahahahahahah!
I guess you didn't hear about Dust 514.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14872
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:30:36 -
[182] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:
from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
I underlined the parts that include pvp. you also underlined the parts that are not pvp
If you are looking for a "not pvp" space game why aren't you playing Ascent? It's on steam.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:40:02 -
[183] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
Yes, risk vs. reward is the issue. But what every Bad PosterGäó here seems to miss is that you have control over the reward side if you are in a freighter. You do NOT need CCP to change anything. Change your imprudent and bad behavior.
And no, your roadmap to the game is not valid. People can pick any "route" in the game. Many join and go straight to NS and never look back. Groups like Karmafleet, Brave and others provide that route. Some never leave HS. Some prefer LS. All of these are totally valid and fine. This is video game where you can do whatever you want.
And these are not mechanics issues, but behavioral issues. Please tell me what mechanic will stop somebody from putting too much cargo value into their freighter? The "problem" here is either,
1. Risk seeking behavior which is not a problem.
2. Ignorance, which is not a problem.
3. A combination of the two, which is not a problem.
At least it is not a problem in terms of mechanics. Ignorance is corrected....by ganking. Risk seeking/imprudence is corrected by ganking. The combination is corrected by ganking.
Don't be imprudent and you'll be much better off.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1163
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:45:53 -
[184] - Quote
You know there was someone on mining chat last night bragging how his Intel network in null made it safer to mine there than in high sec.
I mean I guess he's right. If someone shows up in local, you know to warp out. If ganker shows up in local in high sec, you won't notice it until you see flashing red ships blapping you.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Estuary Algaert
Petulant Luddite GmbH
8
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:49:08 -
[185] - Quote
This all reminds me of those sci-fi stories where the guardians of a race/culture ultimately destroy it "keeping it safe".
Nothing is ever "safe", thankfully, Hi-sec however is reasonably safe. Don't have to worry about so many things you do elsewhere thanks to CONCORD and the rules of Empire Space. No worries that someone is going to hot drop on you, or that your freighter will be bubbled even though your scout gave the all clear. No worries about belt rats that can eat your afk pilots as a lite snack or that the pilot who just blew up your ship illegally won't go unpunished. And no need for anyone to make this space safe for you to do as you wish. It is all nicely laid out for your enjoyment at your convenience, open ~24/7 and managed by your omniscient protectors.
To diverge a bit... when it comes down to it the rules are a bit draconian. The "punishment" for stealing ANYTHING (in space) is the same, 1B worth of loot from a wreck that isn't yours to a 1sk bit of trit, 15min free-fire on you, good anywhere. Can this punishment be forgiven, nope, once the sentence is carried out it must run out the time. Lets not get started on the flag carry from LS to HS on things... that just gets silly.
If you want more than what the automatons offer, well, you are a quasi-god after all. Empires fear you, mortals tremble before you, and the universe is your sandbox so lift a finger and do something, even if it is the middle one. Just remember, this isn't yours, it is ours (including you). |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14872
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:56:18 -
[186] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:You know there was someone on mining chat last night bragging how his Intel network in null made it safer to mine there than in high sec.
I mean I guess he's right. If someone shows up in local, you know to warp out. If ganker shows up in local in high sec, you won't notice it until you see flashing red ships blapping you.
This unwittingly describes the problem of people in high sec. The game gives you Dscan which you can use to see if a ganking style ship is close to you. It doesn't get used in high sec. High sec miners don't align. High sec miners don't group up and form drone clouds that can blap gankers before they fir enough shots for a gank etc etc.
ALL safety in null is provided 95% by players and 5% by mechanics like local and dscan. Niether of which help you if someone suddenly rolls a wormhole into your system and shotguns the belts, or logs off in a static belt during a low traffic time. You can go to zkill and look at my corp killboard from last month and the month before, We've shattered HOT DROPs with tanked mining ships, I personally have killed 2 anom ganking Stratioses while ratting (on in a vni, another on an alt in na Ishtar).
And yet somehow highseccers can't stay alive in the most populous space that has magical space police that will spawn and save you if only you survive long enough.
The irritating thing is that rather than realize that the problem was their lack of preparation and planning along with their unwillingness/inability to group with the ONE trully good defensive resource in all EVE (other people), they blame it on gankers and game mechanics. I say to those types that it's not null sec groups fault you all can't figure out how to cooperate with other players in this MMO. We did, and we made the least mechancally safe space (null and wormholes) places where we can play. Stop blaming everyone else and figure it out. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:57:24 -
[187] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:You know there was someone on mining chat last night bragging how his Intel network in null made it safer to mine there than in high sec.
I mean I guess he's right. If someone shows up in local, you know to warp out. If ganker shows up in local in high sec, you won't notice it until you see flashing red ships blapping you.
You could set them to red standings and keep an eye on local in HS...granted in a high population system it is harder.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 20:07:32 -
[188] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:
from the official site
what is eve online
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
I underlined the parts that include pvp. you also underlined the parts that are not pvp If you are looking for a "not pvp" space game why aren't you playing Ascent? It's on steam.
First, who is looking for a "non-pvp" space game?
Second, why underestimating other features Eve offers that no other game can?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 20:07:50 -
[189] - Quote
Let me try it this way....
Okay, you are Frank the freighter pilot. You stuff 6 billion ISK work of StuffGäó into your freighter and undock.
Now, lets look at this....
What is the upside to doing this? Even if you are going to make say, 30% on that cargo we are talking 1.8 billion ISK.
What is the downside to doing this? Well, if you are ganked you will lose about 7.3 billion ISK.
You are risking more than 4 times than what you stand to gain.
Why would you do this?
And the gankers, their downside is given. X*number of catalysts.
Their expected upside is 3 billion ISK.
Why would they not gank?
Why is this even a discussion?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
21
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 20:11:43 -
[190] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
Yes, risk vs. reward is the issue. But what every Bad PosterGäó here seems to miss is that you have control over the reward side if you are in a freighter. You do NOT need CCP to change anything. Change your imprudent and bad behavior. And no, your roadmap to the game is not valid. People can pick any "route" in the game. Many join and go straight to NS and never look back. Groups like Karmafleet, Brave and others provide that route. Some never leave HS. Some prefer LS. All of these are totally valid and fine. This is video game where you can do whatever you want. And these are not mechanics issues, but behavioral issues. Please tell me what mechanic will stop somebody from putting too much cargo value into their freighter? The "problem" here is either, 1. Risk seeking behavior which is not a problem. 2. Ignorance, which is not a problem. 3. A combination of the two, which is not a problem. At least it is not a problem in terms of mechanics. Ignorance is corrected....by ganking. Risk seeking/imprudence is corrected by ganking. The combination is corrected by ganking. Don't be imprudent and you'll be much better off.
I understand people making bad choices and there is no need for a mechanic for a choice. There are new players that do like to play it risky and go straight for null/low. however these guys usually are attached to some PVP corps that helps curve there experience level so they know how to be effective in low/null.
On that note I would also have to say there are many corps I have come across that are in high sec only because they lack the manpower or political power to move to low yet. This is something they will have to figure out on there own but by simply reducing high sec rewards, it will encourage them to make bolder moves to push into low/null.
My roadmap is just an example of how its suppose to be balanced. When EVE was first launched I guarantee there was players that jumped on and b-lined it straight for null sec without and experience and barely any skills. This was a risk they toke for the reward of gaining early access and possible control of null sec. While you may argue my road map is invalid, in the risk vs reward concept that new player has to weigh his lack experience, low SP and high probability of PVP vs the rewards he could make as a new player in low/null sec. this still maintains balance of the risk vs reward concept. |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5457
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 20:51:16 -
[191] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
I understand people making bad choices and there is no need for a mechanic for a choice. There are new players that do like to play it risky and go straight for null/low. however these guys usually are attached to some PVP corps that helps curve there experience level so they know how to be effective in low/null.
On that note I would also have to say there are many corps I have come across that are in high sec only because they lack the manpower or political power to move to low yet. This is something they will have to figure out on there own but by simply reducing high sec rewards, it will encourage them to make bolder moves to push into low/null.
My roadmap is just an example of how its suppose to be balanced. When EVE was first launched I guarantee there was players that jumped on and b-lined it straight for null sec without and experience and barely any skills. This was a risk they toke for the reward of gaining early access and possible control of null sec. While you may argue my road map is invalid, in the risk vs reward concept that new player has to weigh his lack experience, low SP and high probability of PVP vs the rewards he could make as a new player in low/null sec. this still maintains balance of the risk vs reward concept.
There is no "supposed" to the game though. EVE is a game of spontaneous order and emergence. That is, we have a the game with a few basic rules from CCP. Then the players log in and interact. The players form groups and organizations, but there is no over-arching imposition of order or structure to the game. CCP does not come along and impose any kind of specific order. They don't determine who holds what space, or which corporations or players can mine in which systems. The players determine this either individually or as part of organizations.
So it isn't that your "road map" is invalid, it is just not the only one.
As for risk vs. reward there is no way a single player can out compete a group of players generally speaking. He might have an edge in one aspect of the game, but he can't be better at everything 10 players could do as a group. And this tends to be true largely independent of skill points. And there are ways to mitigate and manage that risk and improve your rewards, you already named the most obvious: join a group that can help you.
And careful with the "make HS less attractive and HS corps will move to LS or NS." Some might. Some won't, and if the rewards drop enough, they have another option...not logging in. Think of an evolutionary process, in such processes some will adapt others will not, those that don't go extinct.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Old IT Guy
Geriatric Capsuleers Inc
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 21:24:38 -
[192] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Old IT Guy wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge. EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave. I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play.
I didn't say "ONLY PVP", did I? I said "massively", meaning (in the western world) "largely". You can't swing a dead cat in this game without finding some kind of PVP, not all of it pew.
Words matter. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Undead Dragons
Dragon Knights Inc
21
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 21:30:34 -
[193] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
There is no "supposed" to the game though. EVE is a game of spontaneous order and emergence. That is, we have a the game with a few basic rules from CCP. Then the players log in and interact. The players form groups and organizations, but there is no over-arching imposition of order or structure to the game. CCP does not come along and impose any kind of specific order. They don't determine who holds what space, or which corporations or players can mine in which systems. The players determine this either individually or as part of organizations.
So it isn't that your "road map" is invalid, it is just not the only one.
As for risk vs. reward there is no way a single player can out compete a group of players generally speaking. He might have an edge in one aspect of the game, but he can't be better at everything 10 players could do as a group. And this tends to be true largely independent of skill points. And there are ways to mitigate and manage that risk and improve your rewards, you already named the most obvious: join a group that can help you.
And careful with the "make HS less attractive and HS corps will move to LS or NS." Some might. Some won't, and if the rewards drop enough, they have another option...not logging in. Think of an evolutionary process, in such processes some will adapt others will not, those that don't go extinct.
Well placed statements and I agree.
As for the whole HS less attractive thing. High sec does need to be less attractive but Low sec also need to be more of a middle ground between High and NULL. Right now LS is treated more like NULL due to the lack of security over all. the fact that its LS empire space is about the only thing keeping corporations/alliances from moving and taking over.
As for players that don't log in and just give up, well CCP has stated they don't want those kind of players not to mention do you really want those kind of players populating EVE? EVE isn't for every one but those who have the drive and motivation to push and actually become effective with game know what it has to offer compared to any other MMO out there. |
Keno Skir
860
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 21:40:21 -
[194] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Hell, I even ninja'd null rats when I was bored with FW in 2013. But that's technically not living but rather working in null sec. Sure there are stations that tolerate neutrals but it still requires some politicking for the neutral. And I specifically said live. If you have to fly back and forth between high sec and null.... Well... You only visit there.
It's harder to travel to nul every time than to live there. No Intel, no allies and no controlled space to do your rediculous "PvE" 
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5461
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 00:52:59 -
[195] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
There is no "supposed" to the game though. EVE is a game of spontaneous order and emergence. That is, we have a the game with a few basic rules from CCP. Then the players log in and interact. The players form groups and organizations, but there is no over-arching imposition of order or structure to the game. CCP does not come along and impose any kind of specific order. They don't determine who holds what space, or which corporations or players can mine in which systems. The players determine this either individually or as part of organizations.
So it isn't that your "road map" is invalid, it is just not the only one.
As for risk vs. reward there is no way a single player can out compete a group of players generally speaking. He might have an edge in one aspect of the game, but he can't be better at everything 10 players could do as a group. And this tends to be true largely independent of skill points. And there are ways to mitigate and manage that risk and improve your rewards, you already named the most obvious: join a group that can help you.
And careful with the "make HS less attractive and HS corps will move to LS or NS." Some might. Some won't, and if the rewards drop enough, they have another option...not logging in. Think of an evolutionary process, in such processes some will adapt others will not, those that don't go extinct.
Well placed statements and I agree. As for the whole HS less attractive thing. High sec does need to be less attractive but Low sec also need to be more of a middle ground between High and NULL. Right now LS is treated more like NULL due to the lack of security over all. the fact that its LS empire space is about the only thing keeping corporations/alliances from moving and taking over. As for players that don't log in and just give up, well CCP has stated they don't want those kind of players not to mention do you really want those kind of players populating EVE? EVE isn't for every one but those who have the drive and motivation to push and actually become effective with game know what it has to offer compared to any other MMO out there.
Have you seen the Eve Offline numbers...there are ALOT of players not logging in anymore...players CCP did want.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 03:10:09 -
[196] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
Pushing players out of high is a very bad idea.
CCP has been trying it for a long time and they have had a stagnant playerbase because of it.
A healthy MMO has a large proportion of non-pvp'rs. They're the engine that drives development. A healthy game has a small proportion of pvp'rs, the mechanics of which are paid for by the large proportion of non-pvpr's.
A healthy MMO rather than pushing players out to pvp areas, rewards non-pvpr's for going out and taking risks.
One of the crucial elements that is lacking is EvE is for pvpr's to stfu and stop being salty about what other players are doing in their own gametime.
I'm a pvp'r and the last time I cared that someone was mining, ratting, missioning, or afkin'g gates in highsec was NEVER. |
Australian Excellence
Gate Tax Collection Agency
CODE.
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 03:37:43 -
[197] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
Pushing players out of high is a very bad idea. CCP has been trying it for a long time and they have had a stagnant playerbase because of it. A healthy MMO has a large proportion of non-pvp'rs. They're the engine that drives development. A healthy game has a small proportion of pvp'rs, the mechanics of which are paid for by the large proportion of non-pvpr's. A healthy MMO rather than pushing players out to pvp areas, rewards non-pvpr's for going out and taking risks. One of the crucial elements that is lacking is EvE is for pvpr's to stfu and stop being salty about what other players are doing in their own gametime. I'm a pvp'r and the last time I cared that someone was mining, ratting, missioning, or afkin'g gates in highsec was NEVER.
Don't know if you noticed, but EvE is a pvp sandbox based game.. If it was up to you, you would let these people sit in Highsec unapposed all day ruining the games economy even more than they already have.
You don't sound like much of a pvper, sound more like a miner... A miner who thinks sitting there all day afk or botting ruining the ore prices doesn't effect other players. Thank the lords you aren't the one deciding things at CCP. |
Gavascon
need more power inc.
Murder By Numbers Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 04:03:40 -
[198] - Quote
after reading 10 pages of this thread it is quite apparent this is a twist on an old topic.
fact: eve isn't fair. never has been, never will be. embrace this and move on!!!
the comedy:
a miner will shoot an asteroid and not consider that a form of pvp.
that miner will defend himself against a computer generated attacker....commonly called a belt rat.
he will destroy those belt rats without thinking twice. nor will he begin a forum thread complaining how those belt rats are destroying his ability to mine or the quality of his game time.
yet, when the attacker becomes a player everything changes. that is when "things need to be changed".
there are two ways any player can be 100% safe.
1) don't log in
2) stay in a station
once you undock, the game isn't safe - regardless of the type of space (high, low, null & w-space).
there have been many changes to the game during my 8+ years here.
new ship icons for overviews
renaming of skills and the categories where they can be found
renaming of every module in game
changes to war mechanics (most of which favor defenders)
the loss of the watch list (a reason many people quit playing)
ship rebalancing (or nerfed)
piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 04:58:52 -
[199] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.
Pushing players out of high is a very bad idea. CCP has been trying it for a long time and they have had a stagnant playerbase because of it. A healthy MMO has a large proportion of non-pvp'rs. They're the engine that drives development. A healthy game has a small proportion of pvp'rs, the mechanics of which are paid for by the large proportion of non-pvpr's. A healthy MMO rather than pushing players out to pvp areas, rewards non-pvpr's for going out and taking risks. One of the crucial elements that is lacking is EvE is for pvpr's to stfu and stop being salty about what other players are doing in their own gametime. I'm a pvp'r and the last time I cared that someone was mining, ratting, missioning, or afkin'g gates in highsec was NEVER.
I don't give a crap what other players want to do. If they want to eat rocks all day, fine by me. Of course, if I want to come along and blow one up and I'm willing to accept the consequences then that is fine too.
This is a game predominantly about players being competition with each other in one form or another. Thus, it is predominantly PvP centered game.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Eugene Kerner
Tundragon
Project.Mayhem.
1648
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 06:08:04 -
[200] - Quote
@OP
I disagree with your attitude son. You are playing a sandbox game with thousands of others. If you want to roam solo thats fine but dont bother us with your fear.
Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
@Nick Bete
The game needs game.
That is what you are.
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 06:43:35 -
[201] - Quote
Gavascon wrote:piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes.
Piracy has always been cool.
However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 06:52:20 -
[202] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals?
Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws.
It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 06:56:52 -
[203] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management.
So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people.
Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:01:37 -
[204] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life.
No, no suspect or criminal flag if you kill a -10 outlaw. In fact, as soon as any character reaches -5 they are open season for everyone in highsec.
Is your knowledge of mechanics so vacuous that you don't know this, yet post on the forum like you have a clue?
It would seem it is. No surprise really.
As for having a life. Ho hum. We all do. That isn't unique, nor somehow a slight at those of us that actually know the rules of the game.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:07:30 -
[205] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life. No, no suspect or criminal flag if you kill a -10 outlaw. In fact, as soon as any character reaches -5 they are open season for everyone in highsec. Is your knowledge of mechanics so vacuous that you don't know this, yet post on the forum like you have a clue? It would seem it is. No surprise really. As for having a life. Ho hum. We all do. That isn't unique, nor somehow a slight at those of us that actually know the rules of the game.
Strangely enough gankers are hard to find when you want to try out a theory. It like they have a magical way of stalling freighter ganks until they decide to show up but that would just be stupid but if something like that were to exist only the biggest idiots could complain about removing something so ridiculous.
As to a life, there are a lot of people on here who would have no idea what that is. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:12:59 -
[206] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Strangely enough gankers are hard to find when you want to try out a theory. It like they have a magical way of stalling freighter ganks until they decide to show up but that would just be stupid but if something like that were to exist only the biggest idiots could complain about removing something so ridiculous.
A theory? **** me. It's clearly written rules. No theory involved.
What a dumb ****. Life perhaps. Brain distinctly lacking.
As to them appearing at opportune moments, that goes back to the first post I made above:
It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management.
Quote:As to a life, there are a lot of people on here who would have no idea what that is.
Name them.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:18:14 -
[207] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Strangely enough gankers are hard to find when you want to try out a theory. It like they have a magical way of stalling freighter ganks until they decide to show up but that would just be stupid but if something like that were to exist only the biggest idiots could complain about removing something so ridiculous. A theory? **** me. It's clearly written rules. No theory involved. What a dumb ****. Life perhaps. Brain distinctly lacking. As to them appearing at opportune moments, that goes back to the first post I made above: It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management.Quote:As to a life, there are a lot of people on here who would have no idea what that is. Name them.
But I will say thank you.
As not I haven't managed to get a ganker yet and my prior life as a miner, living in Null and living in WHs didn't really give me the information about ganking gankers.
Oh could you please link these clearly written rules as I looked as I said on the Dev Blog related to Crime Watch and it didn't say. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:29:07 -
[208] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Oh could you please link these clearly written rules as I looked as I said on the Dev Blog related to Crime Watch and it didn't say.
Certainly.
In game, press F12 and watch the limited engagements video involving CCP Rise:
http://puu.sh/s4U8V/ade67513d4.jpg
There he states it clearly.
Since CCP abandoned the eve wiki which had the clearest outline of it, they now recommend the Eve-Uni Wiki, which also states it clearly:
Engaging a Legal Target
If engaging a corporation member (with friendly fire enabled) or war target:
- No additional timers
If engaging a criminal, suspect, outlaw (security status below -5), or corporation member (friendly fire disabled):
- Gain a limited engagement timer with your target
- Lasts 5 minutes from the most recent aggressive act
- Allows the target to shoot back without consequences
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Aggression_101
The most basic class available from Eve-Uni on aggression. Clearly states outlaws (sec status below -5) are legal targets.
Now, Eve-Uni also state it even more clearly on the Security Status page:
Outlaw
Once your security status drops to -5.0 or below (technically -4.95) you become an ColorTag-SkullOrange9.gif outlaw, also commonly referred to as "perma flashy".
It means anyone can attack you at any time without CONCORD interfering, even in high security space. It also means that assisting you would be a criminal offense, even for your own corporation members. That means anyone who needs to assist you would have to turn their safeties off to assist, and in the process temporarily become a criminal for fifteen minutes. In highsec this means that CONCORD will destroy you if you assist an outlaw, even though they leave the outlaw alone (it is the faction police's job to hunt outlaws).
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Security_status
Here is another site now also recommended by CCP since they abandoned their own wiki> Also extremely clearly written:
Outlaws
Once your security status hits -5 you become an outlaw. You will show as "blinky red" in the overview of other players.
You may attack and kill the ship and pod of an outlaw. Be very aware that if you engage the outlaw then they may defend themselves. In this case you get no help from any sentry guns.
If you attempt to repair an outlaw, you will be criminally flagged and station/gate guns WILL fire at you.
http://eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Aggression_and_Criminal_Flagging
There are several other sources too, though since the removal of the CCP wiki, they have primarily recommended the Eve-Uni wiki as the place to go to.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Eugene Kerner
Tundragon
Project.Mayhem.
1648
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:37:53 -
[209] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Oh could you please link these clearly written rules as I looked as I said on the Dev Blog related to Crime Watch and it didn't say. Certainly. In game, press F12 and watch the limited engagements video involving CCP Rise: http://puu.sh/s4U8V/ade67513d4.jpg
There he states it clearly. Since CCP abandoned the eve wiki which had the clearest outline of it, they now recommend the Eve-Uni Wiki, which also states it clearly: Engaging a Legal Target
If engaging a corporation member (with friendly fire enabled) or war target:
- No additional timers
If engaging a criminal, suspect, outlaw (security status below -5), or corporation member (friendly fire disabled):
- Gain a limited engagement timer with your target
- Lasts 5 minutes from the most recent aggressive act
- Allows the target to shoot back without consequenceshttp://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Aggression_101
The most basic class available from Eve-Uni on aggression. Clearly states outlaws (sec status below -5) are legal targets. Now, Eve-Uni also state it even more clearly on the Security Status page: Outlaw
Once your security status drops to -5.0 or below (technically -4.95) you become an ColorTag-SkullOrange9.gif outlaw, also commonly referred to as "perma flashy".
It means anyone can attack you at any time without CONCORD interfering, even in high security space. It also means that assisting you would be a criminal offense, even for your own corporation members. That means anyone who needs to assist you would have to turn their safeties off to assist, and in the process temporarily become a criminal for fifteen minutes. In highsec this means that CONCORD will destroy you if you assist an outlaw, even though they leave the outlaw alone (it is the faction police's job to hunt outlaws).http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Security_status
Here is another site now also recommended by CCP since they abandoned their own wiki> Also extremely clearly written:
Outlaws
Once your security status hits -5 you become an outlaw. You will show as "blinky red" in the overview of other players.
You may attack and kill the ship and pod of an outlaw. Be very aware that if you engage the outlaw then they may defend themselves. In this case you get no help from any sentry guns.
If you attempt to repair an outlaw, you will be criminally flagged and station/gate guns WILL fire at you.http://eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Aggression_and_Criminal_Flagging
There are several other sources too, though since the removal of the CCP wiki, they have primarily recommended the Eve-Uni wiki as the place to go to. You should probably go and post your questions in New Citizens Q & A. There's no expectation there that you have knowledge, which in your case seems totally appropriate. Come back to GD when you understand what you are posting.
B+ñm.... headshot.
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:48:02 -
[210] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Oh could you please link these clearly written rules as I looked as I said on the Dev Blog related to Crime Watch and it didn't say. Certainly. In game, press F12 and watch the limited engagements video involving CCP Rise: http://puu.sh/s4U8V/ade67513d4.jpg
There he states it clearly. Since CCP abandoned the eve wiki which had the clearest outline of it, they now recommend the Eve-Uni Wiki, which also states it clearly: Engaging a Legal Target
If engaging a corporation member (with friendly fire enabled) or war target:
- No additional timers
If engaging a criminal, suspect, outlaw (security status below -5), or corporation member (friendly fire disabled):
- Gain a limited engagement timer with your target
- Lasts 5 minutes from the most recent aggressive act
- Allows the target to shoot back without consequenceshttp://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Aggression_101
The most basic class available from Eve-Uni on aggression. Clearly states outlaws (sec status below -5) are legal targets. Now, Eve-Uni also state it even more clearly on the Security Status page: Outlaw
Once your security status drops to -5.0 or below (technically -4.95) you become an ColorTag-SkullOrange9.gif outlaw, also commonly referred to as "perma flashy".
It means anyone can attack you at any time without CONCORD interfering, even in high security space. It also means that assisting you would be a criminal offense, even for your own corporation members. That means anyone who needs to assist you would have to turn their safeties off to assist, and in the process temporarily become a criminal for fifteen minutes. In highsec this means that CONCORD will destroy you if you assist an outlaw, even though they leave the outlaw alone (it is the faction police's job to hunt outlaws).http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Security_status
Here is another site now also recommended by CCP since they abandoned their own wiki> Also extremely clearly written:
Outlaws
Once your security status hits -5 you become an outlaw. You will show as "blinky red" in the overview of other players.
You may attack and kill the ship and pod of an outlaw. Be very aware that if you engage the outlaw then they may defend themselves. In this case you get no help from any sentry guns.
If you attempt to repair an outlaw, you will be criminally flagged and station/gate guns WILL fire at you.http://eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Aggression_and_Criminal_Flagging
There are several other sources too, though since the removal of the CCP wiki, they have primarily recommended the Eve-Uni wiki as the place to go to. You should probably go and post your questions in New Citizens Q & A. There's no expectation there that you have knowledge, which in your case seems totally appropriate. Come back to GD when you understand what you are posting.
Actually I did read the EvE Uni post but given it states
"Non-faculty: notify the Teaching Department and add {{Update}} if this information is out-dated. "
I thought it was out of date but thanks for the info and I look forward to using and endless supply of alphas to gank you and well anything else that moves |
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:53:56 -
[211] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:I thought it was out of date but thanks for the info and I look forward to using and endless supply of alphas to gank you and well anything else that moves
Sure. Come find me in Syndicate anytime you like.
Actually right now I'm in Dastryns. Happy for you to come gank me.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:55:23 -
[212] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:I thought it was out of date but thanks for the info and I look forward to using and endless supply of alphas to gank you and well anything else that moves Sure. Come find me in Syndicate anytime you like.
I don't mind syndicate but when I went through a few days ago it was deserted. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 07:58:09 -
[213] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Gavascon wrote:piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes. Piracy has always been cool. However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals?
How about ganking is necessary to correct for imprudent behavior of haulers?
And the risk seeking getting taken advantage of the risk averse is mechanics working as intended.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:12:03 -
[214] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:I thought it was out of date but thanks for the info and I look forward to using and endless supply of alphas to gank you and well anything else that moves Sure. Come find me in Syndicate anytime you like. I don't mind syndicate but when I went through a few days ago it was deserted.
All the easier to find me then I guess.
I will bet you that your 1 alpha account won't be able to kill my rookie ship before it kills you.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:14:00 -
[215] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Gavascon wrote:piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes. Piracy has always been cool. However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? How about ganking is necessary to correct for imprudent behavior of haulers? And the risk seeking getting taken advantage of the risk averse is mechanics working as intended.
Not really not when the break even point for the gankers is so pathetically low as to render the hulls worthless. |
Moonacre Parmala
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:22:17 -
[216] - Quote
Make bumping realitive to ship size and mass.
Means you're tiny t3 dessie can't bump a freighter on it's own, even under MWD without multiple attempts. i'm talking about basic kinetics. but if the bumper was in a MWD battle ship........ that changes things.......
Law Number III: There are no lazy veteran lion hunters.
Law Number VI: A hungry dog hunts best. A hungrier dog hunts even better.
Law Number XXXVIII: The early bird gets the worm. The early worm....gets eaten.
If in doubt , SHOOT !
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:23:53 -
[217] - Quote
Moonacre Parmala wrote:Make bumping realitive to ship size and mass.
Means you're tiny t3 dessie can't bump a freighter on it's own, even under MWD without multiple attempts. i'm talking about basic kinetics. but if the bumper was in a MWD battle ship........ that changes things.......
Have you ever tried to bump a freighter with a T3D? There is a reason why Machariels are popular for bumping.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:31:33 -
[218] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Gavascon wrote:piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes. Piracy has always been cool. However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? How about ganking is necessary to correct for imprudent behavior of haulers? And the risk seeking getting taken advantage of the risk averse is mechanics working as intended. Not really not when the break even point for the gankers is so pathetically low as to render the hulls worthless.
So your solution is to reward the risk seeking? Really?
How about your are just bad? Do not overload your freighter and you'll be a much less inviting target. Use a scout and you'll be and even harder target to gank. But no, we get you whining in favor of pilots that are literally risk seeking.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:32:25 -
[219] - Quote
Moonacre Parmala wrote:Make bumping realitive to ship size and mass.
Means you're tiny t3 dessie can't bump a freighter on it's own, even under MWD without multiple attempts. i'm talking about basic kinetics. but if the bumper was in a MWD battle ship........ that changes things.......
How about we just ask pilots who are going to be hauling stuff to be prudent? Why is this hard? Why should we protect those who are risk seeking?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:49:49 -
[220] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Oh could you please link these clearly written rules as I looked as I said on the Dev Blog related to Crime Watch and it didn't say. Certainly. In game, press F12 and watch the limited engagements video involving CCP Rise: http://puu.sh/s4U8V/ade67513d4.jpg
There he states it clearly. Since CCP abandoned the eve wiki which had the clearest outline of it, they now recommend the Eve-Uni Wiki, which also states it clearly: Engaging a Legal Target
If engaging a corporation member (with friendly fire enabled) or war target:
- No additional timers
If engaging a criminal, suspect, outlaw (security status below -5), or corporation member (friendly fire disabled):
- Gain a limited engagement timer with your target
- Lasts 5 minutes from the most recent aggressive act
- Allows the target to shoot back without consequenceshttp://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Aggression_101
The most basic class available from Eve-Uni on aggression. Clearly states outlaws (sec status below -5) are legal targets. Now, Eve-Uni also state it even more clearly on the Security Status page: Outlaw
Once your security status drops to -5.0 or below (technically -4.95) you become an ColorTag-SkullOrange9.gif outlaw, also commonly referred to as "perma flashy".
It means anyone can attack you at any time without CONCORD interfering, even in high security space. It also means that assisting you would be a criminal offense, even for your own corporation members. That means anyone who needs to assist you would have to turn their safeties off to assist, and in the process temporarily become a criminal for fifteen minutes. In highsec this means that CONCORD will destroy you if you assist an outlaw, even though they leave the outlaw alone (it is the faction police's job to hunt outlaws).http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Security_status
Here is another site now also recommended by CCP since they abandoned their own wiki> Also extremely clearly written:
Outlaws
Once your security status hits -5 you become an outlaw. You will show as "blinky red" in the overview of other players.
You may attack and kill the ship and pod of an outlaw. Be very aware that if you engage the outlaw then they may defend themselves. In this case you get no help from any sentry guns.
If you attempt to repair an outlaw, you will be criminally flagged and station/gate guns WILL fire at you.http://eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Aggression_and_Criminal_Flagging
There are several other sources too, though since the removal of the CCP wiki, they have primarily recommended the Eve-Uni wiki as the place to go to. You should probably go and post your questions in New Citizens Q & A. There's no expectation there that you have knowledge, which in your case seems totally appropriate. Come back to GD when you understand what you are posting.
So whats the loophole to kills similar to this then?
https://zkillboard.com/kill/56924661/
10 purifiers(t2) in the killmail, but only the t1 catalyst and caracal were killed by CONCORD
it does not look like it was a wardec target. |
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:51:18 -
[221] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Gavascon wrote:piracy has always been rewarded. i hope that never changes. Piracy has always been cool. However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? How about ganking is necessary to correct for imprudent behavior of haulers? And the risk seeking getting taken advantage of the risk averse is mechanics working as intended. Not really not when the break even point for the gankers is so pathetically low as to render the hulls worthless. So your solution is to reward the risk seeking? Really? How about your are just bad? Do not overload your freighter and you'll be a much less inviting target. Use a scout and you'll be and even harder target to gank. But no, we get you whining in favor of pilots that are literally risk seeking.
Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 08:58:32 -
[222] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid.
In nullsec, interceptors kill Carriers worth more than a freighter.
Dreads take out Titans worth 50 times their value. Super carriers worth upwards of 30 billion die to sub cap fleets.
ISK tanking is a pointless discussion. It's not something unique to freighters dying to catalysts and Freighter pilot with just a small amount of smarts can almost completely eliminate the possibility of being ganked.
At some point. the person who gets ganked has to accept responsibility for their loss. It's not the fault of the gankers. They are just enjoying the game and good luck to them. They bring risk to hauling that wouldn't otherwise exist at all.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:41:43 -
[223] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:So whats the loophole to kills similar to this then? https://zkillboard.com/kill/56924661/
10 purifiers(t2) in the killmail, but only the t1 catalyst and caracal were killed by CONCORD it does not look like it was a wardec target.
What? Looks like he lost the bombers to CONCORD. Working as intended.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5463
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:45:54 -
[224] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid.
No. Just no.
Using All Level Five in EFT tells me that at best a gank catalyst will put out 666 DPS. Using that and building in a 12% buffer means that the minimal level of cargo value would be about 720 million ISK. Dropping the DPS on average to 525 would mean the cargo value has to be aroun 909 million ISK. And that is just to break even. To build in a bit of a buffer you'd need to probably go up to about 1 billion ISK minimum.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Australian Excellence
Gate Tax Collection Agency
CODE.
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 09:53:50 -
[225] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid.
So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next?
You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:13:32 -
[226] - Quote
Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game.
Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45361
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:22:24 -
[227] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW.
Luckily, CCP have a different view. Not perfect always, but at least they acknowledge the value that ganking brings to the game and seem comfortable with the current level of risk that it brings to hauling and mining.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:28:12 -
[228] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW. So you want to make it easier to haul with no risk because you don't like someone else's play style? Luckily, CCP have a different view. Not perfect always, but at least they acknowledge the value that tanking brings to the game and seem comfortable with the current level of risk that banking brings to hauling.
No I want to make it more profitable and therefore more likely to gank gankers. At the moment they use bumping so they can hide until there kill is positioned then they attack in ships that you will get bugger all if you gank. If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more and a lot more profitable to gank.
At the moment they are more protected than those they are ganking, able to hide in stations until the kill is blocked. So no having to be out in the open and no real isk for people hunting criminals. Ganking is a necessary part of EvE but it is too safe for them atm. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45361
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 10:31:28 -
[229] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW. So you want to make it easier to haul with no risk because you don't like someone else's play style? Luckily, CCP have a different view. Not perfect always, but at least they acknowledge the value that tanking brings to the game and seem comfortable with the current level of risk that banking brings to hauling. No I want to make it more profitable and therefore more likely to gank gankers. At the moment they use bumping so they can hide until there kill is positioned then they attack in ships that you will get bugger all if you gank. If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more and a lot more profitable to gank. At the moment they are more protected than those they are ganking, able to hide in stations until the kill is blocked. So no having to be out in the open and no real isk for people hunting criminals. Ganking is a necessary part of EvE but it is too safe for them atm.
Not by the weight of your posting history you don't. You seem to just hate their play style and want the infinite loop of 'just one more nerf' until there is no ganking left in the game. That's the clear impression that comes through all your posts.
Thankfully though, that will never happen. So I guess the constant derailing of threads will continue, as borish as it is.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Australian Excellence
Gate Tax Collection Agency
CODE.
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 11:16:37 -
[230] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW.
There is plenty of risk, risk there will be no loot, risk we didn't calculate the math on if we could kill it right, risk enough of the fleet gets ecmd that the gank fails or the freighter catches enough reps to live, risk the freighter gets bumped and cats are out of range, risk ships get scrambled on a bounce, risk the looter gets tackled on suspect. I could go on and on... In the end you are full of crap my carebear little friend, you don't give 2 ***** about the risk to the gankers. In the end it is all about the no risk hauling.
Scipio Artelius wrote:Not by the weight of your posting history you don't. You seem to just hate their play style and want the infinite loop of 'just one more nerf' until there is no ganking left in the game. That's the clear impression that comes through all your posts.
A truer thing has never been said before. |
|
|
Keno Skir
864
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 11:19:41 -
[231] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life.
You don't actually have a life because you spend it all on these forums being schooled. If you're -10 anyone can and will shoot you, no concord. That means gankers aren't hiding behind concord. Sounds pretty simple huh?
I think the point here is that you make sweeping statements about EvE mechanics, but you don't actually know very much about EvE mechanics to base your opinions on. That's why everyone's baiting you.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1640
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 11:34:18 -
[232] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:No I want to make it more profitable and therefore more likely to gank gankers..
Yeah nah that's not what you're after at all.
Get out of hisec.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 12:13:04 -
[233] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Steffles wrote: *giving a stern look* well, that's just d*mb people like you like to think. i thought you quit already? lol You shouldn't call someone "Dumb" when you have no idea what it means, it makes you sound uneducated.
im using the slang definition of the word which means s2pid, and you know it's true (that he's s2pid) because he, as he claims, is infinity ziona.
if you don't know who that is, then good for you. :)
Just Add Water
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14877
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 12:45:57 -
[234] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ganking is a necessary part of EvE but it is too safe for them atm.
It's funny to read this, mainly because it's always funny to me to see that people can exhibit the same behaviors in game as politicans do out of it.
One thing people do is try to appear 'moderate' on something, because they know if they display their real hatred of a thing they want to go away or stop, people will just dismiss them as radical idiots. There are lots of real life examples, none of which can be mentioned here because of board rules against political discussion, but you don't have to think very hard to see what some of them are.
The false moderate knows there isn't enough public support and/or votes in their legislature to outright ban the thing they hate, so the try the 'backdoor ban' route ie they start saying "we know it's here to stay but it at least should be regulated a bit better". The real goal is to have the thing so tightly regulated that no one wants to put up with the hassle of doing it, creating a situation where the thing they don't like is still on the books as legal but almost never happens because it's impractical. Thus the term 'banning via the backdoor'.
People who hate ganking (or any of the antagonistic activities that make the EVE ecosystem actually vibrant and interesting, like cloaky camping, awoxxing, scamming, war deccing, bumping, stealing loot in high sec pve sites, even hot dropping) don't actually want it balanced, they (foolishly think they) want it GONE, thinking the game would be a better place if they could play in perfect safety, not having to worry about people they don't like coming to screw with them.
The most ironic part of it all is that if you got rid of the thing they hate, not only would the game decline really fast (because, like real life and movies, it's the NEGATIVE things that are interesting, how many people would watch the news to see an anchor man say "well, no one died, got injured or even had their feeling hurt, now on to weather"?? lol), but THEY THEMSELVES (the backdoor banners) would get bored and move on to another game...that had some form of ganking and sanctioned griefing, because their whole existence revolves around having things to dislike.
In other words, if you got rid of ganking , CODE-style players would stay and find another way to screw with people's emotions while all the carebears would get bored and leave because there is no real challenge for them to face anymore. Life is backwards like that. |
lilol' me
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
65
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:09:40 -
[235] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game?
You know that most of the carebears are in nullsec right? Dumbass
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:10:30 -
[236] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life. No, no suspect or criminal flag if you kill a -10 outlaw. In fact, as soon as any character reaches -5 they are open season for everyone in highsec. Is your knowledge of mechanics so vacuous that you don't know this, yet post on the forum like you have a clue? It would seem it is. No surprise really. As for having a life. Ho hum. We all do. That isn't unique, nor somehow a slight at those of us that actually know the rules of the game.
I think the question should be "why do NPC stations allow -10 criminals to dock?"
Also at the same time I always wondered why Jita 4-4 lets people who at war with the Caldari state dock up too.
I mean it always seemed odd that they would pursue these targets but yet once they dock, they are on holy ground.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
137
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:13:59 -
[237] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life. You don't actually have a life because you spend it all on these forums being schooled. If you're -10 anyone can and will shoot you, no concord. That means gankers aren't hiding behind concord. Sounds pretty simple huh? I think the point here is that you make sweeping statements about EvE mechanics, but you don't actually know very much about EvE mechanics to base your opinions on. That's why everyone's baiting you.
Lmao Mark STILL hasn't figured out how highsec works?
Keep it going Mark! Every time you recommend a feature that already exists in the game, an angel gets its wings! Lololololol |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:20:48 -
[238] - Quote
I've got a question...
Why do NPC stations in hi-sec allow -10 criminals to dock?
Also why does Jita 4-4 let players who are at war with the Caldari state also dock?
It just seems rather odd. Like the NPCs care about it enough to send ships to hunt you down while you are in their space, but as soon as you dock you apparently have sanctum on holy ground.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14878
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:24:51 -
[239] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:However being ganked by a bunch of carebears who hide behind the protection of CONCORD, is not and that needs to change. Why are the cops protecting -10 criminals? Any idiot knows the game does not protect -10 outlaws. It takes a special idiot to think they are protected by any means other than through their own risk management. So no flagging for killing a -10 and no Concord reaction? Sorry I read the crime watch blog and it does not state this and I am waiting for alpha before I go out ganking people. Oh and as to the any idiot bit. My apologies, I have a life. No, no suspect or criminal flag if you kill a -10 outlaw. In fact, as soon as any character reaches -5 they are open season for everyone in highsec. Is your knowledge of mechanics so vacuous that you don't know this, yet post on the forum like you have a clue? It would seem it is. No surprise really. As for having a life. Ho hum. We all do. That isn't unique, nor somehow a slight at those of us that actually know the rules of the game. I think the question should be "why do NPC stations allow -10 criminals to dock?" Also at the same time I always wondered why Jita 4-4 lets people who at war with the Caldari state dock up too. I mean it always seemed odd that they would pursue these targets but yet once they dock, they are on holy ground.
Explained in lore. "because they are capsuleers and the empires don't want a war with immortals".
Also explained by the fact that this is a game where the main content is human interaction and if you stop people for interacting (even negatively) you have no game. Without 'criminals', those of us who patterned out game play on avoiding and thwarting criminals have nothing to do (which is why I say the stupid people trying to get ganking nerfed aren't nerfing gankers, they are nerfing US).
It's the same in all space, gates stations and citadels in null won't let you dock even when you own them if you have aggression, which is outwardly stupid because it's like your real life house not letting you in because you slapped your neighbor (lol), but it makes perfect since in terms of game mechanics, because station games suck.
|
Mandar Amelana
The Derelict
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:33:08 -
[240] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Why do NPC stations in hi-sec allow -10 criminals to dock?
Also why does Jita 4-4 let players who are at war with the Caldari state also dock?
I've always wondered this myself. Not just with security status but with standings as well. Even when I was in FW, I was in Caldari space while fighting for Gallente, and I warped to dock at a Caldari station. My initial reaction was "OH NO!!" Then that soothing female AI voice came over my headphones, "Docking permission accepted."
And even back then, I thought that was a bit silly. Does anyone have an answer to this? |
|
|
Mandar Amelana
The Derelict
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:35:33 -
[241] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Explained in lore. "because they are capsuleers and the empires don't want a war with immortals".
Where did you get that?
I don't doubt you, I'm just curious.
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
342
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:39:11 -
[242] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I've got a question...
Why do NPC stations in hi-sec allow -10 criminals to dock?
Also why does Jita 4-4 let players who are at war with the Caldari state also dock?
It just seems rather odd. Like the NPCs care about it enough to send ships to hunt you down while you are in their space, but as soon as you dock you apparently have sanctum on holy ground.
Obvious double standard. (doesn't apply to null sec alliances)
The -10's are the real crybaby here. They expect to be treated equally in HS. They cry about how difficult it is to be an "outlaw" in HS when in reality it's extremely easy. After setting up a few insta-undock pings you're golden.
I'd love to see the little "c0d3 types" out in 0.0 with everyone shooting at them and NO STATIONS allowing them to dock.
For some reason ccp has applied your standings to tax rates and clones but not the most obvious. You come to my space, shoot my citizens and expect to dock? Really? Sure, makes perfect sense.
CCP Falcon wrote:EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.
Except when you dock...
=ƒÉ» Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉ»
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
138
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:39:37 -
[243] - Quote
The political situation in 200th century society is complicated. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:39:56 -
[244] - Quote
Risk
noun
1. a situation involving exposure to danger.
Danger
noun
the possibility of something unwelcome or unpleasant happening.
Now pretending you are risking something by undocking a suicide catalyst is stupid. A suicide catalyst is supposed to die, you are not risking it, you are expending it as ammunition. It therefore cannot possibly be in danger since its not something unwelcome or unpleasant, its something you are doing deliberately and something you are expecting.
Since many if not all suicide gankers kill empty freighters as well as freighters with loot there is also no risk in "loot not dropping" since for loot to drop there needs to be loot in the ship. Now since you kill ships without loot that cannot be a "risk factor" at all.
Looking at recent kills of freighters its quite obvious that the killing of freighters is so easy it can be done with a single person using ISBOXER and 6 or 7 stealth bombers and certainly doesn't require the claimed 100 person catalyst fleet. Since ISBOXER broadcasting is illegal in EVE it must be assumed that one code dweeb does it using multiple clients or computers and manual input (sure he does right?) and is doing for under 250 million per gank.
The often vomited, use a webber, fast aligning, scouting bullcrap is of course worthless since almost all ganks are conducted with a 100,000 isk scrambler which makes fast aligning and webbing pointless.
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
138
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:45:54 -
[245] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Risk
noun
1. a situation involving exposure to danger.
Danger
noun
the possibility of something unwelcome or unpleasant happening.
Now pretending you are risking something by undocking a suicide catalyst is stupid. A suicide catalyst is supposed to die, you are not risking it, you are expending it as ammunition. It therefore cannot possibly be in danger since its not something unwelcome or unpleasant, its something you are doing deliberately and something you are expecting.
Since many if not all suicide gankers kill empty freighters as well as freighters with loot there is also no risk in "loot not dropping" since for loot to drop there needs to be loot in the ship. Now since you kill ships without loot that cannot be a "risk factor" at all.
Looking at recent kills of freighters its quite obvious that the killing of freighters is so easy it can be done with a single person using ISBOXER and 6 or 7 stealth bombers and certainly doesn't require the claimed 100 person catalyst fleet. Since ISBOXER broadcasting is illegal in EVE it must be assumed that one code dweeb does it using multiple clients or computers and manual input (sure he does right?) and is doing for under 250 million per gank.
The often vomited, use a webber, fast aligning, scouting bullcrap is of course worthless since almost all ganks are conducted with a 100,000 isk scrambler which makes fast aligning and webbing pointless.
Sounds like you're pretty powerless to protect yourself. You might want to consider just getting a permit. |
Mandar Amelana
The Derelict
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:49:39 -
[246] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Sounds like you're pretty powerless to protect yourself. You might want to consider just getting a permit.
 As much as I hate CODE, its responses like this that make it hard to do sometimes.
Honestly, maybe a rework in the bounty system could help with certain situations of ganking. Won't help with CODE, but is there anyway to add a bounty contract, that upon the destruction of a certain player, in a certain minimum ISK fit, you'd receive the benefit of the contract?
Just a thought. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:53:57 -
[247] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Steffles wrote:Risk
noun
1. a situation involving exposure to danger.
Danger
noun
the possibility of something unwelcome or unpleasant happening.
Now pretending you are risking something by undocking a suicide catalyst is stupid. A suicide catalyst is supposed to die, you are not risking it, you are expending it as ammunition. It therefore cannot possibly be in danger since its not something unwelcome or unpleasant, its something you are doing deliberately and something you are expecting.
Since many if not all suicide gankers kill empty freighters as well as freighters with loot there is also no risk in "loot not dropping" since for loot to drop there needs to be loot in the ship. Now since you kill ships without loot that cannot be a "risk factor" at all.
Looking at recent kills of freighters its quite obvious that the killing of freighters is so easy it can be done with a single person using ISBOXER and 6 or 7 stealth bombers and certainly doesn't require the claimed 100 person catalyst fleet. Since ISBOXER broadcasting is illegal in EVE it must be assumed that one code dweeb does it using multiple clients or computers and manual input (sure he does right?) and is doing for under 250 million per gank.
The often vomited, use a webber, fast aligning, scouting bullcrap is of course worthless since almost all ganks are conducted with a 100,000 isk scrambler which makes fast aligning and webbing pointless.
Sounds like you're pretty powerless to protect yourself. You might want to consider just getting a permit.
Permit Free Space - But Please come down to the Beanstar and try sell me one. |
pajedas
Special Activities Division
342
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:55:14 -
[248] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Sounds like you're pretty powerless to protect yourself. You might want to consider just getting a permit. You help make his point. You don't want change and/or improvement because it's perfect for people like you.
You are not the majority (except for GD trolls). .001% of the player base makes 99% of the troll posts.
I propose that CCP start charging people to post in the forums. Like text messaging, give a 500 "text" base and then charge (per post) anyone that goes over...
=ƒÉ» Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉ»
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 13:58:22 -
[249] - Quote
Perhaps, we shouldn't be looking to make hi-sec safer for law abiding citizens, but making it more dangerous for criminals.
Currently, a Merc Corp can really do nothing to catch a -10 criminal.
What mechanics would open up criminals to non-consensual PVP?
[edit]
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:04:35 -
[250] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Perhaps, we shouldn't be looking to make hi-sec safer for law abiding citizens, but making it more dangerous for criminals.
Currently, a Merc Corp can really do nothing to catch a -10 criminal.
What mechanics would open up criminals to non-consensual PVP?
There are none that would be acceptable to CCP.
The -10's are of course alts.
They are in ships designed to die.
Killing one of their ships is not a deterrent nor costly to them - to do so would require you losing the isk war by a very large margin.
The only real solution would be CCP identifying their mains however CCP will never do that.
You are therefore SOL. |
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:06:20 -
[251] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Perhaps, we shouldn't be looking to make hi-sec safer for law abiding citizens, but making it more dangerous for criminals.
Currently, a Merc Corp can really do nothing to catch a -10 criminal.
What mechanics would open up criminals to non-consensual PVP? There are none that would be acceptable to CCP. The -10's are of course alts. They are in ships designed to die. Killing one of their ships is not a deterrent nor costly to them - to do so would require you losing the isk war by a very large margin. The only real solution would be CCP identifying their mains however CCP will never do that. You are therefore SOL.
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:16:49 -
[252] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Steffles wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Perhaps, we shouldn't be looking to make hi-sec safer for law abiding citizens, but making it more dangerous for criminals.
Currently, a Merc Corp can really do nothing to catch a -10 criminal.
What mechanics would open up criminals to non-consensual PVP? There are none that would be acceptable to CCP. The -10's are of course alts. They are in ships designed to die. Killing one of their ships is not a deterrent nor costly to them - to do so would require you losing the isk war by a very large margin. The only real solution would be CCP identifying their mains however CCP will never do that. You are therefore SOL. I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad... Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking. Apply it to everyone to be fair.
Not sure why anyone would get mad. They are after all allowed and are part of the game.
Your suggestion would make a shiteton of people mad though but it'd be pretty nice not just for -10's but for all of EvE. 10 seconds after timer expires or turns off since there's an immunity timer after undocking.
Realistically for -10's though I think pod only travel, for the purpose of buying / utilizing tags is a good option. Not like tags are that expensive anymore. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14879
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:19:46 -
[253] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
I don't understand the need some have to make things easier for people. EVe already provides all the tools one needs to be extremely safe.
The real problem is high security space. unlike the other 84% of EVE space, high sec doesn't teach players to protect themselves, so they don,t, and they get preyed upon, and they blame the game rather than putting the fault where it really lies (on themselves), and some of them come to a forum asking for developer intervention.
In 9+ years I've lost 2 shuttles and a pod to 'criminals' in high sec. Even when I've gone back to high sec to run missions and incursions and even now when I haul loot to jita I have zero problems (because I treat ALL space as hostile space, I mjd'claok gate to gate between jita and amarr for example).
Being that I've played outside of high sec most of that time (in space where there is no help except other people and maybe a weak gate gun in low sec), the habits formed there make high sec 'criminals' a non issue.
But somehow you can't teach that to high seccers at all. They are like the privileged kids of EVE, you can't convince them that they have to make an effort for what they want (safety) rather than just rely on their butler and chauffeur lol. Time and again CCP has buffed these types (buffed mining ships, safeties, pop ups that won't let you make a mistake etc) and they STILL complain.
Which shows that CCP also has a hard time learning, in this case it's learning that you can't coddle some people enough for them to be comfortable in a harsh game, and trying is stupid. IMO high sec players were less stupid before all the safeties/pop ups and such, because hihgh sec was more dangerous and it was easier to learn that you had to protect your self a little at least. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:26:27 -
[254] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Steffles wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Perhaps, we shouldn't be looking to make hi-sec safer for law abiding citizens, but making it more dangerous for criminals.
Currently, a Merc Corp can really do nothing to catch a -10 criminal.
What mechanics would open up criminals to non-consensual PVP? There are none that would be acceptable to CCP. The -10's are of course alts. They are in ships designed to die. Killing one of their ships is not a deterrent nor costly to them - to do so would require you losing the isk war by a very large margin. The only real solution would be CCP identifying their mains however CCP will never do that. You are therefore SOL. I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad... Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking. Apply it to everyone to be fair. Not sure why anyone would get mad. They are after all allowed and are part of the game. Your suggestion would make a shiteton of people mad though but it'd be pretty nice not just for -10's but for all of EvE. 10 seconds after timer expires or turns off since there's an immunity timer after undocking. Realistically for -10's though I think pod only travel, for the purpose of buying / utilizing tags is a good option. Not like tags are that expensive anymore.
I don't know. I think podding people undocking would be legit.
Also I'm surprised no one has suggested warp cool downs after undocking as a thing before.
Sure it would make undocking at Jita while at war a bad thing, but it would be a small price to pay to balance everything out.
I never did like the concept of instant warping after undocking anyways.
This would increase overall risk I suppose... Worth it though.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:28:33 -
[255] - Quote
What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer
and so on and so on...
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
139
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:28:40 -
[256] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Sounds like you're pretty powerless to protect yourself. You might want to consider just getting a permit. You help make his point. You don't want change and/or improvement because it's perfect for people like you. You are not the majority (except for GD trolls). .001% of the player base makes 99% of the troll posts. I propose that CCP start charging people to post in the forums. Like text messaging, give a 500 "text" base and then charge (per post) anyone that goes over...
Oh hi Pajedas! Glad to see you're still in the game! I thought you rage-quit, bro? What happened with that? |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1165
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 14:34:04 -
[257] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
I don't understand the need some have to make things easier for people. EVe already provides all the tools one needs to be extremely safe. The real problem is high security space. unlike the other 84% of EVE space, high sec doesn't teach players to protect themselves, so they don,t, and they get preyed upon, and they blame the game rather than putting the fault where it really lies (on themselves), and some of them come to a forum asking for developer intervention. In 9+ years I've lost 2 shuttles and a pod to 'criminals' in high sec. Even when I've gone back to high sec to run missions and incursions and even now when I haul loot to jita I have zero problems (because I treat ALL space as hostile space, I mjd'claok gate to gate between jita and amarr for example). Being that I've played outside of high sec most of that time (in space where there is no help except other people and maybe a weak gate gun in low sec), the habits formed there make high sec 'criminals' a non issue. But somehow you can't teach that to high seccers at all. They are like the privileged kids of EVE, you can't convince them that they have to make an effort for what they want (safety) rather than just rely on their butler and chauffeur lol. Time and again CCP has buffed these types (buffed mining ships, safeties, pop ups that won't let you make a mistake etc) and they STILL complain. Which shows that CCP also has a hard time learning, in this case it's learning that you can't coddle some people enough for them to be comfortable in a harsh game, and trying is stupid. IMO high sec players were less stupid before all the safeties/pop ups and such, because hihgh sec was more dangerous and it was easier to learn that you had to protect your self a little at least.
My suggestion actually increases risk for everyone.
I suspect people in low sec would love warp cool downs.
It doesn't actually make it safer or prevent ganking if the miners choose to be whimps about it.
My suggestions just gives the opportunity to engage criminals or war targets on undock.
It creates more opportunity for PVP and does not make mining or hauling any safer.
It just gives those who want to actually PVP an opportunity to get it.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
139
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 15:09:27 -
[258] - Quote
pajedas wrote:
You are not the majority...
Of course we're in the minority! That's why it's called "Elite PvP". |
pajedas
Special Activities Division
342
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 15:38:36 -
[259] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Oh hi Pajedas! Glad to see you're still in the game! I thought you rage-quit, bro? What happened with that?
Eve is like a really, really, REALLY nice septic system...why would I leave it?
=ƒÉç Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉç
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14881
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:20:27 -
[260] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
I don't understand the need some have to make things easier for people. EVe already provides all the tools one needs to be extremely safe. The real problem is high security space. unlike the other 84% of EVE space, high sec doesn't teach players to protect themselves, so they don,t, and they get preyed upon, and they blame the game rather than putting the fault where it really lies (on themselves), and some of them come to a forum asking for developer intervention. In 9+ years I've lost 2 shuttles and a pod to 'criminals' in high sec. Even when I've gone back to high sec to run missions and incursions and even now when I haul loot to jita I have zero problems (because I treat ALL space as hostile space, I mjd'claok gate to gate between jita and amarr for example). Being that I've played outside of high sec most of that time (in space where there is no help except other people and maybe a weak gate gun in low sec), the habits formed there make high sec 'criminals' a non issue. But somehow you can't teach that to high seccers at all. They are like the privileged kids of EVE, you can't convince them that they have to make an effort for what they want (safety) rather than just rely on their butler and chauffeur lol. Time and again CCP has buffed these types (buffed mining ships, safeties, pop ups that won't let you make a mistake etc) and they STILL complain. Which shows that CCP also has a hard time learning, in this case it's learning that you can't coddle some people enough for them to be comfortable in a harsh game, and trying is stupid. IMO high sec players were less stupid before all the safeties/pop ups and such, because hihgh sec was more dangerous and it was easier to learn that you had to protect your self a little at least. My suggestion actually increases risk for everyone. I suspect people in low sec would love warp cool downs. It doesn't actually make it safer or prevent ganking if the miners choose to be whimps about it. My suggestions just gives the opportunity to engage criminals or war targets on undock. It creates more opportunity for PVP and does not make mining or hauling any safer. It just gives those who want to actually PVP an opportunity to get it. And I'd be fine increasing the timer it takes for the faction police to compensate to be fair. I'd also be open to increasing concord times to balance this out. Shift the police from NPCs to players. How can you be against that? \
Because there is no need. The starting assumption is that there is something wrong. There isn't. PVP players of all kinds don't need a buff.
One of the problems with "bright ideas" (especially when there is no pressing need for the idea in the 1st place) is that the idea person doesn't think things through. In this case, the idea is to give people some way to attack gankers in high sec so you make EVERYONE have a warp delay (it's like swatting a nat with a nuke).
The gankers simply won't dock then, they will reship (and log out/in) in space until whatever arbitrary timer is up etc. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of other players who don't gank will have to deal with a whole new type of station gaming, one that will HELP gankers as high sec mission runners (who HAVE to dock to talk to their agents) get blown away by gankers rather than being able to insta-warp off the station and proceed on to their mission like they can now.
I can't tell you how stupid the idea is, it wouldn't negatively affect gankers (again, they would simply adapt, like they do every time CCP tries to nerf them) , it would HELP them as well as making playing in low sec and npc null PURE HELL and it would SCREW the rest of us who have zero to do with ganking.
How can you not take the 13 seconds I did to think through the implications?
|
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:30:06 -
[261] - Quote
I am well aware that it would result in bad days for lots of people.
That is my point.
How would you bring non-consensual PVP to hi sec criminals?
I mean the only other thing I can think of is to force anyone in an NPC Corp to green safeties until they join a player Corp.
Won't stop throw away corps though.
The key problem now is that the behavior can't really be countered by PVP.
The optimal solution would not to nerf ganking or buff mining and hauler EHP, but make a system where the miners or mercs can become the police themselves.
How would you propose for that to happen?
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:36:06 -
[262] - Quote
Hrm... What might make throw away corps less problematic if if you quit or disband the decced Corp that you remain a war target for 7 days unless the Corp agrees to a peace deal.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:44:48 -
[263] - Quote
Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2883
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:48:29 -
[264] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:How would you bring non-consensual PVP to hi sec criminals? You can't. They are seeking PvP therefore it can never be non-consensual.
You could try to find their scouts and logistic haulers that are not seeking direct PvP, but alas, since highsec is so safe now it really is hard to explode someone who takes precautions, like the associates of criminals are likely to do.
Funny how that works.
Captain Tardbar wrote:I mean the only other thing I can think of is to force anyone in an NPC Corp to green safeties until they join a player Corp.
Won't stop throw away corps though. CODE. is an alliance that is wardeccable by anyone and harbours a significant fraction of the gankers in the game. The others will just use throwaway corps to dodge wars like the recalcitrant carebears do (funny how that works?).
More relevant though, most criminals are already outlaws and free-to-shoot to anyone. No wars are necessary at all. They are literally as vulnerable as game mechanics can make them. There is no way to turn the risk up any further for them.
Captain Tardbar wrote:The key problem now is that the behavior can't really be countered by PVP. Of course it can. Fitting tank is PvP. Scouting is PvP. Bringing logi or ECM support is PvP.
You can stop gankers in their tracks if you spend any effort. You can protect a single freighter, or ice/ore belt with only a small fleet that will require several-fold more criminal players to overcome.
But no, you can't stop all criminals everywhere, but why do you think you should have that ability? The criminals can't explode everyone everywhere. Why should you be able to lock me out from playing the game as a criminal everywhere? How would that be balanced.
You can protect yourself in a multitude of ways. The PvP encounter is heavily stacked against the criminals as it should be in highsec. But you should not have the ability to stop the criminal from playing the game just like everyone else.
That would be something close to "griefing".
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:55:24 -
[265] - Quote
You know what I mean by non-consensual PVP...
Targets that shoot back.
How do you make this happen?
If you can't make this interaction symmetrical then you just get discouraged players who eventually lack to will to login.
And keep in mind this is coming from someone who has never been ganked outside of faction warfare despite hundreds of hours mining.
And if you google my name, you might find that I'm listed on a kill while in an NPC Corp on a freighter.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 16:55:54 -
[266] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
Not sure they actually have a plan. Perhaps they'll get someone in who will one day address:
Suicide Ganking
Cyno's
Cloaky Camping
N+1
Capital Proliferation
Killboard Fallout
Gates
Alpha
War Decs
But I wouldn't hold my breath, these negative things have been around for years, generated thousands of posts describing the negative aspects and they have failed miserably to address any of them.
They did finally address:
Capital Projection
Sov
2 out 11+ aint bad... actually yeah its pretty bad in 10 years tbh |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3039
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:03:19 -
[267] - Quote
They rather just address you
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2884
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:12:32 -
[268] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:You know what I mean by non-consensual PVP...
Targets that shoot back.
How do you make this happen?
If you can't make this interaction symmetrical then you just get discouraged players who eventually lack to will to login.
And keep in mind this is coming from someone who has never been ganked outside of faction warfare despite hundreds of hours mining.
And if you google my name, you might find that I'm listed on a kill while in an NPC Corp on a freighter. You can't. Well not without buffing criminals some.
The faction police make it impossible for criminals to give a good fight even if they want to. If you want a symmetrical fight with a chance of escalation you have to at least allow the criminals to bring a proper combat ship that won't necessarily be destroyed. Otherwise they just won't undock in anything not disposable and only undock for the minimum time required. Without the faction police they might get lazy or hang around in space purposely looking for a real fight and you could get some more symmetrical PvP.
You either make highsec very safe and the NPC's handle the punishment preventing any lasting player law enforcement or escalation, or you make highsec less safe and build mechanisms for the players to call for help and act as vigilantes to fight in more 'traditional' ways. You can't have both.
So far CCP has chosen to go with the first paradigm, but I am hopeful a complete revamp of CrimeWatch someday could produce a more interesting way to commit crime that would enable escalation on both sides. But I wouldn't worry as Eve has had such unbalance and harsh PvP mechanics since day one and has done just fine. As long as it is indeed possible to protect yourself, everything is working as intended.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:19:04 -
[269] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
Not sure they actually have a plan. Perhaps they'll get someone in who will one day address: Suicide Ganking Cyno's Cloaky Camping N+1 Capital Proliferation Killboard Fallout Gates Alpha War Decs But I wouldn't hold my breath, these negative things have been around for years, generated thousands of posts describing the negative aspects and they have failed miserably to address any of them. They did finally address: Capital Projection Sov 2 out 11+ aint bad... actually yeah its pretty bad in 10 years tbh
Maybe because most of those aren't a problem. Maybe the problem is... people? Maybe they should start addressing people who constantly nag all the time instead of figuring out how to work around these "problems"
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:23:00 -
[270] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:So whats the loophole to kills similar to this then? https://zkillboard.com/kill/56924661/
10 purifiers(t2) in the killmail, but only the t1 catalyst and caracal were killed by CONCORD it does not look like it was a wardec target. What? Looks like he lost the bombers to CONCORD. Working as intended.
did he?
|
|
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:24:17 -
[271] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
Not sure they actually have a plan. Perhaps they'll get someone in who will one day address: Suicide Ganking Cyno's Cloaky Camping N+1 Capital Proliferation Killboard Fallout Gates Alpha War Decs But I wouldn't hold my breath, these negative things have been around for years, generated thousands of posts describing the negative aspects and they have failed miserably to address any of them. They did finally address: Capital Projection Sov 2 out 11+ aint bad... actually yeah its pretty bad in 10 years tbh
It's just an opinion but i actually think the focus of capital projection was wrong. What ccp did was condemn anyone who wanted to move a capital and i think in a game where CCP have one thing to do and that is provide engagement, the focus was on the wrong thing. Instead of looking at the entire process of "moving of a capital" they took the easy route and decided to
kill an entire way people engage with the game. My opinion says the focus should have been on the act of cyno-ing, there is an entire game play that could occur but it was left with the f1 monkey ibis meta.
Suicide ganking will never change, this is part of the nastiness of Eve and cloaky camping might change with the new line of structures.
n+1, hell just logi, is one of my engagement killers, along with the outdated ewar including ECM. You look at some of the reasons why they were introduced into the game and many of them do not "fit" in today's game.
Capitals will always be that "end game" to many. I personally think they are overrated and should have a completely different role in the game.
KB's = yes, some say they provide incentive. many say they provide aversion because corps, alliances and people are deemed worthy over green killboards. Again, another example of a "tool" that was developed many years ago that as the game changed served to create stagnation.
Gates - whilst in some eyes provide the necessary choke points, in many they do nothing but serve dull predictable bait game play.
Alpha = Not sure about this.
War decs = In it's current form it promotes blanket war deccing where said "professional mercs" entitles don't actually compete against each other. There is a fantastic game play to open here but in the grand scheme of CCP this will not be touched for another few years.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14882
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:26:42 -
[272] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I am well aware that it would result in bad days for lots of people.
That is my point.
How would you bring non-consensual PVP to hi sec criminals?
The way we do now. learning the mechanics, getting them to emulate themselves on CONCORD (they REALLY don't expect miners to have implants that increase ehp), grouping up, using alts that can rep or counter-bump. Hauling in jump frighters and having a ready low sec cyno on a pos of citidel so if you get bumped it's press one button and escape.
OUTTHINKING them, neutralizing before they even log on because (as everyone outside of high sec knows) fights in EVE are won while docked and looking at the fitting screen.
Again, that's the problem, high sec people defautl to "there is nothing I can do so CCP needs to do that for me". Why do people choose to play games involving other people (EVE is an open world mmo) if they are going to run to mommy dev the second it gets tough?
Quote:
I mean the only other thing I can think of is to force anyone in an NPC Corp to green safeties until they join a player Corp.
Highlighted exhibit 1.
Quote:
Won't stop throw away corps though.
The key problem now is that the behavior can't really be countered by PVP.
Then counter it with PVE. Get a list of the missions in high sec with ore in them. Tank your ships to tank the rats in the mission. HOPE a ganker team decides to scan your mining op down and warp in to a room full of npcs that will switch and kill the gankers before they can do enough dps to kill one mining ship.
That's how you mine more safely in npc null. but it works in high sec too. High sec miners would know that if they spent less time complaining about CODE on forums and more time experimenting with ways to avoid and counter the people they don't like.
Quote:
The optimal solution would not to nerf ganking or buff mining and hauler EHP, but make a system where the miners or mercs can become the police themselves.
How would you propose for that to happen?
they already nerfed ganking and buffed EHP on mining ships. they gave ships higgs rigs to counter bumping. They have implemented the 30 second warping rule to thwart bumpers (who are trying to bump you away from gate guns so they can gank you) etc.
End result? SAME result as all of CCPs NPE revamps and lowering of barriers to entry to get new people to play: ZILCH.
People still complain, gankers keep adapting, the weak minded who can't think for themselves keep dying and the keep running to this forum begging for help they could have delivered to themselves BEFORE they got ganked.
And those of us who got our gameplay enjoyment from playing in fine Indianna Jones fashion (ie avoid the bad guys, run the mazes, get the loot, laugh at the folks who failed to kill you all the way to the bank) are the real ones who get screwed but CCPs recent interventionist stance. WE didn't need help to avoid gankers, and the people who do need that help can't be helped in the 1st place, because they are dumb as rocks.
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:26:44 -
[273] - Quote
Cien Banchiere wrote:Steffles wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
Not sure they actually have a plan. Perhaps they'll get someone in who will one day address: Suicide Ganking Cyno's Cloaky Camping N+1 Capital Proliferation Killboard Fallout Gates Alpha War Decs But I wouldn't hold my breath, these negative things have been around for years, generated thousands of posts describing the negative aspects and they have failed miserably to address any of them. They did finally address: Capital Projection Sov 2 out 11+ aint bad... actually yeah its pretty bad in 10 years tbh Maybe because most of those aren't a problem. Maybe the problem is... people? Maybe they should start addressing people who constantly nag all the time instead of figuring out how to work around these "problems"
You are so right, people losing interest in a game that is being dulled down out of existence through crappy planning and execution sure is the fault of winey people. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:29:32 -
[274] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:I am well aware that it would result in bad days for lots of people.
That is my point.
How would you bring non-consensual PVP to hi sec criminals? The way we do now. learning the mechanics, getting them to emulate themselves on CONCORD (they REALLY don't expect miners to have implants that increase ehp), grouping up, using alts that can rep or counter-bump. Hauling in jump frighters and having a ready low sec cyno on a pos of citidel so if you get bumped it's press one button and escape. OUTTHINKING them, neutralizing before they even log on because (as everyone outside of high sec knows) fights in EVE are won while docked and looking at the fitting screen. Again, that's the problem, high sec people defautl to "there is nothing I can do so CCP needs to do that for me". Why do people choose to play games involving other people (EVE is an open world mmo) if they are going to run to mommy dev the second it gets tough?
Now now Jenna you were one of the people who "ran to mommy dev" when you didn't like incursions. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14882
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:38:41 -
[275] - Quote
This is what you said:
Cien Banchiere wrote:
Maybe because most of those aren't a problem. Maybe the problem is... people? Maybe they should start addressing people who constantly nag all the time instead of figuring out how to work around these "problems"
This is what they hear :
Some people (not just in games) can't grasp the basic idea that they could be doing something about the thing they complain about. That they could make themselves safe in this game by doing simple things, that they could teach newer people proper defensive tactics that would make CODE wither and die from lack of life giving killmails and tears. That they could use the game as it stands against their enemies in a LOT less time than the YEARS they have spent forum lobbying CCP for changes beneficial (they think, wrongly) to them.
I find it amazing that such a situation exists. Like now CODE doesn't exist for me, I've lost 1 shuttle to them (and another to goons) in high sec, both empty.
It was the same through all those years of "grr Goons", people would come here and ***** about them, and I would go to battleclinic and look at my killboard full of goon deaths (and i'm not even a good pvp player). Some people are just born victims I think.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14882
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:41:21 -
[276] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:I am well aware that it would result in bad days for lots of people.
That is my point.
How would you bring non-consensual PVP to hi sec criminals? The way we do now. learning the mechanics, getting them to emulate themselves on CONCORD (they REALLY don't expect miners to have implants that increase ehp), grouping up, using alts that can rep or counter-bump. Hauling in jump frighters and having a ready low sec cyno on a pos of citidel so if you get bumped it's press one button and escape. OUTTHINKING them, neutralizing before they even log on because (as everyone outside of high sec knows) fights in EVE are won while docked and looking at the fitting screen. Again, that's the problem, high sec people default to "there is nothing I can do so CCP needs to do that for me". Why do people choose to play games involving other people (EVE is an open world mmo) if they are going to run to mommy dev the second it gets tough? Now now Jenna you were one of the people who "ran to mommy dev" when you didn't like incursions.
Since when did i tell ccp to get rid of incursions?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5464
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:57:46 -
[277] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Australian Excellence wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Any thing over 300 mill will cover the gank cost, so a 1.8 billion freighter to carry no more than 300 mill. As I said it makes them useless. Ok people who carry billions are idiots but at the moment ganking a freighter is so cheap its stupid. So what, you want us to waste 10+ talos to kill an antitanked freighter every time? Let's be real here, you want no risk hauling. Deflecting the burden on the supposed ease in ganking is a lazy argument miner, there is no limit to how dumb you could take it. You going to start assuming every gank fleet has 100 pilots flying T1 cats and complaining about how it's costing under 200mil to kill full tanked freighters next? You'll find there is only 3-4 groups that actually field enough pilots to kill proper tanked freighters with only cats. Go play WoW if you want an always safe game. Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW.
Then change it. Don't sit there crying when you can do things yourself to change the situation.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:17:25 -
[278] - Quote
My alts have made numerous trips to Jita and around New Eden. I have never had my ship ganked. Why... Because I fly smart I would guess. Here seen some simple tricks:
1) Avoid Niarja and Uedama. It's not that hard to find a place to mine or mission run where you can do what you wish and do not need to pass through those systems. Just go to Dotlan, use the maps, and you are fine.
2) Haul less and smarter. Niarja and Uedama are ganker's heavens. So if you do have to pass through those systems, haul less. This does not mean make all 20 jumps repeatedly only hauling 20 mil. Simply pick a system a few jumps before these systems. Dock up, drop your cargo, split it into smaller loads, take the small loads through the danger zones. A jump or two after, Dock up drop off your cargo and go back for more. Yes it may add some jumps to your task but you'll be rewarded with less chance of being ganked and not have such a long trip.
3) use a hauling service like Red Frog.
4) if you have to, go the long way. Both systems can be avoided and you can still stay in hi sec. Yes it is a longer trip, but you are safe.
5) before heading out, open up the in game map. Under statistics, select ships destroyed in the last hour. If you see a huge red mark on any system you pass through, accept that the gankers are active and wait. After all, eve is a game of patience.
Practice this and chances are, you'll haul millions of loads and isk long before you are ganked.
Edited to add:
If you are being bumped, don't ransom and don't accept a dual request for web help from a stranger. Chances are, it's a scam. If the bumper had a fleet at the ready, you would already be shot. Eventually, they will have to accept that you won't pay and move to An easier mark. At worst, they'll waste your time and theirs while others get through. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5464
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:23:07 -
[279] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:My alts have made numerous trips to Jita and around New Eden. I have never had my ship ganked. Why... Because I fly smart I would guess. Here seen some simple tricks:
1) Avoid Niarja and Uedama. It's not that hard to find a place to mine or mission run where you can do what you wish and do not need to pass through those systems. Just go to Dotlan, use the maps, and you are fine.
2) Haul less and smarter. Niarja and Uedama are ganker's heavens. So if you do have to pass through those systems, haul less. This does not mean make all 20 jumps repeatedly only hauling 20 mil. Simply pick a system a few jumps before these systems. Dock up, drop your cargo, split it into smaller loads, take the small loads through the danger zones. A jump or two after, Dock up drop off your cargo and go back for more. Yes it may add some jumps to your task but you'll be rewarded with less chance of being ganked and not have such a long trip.
3) use a hauling service like Red Frog.
4) if you have to, go the long way. Both systems can be avoided and you can still stay in hi sec. Yes it is a longer trip, but you are safe.
5) before heading out, open up the in game map. Under statistics, select ships destroyed in the last hour. If you see a huge red mark on any system you pass through, accept that the gankers are active and wait. After all, eve is a game of patience.
Practice this and chances are, you'll haul millions of loads and isk long before you are ganked.
Set known ganking groups to red for standings. Use local to see if they are in Niarja or Uedama as well. Ideally your scout should be doing this. If they are there safest option, dock up and go make a sandwich, run to the store, etc. Come back later and go through when they are gone. Or wait for a risk seeking freighter pilot to keep them busy and slip through.
Edit: Tank your ship. A tanked ship will take more DPS to kill it which means you are a harder target to kill. If you are being bumped and there isn't much you can do....log off. You may very well still die, but there is a chance that they won't have that noob ship at the ready to keep you in space after logging off.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
121
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:30:31 -
[280] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote:Cien Banchiere wrote:Steffles wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:Personally i'm struggling to find the game engaging and I think when you take off all of the sugar it really comes down to two mechanics that over the years have become real engagement killers.
All over the game I see a similar story from small fleets wanting to go out and blap stuff and test skill to watching PERUNGA sitting in Tama with his sebo keres and a fleet of logi and ecm backing him up.
Despite the research coming out of how gaming styles are changing and how people want to work in groups of no more than 15 people, CCP still keep push content that evolves around massive hordes of people grinding.
Some of us who remember the game before the nano nerf, before warp disrupter and ecm and ewar and killboards and remember what it was like to roam around and shoot stuff and compete against home defences because someone was tress passing. These days the story is, dock up and wait it out, same for fleets who sit on gates in null and low. And don't get me started on the war mechanic.
I don't know what the fix is and i am done thinking about how to achieve the type of dynamic fast moving game Eve used to be but i would like to see CCP at least trying to incentivise engaging game play instead of the boring, predictable choke points of gates and pipe blanket war dec campers.
Not sure they actually have a plan. Perhaps they'll get someone in who will one day address: Suicide Ganking Cyno's Cloaky Camping N+1 Capital Proliferation Killboard Fallout Gates Alpha War Decs But I wouldn't hold my breath, these negative things have been around for years, generated thousands of posts describing the negative aspects and they have failed miserably to address any of them. They did finally address: Capital Projection Sov 2 out 11+ aint bad... actually yeah its pretty bad in 10 years tbh Maybe because most of those aren't a problem. Maybe the problem is... people? Maybe they should start addressing people who constantly nag all the time instead of figuring out how to work around these "problems" You are so right, people losing interest in a game that is being dulled down out of existence through crappy planning and execution sure is the fault of winey people.
Do explain.
|
|
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:33:40 -
[281] - Quote
Did you guys know that you can quote someone without having to include the "whole wall of text" that they are quoting?
Looks like you're trying to get the thread closed to me.
=ƒÉç Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉç
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
139
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:40:06 -
[282] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more...
Wait a minute! What?
Please explain to us how this makes any sense.
What's that? You can't? Because you don't understand basic mechanics?
Why am I not surprised? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5464
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 18:42:19 -
[283] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is what you said: Cien Banchiere wrote:
Maybe because most of those aren't a problem. Maybe the problem is... people? Maybe they should start addressing people who constantly nag all the time instead of figuring out how to work around these "problems"
This is what they hear : Some people (not just in games) can't grasp the basic idea that they could be doing something about the thing they complain about. That they could make themselves safe in this game by doing simple things, that they could teach newer people proper defensive tactics that would make CODE wither and die from lack of life giving killmails and tears. That they could use the game as it stands against their enemies in a LOT less time than the YEARS they have spent forum lobbying CCP for changes beneficial (they think, wrongly) to them. I find it amazing that such a situation exists. Like now CODE doesn't exist for me, I've lost 1 shuttle to them (and another to goons) in high sec, both empty. It was the same through all those years of "grr Goons", people would come here and ***** about them, and I would go to battleclinic and look at my killboard full of goon deaths (and i'm not even a good pvp player). Some people are just born victims I think.
Well, some of these players are just...well horrible.
I was using my blockade runner and saw a macherial sitting on the in gate in Uedama as I jumped into Sivala. I also saw a freighter on the Uedama gate in Sivala, so I thought, "I'll convo him and warn him." So I started to convo and nothing, then I get a notification that he had blocked me.
Some players are so terrible you just can't help them...in their hubris they beg to be ganked.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
313
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:11:52 -
[284] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW.
As usual, you are wrong. It's fairly profitable to hunt gankers. They drop T2 guns and weapon upgrades, plus many have bounties. It may be boring to hunt them, but that's another issue.
Gankers also risk their bumping machs, scouts, and loot scoopers. They don't just magically get the loot transported to station after a gank. They can and have lost freighters and DSTs trying to get the loot back to station.
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I think the question should be "why do NPC stations allow -10 criminals to dock?"
Also at the same time I always wondered why Jita 4-4 lets people who at war with the Caldari state dock up too.
I mean it always seemed odd that they would pursue these targets but yet once they dock, they are on holy ground.
I made this analogy in another thread: In IRL, once a criminal is released from prison, they can go to the mall or Walmart just like any other citizen. Their money is just as good as yours.
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
Yes, I'm sure people undocking in industrials or shuttles in trade hubs would love to get the pirates camping stations an extra 10-30 seconds to target, scan, and then blap them.Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer
and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot. |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
313
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:21:22 -
[285] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I've got one but it might make a lot of people mad...
Add a 10 to 30 second cool down before you can warp after undocking.
Apply it to everyone to be fair.
Yes, I'm sure people undocking in industrials or shuttles in trade hubs would love to give the pirates camping stations an extra 10-30 seconds to target, scan, and then blap them.
Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer
and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:23:26 -
[286] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:
Look Carebear, it is the lack of risk to the ganker that is the problem. There is no profit to be made in hunting them. Now I know you don't want the possibility of someone ganking you for profit but really if you want a safe hi-sec maybe you should go play WOW.
As usual, you are wrong. It's fairly profitable to hunt gankers. They drop T2 guns and weapon upgrades, plus many have bounties. It may be boring to hunt them, but that's another issue. Gankers also risk their bumping machs, scouts, and loot scoopers. They don't just magically get the loot transported to station after a gank. They can and have lost freighters and DSTs trying to get the loot back to station. Captain Tardbar wrote:
I think the question should be "why do NPC stations allow -10 criminals to dock?"
Also at the same time I always wondered why Jita 4-4 lets people who at war with the Caldari state dock up too.
I mean it always seemed odd that they would pursue these targets but yet once they dock, they are on holy ground.
I made this analogy in another thread: In IRL, once a criminal is released from prison, they can go to the mall or Walmart just like any other citizen. Their money is just as good as yours. Captain Tardbar wrote:Hrm... What might make throw away corps less problematic if if you quit or disband the decced Corp that you remain a war target for 7 days unless the Corp agrees to a peace deal. LOL I don't think you know what you're asking for. CODE and merc alliances would LOVE LOVE that change.
Hrm... If I'm not mistaken the NPCs faction police hunt -10 players. So technically they are still wanted criminals.
So if they go to the mall, the mall security would be actively hunting them down.
Of course if they stab a shopper a SWAT team sniper comes out and shoots them.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
313
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:33:51 -
[287] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:[
Hrm... If I'm not mistaken the NPCs faction police hunt -10 players. So technically they are still wanted criminals.
So if they go to the mall, the mall security would be actively hunting them down.
Of course if they stab a shopper a SWAT team sniper comes out and shoots them.
Yes, they are hunted by FACPO, which is why they sit in station and only fly fast aligning ships most of the time. IIRC they have about 20 seconds until FACPO shows up and other 10 until they get shot up. Would you like to see FACPO removed so gankers stay in space more? |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:46:57 -
[288] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:[
Hrm... If I'm not mistaken the NPCs faction police hunt -10 players. So technically they are still wanted criminals.
So if they go to the mall, the mall security would be actively hunting them down.
Of course if they stab a shopper a SWAT team sniper comes out and shoots them. Yes, they are hunted by FACPO, which is why they sit in station and only fly fast aligning ships most of the time. IIRC they have about 20 seconds until FACPO shows up and other 10 until they get shot up. Would you like to see FACPO removed so gankers stay in space more?
We could compromise.
Remove faction police.
Add, 10 second warp cool down for all -10 players.
Call it security tax.
That reasonable?
Sure they'll hang in safe spots after that, but any Merc worth their salt can scan them down.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 19:55:43 -
[289] - Quote
Alternatively... And here me out.
Remove all faction police.
Then make it so -10 players can only dock as a pod in high sec.
They can equip a ship and undock, but if they try to redock it won't let them until they are a pod again.
So they will spend their time prepping for a gank outside stations.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
139
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 20:04:17 -
[290] - Quote
He edited out what I corrected... |
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1167
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 20:35:06 -
[291] - Quote
Also I would amend my idea to only have 10 warp cool down on anything other than a pod, since I could foresee a -10 player dock in Jita only to be podded over and over again on undock.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down.
|
flakeys
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
3278
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 09:29:37 -
[292] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.
Blah blah blah. Why do you carebears even play this game?
Then take it from someone who hasn't done any pve activities in like 5 years , your attitude does suck.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 09:52:51 -
[293] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more... Wait a minute! What? Please explain to us how this makes any sense. What's that? You can't? Because you don't understand basic mechanics? Why am I not surprised?
What your going to argue now that being able to bump people for an unlimited amount of time is a good mechanic?
I know your a carebear but come on. Bumping needs a limited time and that will make you carebear gankers come out of hiding more. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18936
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 09:57:46 -
[294] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more... Wait a minute! What? Please explain to us how this makes any sense. What's that? You can't? Because you don't understand basic mechanics? Why am I not surprised? What your going to argue now that being able to bump people for an unlimited amount of time is a good mechanic? I know your a carebear but come on. Bumping needs a limited time and that will make you carebear gankers come out of hiding more.
No he's called you out on what you said about it having them out more.
Which mechanically speaking doesn't actually make any sense , can you elaborate a little?
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 11:36:22 -
[295] - Quote
Criminals are given warnings and chased by FACPO when they enter certain systems, but I have always wondered why docking rights for those criminals are not pulled by the 4 factions as well. Criminals or other gankers would not be able to easily reship or hide while their timers are running down.
With the introduction of citadels, criminals can now use an alt to install citadels and have docking rights to those, but then gankers or criminals would have something to lose because the alt corp could be war dec'd. Make the game a little more interesting and give the criminals something to protect or lose, while they also cause havoc in high sec. A sec status of -10 means nothing and does not have any real restrictions that can't easily be bypassed. Isn't this what is EVE is about, Risk vs Reward?
I do find it ironic that gankers complain High sec is too safe, all the while their mains are sitting in the safety of Null sec running endless combat anoms and mining fresh ore anoms every 1/2 hour after depletion. When I lived in Null, there were days that would go by without seeing a neutral come through the pocket, while making about 150 mil/hr running Rock Havens. Having lived in all sectors, except wh, Null sec by far is the safest space in EVE, while High sec is the most dangerous and Low sec is easily the most fun. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 11:59:51 -
[296] - Quote
same shite, different day. |
Keno Skir
867
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 12:17:52 -
[297] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Criminals are given warnings and chased by FACPO when they enter certain systems, but I have always wondered why docking rights for those criminals are not pulled by the 4 factions as well. Criminals or other gankers would not be able to easily reship or hide while their timers are running down.
With the introduction of citadels, criminals can now use an alt to install citadels and have docking rights to those, but then gankers or criminals would have something to lose because the alt corp could be war dec'd. Make the game a little more interesting and give the criminals something to protect or lose, while they also cause havoc in high sec. A sec status of -10 means nothing and does not have any real restrictions that can't easily be bypassed. Isn't this what is EVE is about, Risk vs Reward?
I do find it ironic that gankers complain High sec is too safe, all the while their mains are sitting in the safety of Null sec running endless combat anoms and mining fresh ore anoms every 1/2 hour after depletion. When I lived in Null, there were days that would go by without seeing a neutral come through the pocket, while making about 150 mil/hr running Rock Havens. Having lived in all sectors, except wh, Null sec by far is the safest space in EVE, while High sec is the most dangerous and Low sec is easily the most fun.
Have you considered that :
1. PEOPLE made nulsec safe over time by adjusting their strategy, and using organization to counter threats.
2. This is EXACTLY what the pro-pvp guys are saying should happen in HiSec, rather than complaining the game should change to make you safer.
You made this point quite clearly with your description of how safe nul is. Why is it you think people can organize to limit risk in the most dangerous part of the game (mechanic wise) but shouldn't have to do the same when faced with a threat in Hi-Sec where they have the added bonus of security assistance from Concord etc?
Genuine question because i feel this point gets ignored time and time again.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
140
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 12:20:44 -
[298] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more... Wait a minute! What? Please explain to us how this makes any sense. What's that? You can't? Because you don't understand basic mechanics? Why am I not surprised? What your going to argue now that being able to bump people for an unlimited amount of time is a good mechanic? I know your a carebear but come on. Bumping needs a limited time and that will make you carebear gankers come out of hiding more. No he's called you out on what you said about it having them out more. Which mechanically speaking doesn't actually make any sense , can you elaborate a little?
Oh please do elaborate, Mark. Prove to us all that you're not as clueless as we think you are. :D
I'm waiting.... |
Keno Skir
869
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:18:04 -
[299] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: If they had to use cruisers fitted out for damage with a limited time frame on bumping they would have to be out in the open more... Wait a minute! What? Please explain to us how this makes any sense. What's that? You can't? Because you don't understand basic mechanics? Why am I not surprised? What your going to argue now that being able to bump people for an unlimited amount of time is a good mechanic? I know your a carebear but come on. Bumping needs a limited time and that will make you carebear gankers come out of hiding more. No he's called you out on what you said about it having them out more. Which mechanically speaking doesn't actually make any sense , can you elaborate a little? Oh please do elaborate, Mark. Prove to us all that you're not as clueless as we think you are. :D I'm waiting....
Yes Mark please continue to troll yourself. It's like you think nobody notices you shift the goalposts every time someone rails you like a cheap floozy..
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3613
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:18:17 -
[300] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Criminals are given warnings and chased by FACPO when they enter certain systems, but I have always wondered why docking rights for those criminals are not pulled by the 4 factions as well. Criminals or other gankers would not be able to easily reship or hide while their timers are running down.
With the introduction of citadels, criminals can now use an alt to install citadels and have docking rights to those, but then gankers or criminals would have something to lose because the alt corp could be war dec'd. Make the game a little more interesting and give the criminals something to protect or lose, while they also cause havoc in high sec. A sec status of -10 means nothing and does not have any real restrictions that can't easily be bypassed. Isn't this what is EVE is about, Risk vs Reward?
I do find it ironic that gankers complain High sec is too safe, all the while their mains are sitting in the safety of Null sec running endless combat anoms and mining fresh ore anoms every 1/2 hour after depletion. When I lived in Null, there were days that would go by without seeing a neutral come through the pocket, while making about 150 mil/hr running Rock Havens. Having lived in all sectors, except wh, Null sec by far is the safest space in EVE, while High sec is the most dangerous and Low sec is easily the most fun.
why dont you just go and camp the undock of where the gankers live or hunt the nullsec alts? or how about pay someone to do it, because you know if pirates want something done that doesnt involve shooting they have to pay carebears to do it or learn it themselves, maybe all you highsec carebears can form some sort of coalition and pay people to deal with it, that involves interaction though which you may not like.
null is safe because people make it safe and adapt, unlike people like you who just complain to ccp because people are using mechanics available which you dont like, god forbid if they ever let cyno's into highsec.
-10.0 holds plenty of restrictions, i.e we have to pay for alts to buy ships for us as we cant enter into highsec, which adds risk of getting ganked, but we are smart and dont make ourselves look like idiots that get ganked being bad.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
|
Keno Skir
870
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:32:20 -
[301] - Quote
In all honesty, i see the gank fleets form up all the time. They undock and warp to a pre-defined safe spot to group up and prep group warp to the target. Anyone with the slightest scanning skills can easily probe down this safe (and any others) and be waiting next time the fleet lands at safe to group warp to target. I have watched various gank groups use the same undock safes time and time again.
Anyone who complains gankers are hard to catch / kill hasn't thought of this simple premise and should go back to the drawing board to think harder.
Hisec is "most dangerous area" because it contains statistically the least organized people in the game (and gankers).
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:34:26 -
[302] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Criminals are given warnings and chased by FACPO when they enter certain systems, but I have always wondered why docking rights for those criminals are not pulled by the 4 factions as well. Criminals or other gankers would not be able to easily reship or hide while their timers are running down.
With the introduction of citadels, criminals can now use an alt to install citadels and have docking rights to those, but then gankers or criminals would have something to lose because the alt corp could be war dec'd. Make the game a little more interesting and give the criminals something to protect or lose, while they also cause havoc in high sec. A sec status of -10 means nothing and does not have any real restrictions that can't easily be bypassed. Isn't this what is EVE is about, Risk vs Reward?
I do find it ironic that gankers complain High sec is too safe, all the while their mains are sitting in the safety of Null sec running endless combat anoms and mining fresh ore anoms every 1/2 hour after depletion. When I lived in Null, there were days that would go by without seeing a neutral come through the pocket, while making about 150 mil/hr running Rock Havens. Having lived in all sectors, except wh, Null sec by far is the safest space in EVE, while High sec is the most dangerous and Low sec is easily the most fun. why dont you just go and camp the undock of where the gankers live or hunt the nullsec alts? or how about pay someone to do it, because you know if pirates want something done that doesnt involve shooting they have to pay carebears to do it or learn it themselves, maybe all you highsec carebears can form some sort of coalition and pay people to deal with it, that involves interaction though which you may not like. null is safe because people make it safe and adapt, unlike people like you who just complain to ccp because people are using mechanics available which you dont like, god forbid if they ever let cyno's into highsec. -10.0 holds plenty of restrictions, i.e we have to pay for alts to buy ships for us as we cant enter into highsec, which adds risk of getting ganked, but we are smart and dont make ourselves look like idiots that get ganked being bad.
Again, how about a compromise of removing faction police and putting a 10 second warp cool down for -10 players flying anything more than a pod?
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3613
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:36:00 -
[303] - Quote
thats up there with the most stupid ideas ive ever heard,
maybe you guys could adopt some tactics that low, null and wh players use, intel channels, scouts and awareness
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:50:34 -
[304] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:thats up there with the most stupid ideas ive ever heard,
maybe you guys could adopt some tactics that low, null and wh players use, intel channels, scouts and awareness
Wow. As they say on 4chan..."Not an argument."
The point of the suggestion was to make -10 players be averse to station camping.
With the removal of faction police they wouldn't be forced to station camp.
The 10 second rule is to make them avoid NPC stations.
I would bet this compromise would be favorable to gankers as 99% of the time miners aren't paying attention to who is in the system anyways.
Either than can risk an extra 10 seconds while undocking on NPC station (which unless a person is actively hunting them won't matter) or they can buddy up with a player owned citadel and have no undocking timer.
And I would think removing the faction police all together would be something gankers would like.
I personally think the faction police are bad for mercs simply because -10 are encouraged to dock up all the time.
Again this is coming from some one who has never been ganked outside of FW and who has ganked and given Intel to gankers.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
122
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:50:58 -
[305] - Quote
If this thread had any good ideas I think they went in the shitter in the first,couple pages. The only decent idea proposed was "use your tools and watch out for yourself". The same advice given for over a decade. We have fields buried with thease dead horses. Fields. If you have issues with criminal and pirate types just figure it out. I did. I,spent two years in HS and met all sorts of awful people. It was fun. You learn a lot. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 13:55:19 -
[306] - Quote
Cien Banchiere wrote:If this thread had any good ideas I think they went in the shitter in the first,couple pages. The only decent idea proposed was "use your tools and watch out for yourself". The same advice given for over a decade. We have fields buried with thease dead horses. Fields. If you have issues with criminal and pirate types just figure it out. I did. I,spent two years in HS and met all sorts of awful people. It was fun. You learn a lot.
My suggestion increases PVP and benefits mercs, not Care Bears.
People who are averse to PVP will still get ganked.
Those who want to harden up or contract mercs will be benefited.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:05:36 -
[307] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Cien Banchiere wrote:If this thread had any good ideas I think they went in the shitter in the first,couple pages. The only decent idea proposed was "use your tools and watch out for yourself". The same advice given for over a decade. We have fields buried with thease dead horses. Fields. If you have issues with criminal and pirate types just figure it out. I did. I,spent two years in HS and met all sorts of awful people. It was fun. You learn a lot. My suggestion increases PVP and benefits mercs, not Care Bears. People who are averse to PVP will still get ganked. Those who want to harden up or contract mercs will be benefited.
As explained, PVPrs and 'mercs' have enough advantages, they don't need more. CCP does need to stop nerfing people who do interesting things (that other of us can then learn to counter, which is the fun of being an EVE PVE players), but they sure as hell don't need a buff.
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3613
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:16:45 -
[308] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:thats up there with the most stupid ideas ive ever heard,
maybe you guys could adopt some tactics that low, null and wh players use, intel channels, scouts and awareness Wow. As they say on 4chan..."Not an argument." The point of the suggestion was to make -10 players be averse to station camping. With the removal of faction police they wouldn't be forced to station camp. The 10 second rule is to make them avoid NPC stations. I would bet this compromise would be favorable to gankers as 99% of the time miners aren't paying attention to who is in the system anyways. Either than can risk an extra 10 seconds while undocking on NPC station (which unless a person is actively hunting them won't matter) or they can buddy up with a player owned citadel and have no undocking timer. And I would think removing the faction police all together would be something gankers would like. I personally think the faction police are bad for mercs simply because -10 are encouraged to dock up all the time. Again this is coming from some one who has never been ganked outside of FW and who has ganked and given Intel to gankers.
it makes it tedious for people who are traveling through systems in ceptors to reach other parts of space without any intention of ganking
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:16:46 -
[309] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Cien Banchiere wrote:If this thread had any good ideas I think they went in the shitter in the first,couple pages. The only decent idea proposed was "use your tools and watch out for yourself". The same advice given for over a decade. We have fields buried with thease dead horses. Fields. If you have issues with criminal and pirate types just figure it out. I did. I,spent two years in HS and met all sorts of awful people. It was fun. You learn a lot. My suggestion increases PVP and benefits mercs, not Care Bears. People who are averse to PVP will still get ganked. Those who want to harden up or contract mercs will be benefited. As explained, PVPrs and 'mercs' have enough advantages, they don't need more. CCP does need to stop nerfing people who do interesting things (that other of us can then learn to counter, which is the fun of being an EVE PVE players), but they sure as hell don't need a buff.
Maybe I should have posted my idea under an alt as sometimes I antagonize people too much for the lulz.
But anyways.... Wouldn't you agree that the faction police need to go?
They basically encourage station camping and creates less player made content.
I suggested the 10 second rule not as a nerf but to balance it out and discourage station camping at NPC.
The suggested player owned citadel exemption just creates more player conflict content as those who harbor reds could have the chance of being targeted as well.
And don't we want more content in high sec?
I mean I'd be fine with just taking away faction police without doing anything else, but if you want that you need to concede something to the Care Bears. Either adding the 10 second rule or making reds onlydock able at player structures.
I mean you can be hostile all you want to them, the alternative is just a threadnaught.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:29:41 -
[310] - Quote
And look, if we went the route a banning reds from NPC stations, I wouldn't be opposed to adding pirate faction mini citadels at a way cheaper price than current citadels so gankers can easily deploy in systems.
And getting rid of the faction police is still a value added offer.
The idea is to make players more responsible for their actions.
I'd also agree to making NPC stations less desirable over all to encourage players to get out of them in general. Being safe havens should come at a price, don't you agree?
Despite my grudge, citadels were the best idea CCP has come up with in along time.
We should make use of them.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
|
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3613
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:32:54 -
[311] - Quote
people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:37:21 -
[312] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Maybe I should have posted my idea under an alt as sometimes I antagonize people too much for the lulz.
That has nothing to do with it, I can have conversations with people I don't personally care for.
Quote:
But anyways.... Wouldn't you agree that the faction police need to go?
They basically encourage station camping and creates less player made content.
I suggested the 10 second rule not as a nerf but to balance it out and discourage station camping at NPC.
The suggested player owned citadel exemption just creates more player conflict content as those who harbor reds could have the chance of being targeted as well.
And don't we want more content in high sec?
More 'content' is great an all, but your line of thinking misses key points, mainly the nature of people.
Most ideas people have fail the reality test because of human nature. People simply won't do what you think they will. The bad guys adapt to any nerfs, while the people you are supposedly trying to help (even the ones you think are activley seeking pvp against bad guys) won't actually benefit, because if you can't get people to use tools they already have, they won't use new tools either.
Quote:
I mean I'd be fine with just taking away faction police without doing anything else, but if you want that you need to concede something to the Care Bears. Either adding the 10 second rule or making reds onlydock able at player structures.
I mean you can be hostile all you want to them, the alternative is just a threadnaught.
"Reds" don't need to dock. Jettisoning ships is a thing. Which comes to antoher point, your ideas not only fail to take into accopunt human nature, but also already existing game mechanics that would let 'reds' ignore any changes you suggest. The most advisable course I can suggest is that you spend more time learning the mechanics (even the more obscure ones) so as to gain an insight into why many of us think what you suggest not only won't work, but would make things worse for everyone (especially 'non-reds).
--
Side note, you are not the 1st to make such mistakes. CCP has done so time and time again. (
CCP made that change to null for the same expressed reasons your ideas suggest. The actual result was LESS pvp and a stark and noticeable increase in big bloc taking space soloey for the purpose of renting it out.
In other words, wanting to increase PVP be implementing a change that does not take human nature into account results in the opposite happening.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:38:07 -
[313] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions.
Would you agree to:
A. Getting rid of faction police?
And
B. Making it undesirable to use NPC stations for safe havens for everyone (not just gankers)
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:44:28 -
[314] - Quote
Too many posts here to read them all...
The greatest gift CCP gave HS gankers (-5 thru -10) is the ability to tether to a citadel.
This should not be allowed and removed as an option immediately!
=ƒÉç Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉç
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:46:48 -
[315] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions.
This i think is what Tardbar and others with similar ideas don't understand.
You simply can't fix (or game develop away) laziness, stupidity and victim-hood thinking. Look at all the changes CCP made, safeties, protective pop ups, more EHP for mining ships, slots for freighter class ships, higgs anchor riggs, the recent anti-bumping warp mechanics change, the YEARS of tinkering with the war dec and bounty systems etc etc.
And STILL we have these threads. How much more has to happen before people understand that the problem isn't game mechanics, it's the mental and emotional characteristics of certain players that other players are good at exploiting? When will they learn that NO external change if going to solve their problem, that the ONLY option is an individual, internal change that would make those players mostly invulnerable to the actions of others?
I know the answer, it's the same in game is it is out (never...). But it's a shame, because the game developer seems to also think like that to. Notice the revamped (for the umpteenth time) NPE and the free to play thing, neither are which are likely to succeed because CCP seems to really not understand what EVE is and why it's players like it.
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3613
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 14:53:44 -
[316] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions. Would you agree to: A. Getting rid of faction police? And B. Making it undesirable to use NPC stations for safe havens for everyone (not just gankers)
yes and nope
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:15:01 -
[317] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions. This i think is what Tardbar and others with similar ideas don't understand. You simply can't fix (or game develop away) laziness, stupidity and victim-hood thinking. Look at all the changes CCP made, safeties, protective pop ups, more EHP for mining ships, slots for freighter class ships, higgs anchor riggs, the recent anti-bumping warp mechanics change, the YEARS of tinkering with the war dec and bounty systems etc etc. And STILL we have these threads. How much more has to happen before people understand that the problem isn't game mechanics, it's the mental and emotional characteristics of certain players that other players are good at exploiting? When will they learn that NO external change if going to solve their problem, that the ONLY option is an individual, internal change that would make those players mostly invulnerable to the actions of others? I know the answer, it's the same in game is it is out (never...). But it's a shame, because the game developer seems to also think like that to. Notice the revamped (for the umpteenth time) NPE and the free to play thing, neither are which are likely to succeed because CCP seems to really not understand what EVE is and why it's players like it.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll be fed for the rest of his life.
Teach all men to fish, and the fish population will go extinct and everyone starves.
So what I am saying here is that everyone flew a 100k EHP Skiff I would suspect there would be complaints from a certain excuse.
People claim and point to others stupidity for the reasons for their behavior, but in reality they'd be out of a profession if everyone did what they claim they want them to do.
I mean I'm getting out of the ice mining business since you can't do that on an Alpha account, but I've always felt like the 20 man bot fleets needed to be ganked, but no one... CODE or mercs were up to the challenge because they flew skiffs with a tanked Orca.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3040
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:22:14 -
[318] - Quote
All this was suggested before.
Citadels are cheap and take a lot of time to bring down. I really doubt a carebear mob will form and attack them, especially since they are already used by ganker corps and no such thing happened. Even if they form a replacement will be deployed right away and you will be back crying about "throwaway citadels" and how it is not really risking assets if you already know someone will blow them up.
There is no problem here that needs to be solved. Just some wrong carebear expectations that need to be adjusted.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:23:19 -
[319] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll be fed for the rest of his life.
Teach all men to fish, and the fish population will go extinct and everyone starves.
Only if there is nothing to eat but fish.
Quote:
So what I am saying here is that everyone flew a 100k EHP Skiff I would suspect there would be complaints from a certain excuse.
People claim and point to others stupidity for the reasons for their behavior, but in reality they'd be out of a profession if everyone did what they claim they want them to do.
Everyone isn't going to do it, I've never expected they would. But the point is that you don't go changing things because people who could help themsevles refuse to. The ONLY reason for game mechanics changes is a gross imbalance that no amount of personal behavior can combat.
Most people in game that call for changes don't even use the tools they have, making their whining invalid.
Quote:
I mean I'm getting out of the ice mining business since you can't do that on an Alpha account, but I've always felt like the 20 man bot fleets needed to be ganked, but no one... CODE or mercs were up to the challenge because they flew skiffs with a tanked Orca.
Report bots. Thats a tool. Hire mercs, another tool. Recruit other ice miners and out compete the existing mining fleet (even if you don't 'win' you could mine enough ice to make it unprofitable for the multibox miner). All of these are tools that don't get used, people just give up before even trying, then run to CCP for fixes. That's called meta gaming.
Be the fix you want to see. |
Artemis Ellery Sazas
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
94
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:26:52 -
[320] - Quote
Living in High sec and living in Null are two completely different playstyles.
High sec is very casual and laid back, a lot are lazy and they become easy targets because of that attitude. Null sec is hard core with comms, scouts, 65 million intel channels to monitor, websites, CTA's, etc, etc... and those players that prepare and work hard deserve everything and more that they earn.
My point was about criminals being allowed or disallowed to dock in High sec. I am in FW and I can't dock in Minnie controlled systems. Why? I am -10 to them and Minnie hates me. So if a character is hated enough by the faction police, why should that criminal be allowed to dock in their High sec systems.
@Lan Wang - I am not a carebear sweetie, I am an FW pilot and do a bit of ganking. I live in Arzad, so please don't be a stranger. |
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:28:07 -
[321] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:All this was suggested before.
Citadels are cheap and take a lot of time to bring down. I really doubt a carebear mob will form and attack them, especially since they are already used by ganker corps and no such thing happened. Even if they form a replacement will be deployed right away and you will be back crying about "throwaway citadels" and how it is not really risking assets if you already know someone will blow them up.
There is no problem here that needs to be solved. Just some wrong carebear expectations that need to be adjusted.
That is my point. Chances are Care Bears won't fight back.
But Mercs and PVP players will get a better chance to find people in space or their home base and deliver the appropriate measure of force.
Again, I've never been ganked in high sec outside of faction warfare, so it's not like I feel the need to get revenge for my lost space pixels.
I just find the fact that players use NPC mechanics to avoid PVP goes against the spirit of EVE.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3614
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 15:56:34 -
[322] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:@Lan Wang - I am not a carebear sweetie, I am an FW pilot and do a bit of ganking. I live in Arzad, so please don't be a stranger.
arzad doesnt sound much fun tbh
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3040
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 16:29:07 -
[323] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Too many posts here to read them all...
The greatest gift CCP gave HS gankers (-5 thru -10) is the ability to tether to a citadel.
This should not be allowed and removed as an option immediately!
Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 16:40:37 -
[324] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:@Lan Wang - I am not a carebear sweetie, I am an FW pilot and do a bit of ganking. I live in Arzad, so please don't be a stranger. arzad doesnt sound much fun tbh
easy = fun right? |
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 17:14:34 -
[325] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else.
Friends? You have friends?
Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics.
=ƒÉç Here come the c0d3/ganker tears! =ƒÉç
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2891
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 17:25:12 -
[326] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else. Friends? You have friends? Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics. You're right Ima my friend. First these carebears go on and on about how -10's shouldn't be able to dock in NPC stations and they should have to set up their own citadels so they are vulnerable and "somebody can go teach them a lesson" but when the gankers go and do exactly that and start using them to stage ganks, they now decide it is too much effort to do so and prefer to just whine how it is unfair that the gankers can use citadels at all.
Will these carebears ever be happy?
Look, -10s could and were using POS shields to "sit" in highsec for years. How is tethering to a citadel any different? Hint: it isn't because sitting behind a POS shield is exactly what the tethering mechanic is suppose to reproduce.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 17:41:24 -
[327] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:How is tethering to a citadel any different?
Proximity to a star-gate for starters.
=ƒÉç It's hard not talking down to stupid people.
=ƒÉç
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2893
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 17:50:18 -
[328] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Black Pedro wrote:How is tethering to a citadel any different? Proximity to a star-gate for starters.
I don't even know why I try.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3043
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 17:56:26 -
[329] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Black Pedro wrote:How is tethering to a citadel any different? Proximity to a star-gate for starters.
Have you tried to wardec the citadel owner corp for starters?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Keno Skir
872
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:02:10 -
[330] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions. Would you agree to: A. Getting rid of faction police? And B. Making it undesirable to use NPC stations for safe havens for everyone (not just gankers)
No.
I would have Hisec people adapt to survive like people do in Nul, Low and Wormhole space to differing degrees. If it's possible in Nul, it's very possible in Hisec. People's refusal to use safe practices to avoid ganking are why ganking is a thing, and no amount of begging for a nerf is going to make those same folks any less to blame.
This is a player solvable problem (as demonstrated by all the freighter guys who never get ganked vs the ones who always do) not a mechanic problem CCP need to fix.
Stop being such Wendy's and overcome the obstacle. Loads of good stategies have been suggested so far and there is ONE reason the anti-gank crew havn't picked up on any of them. Laziness..
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:12:22 -
[331] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:people getting ganked is the result of people not being responsible for their own actions. Would you agree to: A. Getting rid of faction police? And B. Making it undesirable to use NPC stations for safe havens for everyone (not just gankers) No. I would have Hisec people adapt to survive like people do in Nul, Low and Wormhole space to differing degrees. If it's possible in Nul, it's very possible in Hisec. People's refusal to use safe practices to avoid ganking are why ganking is a thing, and no amount of begging for a nerf is going to make those same folks any less to blame. This is a player solvable problem (as demonstrated by all the freighter guys who never get ganked vs the ones who always do) not a mechanic problem CCP need to fix. Stop being such Wendy's and overcome the obstacle. Loads of good stategies have been suggested so far and there is ONE reason the anti-gank crew havn't picked up on any of them. Laziness..
But Wormhole and much of null doesn't have indestructible NPC stations.
I mean if you are suggesting removing many of the NPC stations in high sec to put it on the same risk level as WH and null then yeah we are in agreement.
Are you for doing that?
Is anyone reading what I'm saying? My inflammatory signature usually helps people differentiate me between other people.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:21:16 -
[332] - Quote
How about this suggestion:
1. Get rid of faction police
2. Slowly replace NPC stations with player Citadels across the the board
If you really want high sec players to face the same conditions as WH and null players then getting everyone in high sec out of NPC stations would be the best option.
Please tell me with a straight face how this suggestion is pro care bear.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
141
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:24:21 -
[333] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else. Friends? You have friends? Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics.
Care to give any reason as to why, or are you just asserting things again?
P.S. Your tears are nectar. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14887
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:27:07 -
[334] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:pajedas wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Hey look friends, AG is already crying about gankers using citadels. If it comes to tears they are always a step ahead of everyone else. Friends? You have friends? Nothing to do with AG, just common sense. A -10 sitting in HS all day tethered to a citadel is just stupid mechanics. You're right Ima my friend. First these carebears go on and on about how -10's shouldn't be able to dock in NPC stations and they should have to set up their own citadels so they are vulnerable and "somebody can go teach them a lesson" but when the gankers go and do exactly that and start using them to stage ganks, they now decide it is too much effort to do so and prefer to just whine how it is unfair that the gankers can use citadels at all.
Yea, the goal posts sprouted wings lol.
This is why I'm telling Tardbar his ideas don't work. People cried out for a way to "take it to the gankers", gankers have citidels and rather than attack their citadels, it's right back to "run to the forums!".
No amount of changing things can help people who won't act.
Quote:
Will these carebears ever be happy?
The answer we can see from all these years of observation and demonstration (yes, some of us demonstrate in game ways to thwart and even defeat people who try to screw with them, to no avail) is of course NO.
And it's not just high sec people. For years now I've been using my FoF/drone ratting battleship sit ups in 'camped' null sec systems, haven't lost one in ages and I use it to show the people crying about cloaky campers that they can be safely ignored so long as you are at the keyboard.
To no avail, because like all whiners, they don't want DIY solutions even if they work, they want the power that be to modify the landscape in their favor, they want the effort to come from CCP rather than themselves.
Unfortunately CCP seems to think there is some point which these unhappy people can be made happy, and they've been modifying the game for years on that premise , despite the evidence that nothing you can do will ever satisfy them, and efforts to do so only end up screwing over those of us who didn't ask for any help. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:36:51 -
[335] - Quote
Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for?
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:43:19 -
[336] - Quote
how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 18:50:44 -
[337] - Quote
Lasisha Mishi wrote:how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists.
I'd hate to agree with Jenna but EVE is PVP game and hi sec should have its fair share of PVP.
I'm not sure if you were talking to me but I wasn't advocating more PVP, but rather turning over control of stations to players like they did with POCOS.
You still have concord and you still have placed to dock.
Just don't complain because you are being forced to interact with other players.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:03:29 -
[338] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Lasisha Mishi wrote:how about you leave high sec as it is now
and go to lowsec since thats apparently what your looking for.
if you want pvp. go low and nullsec.
if you want alot less pvp, thats why highsec is there with concord.
don't force your desire on others, when what you desire already exists. I'd hate to agree with Jenna but EVE is PVP game and hi sec should have its fair share of PVP. I'm not sure if you were talking to me but I wasn't advocating more PVP, but rather turning over control of stations to players like they did with POCOS. You still have concord and you still have placed to dock. Just don't complain because you are being forced to interact with other players.
EVE is a pvp game yes, but that doesn't mean all of it should be pvp.
highsec is where people go to take a break from the pvp and (for me) rebuild and recover(i go to highsec to avoid pvp so i can get money to buy new ships for when i'm ready to go pvp. or when i need to just take a break from the suspense of a pvp free environment where you can get jumped at any time)
in short, theres a reason high sec is so populated. and if highsec was turned "pvp friendly" how many people would leave? considering how majority of playerbase is in highsec....for a reason(and not in low sec) i'd guess a good degree of the playerbase.
the issue with turning control of stations to players, is when people lock others out (look at citadels right now. lot of scams going on where you can't go into a citadel to turn in a contract. now imagine all of your stuff is in a station, and the player who controls it has locked you out)
with EVE being so open and encouraging to scam, betrayal, theft, ganking, and......well to put it as Grath Telkin of Sniggardly said "EVE is a game that relies on hate to create war"
so highsec is the place where you can safely know you can dock. and not be locked out
its a place you can put stuff and know you can get to it later
a place where you can save stuff for whatever project you are doing.
remove that, and you have alot of people quitting until your left just with the playerbase of low and nullsec. and how long will that last? (with the frequent betrayal....and no place to store your stuff safely)
citadel mechanics is fine in low sec and nullsec. because you have highsec as that place you can always have access to dock. and be able to get your stuff. |
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
Villore Accords
73
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:12:01 -
[339] - Quote
Ok new thought on all of this.
It would be very nice if CCP made the game teach people survival tactics. One thing about high sec is it does not really tell you how you can be made into prey. It does not really tell you how you lose its gameplay loops. I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Would be nice to have EVE really tell people how they where going to lose. Less just LOOK AT THIS GAME RISK EQUALS REWARD!! a little more in-depth. |
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
561
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:21:55 -
[340] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:Ok new thought on all of this.
It would be very nice if CCP made the game teach people survival tactics. One thing about high sec is it does not really tell you how you can be made into prey. It does not really tell you how you lose its gameplay loops. I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Would be nice to have EVE really tell people how they where going to lose. Less just LOOK AT THIS GAME RISK EQUALS REWARD!! a little more in-depth.
The New Order of Highsec exists specifically to teach people how you can be made into prey. Actually, to be honest, it exists to teach people that they are ALREADY prey. We are not shy about telling them how to deal with this either although for some reason people seem to have major heartache with our education efforts. As I have said many times, we can explain it to them but we can't understand it for them.
And we do it all with a smile.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
|
|
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
125
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:23:10 -
[341] - Quote
I'd also like to add something I've said before. It's space. It'd be really hard to police space unlike a city.
But this kind of stuff makes me think of my beginning days in the yesteryear of 2011. Everyone who I flew with knew criminals could lurk everywhwre. We got ganked, scammed, and awoxed. It happends. When wars happened we'd not dock up, but go explore, or do wormhole stuff, or missions elsewhere. We made them find us. When people tried to "own" ice belts or a system we'do either fight back, or gank ourselvessels with an alternative and make a concord cloud appear. We simply ignored the criminals once they made their presence known. We'd work around them. That was pretty thrilling times then. It was fun. |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:23:35 -
[342] - Quote
I'm not suggesting to get rid of NPC stations out of all systems in hi sec.
I'm suggesting to move them out of high economic value systems such as ones that have ice belts.
You shouldn't make hand over fist profits without a little risk.
Now I've modified my ideas over and over again in this thread to see if I can get my ideas to stick to both sides of the issue.
Now I've gone from the care bear side to PVP apparently.
Look, ice mining is an end game income source. Unless a newb buys an ice miner it takes some time to become one.
You shouldn't be able to mine ice without risk (goddamn I just agreed with Jenna again).
Fist, there still will be NPC station outside of ice belt systems. No one is forcing you to keep your ships in citadels.
Second, you could always haul your ice out of the system if you were that antisocial.
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
Boo hoo. We are making them interact with other players. Maybe they should get out of that NPC Corp if they don't like other players citadels and place their own.
And we have a bonus that gankers don't have sanctuary in NPC stations because they are moved out of ice belt systems.
Maybe you should find a Merc Corp to deal with them now.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:29:45 -
[343] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I'm not suggesting to get rid of NPC stations out of all systems in hi sec.
I'm suggesting to move them out of high economic value systems such as ones that have ice belts.
You shouldn't make hand over fist profits without a little risk.
Now I've modified my ideas over and over again in this thread to see if I can get my ideas to stick to both sides of the issue.
Now I've gone from the care bear side to PVP apparently.
Look, ice mining is an end game income source. Unless a newb buys an ice miner it takes some time to become one.
You shouldn't be able to mine ice without risk (goddamn I just agreed with Jenna again).
Fist, there still will be NPC station outside of ice belt systems. No one is forcing you to keep your ships in citadels.
Second, you could always haul your ice out of the system if you were that antisocial.
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
Boo hoo. We are making them interact with other players. Maybe they should get out of that NPC Corp if they don't like other players citadels and place their own.
And we have a bonus that gankers don't have sanctuary in NPC stations because they are moved out of ice belt systems.
Maybe you should find a Merc Corp to deal with them now.
ok that makes more sense
long as stations i can store my stuff at remain. i'm fine.
i don't mind if you move them out of systems with ice in them(i'm ok jumping 3-5 systems to mine ice......then again i fly an endurance so i have a cloak....and i'm one miner. not a botter of 20)
though i do think it would just be easier to make ice fields move like wormholes (aka appear in random systems so you can't predict where they will appear) |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:35:33 -
[344] - Quote
Well, it's annoying enough to not know hen an ice belt will spawn, so I think if you made the where random it would just make ice mining and ganking ice miners too annoying for both parties.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:44:19 -
[345] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for?
Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether.
You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 19:51:13 -
[346] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
What? What does that mean? How does a 20 man/alt skiff fleet block communication? Do you mean that they don't communicate with other players? Why would we expect them to start communicating under your system?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:17:45 -
[347] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean really. Those 20 skiff fleets are notorious for blocking communication with other players.
What? What does that mean? How does a 20 man/alt skiff fleet block communication? Do you mean that they don't communicate with other players? Why would we expect them to start communicating under your system?
I mean if you try to communicate with the multi boxer he had his settings to ignore all convos.
But maybe communication is the wrong phrase. We are looking for more player interaction.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:21:20 -
[348] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false.
Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower.
Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:44:13 -
[349] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false. Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower. Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected.
Okay, but again, those affected, assuming it is not zero, could mean less people in space, less content.
And another question, why would I, as a citadel owner, not want such a "customer". After all 20 skiffs...alot of ice, alot of fees? No?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
141
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 20:55:46 -
[350] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not.
Could you point me toward any of these advertisements?
I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!"
Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement?
|
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 21:00:21 -
[351] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Actually to add to my suggestion, NPC stations I high sec should be consolidated to fewer and fewer locations.
If you have stuff in a station that is decommissioned then your things get moved to systems that are less economically viable.
The goal would be to get all NPC stations out of systems with ice belts.
So this forces Care Bears and gankers alike to deal with living beings in high economic systems.
And that creates more player made content.
Isn't that what we are looking for? Or not. If you increase the costs of doing something the typical solution is to do less of it or even stop it altogether. You have an implicit assumption in there: that the number of players/ships/etc. won't change. That is an overly strong assumption and one that will almost sure turn out to be false. Actually, Citadel fees are much lower than NPCs and since citadels compete with each other they usually they have prices even lower. Only people that **** off all the Citadel owners and refuse to set up their own will be affected. Okay, but again, those affected, assuming it is not zero, could mean less people in space, less content. And another question, why would I, as a citadel owner, not want such a "customer". After all 20 skiffs...alot of ice, alot of fees? No?
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
As in those players weren't providing content anyways (more players does not mean more content if they are just alts)
And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 22:58:30 -
[352] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
So, now the "more content" hypothesis is looking less tenable.
Quote:And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Not defending them, but they are not botters.
Quote:Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
That sounds even less likely. The benefits of having a 20 man skiff fleet are concentrated right? That is why some people do it. The costs are not so concentrated. And the costs of citadel owner letting such players do business are even more diffuse, and blowing up that citadel might mean blowing up a citadel you were using, or was competing with the citadel you were using.... And, if you are a player who uses ice products but also doesn't mine.
Nahh...just not seeing it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1168
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 23:37:56 -
[353] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
It's the same concept of quitting if you were ganked. Most PVPers don't want those players subscribed to EVE anyways.
So, now the "more content" hypothesis is looking less tenable. Quote:And it's debatable what citadel owners would do with botters. Some might be fine with doing business with them.
Not defending them, but they are not botters. Quote:Its just the nuclear option is on the table for anyone with resources to destroy all the citadels that do business with him.
That sounds even less likely. The benefits of having a 20 man skiff fleet are concentrated right? That is why some people do it. The costs are not so concentrated. And the costs of citadel owner letting such players do business are even more diffuse, and blowing up that citadel might mean blowing up a citadel you were using, or was competing with the citadel you were using.... And, if you are a player who uses ice products but also doesn't mine. Nahh...just not seeing it.
I'm not sure if your points matter.
Should we transfer all the POCOS back to NPCs so players won't be taxes by players?
CCP wants players to stop relying on NPCs. You can tell because they raised taxes in all NPC stations.
I just don't think they have got to the point of reducing NPC stations at this point, but they should continue with that trend.
"Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby".
Join Captain Tardbar's Discord Voice Server: https://discord.gg/ye9g5uz
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 23:54:08 -
[354] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I'm not sure if your points matter.
Should we transfer all the POCOS back to NPCs so players won't be taxes by players?
CCP wants players to stop relying on NPCs. You can tell because they raised taxes in all NPC stations.
I just don't think they have got to the point of reducing NPC stations at this point, but they should continue with that trend.
POCOs are a revenue generating asset that people can destroy and replace with their own. If you destroy a 20 man skiff fleet what do you get? Not much. If you induce him to even stop logging in his 20 man skiff fleet, suppose he logs in 1 or 2 guys or stops altogether what do you get? Well....nothing.
And now your argument has shifted in terms of its base entirely, IMO.
Based on that I would say my points mattered.
You should use Thomas Sowell's method. Ask, "And then what?" So we remove the stations in systems with Ice Belts, and then what? Players may put up citadels. And then what? They'll likely cater to miners and maybe even gankers depending on the owners. And then what? People will mine and gank and maybe the occasional citadel will be blown up. And then what? We'll get something like we have today, but with citadels instead of NPC stations.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 03:58:37 -
[355] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer
and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot.
Yeah, no they're not. Most gankers are not outlaws. It costs almost nothing to buy a few tags after a gank and repair your status. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45380
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 04:07:27 -
[356] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Steffles wrote:What I think would make things more even is the following:
Utilizing the same code as jump fatigue:
Suicide gank - 15 minutes suspect - 6 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 6 hour timer - 30 minute suspect - 12 hour timer
Suicide gank in that 12 hour timer - 1 hour suspect - 24 hour timer
and so on and so on...
Um, most gankers are already perma free to shoot. Yeah, no they're not. Most gankers are not outlaws. It costs almost nothing to buy a few tags after a gank and repair your status.
I can appreciate you posting on a different character and even on IZ, I have always tried to respond to you as I would anyone else n the forum (sometimes I fail, because I'm a bit stupid at times).
So, just as I would with anyone, what's the basis for concluding that most aren't outlaw?
Looking at the purely highsec based gankers like CODE. for example, Eve Who shows the average sec status to very much be outlaw:
https://evewho.com/alli/CODE.
That's 466 members of the most active ganking corp in the game with an average sec status of -5.9
Where are you drawing the conclusion that most gankers are repairing their sec status with tags from?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 04:26:22 -
[357] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement?
Here you go. From the Horses Mouth
Original Thread
From the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again.
Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing.
Scipio Artelius wrote:I can appreciate you posting on a different character and even on IZ, I have always tried to respond to you as I would anyone else n the forum (sometimes I fail, because I'm a bit stupid at times). So, just as I would with anyone, what's the basis for concluding that most aren't outlaw? Looking at the purely highsec based gankers like CODE. for example, Eve Who shows the average sec status to very much be outlaw: https://evewho.com/alli/CODE.
That's 466 members of the most active ganking corp in the game with an average sec status of -5.9 Where are you drawing the conclusion that most gankers are repairing their sec status with tags from?
Its their inactive -5's and lower that are skewing that into the outlaw zone. Look up their active players with ganks recently and check that again. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5468
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 05:26:49 -
[358] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again. Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing.
Well, regarding the Dev Post quite safe is not the same as completely safe.
And if you read the post he is responding too it is quite clear CCP has made mechanics changes to make the game safe.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45385
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 06:35:23 -
[359] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Its their inactive -5's and lower that are skewing that into the outlaw zone. Look up their active players with ganks recently and check that again.
Ok, so as a first pass, the top 10 most active members of CODE. in the last 7 days:
http://puu.sh/s74HF/2e72dcb7cb.jpg
Checking the sec status on Eve Who for those most active chartacters:
Winnie Po0h: -10.0
Liek DarZ: -10.0
Ralliana: -10.0
Keraina Talie-Kuo: -10.0
Marina Gankalot: -10.0
KoHfeTHbIu TpoLLb: -10.0
Plasma Deat: -10.0
Kibbera: -10.0
Krominal: -10.0
Carebears' Nightmare: -10.0
That doesn't in any way show what you are claiming to be true.
I'll happily keep looking, but so far every bit of information I have looked at (includng kill history for the last 30 days and top 50 most active members of CODE.), shows that what you are claiming is opposite of the truth.
So maybe you are looking at different data and if so, what?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 14:24:55 -
[360] - Quote
Let's break this down, shall we?
High: rising or extending upward a great distance
Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm
So, "High Secuity" translates to "safe", no matter how stupid you are.
I guess CCP could ban the term HS and start calling it Empire or something cheesy.
Example A: Brand new player signs in for the first time. After a day or two decides to jump out of the starter system, as that is part of the tutorial. But he knows that if he jumps to a "low seurity" system he's likely to lose his recently acquired shuttle. So, being prudent and not wanting get shot...he stays in 0.7 and higher (just to be safe). Then, just 1 jump from WalMart-«, BAM!
Now, we all know that losing a shuttle is nothing, really. But when this new player says something like, "what just happened?", he gets berated and lambasted in local by some new order zealot. That's NOT good. I know what the trolls will say here, "if they can't handle it we don't need 'em...Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!"
And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit.
I want this game to survive, so stop being lobsters!
=ƒÉç To all the gankers out there...
=ƒÉç
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 16:03:06 -
[361] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again. Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing. Well, regarding the Dev Post quite safe is not the same as completely safe. And if you read the post he is responding too it is quite clear CCP has made mechanics changes to make the game safe.
Quote:High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. If you want piracy, go into areas where it is supported and encouraged, areas that are 0.4 and less. Don't complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6, you aren't supposed to do it easily. That's the whole point of high security.
Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3043
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 16:32:24 -
[362] - Quote
pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit.
Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 18:55:53 -
[363] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
And he considered it quite safe...safe when you could tank CONCORD. Safe when players (enough of them) could kill CONCORD (at least I have seen claims to that effect). Gate guns would not fire on you unless you engaged in aggression in range of said guns. And over time CONCORD has gotten stronger (they are now invincible, in effect) respond faster, and look at what has to be done to kill people in HS, you have to work in sizable groups or incur fairly substantial ISK losses. And the removal of insurance when killed by CONCORD has made ganking more costly. The changes to watch lists and war dec mechanics have made war decs hilariously easy to avoid.
And these things are basically relative. No section of the game has ever been designed to be totally safe. HS is the safest and it clearly is. The vast majority of players in HS do their stuff and do not get ganked. And if you take some moderate precautions your chances of getting ganked are going to be even less.
What people are complaining about are things that are easily seen. A big fat freighter getting ganked (because the player was imprudent). What we don't see are all the freighters going through Uedama and not being harassed. Everyone is talking only about what is seen and ignoring completely what is unseen. This is a flawed form of thinking. It was pointed out around 150 years ago by Frederic Bastiat. His point was basically the concept of opportunity cost. Everyone here gets that, but then they fail to get a similar concept when discussing ganking. All they do is look at the ganks and then whine because "there is not enough risk for the gankers" ignoring the fact that the ganked made choices (horribly bad ones) that in large part lead to them being ganked.
So, everyone who complains about ganking should log in and get in a ship and go sit in Uedama, say the Sivala gate, and watch how many freighters go through, then go look at zkill and see how many got ganked in the same period of time.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 19:02:50 -
[364] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Let's break this down, shall we?
High: rising or extending upward a great distance
Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm
So, "High Secuity" translates to "safe", no matter how stupid you are.
Being "safe" does not mean absolutely safe. If you are stupid in the game you will, with high probability, get shot.
Further, we have 3 "areas" of the game in terms of safety. NS, LS, and HS (with w-space being a subset of NS for the purposes of this post). We can rank them in terms of safety as well, at least in terms of repercussions for acts of aggression.
HS > LS > NS.
Look, a "rising" level of safety. So the name HS is indeed reasonable and appropriate.
Now if we want to try and measure safety in some fashion we can't just look at ISK value destroyed, but ISK value destroyed relative to some other number. How many people are in HS vs. say NS or LS? If the number of HS dwellers is 2x NS and the ISK value destroyed is approximately the same, then I would say that on a per player/pilot basis HS has less ISK value destroyed and is indeed safer.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 20:17:07 -
[365] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 21:32:46 -
[366] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data
I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:10:59 -
[367] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data
No, not quite correct.
Okay, what his your hypothesis: That ganked newbies quit sooner. [strike]at a higher rate than players not ganked[/strike].
At the very least this tells us that we cannot reject the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between ganked and non-ganked newbies).
Think of it this way, suppose the confidence interval for ganked and non-ganked is (12,38) and (20,50) where the values are days. And that the mean values are 20 and 35. Clearly the means are not statistically significant in terms of their difference. The mean value for ganked players days is 35 which is inside the interval for non-ganked players. In this case, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and thus we do find support for the alternate hypothesis. Even if the confidence interval for ganked players were wider it would not help in that we'd still fail to reject the null. Because the mean value for the non-ganked players would be inside it.
Logically, the results from that presentation should quite clearly weaken your belief/support for the hypothesis that ganking new players leads to them quitting sooner than if they were not ganked. At worst it has no effect, at best a beneficial effect.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:21:07 -
[368] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:23:00 -
[369] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda.
Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:27:09 -
[370] - Quote
CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is.
You guys can think whatever you want.
I know that I'm right.
=ƒÉç To all the gankers out there...
=ƒÉç
|
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:39:12 -
[371] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
While I actually agree that CCP probably got it right in relation to ganking in the first 15 days and retention rates.
The statement "Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling." is a complete pile of crap. Take the cold fusion experiments of the late 1980s. They received an inaccurate observation, that they had achieved cold fusion. Everyone's gut feeling was that this was wrong.
It turned out the equipment was malfunctioning. So NO an inaccurate observation is by its definition WRONG, while a gut feeling may be right. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:48:44 -
[372] - Quote
pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right.
You use a computer program to do that. I prefer SAS as it is particularly good with large datasets.
I know, I go through over 60 million customer bills where I work for some of my simulations.
Edit:
You could use the players start date + 15 and sift through the data in terms of kills.
Where do you think zkill gets their data? From CCP.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 23:24:39 -
[373] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
While I actually agree that CCP probably got it right in relation to ganking in the first 15 days and retention rates. The statement "Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling." is a complete pile of crap. Take the cold fusion experiments of the late 1980s. They received an inaccurate observation, that they had achieved cold fusion. Everyone's gut feeling was that this was wrong. It turned out the equipment was malfunctioning. So NO an inaccurate observation is by its definition WRONG, while a gut feeling may be right.
Well, I'll go with John Tukey,
Quote:Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.--The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1), (1962), page 13.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 23:39:23 -
[374] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda. Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 00:20:20 -
[375] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
didnt even try to do. you cant compare between trials that logged didnt like the interface dint even undock and quit and those that made it to another system to get ganked.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 00:42:19 -
[376] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Well, I'll go with John Tukey, Quote:Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.--The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1), (1962), page 13.
Very true.
However an approximate answer is not an inaccurate answer. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 01:21:32 -
[377] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
And he considered it quite safe...safe when you could tank CONCORD. Safe when players (enough of them) could kill CONCORD (at least I have seen claims to that effect). Gate guns would not fire on you unless you engaged in aggression in range of said guns. And over time CONCORD has gotten stronger (they are now invincible, in effect) respond faster, and look at what has to be done to kill people in HS, you have to work in sizable groups or incur fairly substantial ISK losses. And the removal of insurance when killed by CONCORD has made ganking more costly. The changes to watch lists and war dec mechanics have made war decs hilariously easy to avoid. And these things are basically relative. No section of the game has ever been designed to be totally safe. HS is the safest and it clearly is. The vast majority of players in HS do their stuff and do not get ganked. And if you take some moderate precautions your chances of getting ganked are going to be even less. What people are complaining about are things that are easily seen. A big fat freighter getting ganked (because the player was imprudent). What we don't see are all the freighters going through Uedama and not being harassed. Everyone is talking only about what is seen and ignoring completely what is unseen. This is a flawed form of thinking. It was pointed out around 150 years ago by Frederic Bastiat. His point was basically the concept of opportunity cost. Everyone here gets that, but then they fail to get a similar concept when discussing ganking. All they do is look at the ganks and then whine because "there is not enough risk for the gankers" ignoring the fact that the ganked made choices (horribly bad ones) that in large part lead to them being ganked. So, everyone who complains about ganking should log in and get in a ship and go sit in Uedama, say the Sivala gate, and watch how many freighters go through, then go look at zkill and see how many got ganked in the same period of time.
Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 01:51:17 -
[378] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap.
Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious.
As a industrialist/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Signal Cartel
291
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:13:12 -
[379] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true.
What we are dealing with are anecdotes. Some here use one set of stories about how dangerous HS is, others here (myself included) have other stories about how safe HS is*. (Not that I'll go to Jita any time soon)
What CCP is dealing with is data. And it's quite clear from the monthly reports, just how much data.
*apart from camps and bubbles, most places are fairly safe if you're careful.
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:13:53 -
[380] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true.
Its quite simple.
Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away.
In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content.
There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober.
In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
|
|
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:29:17 -
[381] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that.
Wardecs are not required in lowsec or null because everyone just shoots everyone in the face anyway.
Everything you wrote there about nullsec was either focussed on killing someone else, or preventing someone from killing you. Bubble wrapping gates is only needed because of the level of risk if they aren't wrapped.
I bet you watch local constantly, watch intel channels and have support available to assist if needed when in null.
In highsec, systems can be full of neutrals and not a single shot gets fired. You can fly straight gate to gate and most times don't even need to have local visible.
It's bonkers to think highsec is very dangerous.
At least you are right. It really is simple.
But if you really want to prove your point, jump in a freighter in highsec, set the destination to a random location in nullsec and then autopilot. After all, if you make it out of the very dangerous highsec, lowsec and nullsec should be all plane sailing for an autopiloting freighter.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
142
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:40:10 -
[382] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again.
Yeah, that's an old forum thread.
I ask again: Can anyone point out an example of deceptive advertisement? |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
142
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:47:43 -
[383] - Quote
pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right.
Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius! |
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:54:58 -
[384] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right. Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius!
Fact: Eve is failing.
Fact: Management is at fault.
Fact: Free is the bottom of the barrel.
But hey, as long as your little group is happy nothing else matters.
I started 2003.05.10 in 0.0.
Eve has gone from great to good to not so good.
They should definitely be taking advice from people that are too lazy to work for isk.
=ƒÉç To all the gankers out there...
=ƒÉç
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
143
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:04:08 -
[385] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right. Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius! Fact: Eve is failing. Fact: Management is at fault. Fact: Free is the bottom of the barrel. But hey, as long as your little group is happy nothing else matters. I started 2003.05.10 in 0.0. Eve has gone from great to good to not so good. They should definitely be taking advice from people that are too lazy to work for isk.
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5475
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:13:14 -
[386] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that.
In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible).
Working as intended, IMO.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:15:08 -
[387] - Quote
Lol. If you trust everyone you're more lost than I thought you were.
Running incomplete/partial data and pretending to have reached a conclusion. Rise had a hard time convincing himself, much less the audience that those numbers were accurate.
Ever heard of the tail wagging the dog?
Your signature sums it up, misspelling and all.
Thanks!
=ƒÉç To all the gankers out there...
=ƒÉç
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
143
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:37:26 -
[388] - Quote
Explain to everyone what would motivate CCP to lie about numbers pertinent to their bottom line. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5475
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:48:40 -
[389] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Lol. If you trust everyone you're more lost than I thought you were.
Running incomplete/partial data and pretending to have reached a conclusion. Rise had a hard time convincing himself, much less the audience that those numbers were accurate.
Ever heard of the tail wagging the dog?
Your signature sums it up, misspelling and all.
Thanks!
What? I never said trust everyone. And your saying the data used by CCP is incomplete or partial is based on nothing. I know the results are upsetting if you were of the belief that ganking new players made them quit in droves. But even if CCPs statistics are not statistically significant it means at worst ganking players less than 15 days old does not cause them to quit sooner, and it is quite possible it means exactly the opposite, they stay longer.
And I am not designing anything, so I'm not sure what you think my signature means, but it is a warning against hubris when trying to impose order on a system that is the product of spontaneous order and emergence, here is a longer quote,
Quote:The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.
It is a warning against the just so stories lots of people post here and in the features and ideas sub-forum.
If we do A it will lead to B, then C and finally D which will be awesome! That type of reasoning is, IMO flawed in that it fails to take into account the complexity of a process that is based on spontaneous order.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 05:37:49 -
[390] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it. |
|
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1169
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 05:54:24 -
[391] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it.
Every time I quit, I lie and put the option that I'm qutting due to lost ship even though while mining I have never been ganked.
Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?
Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5476
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 06:07:22 -
[392] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it.
Not this again...80,000 is a very large sample, IMO.
We have over 5 million customers and we often use samples of 50,000. And even then that is quite large, but we go that big so if people come back and want various subsets we can be reasonable confident that the subsets are themselves representative of the subset population.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 06:14:07 -
[393] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it. Not this again...80,000 is a very large sample, IMO. We have over 5 million customers and we often use samples of 50,000. And even then that is quite large, but we go that big so if people come back and want various subsets we can be reasonable confident that the subsets are themselves representative of the subset population.
Yes but it cannot be called basic statistics.
Basic statistics are things such as a sample of a couple of hundred fun size packs of M&Ms and what the mean and median number of Red M&Ms for each pack.
As to the rest as I said before it is probable that CCP got it right or more specifically didn't get enough wrong to matter. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 08:31:52 -
[394] - Quote
If AG would invest the time they cry on the forums and make up stuff to convince themselves that the representative study CCP created is wrong into the actual game, maybe they would actually not fail all the time continuously without ever making a difference.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 08:54:33 -
[395] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:If AG would invest the time they cry on the forums and make up stuff to convince themselves that the representative study CCP created is wrong into the actual game, maybe they would actually not fail all the time continuously without ever making a difference.
Why am I suddenly reminded of this scene?
Quote:Scene: A lecture room at the university.
Leonard: So, if any of you are considering going into experimental physics, my door is always open. Once again, IGÇÖm sorry that the demonstration didnGÇÖt quite work out, but now we know what happens when you accidentally spill peach Snapple into a helium neon laser. Short answer isGǪ donGÇÖt. And now to tell you about the theoretical physics department is Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Dr. Cooper?
Sheldon (off): Forget it.
Leonard: Excuse me. Sheldon, we both agreed to do this.
Sheldon (off): ItGÇÖs a waste of time. I might as well explain the laws of thermodynamics to a bunch of labradoodles.
-- The Big Bang Theory |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 09:14:44 -
[396] - Quote
I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2897
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 09:45:20 -
[397] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO.
Indeed.
And pirating has essentially been deleted as a profession in highsec. After all the nerfs to ganking, especially the insurance removal, it is not profitable to shoot another player for their stuff anymore or make a living at it. Only the most outrageously bling fit ship, or overloaded hauler can be shot and the pirate make a profit. Players can still shoot each other if they are willing to pay the cost as fits the general premise of the game, but there is a strong disincentive to do so.
Highsec is not safesec and never was suppose to be, but it certainly seems to fit CCP's design goals to be a very safe space where pirates generally cannot operate. This is in direct contrast to the other spaces where you can shoot pretty much anything and make a profit at it, thus being easy-mode zones for piracy.
Highsec hands free safety to the player enabling solo and casual play, probably to their long-term detriment for developing as an Eve player. But certainly, it is completely disingenuous to claim that highsec is inherently more dangerous than the other spaces. At best it is more dangerous than the piece of space you have carved out and are spending effort to defend for yourself, but even that isn't really true as if you spent a similar amount of effort securing a system in highsec, you would be literally invulnerable.
So, I'd also say that it is working as intended.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 11:49:44 -
[398] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO.
Yeah nah. You simply like your fictional version so much you'll stick to it no matter what. I like fantasy too but only in novels.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 12:06:37 -
[399] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila,
It is also understandable that you react that way. You want to interpret the "study" your way regardless of its flaws.
The 'study' including only trials will misrepresent data of new players as many trials never commit to the game anyway. Also to consider that the 15-day trial has nothing in stake to loose while a subscribed couple of months old has more at stake to loose from a gank.
As far as interpreting the "more" or "less" likelys of the 'study': if for example a 6% of ganked joined the game vs only a 4% non-ganked joining, although it makes it more likely in favor of the ganked it still is totally insignificant difference.Taking the example in the extreme, say a 90% of the ganked joining vs 10% of the non-ganked joining will give 720 ganked people vs 6800 non-ganked people that joined the game afterwards. In fact one can then say that a lot of more people join the game that never have been ganked during trial. How about interpreting that as "a connection between ganking and new players quitting"?
There are so many factors that contribute to deciding to join the game before one even gets the chance to be ganked that its counterproductive to try to connect ganking to it with this set of data.
To make it clear I am neither a proponent of safe-heaven high-sec nor a proponent of a gank-heaven high-sec.
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3615
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 14:38:47 -
[400] - Quote
i say ban all ganking and see how the carebears react, nobody will buy your stuff and the game will just become pointless
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 18:06:16 -
[401] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name.
Actually the anti-vacc movement just like the climate deniers use poorly done, non-peer reviewed studies to prove their points. It is not so much as they point to flaws in reputable studies as they ignore them in favour of the studies that state what they want.
They just "believe" the study by a single person or group is "better" and it is belief rather than evidence that causes these problems. It has nothing to do with actual problems in a reputable study because they just ignore those studies without ever having examined them.
The anti-vacc studies normally include an undefined sample type and unknown methodology that makes it easy to lead from cause to effect.
Its like the old saying: If you dont use this dish washing liquid 9 out of 10 doctors say you will be killed by wild elephants. It just takes a while to find the right 9 doctors. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5480
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:10:00 -
[402] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name.
Okay, this is an interesting direction in the discussion.
To be clear, the initial research into vaccines and autisms was:
1. Totally fruadulent
2. Done with a monetary reward in mind.
3. Was totally unethical (i.e. the researcher in charge was struck from the British Medical Registry).
4. To date there has been absolutely no research supporting the hypothesis.
We see something similar with AG. The one attempt my CCP to study the effects of ganking on new players in constantly and continuously rubbished...without a single valid argument. People keep coming and arguing their pet theory based on their intuition (which is fine, but ideally such theories should be checked against actual data) and in the end we get a cult like group much like the anti-vaxxers and their support for Andrew Wakefield.
The CCP analysis at worst shows that ganking of players in their first 15 days HAS NO EFFECT ON THOSE PLAYERS STAYING IN GAME. In fact, the analysis suggests, THAT GANKED NEW PLAYERS STAY IN GAME LONGER THAN NON-GANKED PLAYERS.
All arguments to the contrary are based on beliefs that have literally no evidence behind them. None.
Now, maybe ganking a player who has been in game for 2 or 3 years and was imprudent and stuffed 5 billion in his charon and then flew it through Uedama an got ganked might be more inclined to quit. But then again whose fault is that? Those who ganked him, or the dumb sheet who put 5 billion in his freighter and flew through Uedama?
Giving a total pass to the dumb sheet freighter pilot is well dumb sheet. IMO, of course.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5480
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:34:08 -
[403] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO. Yeah nah. You simply like your fictional version so much you'll stick to it no matter what. I like fantasy too but only in novels.
Okay, so you tell us how safe NS where you live is...then back track totally. Great way to shoot your credibility in the foot.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
45
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:59:15 -
[404] - Quote
This still going... Is there a TL/DR? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5482
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:19:29 -
[405] - Quote
Exaido wrote:This still going... Is there a TL/DR?
Well, my TL:DR would be:
1. Stop making HS less dangerous.
2. Look at reintroducing danger/risk into HS.
3. Ignore the anti-ganking people as they have a stunted view.
4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction.
Note for that last one it need not be PvP. A player getting into an active corp, or with an active group of players is more likely to stay than otherwise.
No, I have no good ideas for that. That is part of emergence and it is hard to plan/design.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:29:31 -
[406] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name. Actually the anti-vacc movement just like the climate deniers use poorly done, non-peer reviewed studies to prove their points. It is not so much as they point to flaws in reputable studies as they ignore them in favour of the studies that state what they want. They just "believe" the study by a single person or group is "better" and it is belief rather than evidence that causes these problems. It has nothing to do with actual problems in a reputable study because they just ignore those studies without ever having examined them. The anti-vacc studies normally include an undefined sample type and unknown methodology that makes it easy to lead from cause to effect. Its like the old saying: If you dont use this dish washing liquid 9 out of 10 doctors say you will be killed by wild elephants. It just takes a while to find the right 9 doctors.
So what you say is that you are even worse than the anti-vacc movement, since you don't even have a fake study?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:31:29 -
[407] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Exaido wrote:This still going... Is there a TL/DR? Well, my TL:DR would be: 1. Stop making HS less dangerous. 2. Look at reintroducing danger/risk into HS. 3. Ignore the anti-ganking people as they have a stunted view. 4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction. Note for that last one it need not be PvP. A player getting into an active corp, or with an active group of players is more likely to stay than otherwise. No, I have no good ideas for that. That is part of emergence and it is hard to plan/design.
I would have gone with
1. New players need to be ganked more, player retention or not people will at least learn to be more paranoid and it does less harm at the start than when they have been playing for years.
2. Increase the danger/risk to gankers in HS, make anti-pirates a thing again.
3. Most people on these forums speak out of self interest, have no idea how to discuss a topic or reason and just fall back on emotive statements.
4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction.
5. Beware the players who seem to think CCP is God. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:43:49 -
[408] - Quote
Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%.
The counter arguments so far from AG are:
- CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business
- Math is hard
And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:49:38 -
[409] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full.
Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid.
Other arguments have included:
-a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion
-CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 07:02:16 -
[410] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full. Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid. Other arguments have included: -a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion -CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably.
No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 08:58:08 -
[411] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full. Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid. Other arguments have included: -a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion -CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably. No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?
Characters less than 15 days old. Given less than 15 day old characters don't have much isk they likely don't get ganked as much as players who have lots of its.
It's the equivalent of concluding armed robberies are at all time lows because a survey of hobo's found the hobo population doesn't report many armed robberies.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ria Nieyli
46908
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:27:20 -
[412] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name. Okay, this is an interesting direction in the discussion. To be clear, the initial research into vaccines and autisms was: 1. Totally fruadulent 2. Done with a monetary reward in mind. 3. Was totally unethical (i.e. the researcher in charge was struck from the British Medical Registry). 4. To date there has been absolutely no research supporting the hypothesis. We see something similar with AG. The one attempt my CCP to study the effects of ganking on new players in constantly and continuously rubbished...without a single valid argument. People keep coming and arguing their pet theory based on their intuition (which is fine, but ideally such theories should be checked against actual data) and in the end we get a cult like group much like the anti-vaxxers and their support for Andrew Wakefield. The CCP analysis at worst shows that ganking of players in their first 15 days HAS NO EFFECT ON THOSE PLAYERS STAYING IN GAME. In fact, the analysis suggests, THAT GANKED NEW PLAYERS STAY IN GAME LONGER THAN NON-GANKED PLAYERS. All arguments to the contrary are based on beliefs that have literally no evidence behind them. None. Now, maybe ganking a player who has been in game for 2 or 3 years and was imprudent and stuffed 5 billion in his charon and then flew it through Uedama an got ganked might be more inclined to quit. But then again whose fault is that? Those who ganked him, or the dumb sheet who put 5 billion in his freighter and flew through Uedama? Giving a total pass to the dumb sheet freighter pilot is well dumb sheet. IMO, of course.
That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:36:57 -
[413] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?
Characters less than 15 days old. Given less than 15 day old characters don't have much isk they likely don't get ganked as much as players who have lots of its..
There are two parts to the study, the part about how many subscribe after the 15 day trials and the part about the subscription cancellation reason. The subscription cancellation reason is about ALL Eve players and not just the <15 day old characters. The <15 day old chars are even excluded there since they don't yet have a subscription to cancel.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:38:10 -
[414] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates.
No, it actually does not. Read the comment above
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:46:57 -
[415] - Quote
well i have to say personally i've known more players that quit over socket loss than being ganked.
the reasons why people quit are varied and always related to a few isues rather than the one.
it's unfair to ignore the fact that there are a lot more games out there now than there was 5 years ago. so much choice so little time.
everyone quits a game at some stage, it's the naural order of things, people come and play,, some leave and some stay, those that stay will last a long time or a short time so why waste your time chasing shadows where there's none?
still not many suggestion on improving the game, just the usual screams for personal choice on mechaincs in the game.
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:53:36 -
[416] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
Depends on who you ask. The perspective will be completely biased and the suggestion probably complete crap, you know like the CSM now
All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:09:52 -
[417] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
Depends on who you ask. The perspective will be completely biased and the suggestion probably complete crap, you know like the CSM now All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many.
Yeah the CSM is a major problem. Naturally any voting system where alliance leadership can instruct alliance members to vote for their candidate is going to come with a huge dose of bias.
The election process should consist of selecting candidates from WH, NPC Null, Null, High and Low security organizations. The final selection of those candidates should be based on experience, knowledge and capability and be selected by either the previous CSM or CCP not just on the sizes of the alliances fielding candidates and the number of dodgy votes they can spam with alts and members.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ria Nieyli
46913
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:12:31 -
[418] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. No, it actually does not. Read the comment above
You literally say that those people aren't included in the statistic. Que? I mean, you say that I'm wrong, then proceed to agree with me. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:25:02 -
[419] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. No, it actually does not. Read the comment above You literally say that those people aren't included in the statistic. Que? I mean, you say that I'm wrong, then proceed to agree with me.
Please read again and notice the part where I talk about that there are two parts of the study, one which talks about trial accounts (<15 day players) and one about subscribers who quit (> 15 day players).
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2899
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:37:43 -
[420] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many. They are trying. The talk that is causing so much teeth-gnashing in this thread was called "Using Science to Help Newbros" after all. The stuff coming out from CCP Quant and perhaps CCP Ghost recently shows CCP is making an effort toward a more evidence-based approach to developing the game, rather than making decisions based on which influential players are whispering in their ear, or the gut feeling of some developer.
The reality is though that even with access to the massive collection of data CCP has, it is very difficult to untangle cause and effect, and even if you gain some insight, it doesn't necessarily tell you how to make a good sandbox game. They can formulate a specific hypothesis and test it (like "do new players quit because they get ganked?") but whatever answer the data supports, they still need to build an engaging and entertaining space game. It's not just a matter of reading a book on game theory, looking at the logs, and boom - add a feature that will cause the PCU to spike two-fold.
CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been ones where CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.
But Eve is still here and will be for the foreseeable future, and as long as CCP Seagull is in charge, it will continue to be a single-universe, everyone-vs-everyone, sandbox game where player-driven content is the primary goal. That means ideas like in the OP are not going to happen. If you are looking for a solo/casual space game where you can grind and build in peace, there are several of those types of games out but they are not Eve Online.
In Eve Online, all players, from the newest of the new to the 13-year veteran, from the most peaceful industrialist to the most blood-thirsty pirate, have to deal with the fact that other players can influence their game play without their explicit consent. If you don't agree to that, or just can't handle that, you really are just setting yourself up for unhappiness if you continue to play this game.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45449
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 11:03:23 -
[421] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
At this point it's just about whinging and whining because some people don't like the way other people play.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
149
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 14:37:00 -
[422] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it.
It's the kind of analysis you'll learn to perform in a basic university-level statistics class.
You sir, have shown on several occasions that you know nothing about the mechanics of this game and should therefor not comment on it. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 14:44:25 -
[423] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Okay, so you tell us how safe NS where you live is...then back track totally. Great way to shoot your credibility in the foot.
You should consider writing a short fiction or two and see how you do, pretty good at it.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
pajedas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
344
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 16:57:48 -
[424] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.
I'm sorry to say, that will never happen in GD.
The opposite is glorified in this troll rich environment.
I go out knowing that I'm right and that it's a waste of time to argue with people like Ima Wreckyou and Goofy Duck.
Last post...Cheers!
=ƒÉç
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
151
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 17:15:37 -
[425] - Quote
You rage-quitting again? Man, you really gotta learn to HTFU, Pajedas. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3053
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 17:18:06 -
[426] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Xander Jade wrote:Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive. I'm sorry to say, that will never happen in GD. The opposite is glorified in this troll rich environment. I go out knowing that I'm right and that it's a waste of time to argue with people like Ima Wreckyou and Goofy Duck. Last post...Cheers!
Well maybe if you would actually bring arguments to the discussion instead of plain trolling we would get somewhere. Just because your non-arguments and pure assumptions sounded convincing when you stated them in the AG echo chamber does not mean they are even something a normal person would consider an informed opinion worth addressing.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
154
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 21:15:28 -
[427] - Quote
http://puu.sh/s9UBy/2673d91913.jpg
^ Pajedas finally took the hint!
Victory for the New Order! |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3056
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 21:19:54 -
[428] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:http://puu.sh/s9UBy/2673d91913.jpg
^ Pajedas finally took the hint!
Victory for the New Order!
One of those rare forum killmails who got the final blow?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
154
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 21:23:03 -
[429] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:http://puu.sh/s9UBy/2673d91913.jpg
^ Pajedas finally took the hint!
Victory for the New Order! One of those rare forum killmails who got the final blow?
Lol I think you and Black Pedro should share the credit for completing stomping out his hopes and dreams. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18991
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 21:23:27 -
[430] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
This is "that" thread.
You know the one.
That one that's always been and likely always will be here.
Op changes, conversation never does.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 03:27:59 -
[431] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been oneswhere CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.
They have indeed strayed too far from the original vision - glad we agree.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
156
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 06:09:00 -
[432] - Quote
"If it was up to me yes absolutely I'd be happy to let people sit in highsec mining, missioning. "
Not in James 315's Highsec. No sir. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 06:18:16 -
[433] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:"If it was up to me yes absolutely I'd be happy to let people sit in highsec mining, missioning. "
Not in James 315's Highsec. No sir.
Never heard of him. Sounds like he must be a salty whiney nerd overly emotionally invested in how other people play the game.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3056
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 06:27:24 -
[434] - Quote
Steffles wrote:They have indeed strayed too far from the original vision - glad we agree.
It says it should be "quite safe" and "don't complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6".
It does not say at all that it should be perfect safety and that you can just fill your freighter with billions, activate AP and watch netflix instead or mine AFK with your leveled purple Hulk.
I know you and your carebear friends cry endlessly how easy it is. What you mean by easy is obviously "possible at all". There are not a lot of people doing piracy in Highsec and the ones who do it have quite the logistical and mechanical challenge at hand. Those are people who are invested in it and they organised to even be able to to this, solo, small corps or casual players are already locked out of that gameplay do to constant nerfs.
It is obvious to everyone what your goal is infinity, you cry for years for perfect safety. That will never happen and it does not correspond with the vision you yourself posted in the link above.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
74
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 07:54:53 -
[435] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:http://puu.sh/s9UBy/2673d91913.jpg
^ Pajedas finally took the hint!
Victory for the New Order!
Not sure why you celebrate a victory though complete stupidity.
The state of these forums are pathetic, it used to be a septic pit, now it has become the home for idiots, who claim victory through the inability to actually argue a point. It is just emotive attacks and broken logic and reasoning.
These forums have fallen so far from being a septic pit to being controlled by the turds. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45455
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 07:59:44 -
[436] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:http://puu.sh/s9UBy/2673d91913.jpg
^ Pajedas finally took the hint!
Victory for the New Order!
Well to be fair to him, he seems to have his priorities in order somewhat:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=498976&find=unread
While I don't agree with his philosophy for the game, I certainly can't fault him for deciding that family is more important at the moment.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3056
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 08:11:07 -
[437] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
Not sure why you celebrate a victory though complete stupidity.
The state of these forums are pathetic, it used to be a septic pit, now it has become the home for idiots, who claim victory through the inability to actually argue a point. It is just emotive attacks and broken logic and reasoning.
These forums have fallen so far from being a septic pit to being controlled by the turds.
Calling other turds and and at the same time complaining the forums are septic really shows what the actual problem is here.
We simply call people out for trying to change the game in their favor. We used to ignore the carebears but they already did too much damage so someone has to challenge their ridiculous ideas. I know discussing with someone who actually challenges your idea and brings facts to the table which go against your preconceived notions is not as pleasant as when you talk about them in your AG echo chamber where everyone will agree with you no matter how stupid and unoriginal your idea is.
But maybe you should work on actually bringing some arguments to the table instead of personal insults, gut feelings and plain denial.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45457
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 08:16:54 -
[438] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Calling other turds and and at the same time complaining the forums are septic really shows what the actual problem is here.
+1
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 08:22:40 -
[439] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:They have indeed strayed too far from the original vision - glad we agree. It says it should be " quite safe" and "don't complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6". It does not say at all that it should be perfect safety and that you can just fill your freighter with billions, activate AP and watch netflix instead or mine AFK with your leveled purple Hulk. I know you and your carebear friends cry endlessly how easy it is. What you mean by easy is obviously "possible at all". There are not a lot of people doing piracy in Highsec and the ones who do it have quite the logistical and mechanical challenge at hand. Those are people who are invested in it and they organised to even be able to to this, solo, small corps or casual players are already locked out of that gameplay do to constant nerfs. It is obvious to everyone what your goal is infinity, you cry for years for perfect safety. That will never happen and it does not correspond with the vision you yourself posted in the link above.
Uh Huh. It says what it says.
Quote:
quite
adv
1 to the greatest extent; completely or absolutely
you're quite right, quite the opposite
2 to a noticeable or partial extent; somewhat
she's quite pretty
It makes sense that he was using Quite in the 2nd example. Given he then said "You should not be able to pirate easily" it makes sense that he was not referring to partially but rather noticeably.
He says "That's the whole point of high sec" and bolded it for emphasis.
We can then safely conclude that killing people in highsec was supposed to be difficult (not easy), that highsec was supposed to be noticeably safe and that the whole point of highsec was to be a place that was quite safe and not easy to pirate in - a place for carebears to exist in while 0.4 and lower, and null was for pirates and others.
Get that into you :)
As for me liking safety, check Infinity Ziona's killboard, check my alt L Dopa's killboard. I play unsafely. My goal is to remove the absurd safety for gankers in highsec and to cause CCP to return it to its original purpose, so subs go up and the game has more development potential and a longer shelf life. Its a goal that is coming to completion soon. I'd bet isk on it (prior to the no betting isk ruling).
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 08:55:52 -
[440] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
We simply call people out for trying to change the game in their favor.
...
But maybe you should work on actually bringing some arguments to the table instead of personal insults, gut feelings and plain denial.
Isnt that exactly what you do? Trying to keep or change the game in YOUR favor. Whenever opposed by arguments responding insults etc... |
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2905
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 08:56:29 -
[441] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been ones where CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.
They have indeed strayed too far from the original vision - glad we agree.
I don't think that post you keep linking means what you think it means. It is referring to 'piracy', which in Eve is the profession of taking other people's stuff for a living, not 'non-consensual PvP' as you seem to be extrapolating it as.
CCP Oveur said you were should "[not] complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6, you aren't suppose to do it easily." CCP kept to that vision and over the next few years made multiple changes that made piracy in highsec more difficult. They buffed the CONCORD response, buffed EHP of industrial ships, and these nerfs to highsec piracy culminated with the insurance removal for pirates which made highsec piracy all-but-extinct. It is now extremely difficult to make a living as a pirate with only bling-fit mission runners/miners and overloaded haulers existing as viable targets, none of which are viable targets for solo pirates, and there are only a small number of players left who have organized, and are grouping up to do it.
This is perfectly fine with me. There are good reasons to have a safer space where there is no financial incentive (actually, strong financial and other disincentives) to shoot the other players. This prevents most wanton violence and give space for new, solo and casual players to live, as well as other players a place to conduct trade and regroup if beaten out of the other spaces. You should be able to make yourself mostly safe in highsec if you take precautions, and that is exactly what we have now where if you fit and haul responsibly, there is no game reason for anyone to shoot you. But there still are consequences for imprudence and game decisions which is what keeps Eve a competitive game rather than just an exercise in building a spreadsheet to calculate max yield and then AFKing your way to riches.
Eve is a PvP sandbox however, and one designed with player-player 'griefing' as the central vision of the game:
Torfi Frans Ólafsson wrote:GÇ£Eve is very dark,GÇ¥ confirms creative director Torfi Frans Ólafsson. GÇ£ItGÇÖs harsh. It is supposed to be unforgiving. The original designers played a lot of Ultima Online, which was a fantastic sandbox game, and it allowed you to be very devious and very immoral in the way that you played. What they loved about it is that player killers, the griefers GÇô people who just went around and killed other people GÇô became so unpopular that other people banded together. Good started fighting evil, and without true evil you canGÇÖt have true good. So you had these bands of righteous people chasing player killers, and those player killers were the original Eve designers; they created a game about that mechanic.GÇ¥ Highsec is not suppose to be immune from this non-consensual PvP. While much of it has been nerfed from the game to give more safety to highsec, there are still wars and suicide ganking, both which have been confirmed many times, by multiple CCP developers in many places to be intended and integral parts of their vision of the game.
So while CCP has strayed from their original vision at times, the current amount of safety in highsec is not one of those cases. Highsec is not safesec, and appears to be working exactly as CCP intended all those years ago. In fact, highsec is mechanically safer than it ever has been in the long history of the game.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3059
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 09:17:11 -
[442] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
We can then safely conclude that killing people in highsec was supposed to be difficult (not easy), that highsec was supposed to be noticeably safe and that the whole point of highsec was to be a place that was quite safe and not easy to pirate in - a place for carebears to exist in while 0.4 and lower, and null was for pirates and others.
Get that into you :)
I don't agree with your sentiment that Highsec is not already safe enough. More safety means more complacent carebears and fatter Freighters, this we already have and it will only get worse from here.
Gankers have to organize quite a lot to make their activity even viable. It is true that we have found workarounds for the NPC responses etc. But if you think making even more ridiculous mechanics for even more safety will change something you are completely delusional. The system will always balance itself out. The more safer the carebears feel the bigger the Freighters will get and the more reward is in it for a corp which organizes on a level they can overcome the barriers against piracy in Highsec. There are already only two alliances left which can do that on a regular basis. Small entities are completely locked out by now.
CCP has to shut down Highsec aggression completely if you want to prevent Highsec piracy which is obviously what you want. This on the other hand will completely devalue all resources found in Highsec because AFWK gameplay will be the norm and everyone would be stupid not to mine in a faction fitted mining ship or move as much as they like without any risk at all in cargo expanded Freighter.
td:dr:
- More security means more reward to big alliances where the small pirate is completely locked out.
- Perfect security means complete devaluation of Highsec resources.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 10:00:36 -
[443] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Steffles wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been oneswhere CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.
They have indeed strayed too far from the original vision - glad we agree. I don't think that post you keep linking means what you think it means. It is referring to 'piracy', which in Eve is the profession of taking other people's stuff for a living, not 'non-consensual PvP' as you seem to be extrapolating it as. CCP Oveur said you were should "[not] complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6, you aren't suppose to do it easily." CCP kept to that vision and over the next few years made multiple changes that made piracy in highsec more difficult. They buffed the CONCORD response, buffed EHP of industrial ships, and these nerfs to highsec piracy culminated with the insurance removal for pirates which made highsec piracy all-but-extinct. It is now extremely difficult to make a living as a pirate with only bling-fit mission runners/miners and overloaded haulers existing as viable targets, none of which are viable targets for solo pirates, and there are only a small number of players left who have organized, and are grouping up to do it
Wow you're getting desperate now. Spin it like its going out of fashion :)
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3061
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 10:06:05 -
[444] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Wow you're getting desperate now. Spin it like its going out of fashion :)
Ah, nothing left but plain trolling. Looks like Pedro clearly won that argument.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2905
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 10:39:56 -
[445] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
CCP has to shut down Highsec aggression completely if you want to prevent Highsec piracy which is obviously what you want. This on the other hand will completely devalue all resources found in Highsec because AFK gameplay will be the norm and everyone would be stupid not to mine in a faction fitted mining ship or move as much as they like without any risk at all in cargo expanded Freighter.
Indeed. And CCP just let it be known that in the context of Alpha clones, they can lock the safety setting to 'green' with no problem at all. Clearly, the game is working how CCP want it to work, and if they wanted a safe highsec, they could make a safe highsec by changing a single line of code.
Face it friends, non-consensual PvP in highsec is here to stay, as was intended from the beginning. EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do*. Highsec is as much of a part of that competitive game as anywhere else as it has always been, just like there have always been forum threads complaining about it.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3620
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 10:45:59 -
[446] - Quote
it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 11:14:24 -
[447] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want?
Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all.
Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk.
Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you.
Thank you
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3623
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 11:39:14 -
[448] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all. Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk. Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you. Thank you
guess you dont look at killboards huh
Edit: whats a real eve player? i forget
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3065
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 11:48:52 -
[449] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all. Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk. Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you. Thank you
Wow, such rage.
Don't you think it is a bit ironic to pretend we want to keep the current state of the game because we "suck" while at the same time you cry for changes to the mechanics in your favor?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:02:50 -
[450] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all. Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk. Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you. Thank you guess you dont look at killboards huh Edit: whats a real eve player? i forget but you still havent answered the question, why dont you play sisi? it was a genuine question not a question you answer with another question
A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets.
Ganking is not fightin, a fight is a condition in which you use player skill or assets to defeat another player, or where another player defeats you. Hiding behind Concord, sitting in your crappy little newb destroyer with your crappy little fit and shooting an industrial ship while your ship melts to a 10 million damage npc is not fighting.
Of all the carebearism I've witnessed in my 13 to 14 years of EvE, from the Lofty Scam, to the Zombie zone exploits, your style of not playing is the most laughable and pitiful non-play I've witnessed.
But then it would be since your all alts of Indy chars hiding in bubble fekked dead ends out there in your empty boring null sec farming systems.
The phrase, CODE always wins is complete crap, CODE already lost, that's why CODE exists, CODE is the result of people who can't win figuring out a way to kill people while losing.
I have a very distinct and sure feeling that that won't be continuing much longer though :) Enjoy while you still can
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
|
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3623
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:10:48 -
[451] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all. Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk. Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you. Thank you guess you dont look at killboards huh Edit: whats a real eve player? i forget but you still havent answered the question, why dont you play sisi? it was a genuine question not a question you answer with another question A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Ganking is not fightin, a fight is a condition in which you use player skill or assets to defeat another player, or where another player defeats you. Hiding behind Concord, sitting in your crappy little newb destroyer with your crappy little fit and shooting an industrial ship while your ship melts to a 10 million damage npc is not fighting. Of all the carebearism I've witnessed in my 13 to 14 years of EvE, from the Lofty Scam, to the Zombie zone exploits, your style of not playing is the most laughable and pitiful non-play I've witnessed. But then it would be since your all alts of Indy chars hiding in bubble fekked dead ends out there in your empty boring null sec farming systems. The phrase, CODE always wins is complete crap, CODE already lost, that's why CODE exists, CODE is the result of people who can't win figuring out a way to kill people while losing. I have a very distinct and sure feeling that that won't be continuing much longer though :) Enjoy while you still can
are you being ignorant on purpose or do you not care to do any research before opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble?
Edit: so you want highsec to be full of non "real eve" players because without the risk you are just a fake player, gg nerd
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Keno Skir
882
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:20:39 -
[452] - Quote
Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets.
Ganking is not fightin, a fight is a condition in which you use player skill or assets to defeat another player, or where another player defeats you. Hiding behind Concord, sitting in your crappy little newb destroyer with your crappy little fit and shooting an industrial ship while your ship melts to a 10 million damage npc is not fighting.
Of all the carebearism I've witnessed in my 13 to 14 years of EvE, from the Lofty Scam, to the Zombie zone exploits, your style of not playing is the most laughable and pitiful non-play I've witnessed.
But then it would be since your all alts of Indy chars hiding in bubble fekked dead ends out there in your empty boring null sec farming systems.
The phrase, CODE always wins is complete crap, CODE already lost, that's why CODE exists, CODE is the result of people who can't win figuring out a way to kill people while losing.
CODE and gankers in general always leave in a pod. So bad you pod yourselves.
I have a very distinct and sure feeling that that won't be continuing much longer though :) Enjoy while you still can
I'm on Sisi more than I'm on Tranq btw.
You sound unbelievably butt-hurt. By your logic a cruise missile launched at a target of importance "is not fighting". In actual fact that is an excellent example of fighting. Wars are not fought with honor, the side that takes the least risk while doing the most damage has the best strategy. People who invoke the "you aren't real pvp'ers because you don't take risks" understand nothing of combat. The only thing that matters is who's left standing at the end, not how much faux bravado / honor you did it with.
I like to make fun of CODE as much as the next guy believe me :) But they organized to accomplish something that got repeatedly nerfed and for that they are kinda keeping with the spirit of EvE.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2907
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:24:38 -
[453] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Or why the carebear ganking whingers who are all about "omg ccpleassse don't make us red", "give us tagggs ccplease", "omg cccplease I saw someone mining without a tanks!!!!111" play this game at all. Its obviously too difficult for you all. This is EVE, you don't like fighting people who shoot back, you don't like losing ships in fights, you don't like going out to low sec or null because you get wtfpwned by actuall pvp players, you're too scared of this and that and lose and risk. Fek off and play something else, real EVE players don't like you, don't want you, despise you and feel sorry for you. Thank you guess you dont look at killboards huh Edit: whats a real eve player? i forget but you still havent answered the question, why dont you play sisi? it was a genuine question not a question you answer with another question A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Ganking is not fightin, a fight is a condition in which you use player skill or assets to defeat another player, or where another player defeats you. Hiding behind Concord, sitting in your crappy little newb destroyer with your crappy little fit and shooting an industrial ship while your ship melts to a 10 million damage npc is not fighting. Of all the carebearism I've witnessed in my 13 to 14 years of EvE, from the Lofty Scam, to the Zombie zone exploits, your style of not playing is the most laughable and pitiful non-play I've witnessed. But then it would be since your all alts of Indy chars hiding in bubble fekked dead ends out there in your empty boring null sec farming systems. The phrase, CODE always wins is complete crap, CODE already lost, that's why CODE exists, CODE is the result of people who can't win figuring out a way to kill people while losing. CODE and gankers in general always leave in a pod. So bad you pod yourselves. I have a very distinct and sure feeling that that won't be continuing much longer though :) Enjoy while you still can I'm on Sisi more than I'm on Tranq btw. You didn't look at his killboard did you?
That is quite an elaborate space Bushido code you have made up for yourself. Unfortunately, it bears little resemblance to the game play CCP has intentionally built into the game.
Eve is not a space samurai simulator designed to produce "gud fights". It is living, breathing universe where everyone is vs. everyone and players have maximal freedom to interact with each other and create emergence. CCP has spent countless developer hours designing, building, and implementing criminal game play into Eve so that players are not safe anywhere. It would have been much easier to just lock out weapons in highsec from the beginning if they were trying to develop some sort of balanced, e-honour space combat simulator.
That's fine though, Eve is a sandbox and you can play it anyway you want. You can self-identify as space samurai like you, or you can play as a pacifist, a dutiful line grunt, a scumbag pirate, or a righteous soldier of James 315. Do try not you lose yourself in the role though - that's not healthy. This is just a video game and you are not a noble space warrior. You are just a regular, motorcycle-riding Joe who is playing a character in a virtual universe whose design and mechanics you don't seem to fully understand.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45462
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:29:29 -
[454] - Quote
Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets.
Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3067
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 12:47:03 -
[455] - Quote
It's like he is some kind of merge between an internet tough guy and a grunt expecting a stand off shooting because he thinks he is playing a spaceship combat simulator. And then he comes crying to the forums because he was standing there all alone and someone just dropped a nuke in his face "without risk".
EVE is actually more like a strategy game and not a bushido space hero combat simulator. If you play this game for 13-14 years and still don't get it and have to come to the forums to cry about it that really says something about you.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
315
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 14:19:35 -
[456] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want?
Can't PLEX their accounts on Sisi |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
157
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 14:20:25 -
[457] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players?
Lol I always love it when they cry because we fly cheap.
"I'm talking about REAL risk!" they wail "Not your 2 mil catalysts!!!1!" (They think we all fly 2 mil cats) Lololol |
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3626
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 14:20:32 -
[458] - Quote
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it makes me wonder why the solo bears that cry for absolute safety in highsec dont just play on sisi, they dont care for interaction with other players nor do they care to fight, so why dont they use sisi which is exactly what they want? Can't PLEX their accounts on Sisi
thank you thats the sort of answer i was looking for, never thought of that
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:08:06 -
[459] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players? Lol I always love it when they cry because we fly cheap. "I'm talking about REAL risk!" they wail "Not your 2 mil catalysts!!!1!" (They think we all fly 2 mil cats) Lololol
I think you're all about to become extinct.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3629
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:12:33 -
[460] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players? Lol I always love it when they cry because we fly cheap. "I'm talking about REAL risk!" they wail "Not your 2 mil catalysts!!!1!" (They think we all fly 2 mil cats) Lololol I think you're all about to become extinct.
doubt it, the flow of alpha clones will keep gankers and carebears occupied for life.
But tbh you are not actually answering any questions you are asked here, all you are doing is ranting and crying and calling doomsday on gankers while you think ccp will change the game to favour your gameplay just so you can plex your accounts.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:20:06 -
[461] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:People who invoke the "you aren't real pvp'ers because you don't take risks" understand nothing of combat. The only thing that matters is who's left standing at the end, not how much faux bravado / honor you did it with.
I like to make fun of CODE as much as the next guy believe me :) But they organized to accomplish something that got repeatedly nerfed and for that they are kinda keeping with the spirit of EvE.
I love it -
Ganker: We take risks, we lose ships, do plan, we scout, we lose loot.
Anti-Ganker: You fly 2 million isk Catalysts.
Ganker: EvE is all about risk vs reward. High sec should not be this SAFE.
Anti-Ganker: You don't take risks at all, you use disposable ships and disposable alts and you're too scared to post with a main.
Ganker: It doesn't matter, we don't have to take risks, all that matters is who's left standing!!!!1111
Ironically they're all left in pods...
Like arguing with a ******** monkey....
Lan Wang wrote:
But tbh you are not actually answering any questions you are asked here, all you are doing is ranting and crying and calling doomsday on gankers while you think ccp will change the game to favour your gameplay just so you can plex your accounts.
I don't go to highsec except to buy a ship or a mod. I don't haul, manufacture, or do anything even remotely industrial or pve except occasionally I'll run an anom in null to test something out if I'm too lazy to log into sisi.
Its not my gameplay and your sad antics don't affect me at all. I just like to expose carebearism, especially when people dress it up as pvp. Much like I exposed Goons sig farming that time. Was fun and enjoyable.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3629
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:30:10 -
[462] - Quote
so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2911
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:36:31 -
[463] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players? Lol I always love it when they cry because we fly cheap. "I'm talking about REAL risk!" they wail "Not your 2 mil catalysts!!!1!" (They think we all fly 2 mil cats) Lololol I think you're all about to become extinct. That seems like a bad bet 13.5 years into the lifespan of this game but no one can fault you for being an optimist. I can't imagine though, sticking with a video game that I detest the core ideas of for that long, hoping that with every patch the developers will finally fundamentally change it and make a 'safe space', not even for me though because I am a tough guy, but for some imagined group of other downtrodden players. Well, no one can fault you for a lack of perseverance either.
But anything is possible I suppose. Too bad third-party gambling becomes a EULA transgression today or we could have placed some ISK on it.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Keno Skir
887
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:50:11 -
[464] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Keno Skir wrote:People who invoke the "you aren't real pvp'ers because you don't take risks" understand nothing of combat. The only thing that matters is who's left standing at the end, not how much faux bravado / honor you did it with.
I like to make fun of CODE as much as the next guy believe me :) But they organized to accomplish something that got repeatedly nerfed and for that they are kinda keeping with the spirit of EvE. I love it - Ganker: We take risks, we lose ships, do plan, we scout, we lose loot. Anti-Ganker: You fly 2 million isk Catalysts. Ganker: EvE is all about risk vs reward. High sec should not be this SAFE. Anti-Ganker: You don't take risks at all, you use disposable ships and disposable alts and you're too scared to post with a main. Ganker: It doesn't matter, we don't have to take risks, all that matters is who's left standing!!!!1111 Ironically they're all left in pods... Like arguing with a ******** monkey....
I have never ganked anyone you absolute fail troll :)
I have enjoyed and agreed with some of your posts but your shpeel about "real pvp" makes you sound like a scrub. Anyone who has been in this game a long time (and understood it) knows real pvp is where someone dies at the hands of another player, the method is meaningless.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
157
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:54:51 -
[465] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Steffles wrote:A real EvE player is somebody that undocks in a non-newb ship and fights other players, or undocks in a battleship or a barge. Real EvE players risk assets. Which begs the question, why do you scream in favour of carebears so much if you don't even consider them to be real EvE players? Lol I always love it when they cry because we fly cheap. "I'm talking about REAL risk!" they wail "Not your 2 mil catalysts!!!1!" (They think we all fly 2 mil cats) Lololol I think you're all about to become extinct.
And when that doesn't happen, will you rage-quit and biomass all your characters like Pajedas? |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 15:55:20 -
[466] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve?
Most people are aware of who my main and alt is. I know who Snuff is, not long ago attacked your gatecamp in Saranen in my awesome Proteus, it unfortunately died at 15/1 but was worth a shot, Snuff definitely gank in highsec so I'd say if the shoe fits.
As for my sig, I'd suggest sertraline, citalopram but maybe stay away from venlaxafine, sides are pretty bad.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3071
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:00:41 -
[467] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve?
He is Infinity Ziona. A well know troll who is failing at EVE for over 13 years.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:05:12 -
[468] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve? He is Infinity Ziona. A well know troll who is failing at EVE for over 13 years.
^^ Perhaps but not failing so much that I've resorted to sitting at gates in highsec in a thrasher. I ganked two barges when they came out and felt it was too easy and my awesome skill and intelligence meant I could go on to greater and better things, like forming Privateers, exposing Goon hypocrisy, getting war decs nerfed, capitals given cooldowns and the list goes on and on....
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3629
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:08:51 -
[469] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve? He is Infinity Ziona. A well know troll who is failing at EVE for over 13 years.
god this is golden
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3629
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:13:25 -
[470] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve? Most people are aware of who my main and alt is. I know who Snuff is, not long ago I welped to your gatecamp in Tama in my untanked sh****t Proteus, it obviously died because it was bad, but was worth feeding, Snuff definitely gank in highsec so I'd say if the shoe fits.
Im gonna fix this for you now i know your main...
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:21:38 -
[471] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so what do you do in the game then? seen as that is just an npc alt to hide your main.
my sad antics...ill give you free intel here as you seem to be unable to research, i dont got to highsec, im what YOU define as a "real EVE player"
Edit: your sig is triggering me as you dont even seem to be able to spell "CCP" properly, do you even play eve? Most people are aware of who my main and alt is. I know who Snuff is, not long ago I welped to your gatecamp in Tama in my untanked sh****t Proteus, it obviously died because it was bad, but was worth feeding, Snuff definitely gank in highsec so I'd say if the shoe fits. Im gonna fix this for you now i know your main...
I felt sorry for you guys. You obviously needed help getting kills and if I'd tanked it up I might have killed that stratios I took into armor before you all popped me.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3631
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:25:58 -
[472] - Quote
no, you were just being bad
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:28:02 -
[473] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:no, you were just being bad
Bad is relative. I think bad is 15 grown men sitting on a gate popping single ships. You think bad is someone taking on 15 ships on a gatecamp in a Proteus.
No agreement will be reached here today but give me my bad over yours any day.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3072
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:30:37 -
[474] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
^^ Perhaps but not failing so much that I've resorted to sitting at gates in highsec in a thrasher. I ganked two barges when they came out and felt it was too easy and my awesome skill and intelligence meant I could go on to greater and better things, like forming Privateers, exposing Goon hypocrisy, getting war decs nerfed, capitals given cooldowns and the list goes on and on....
So those "greater and better things" basically boil down to crying on the forums for changes in your favor? Good job. I really doubt you had something to do with the mentioned changes though.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
157
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:34:26 -
[475] - Quote
So wait, I'm confused, are you really a whining carebear or you just pretend to be?
Man, that's meta. |
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3631
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:35:26 -
[476] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no, you were just being bad Bad is relative. I think bad is 15 grown men sitting on a gate popping single ships. You think bad is someone taking on 15 ships on a gatecamp in a Proteus. No agreement will be reached here today but give me my bad over yours any day.
right because horde are very proactive fair fights yeah? any neut goes near a horde system with anything then they are getting blobbed by 100+ players, you didnt take them on, you bought it in highsec and jumped into tama with a gatecamp of 10 players with logi
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
The Golden Serpent
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
212
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:35:27 -
[477] - Quote
I have been watching this gang for a few days now and their modus operandi is quite clear, they go all over the boards, trying to give people ulcers, drag the topic off track any way they can in order to try to get the thread shut down especially targetting people they don't like - and threads with anyone who threatens their way of life and their value system, namely their bullying, misogyny, name calling, belittling and dragging out of game stuff in game.
They deflect their trolling onto everyone else and they have learned to do it very well. Here they are "innocently" dropping the main name of a person posting as an alt on the boards, putting them on the defensive to further derail the thread they desperately want shut down as it threatens their way of life and their value system: protected psychopathy.
It does not escape me that these sort of threads have been taken down because these trolls are abusing the report system themselves. I have learned firsthand that these people fight dirty and use every tool unfairly because they are psychopaths. If they think they can get away with it they will.
And they have been getting away with it because there is a rot in the moderator system at CCP or, as some ISD have claimed people do not report enough.
Then again that is their intent - they cannot control this thread it is out of their control so they MUST derail it, they MUST get an excuse to have their pet moderators shut it down.
This is dark triad behavior and it deserves to be exposed for what it is
-:¦:-GÇó:'":GÇó.-:¦:-GÇó* K H A N I D GÇó-:¦:-GÇó:''''*:GÇó-:¦:-
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:35:43 -
[478] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote:
^^ Perhaps but not failing so much that I've resorted to sitting at gates in highsec in a thrasher. I ganked two barges when they came out and felt it was too easy and my awesome skill and intelligence meant I could go on to greater and better things, like forming Privateers, exposing Goon hypocrisy, getting war decs nerfed, capitals given cooldowns and the list goes on and on....
So those "greater and better things" basically boil down to crying on the forums for changes in your favor? Good job. I really doubt you had something to do with the mentioned changes though.
You'd be wrong
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
158
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:47:13 -
[479] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:I have been watching this gang for a few days now and their modus operandi is quite clear, they go all over the boards, trying to give people ulcers, drag the topic off track any way they can in order to try to get the thread shut down especially targetting people they don't like - and threads with anyone who threatens their way of life and their value system, namely their bullying, misogyny, name calling, belittling and dragging out of game stuff in game.
They deflect their trolling onto everyone else and they have learned to do it very well. Here they are "innocently" dropping the main name of a person posting as an alt on the boards, putting them on the defensive to further derail the thread they desperately want shut down as it threatens their way of life and their value system: protected psychopathy.
It does not escape me that these sort of threads have been taken down because these trolls are abusing the report system themselves. I have learned firsthand that these people fight dirty and use every tool unfairly because they are psychopaths. If they think they can get away with it they will.
And they have been getting away with it because there is a rot in the moderator system at CCP or, as some ISD have claimed people do not report enough.
Then again that is their intent - they cannot control this thread it is out of their control so they MUST derail it, they MUST get an excuse to have their pet moderators shut it down.
This is dark triad behavior and it deserves to be exposed for what it is
Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this.
I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people). |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 16:53:23 -
[480] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no, you were just being bad Bad is relative. I think bad is 15 grown men sitting on a gate popping single ships. You think bad is someone taking on 15 ships on a gatecamp in a Proteus. No agreement will be reached here today but give me my bad over yours any day. right because horde are very proactive fair fights yeah? any neut goes near a horde system with anything then they are getting blobbed by 100+ players, you didnt take them on, you bought it in highsec and jumped into tama with a gatecamp of 10 players with logi
Actually I took it from 7rm down the pipe and couldn't get a fight so I decided that the first fight I got I'd take it irrespective of what it was. Fortunately I found some dweebs sitting on a gate in Tama otherwise I would have probably ended up circumnavigating the map.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
|
|
The Golden Serpent
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
213
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:00:14 -
[481] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this. I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people).
"some people" being the targeted victims of your sadism correct? The ones that provide the tears you yearn for? Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
-:¦:-GÇó:'":GÇó.-:¦:-GÇó* K H A N I D GÇó-:¦:-GÇó:''''*:GÇó-:¦:-
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:05:15 -
[482] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this. I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people). "some people" being the targeted victims of your sadism correct? The ones that provide the tears you yearn for? Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
They appear to be grown men with the mental abilities of 5 year olds so probably not :)
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
The Golden Serpent
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
213
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:11:26 -
[483] - Quote
Steffles wrote:The Golden Serpent wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this. I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people). "some people" being the targeted victims of your sadism correct? The ones that provide the tears you yearn for? Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view? They appear to be grown men with the mental abilities of 5 year olds so probably not :)
Are you a straw man alt designed to be an innocent but useful target to help in getting the thread shut down? Or are you really going out of your way to help defend someone who was clearly trolling you five minutes before I posted? What a nice person you are if so.
-:¦:-GÇó:'":GÇó.-:¦:-GÇó* K H A N I D GÇó-:¦:-GÇó:''''*:GÇó-:¦:-
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
161
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:17:09 -
[484] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this. I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people). "some people" being the targeted victims of your sadism correct? The ones that provide the tears you yearn for? Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
Oh, my sadism likes 'em young. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3072
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:17:10 -
[485] - Quote
Hey, this thread was not weird enough. Let's add some Golden Serpent!
The Golden Serpent wrote:I have learned firsthand that these people fight dirty and use every tool unfairly because they are psychopaths.
Look, if you come to the forums and call other people psychopaths because of how they play a game with imaginary spaceships then you should probably expect your comments to be removed. It seams you have a special need to always drag things to RL. Maybe you should take some time offline and get some perspective again.
Seriously calm down miner
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3072
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:23:44 -
[486] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:Steffles wrote:
They appear to be grown men with the mental abilities of 5 year olds so probably not :)
Are you a straw man alt designed to be an innocent but useful target to help in getting the thread shut down? Or are you really going out of your way to help defend someone who was clearly trolling you five minutes before I posted? What a nice person you are if so.
And then in a weird twist no one expected both SJW actually turned against each other. You can't make that stuff up.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3072
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 17:38:29 -
[487] - Quote
doublepost
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:03:55 -
[488] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:Steffles wrote:The Golden Serpent wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Lol I love threads like these, they're my main source of tears throughout the day. I'm quite disappointed when I check GD and there's not a thread like this. I never report anyone because I'm a grownup and I can handle it when people are less than polite to me on the internet (unlike some people). "some people" being the targeted victims of your sadism correct? The ones that provide the tears you yearn for? Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view? They appear to be grown men with the mental abilities of 5 year olds so probably not :) Are you a straw man alt designed to be an innocent but useful target to help in getting the thread shut down? Or are you really going out of your way to help defend someone who was clearly trolling you five minutes before I posted? What a nice person you are if so.
I was referring to posters like Galaxy Duck and Wreck
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Valkyrie Harkonnen
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:16:01 -
[489] - Quote
I think that the wardeck system has to be revamped. As of now it doesn't work as a declaration of war towards an enemy but a griefing tactic.
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
In hardcore pvp oriented games like Darkfall, going into war against another clan or against another colation means a huge amount of strategy and preparation which means tons of fun for both sides.
In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that.
The result is that loads of new players quit the game as soon as they realize that if they like PVE mostly they will have a crippled experience. Unlike Darkfall, EVE punishes players for not having a strict PVP mindset. Mind you that Darkfall is a PVP oriented sandbox as well with full loot drop on each death.
If CCP is trying to get its playerbase renewed to live more 10 years then the only way to make so is to attract those they didn't like in the past, the carebears. And gimp trial accounts won't make a difference when new players realize that they can't be PVErs in the game and socialize in a corporation. They will choose between playing solo or quitting. |
Corbain Huesin
Skid Kids
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:17:58 -
[490] - Quote
After much deliberation, Ive concluded that the game cannot be improved. We should set the servers on fire and start from scratch tomorrow. |
|
|
Keno Skir
887
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:24:46 -
[491] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no, you were just being bad Bad is relative. I think bad is 15 grown men sitting on a gate popping single ships. You think bad is someone taking on 15 ships on a gatecamp in a Proteus. No agreement will be reached here today but give me my bad over yours any day.
To be fair i think we can assume the objective of most combat is to win. By that logic you failed, hard. There's nothing wrong with failure unless you get butt-hurt and blame the guys with the winning tactics for "unfairly" kicking your ass. Your tactics were bad so you lost, they won because the tactic of outnumbering you worked.
"Oh noesssss the bad men won't follow my weird honor code and line up to fight me 1 by 1"
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
162
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 18:42:16 -
[492] - Quote
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:I think that the wardeck system has to be revamped. As of now it doesn't work as a declaration of war towards an enemy but a griefing tactic.
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
In hardcore pvp oriented games like Darkfall, going into war against another clan or against another colation means a huge amount of strategy and preparation which means tons of fun for both sides.
In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that.
The result is that loads of new players quit the game as soon as they realize that if they like PVE mostly they will have a crippled experience. Unlike Darkfall, EVE punishes players for not having a strict PVP mindset. Mind you that Darkfall is a PVP oriented sandbox as well with full loot drop on each death.
If CCP is trying to get its playerbase renewed to live more 10 years then the only way to make so is to attract those they didn't like in the past, the carebears. And gimp alpha accounts won't make a difference when new players realize that they can't be PVErs in the game and socialize in a corporation. They will choose between playing solo or quitting.
I we will miss them, truly. |
Keno Skir
890
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:12:21 -
[493] - Quote
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that.
In fairness I've had loads of fun being the target of wardecs, especially as a new player when i knew i had to learn how to survive them or be everyone's kicking post forever. At no point did i feel like i was being griefed because i fully understood what this game was when i started (the danger was the main reason i started).
If you aren't having fun i suggest you have a think about what kind of game you might find fun. Then once you have an idea, go play that game and quit trying to turn EvE into it.
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
77
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:50:38 -
[494] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:I have been watching this gang for a few days now and their modus operandi is quite clear, they go all over the boards, trying to give people ulcers, drag the topic off track any way they can in order to try to get the thread shut down especially targetting people they don't like - and threads with anyone who threatens their way of life and their value system, namely their bullying, misogyny, name calling, belittling and dragging out of game stuff in game.
They deflect their trolling onto everyone else and they have learned to do it very well. Here they are "innocently" dropping the main name of a person posting as an alt on the boards, putting them on the defensive to further derail the thread they desperately want shut down as it threatens their way of life and their value system: protected psychopathy.
It does not escape me that these sort of threads have been taken down because these trolls are abusing the report system themselves. I have learned firsthand that these people fight dirty and use every tool unfairly because they are psychopaths. If they think they can get away with it they will.
And they have been getting away with it because there is a rot in the moderator system at CCP or, as some ISD have claimed people do not report enough.
Then again that is their intent - they cannot control this thread it is out of their control so they MUST derail it, they MUST get an excuse to have their pet moderators shut it down.
This is dark triad behavior and it deserves to be exposed for what it is
You could be right.
I was operating on the concept that they were just idiots, that didn't understand
- Statistics
- Discussions
- Economics
- Risk vs Reward
- Logic
- Hell the list goes on
However they might be under the belief that deliberately stopping reasoned discussion might prevent CCP from correcting the glaring imbalances that exist within this game.
They just seem to not understand that shutting down threads like this just cause more of these threads to be created and it makes them look like children who don't want their toy taken away. |
Azazel Shardani
Viziam
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 19:59:22 -
[495] - Quote
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
Actually that is exactly why they did it. The intention was to flush out carebears from highsec in order to force them to play the game the way it was intended.
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that.
That is not true. You make it look like that because you are doing absolutely nothing to have fun in EVE. Yes, I know, you are having fun playing the game the way you want it. But if that is the case, don't complain when someone else is playing the same game the way they want it.
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
The result is that loads of new players quit the game as soon as they realize that if they like PVE mostly they will have a crippled experience.
You can not make everyone happy, lets settle on that.
Slavery is natural, embrace it. We Amarr aprove this message.
|
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
126
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:02:25 -
[496] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that. In fairness I've had loads of fun being the target of wardecs, especially as a new player when i knew i had to learn how to survive them or be everyone's kicking post forever. At no point did i feel like i was being griefed because i fully understood what this game was when i started (the danger was the main reason i started). If you aren't having fun i suggest you have a think about what kind of game you might find fun. Then once you have an idea, go play that game and quit trying to turn EvE into it.
So much this. Remember can flipping? Yeah started a war refusing to become a ransom victim. Didn't even know that **** was possible until it happened. It was nuts! Ejected the ship and making fun of the guy scramming me, then making it a tough two weeks for people to find my corp they dec'd. Been awoxed a few times and hunted. Hauling **** knowing someone, somewhere can take it makes the game very thrilling. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45466
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:10:28 -
[497] - Quote
Steffles wrote:...Snuff definitely gank in highsec so I'd say if the shoe fits.
You know they are a lowsec entity right?
Where are you getting this from that they definitely gank in highsec?
I know asking for evidence for what you say just leads to being ignored, but I'm still optimistic that one day you'll be able to provide it.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:29:55 -
[498] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
This is " that" thread. You know the one. That one that's always been and likely always will be here. Op changes, conversation never does.
it's like groundhog day |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2913
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:40:07 -
[499] - Quote
Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:I think that the wardeck system has to be revamped. As of now it doesn't work as a declaration of war towards an enemy but a griefing tactic.
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
In hardcore pvp oriented games like Darkfall, going into war against another clan or against another colation means a huge amount of strategy and preparation which means tons of fun for both sides.
In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that.
The result is that loads of new players quit the game as soon as they realize that if they like PVE mostly they will have a crippled experience. Unlike Darkfall, EVE punishes players for not having a strict PVP mindset. Mind you that Darkfall is a PVP oriented sandbox as well with full loot drop on each death.
If CCP is trying to get its playerbase renewed to live more 10 years then the only way to make so is to attract those they didn't like in the past, the carebears. And gimp alpha accounts won't make a difference when new players realize that they can't be PVErs in the game and socialize in a corporation. They will choose between playing solo or quitting. It's amazing how few people understand what Eve Online is about. It is not Darkfall, or Wow, or SW:TOR or almost any other MMO that has PvP functionality built it in. Eve Online is literally PvP from the bottom up. It is a "living work of science fiction", not a traditional themepark MMO where the content is provided largely by the developers. In Eve, the central conceit is that we are all the content.
There is no place for pure PvE gameplay and there never was in the long history of this game. That means Eve Online will probably always remain a niche gaming experience, but it also means it remains near unique among the other offerings. Few other games offer the same permanence of loss, or feature a truly player-driven economy, like Eve does. Few other games let you meaningfully shape the universe directly through your efforts and actions. Enabling this game play is why you are always made vulnerable and why CCP will never give you carebears the safety you seem to crave like a drug.
I do concede there should be more social options in Eve Online for players who do not wish to compete, but that is generally not what is offered up in threads like this one. Instead, the carebears will sincerely offer up ideas that allow them competitive incomes and resource generation, with no risk of interference from the other players and/or completely solo. I am sorry, but that is not Eve. You can play Eve largely immune from player interference or by yourself, but you be less efficient at it than players who take risks and defend themselves as well as work together. This is epitomized by the option to play on the test server where there is no risk of PvP (and also no real reward) yet the carebears here don't take that option. Instead they argue the game should be changed so they should have their cake and eat it too or CCP will lose their subscription, despite the fact that such changes to the game are completely incompatible with the core premise of the game and would undermine the competitive and unified economy that is the true gem of this game.
Dealing with wars are the trade-off for the benefits of being in a player corp. It has been that way forever. If you don't want to deal with wars, then stay out of a player corp and use a shared chat channel to play with your friends. Wars can be improved sure, but the basic reality of risk vs. reward isn't ever going to change, whatever your prognosis for the next 10 years of Eve is.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:50:51 -
[500] - Quote
Azazel Shardani wrote:Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
Actually that is exactly why they did it. The intention was to flush out carebears from highsec in order to force them to play the game the way it was intended.
You know there is a more efficient way to "flush out carebears", just make everything null-sec and be done with it. On the other hand they went through a lot of effort to to those 1.0, 0.9 , 0.4, 0.1, -1 ... thingies in each system if they had different intentions. |
|
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:55:35 -
[501] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
It's amazing how few people understand what Eve Online is about. It is not Darkfall, or Wow, or SW:TOR or almost any other MMO that has PvP functionality built it in. Eve Online is literally PvP from the bottom up. It is a "living work of science fiction", not a traditional themepark MMO where the content is provided largely by the developers. In Eve, the central conceit is that we are all the content.
I thought Darkfall was pure PvP and that they didnt even have safe areas if I remember well. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2913
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:56:48 -
[502] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
It's amazing how few people understand what Eve Online is about. It is not Darkfall, or Wow, or SW:TOR or almost any other MMO that has PvP functionality built it in. Eve Online is literally PvP from the bottom up. It is a "living work of science fiction", not a traditional themepark MMO where the content is provided largely by the developers. In Eve, the central conceit is that we are all the content.
I thought Darkfall was pure PvP and that they didnt even have safe areas if I remember well. I stand corrected then.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
162
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 21:08:13 -
[503] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Azazel Shardani wrote:Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
Actually that is exactly why they did it. The intention was to flush out carebears from highsec in order to force them to play the game the way it was intended. You know there is a more efficient way to "flush out carebears", just make everything null-sec and be done with it. On the other hand they went through a lot of effort to to those 1.0, 0.9 , 0.4, 0.1, -1 ... thingies in each system if they had different intentions.
Indeed, there are different levels of security at all of those sec levels. Working as intended. |
Azazel Shardani
Viziam
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 21:27:17 -
[504] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
You know there is a more efficient way to "flush out carebears", just make everything null-sec and be done with it. On the other hand they went through a lot of effort to to those 1.0, 0.9 , 0.4, 0.1, -1 ... thingies in each system if they had different intentions.
It was not about being efficient. It was about a simple nudge to everyone to make sure they know there is no safe place in EVE and they do consent to PvP the moment they undock.
Different values for each system are not a good source for conspiracy theories. Oh wait...
Slavery is natural, embrace it. We Amarr aprove this message.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45468
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 22:02:46 -
[505] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Azazel Shardani wrote:Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:
I know that griefing is allowed but i believe when devs created the wardec system their intention wasn't giving free kills to corps against others for self amusement.
Actually that is exactly why they did it. The intention was to flush out carebears from highsec in order to force them to play the game the way it was intended. You know there is a more efficient way to "flush out carebears", just make everything null-sec and be done with it. On the other hand they went through a lot of effort to to those 1.0, 0.9 , 0.4, 0.1, -1 ... thingies in each system if they had different intentions.
Sure they went through effort to design different areas of space. That doesn't mean that the earlier claim about wardec intentions is correct.
The last time wardecs were changed was in 2012. The devblog makes it clear that a career path for mercs was absolutely one of the game design aims at the time:
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/changes-to-war-mechanics/
Increasing the use of wardecs over what it previously was, is also mentioned.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5484
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 22:10:47 -
[506] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Valkyrie Harkonnen wrote:In EVE only the attacker has fun and hes having fun by exploiting a game concept that wasn't intended to work like that. In fairness I've had loads of fun being the target of wardecs, especially as a new player when i knew i had to learn how to survive them or be everyone's kicking post forever. At no point did i feel like i was being griefed because i fully understood what this game was when i started (the danger was the main reason i started). If you aren't having fun i suggest you have a think about what kind of game you might find fun. Then once you have an idea, go play that game and quit trying to turn EvE into it.
I've had loads of fun losing ships. Better than spinning in station (of course that doesn't mean one should just stupidly lose ships).
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 22:16:57 -
[507] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Indeed, there are different levels of security at all of those sec levels. Working as intended.
I am glad we agree |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5484
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 22:28:34 -
[508] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:You could be right. I was operating on the concept that they were just idiots, that didn't understand
- Statistics
- Discussions
- Economics
- Risk vs Reward
- Logic
- Hell the list goes on
However they might be under the belief that deliberately stopping reasoned discussion might prevent CCP from correcting the glaring imbalances that exist within this game. They just seem to not understand that shutting down threads like this just cause more of these threads to be created and it makes them look like children who don't want their toy taken away.
Yes, the AG people really have their work cut out for them.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 06:30:29 -
[509] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no, you were just being bad Bad is relative. I think bad is 15 grown men sitting on a gate popping single ships. You think bad is someone taking on 15 ships on a gatecamp in a Proteus. No agreement will be reached here today but give me my bad over yours any day. To be fair i think we can assume the objective of most combat is to win. By that logic you failed, hard. There's nothing wrong with failure unless you get butt-hurt and blame the guys with the winning tactics for "unfairly" kicking your ass. Your tactics were bad so you lost, they won because the tactic of outnumbering you worked. "Oh noesssss the bad men won't follow my weird honor code and line up to fight me 1 by 1"
My objective was clearly to get a fight and get blown up. Had it been otherwise I would have not engaged that many people on a gate. I was hoping to take the stratios out which I would have done had it not been for the logi but it was not to be.
Objectives are subjective.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 06:45:39 -
[510] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, the AG people really have their work cut out for them.
Given I am not anti-ganking, no idea on that. Personally I am pro-ganking especially people ganking gankers, bounty hunting got killed years ago and with those stupid catalysts and their ability to spend most of their time docked means they spend more time safe than those that they target.
However I do know
Mark Twain wrote:Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. |
|
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
516
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 11:27:44 -
[511] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:
Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
those 13 to 18 year olds must have consent from their parents to play the game and if they don't then they have no business playing the game. so it's their parents responsiblity to make sure all is well in the game they allow them to play.
so what,,, now you'd like pilots to check their targets age before engaging ? hahahaha please stop.
oh and read the EULA |
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3636
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 11:31:52 -
[512] - Quote
The Golden Serpent wrote:
Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
My 11 year old will litterally pull off a 72/5 kill death on cod mw3 then crack out the "get good noob" statements after every game, 13 year olds aint so innocent in this world.
WHY WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
517
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 11:58:28 -
[513] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:The Golden Serpent wrote:
Does it bother you that some of the targets of your sadism are children as young as 13 or is that an added perk in your view?
My 11 year old will litterally pull off a 72/5 kill death on cod mw3 then crack out the "get good noob" statements after every game of roflstomping everyone, 13 year olds aint so innocent in this world. WHY WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
man my son has played EVE since he was 11 and pretty much did the same thing, i did once get a phone call from him, all upset having lost his ship, i asked,, how many people have you popped in the last week, his reply was not sure,,,,, maybe 20,, i lol'd then after a while he lol'd
i told him,,, son,, get the feckin boat,,,,, you've killed more than you've died,, keep it up, you're playing the game right it was his first loss, he learned from it and went right back to doing what he was doing, popping ships and gettin giggles.
some 13 year olds will rolfstomp you all day long and not even break a sweat while watching youtube videos and eating crap.
will nobody think of the children!!!!!!!
hahahahahaha |
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
417
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 13:10:43 -
[514] - Quote
a post and those quoting it was removed for the following reason:
Quote: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
If you have an issue with the way the forums are being moderated. File a support ticket and Internal Affairs will review and tack action as necessary.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
517
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 17:15:27 -
[515] - Quote
i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again
anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
how to Improve EVE.
I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on.
how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket
how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything.
had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good |
Captain Grantkarppe
We Are Pakleds
63
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 03:56:19 -
[516] - Quote
OP you represent a real threat to Eve Online's unique, unforgiving experience.
If you want to play a game where you can dictate when and where PvP engagements take place, where you can sit in an unkillable zone farming in-game currency and materials all day long, consider World of Warcraft.
It's players like you, who run the risk of causing CCP to make design changes intended to make the game more forgiving when in fact its unforgiving nature is what attracts most of its loyal playerbase. |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 05:45:12 -
[517] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how to Improve EVE. I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on. how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything. had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good
To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs.
PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable.
To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite.
To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game.
That's a start.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5491
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 07:23:11 -
[518] - Quote
Steffles wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how to Improve EVE. I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on. how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything. had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs. PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on. PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable. To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite. To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game. That's a start.
This is simplistic hogwash. I love PvP, but I also do alot of industry stuff too. This kind of black and white distinction is just rubbish.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
516
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:14:25 -
[519] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: We could compromise.
Remove faction police.
Add, 10 second warp cool down for all -10 players on station undock.
Call it security tax.
That reasonable?
Sure they'll hang in safe spots after that, but any Merc worth their salt can scan them down.
you do know that not all pilots who has -10 standings are gankers right? what about FacWar pilots who fights to defend their faction?
Just Add Water
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2919
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:15:04 -
[520] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs.
PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable.
To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite.
To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game.
That's a start.
This is simplistic hogwash. I love PvP, but I also do alot of industry stuff too. This kind of black and white distinction is just rubbish. It is the type of simplistic conclusion that you see often from someone who doesn't understand the basic idea of the game.
In Eve Online we are all PvE'ers. We are required by the game mechanics to gather resources, and build things to equip ourselves (or trade goods or services for them). Without them, we can do little in the sandbox. We are also all PvP'ers as we are, by design, kept vulnerable to each other while gathering these resources. This enables us to compete, interact and create player-driven stories in the sandbox. Things can be lost to other players, and goals thwarted by other players as is intended in a competitive sandbox game.
CCP never intended, nor seems at all inclined to uncouple these two and make two different games. It would break the central idea of a 'real', virtual world simulation that Eve Online is trying to be, and reduce it to a space-themed themepark game where conflict and competition is optional. Sure, in that type of game everyone can be a winner so it will have broader market appeal, but that is not what Eve Online was conceived as, or the current development direction CCP Seagull is moving the game in. In other words, it isn't going to happen.
If it had to happen, I would be fine (and think CCP may be fine) with it if there was some safe space where zero real rewards (say only cosmetic rewards) were offered but still had plenty of NPCs to shoot. But does anyone think that is the type of PvE players like in the OP are clamouring for? No, they want to be able to interact with and influence the shared universe of New Eden, at no risk to themselves or their assets. They want to compete, but only in a way in which they are guaranteed not to lose. So CCP would waste all this effort to build a PvE zone where PvE-seeking players can shoot ships in peace, only to find it go nearly unused as without the valuable reward, it would lack any real meaning.
CCP won't do this though. They would be better off spending their energies building new pure PvE games (like Gunjack) set in the Eve universe than to graft such an abomination onto an almost 15-year old game engine. Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox, and likely remain so until the servers get switched off, hopefully many years or even decades from now.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
516
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:24:04 -
[521] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs.
PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable.
To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite.
To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game.
That's a start.
dude, some PvP'rs do PvE, it's not exclusive.
Just Add Water
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3639
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:33:37 -
[522] - Quote
Steffles wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how to Improve EVE. I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on. how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything. had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs. PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on. PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable. To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite. To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game. That's a start.
there is lots of places pve'ers can do their "shite" pvp'ers get by just fine doing pve because they are aware of how the game works and take precautions and are not ignorant when mechanics dont sway their own way.
we are are playing an "massive multiplayer online" computer game if you dont like that other people play the game then unplug your ethernet and go play viva pinata
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
518
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:40:19 -
[523] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs.
PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable.
To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite.
To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game.
That's a start.
your view on how this game works is very flawed, there is a bigger picture you seem to just ingore no matter how many people tell you.
you want a safe area for PVE guys to live and not have to be active PVP pilots,, create one! nothing stopping you but the will to do so.
for a not so feasable idea CCP sure have made it work for them and continue to make it work.
it's a real shame you just don't understand how the game works or worse you keep playing a game you clearly are not enjoying/
I honestly urge you to open up to the entire game and all it has to offer, embrace what EVE is completely.
only then will you understand how silly the statements you made are.
|
Alastair Ormand
Mine all the things
152
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:41:50 -
[524] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo
But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve.
I discourage running with scissors.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5496
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:46:26 -
[525] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:It is the type of simplistic conclusion that you see often from someone who doesn't understand the basic idea of the game.
In Eve Online we are all PvE'ers. We are required by the game mechanics to gather resources, and build things to equip ourselves (or trade goods or services for them). Without them, we can do little in the sandbox. We are also all PvP'ers as we are, by design, kept vulnerable to each other while gathering these resources. This enables us to compete, interact and create player-driven stories in the sandbox. Things can be lost to other players, and goals thwarted by other players as is intended in a competitive sandbox game.
CCP never intended, nor seems at all inclined to uncouple these two and make two different games. It would break the central idea of a 'real', virtual world simulation that Eve Online is trying to be, and reduce it to a space-themed themepark game where conflict and competition is optional. Sure, in that type of game everyone can be a winner so it will have broader market appeal, but that is not what Eve Online was conceived as, or the current development direction CCP Seagull is moving the game in. In other words, it isn't going to happen.
If it had to happen, I would be fine (and think CCP may be fine) with it if there was some safe space where zero real rewards (say only cosmetic rewards) were offered but still had plenty of NPCs to shoot. But does anyone think that is the type of PvE players like in the OP are clamouring for? No, they want to be able to interact with and influence the shared universe of New Eden, at no risk to themselves or their assets. They want to compete, but only in a way in which they are guaranteed not to lose. So CCP would waste all this effort to build a PvE zone where PvE-seeking players can shoot ships in peace, only to find it go nearly unused as without the valuable reward, it would lack any real meaning.
CCP won't do this though. They would be better off spending their energies building new pure PvE games (like Gunjack) set in the Eve universe than to graft such an abomination onto an almost 15-year old game engine. Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox, and likely remain so until the servers get switched off, hopefully many years or even decades from now.
Exactly. This is an excellent description of spontaneous order and emergence IMO. The competition, interaction and the resulting outcomes are what makes this game interesting on a variety of levels. To conclude that players are just one way or the other is extremely limiting and misleading.
Players are often both PvP and PvE player. I learned all about reaction towers from my alliance leader. I learned about invention from a player who was primarily a "carebear" but also periodically liked to indulge in PvP. My first instances of PvP were with another guy who knew alot about industry and PvE, but had been indulging in PvP before me. Now I imagine the roles would be reversed.
I do not want some sort of college campus SJW Bravo Sierra safe space where I can do my industry stuff. I'm quite happy taking risks and getting a reward for those risks assuming I mange that risk correctly. And if I don't then I should eventually pay the costs.
The game did fine with this, it was only when CCP changed up this view and started making the game safer, easier, and less challenging that it started to stagnate and then decline.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3642
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:47:42 -
[526] - Quote
Steffles wrote:PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
people need to understand that being left alone isnt a thing, and you cant just make it a thing
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
518
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:48:08 -
[527] - Quote
Alastair Ormand wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve.
if you really believe the nonesense you just spout, try ganking a freighter pls. ty
Just Add Water
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5496
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 09:48:22 -
[528] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Steffles wrote:
To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs.
PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on.
PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable.
To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite.
To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game.
That's a start.
your view on how this game works is very flawed........
Welcome to the world view of Infinity Ziona.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 10:09:33 -
[529] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how to Improve EVE. I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on. how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything. had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs. PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on. PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable. To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite. To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game. That's a start. This is simplistic hogwash. I love PvP, but I also do alot of industry stuff too. This kind of black and white distinction is just rubbish.
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
Strange as it seems the majority of players want to avoid players like you, players like me, and corporations, guilds, clans like CODE and Goons, they don't want to be ganked, bumped or harassed. They want to log in, chat with friends, mine, forage, do tradecraft or markets.
That's a fact. If CCP want to increase their income they need to tap into that market and the only way they can do that is by providing a safe refuge from gankers, griefers.
If they don't they'll continue to slide into economic mediocrity.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3643
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 10:20:22 -
[530] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i guess i missed what happened, damn you trump,,,,, detracted from the real politics again anywhooooo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, how to Improve EVE. I'm not sure at all who we are improving it for, i'm not trying to be smart at all about this, but CCP must please everyone and that's just about impossible. CCP gave us the greatest of all time scifi mmorpg so i'm not sure if it can be improved on. how to get more players,,, now that's the feckin ticket how do we get more to come try our amazing game should have been the title of this post, because that's all this game needs if it needs anything. had to add,,, CCP are already on that one of getting more in to try so yea,, it's all good To get more players you need to get both pvp'rs and pve'rs. PvE'rs are much easier to get but they also demand to be left alone to grind and so on. PvPr's don't like PvE'rs being left alone to grind and so on but fail to realise its the PvE'rs who pay for PvP. To try to develop and maintain an MMO on just PvPr subs is not really feasable. To fix EvE you need a place where PvE'rs can do their shite. To fix EvE you need to stop PvP'rs from cutting their own throats ganking PvE'rs and causing them to leave the game. That's a start. This is simplistic hogwash. I love PvP, but I also do alot of industry stuff too. This kind of black and white distinction is just rubbish. Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count. Strange as it seems the majority of players want to avoid players like you, players like me, and corporations, guilds, clans like CODE and Goons, they don't want to be ganked, bumped or harassed. They want to log in, chat with friends, mine, forage, do tradecraft or markets. That's a fact. If CCP want to increase their income they need to tap into that market and the only way they can do that is by providing a safe refuge from gankers, griefers. If they don't they'll continue to slide into economic mediocrity.
let me guess, while providing a way to play a full omega clone for free?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5497
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 10:20:28 -
[531] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
Strange as it seems the majority of players want to avoid players like you, players like me, and corporations, guilds, clans like CODE and Goons, they don't want to be ganked, bumped or harassed. They want to log in, chat with friends, mine, forage, do tradecraft or markets.
That's a fact. If CCP want to increase their income they need to tap into that market and the only way they can do that is by providing a safe refuge from gankers, griefers.
If they don't they'll continue to slide into economic mediocrity.
No. It is nonsense. Every PvPer in the game goes out and does PvE to fund his PvP. Whether it be from incursions, missions, anomalies, industry, etc. the idea that these two groups are disjoint is literally wrong. The intersection of PvP player and PvE player will likely be far larger than you are implying.
Some players may want to avoid PvP, but if so this is not the game for them. If I show up in your asteroid belt I am going to do my level best to get more Ore than you. That is PvP. If I show in your market with better prices; that is PvP. This notion that PvP is "I shoot you in the face" is what holds up most discussions.
And we can look at the ganking of new players...what is that? When a new player is ganked...he is ganked by another player. Player on player inter-action is most likely the thing that will keep players in the game. Just giving bad players a "Safe Space" where they can mine to their hearts content will only appeal to a small subset of players.
This is largely a PvP game if you define PvP as competition with your fellow players. That definition works fine for me, but what it means is that most of use are PvP pilots to one degree or another.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 10:31:07 -
[532] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
Strange as it seems the majority of players want to avoid players like you, players like me, and corporations, guilds, clans like CODE and Goons, they don't want to be ganked, bumped or harassed. They want to log in, chat with friends, mine, forage, do tradecraft or markets.
That's a fact. If CCP want to increase their income they need to tap into that market and the only way they can do that is by providing a safe refuge from gankers, griefers.
If they don't they'll continue to slide into economic mediocrity.
No. It is nonsense. Every PvPer in the game goes out and does PvE to fund his PvP. Whether it be from incursions, missions, anomalies, industry, etc. the idea that these two groups are disjoint is literally wrong. The intersection of PvP player and PvE player will likely be far larger than you are implying. Some players may want to avoid PvP, but if so this is not the game for them. If I show up in your asteroid belt I am going to do my level best to get more Ore than you. That is PvP. If I show in your market with better prices; that is PvP. This notion that PvP is "I shoot you in the face" is what holds up most discussions. And we can look at the ganking of new players...what is that? When a new player is ganked...he is ganked by another player. Player on player inter-action is most likely the thing that will keep players in the game. Just giving bad players a "Safe Space" where they can mine to their hearts content will only appeal to a small subset of players. This is largely a PvP game if you define PvP as competition with your fellow players. That definition works fine for me, but what it means is that most of use are PvP pilots to one degree or another.
If you want to make up your own definition of pvp to fullfill your fantasy shooting a rock is pvp knock yourself out. I'm stickineg with the accepted definition. Thx k bye
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3643
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 10:34:35 -
[533] - Quote
Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3080
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 12:19:43 -
[534] - Quote
Steffles wrote:If you want to make up your own definition of pvp to fullfill your fantasy shooting a rock is pvp knock yourself out. I'm stickineg with the accepted definition. Thx k bye
You mean only shooting? So it is fine and not considered PvP or aggression if I just bump the other guy out of the ice field?
Just to keep track of your proposal and what you mean by safe space for PvE:
- red setting is locked on Highsec, no illegal aggression possible anymore
- no wardecs
Anything else?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18183
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 15:40:26 -
[535] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us
Those are ironic ganks, smh!
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1173
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 15:56:42 -
[536] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us Those are ironic ganks, smh!
To be honest, pro-PVE gankers are the least biased people on this thread.
They know the mechanics required for ganking.
Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?
Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
|
Lasisha Mishi
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
95
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 16:18:39 -
[537] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote: We could compromise.
Remove faction police.
Add, 10 second warp cool down for all -10 players on station undock.
Call it security tax.
That reasonable?
Sure they'll hang in safe spots after that, but any Merc worth their salt can scan them down. you do know that not all pilots who has -10 standings are gankers right? what about FacWar pilots who fights to defend their faction?
facwar doesn't affect your security status
as it counts as a war dec |
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3647
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 16:34:17 -
[538] - Quote
Lasisha Mishi wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote: We could compromise.
Remove faction police.
Add, 10 second warp cool down for all -10 players on station undock.
Call it security tax.
That reasonable?
Sure they'll hang in safe spots after that, but any Merc worth their salt can scan them down. you do know that not all pilots who has -10 standings are gankers right? what about FacWar pilots who fights to defend their faction? facwar doesn't affect your security status as it counts as a war dec
Faction warfare players lose sec for killing neutrals which can be classed as defending their faction
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5498
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 17:22:12 -
[539] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
If you want to make up your own definition of pvp to fullfill your fantasy shooting a rock is pvp knock yourself out. I'm stickineg with the accepted definition. Thx k bye
Bye, no point in continuing to talk past each other.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
521
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 19:28:05 -
[540] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
EVE is a PVP game,, so in fact you are playing on a PVP server, you seem to be able to accept other mmo's having pvp only servers, we don't have that in EVE as there is only one server/universe, so nut up or shut up.
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 06:05:30 -
[541] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us
Whats to explain.
I started off in 2003 pirating in low sec killing miners and anyone else. I joined Stain Alliance to repair my security status from -10 and then awoxxed a couple of them before getting podded back to high sec. I started up a war deccing corporation, used alts to get warpin, spy, awox. Did that for a number of years. Started Privateers and watched high sec burn alliances. Went back to war deccing. When barges were released I suicided a couple of them to see what it was like. Declared war on Tribal Band and cloaky camped their staging system for a few months. I'm the owner of Cloakers, which is an AFK cloaky camping corp.
I have no issue with killing newbs, highseccers or anyone else, that's what EvE is all about. What I take issue with is when the killing of them becomes so easy that it amounts to zero risk or effort. Especially when that killing results in people not subscribing which means less players to pay for development and ultimately less targets to shoot.
There are already mechanics in place to murder high sec players - wars. There is plenty of fights to be had in EvE if you go to low or null sec (7rm-n0 is awesome for fights).
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Steffles wrote:
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
EVE is a PVP game,, so in fact you are playing on a PVP server, you seem to be able to accept other mmo's having pvp only servers, we don't have that in EVE as there is only one server/universe, so nut up or shut up.
Eve is a PvP & PvE game. EvE was originally designed so that highsec was "Quite Safe", the PvE part of the game. It was supposed to be "difficult" to pirate in high-sec. That was the whole point of high sec.
Anyway the whole point of this part of the conversation was based on my opinion of how to get more subscribers - To gain those people who don't want to PvP but rather PvE CCP would need to revert Highsec back to the way it was before power creep and CCP apathy / developer changes screwed it up.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3650
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 09:22:07 -
[542] - Quote
Steffles wrote:There are already mechanics in place to murder high sec players - wars.
whats the difference in declaring war and just ganking? the outcome is the same, people die
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
522
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 09:23:17 -
[543] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
Eve is a PvP & PvE game. EvE was originally designed so that highsec was "Quite Safe", the PvE part of the game. It was supposed to be "difficult" to pirate in high-sec. That was the whole point of high sec.
Anyway the whole point of this part of the conversation was based on my opinion of how to get more subscribers - To gain those people who don't want to PvP but rather PvE CCP would need to revert Highsec back to the way it was before power creep and CCP apathy / developer changes screwed it up.
convert back to the way it was? as long as i've played no space has been safe.
your own play history shows this, you've done your fair share of killing those that do not want to engage in PVP and with this history it pretty hard to take anything you're saying serious.
why would i think this,,,, well man,,, you're playing long enough to know better.
but here's an idea for you.
create a high sec corp and protect those that are in need of protection. but nope,,, you want CCP to create this and have NPC's do the work. That goes against everything EVE is supposed to be about and you know this.
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
162
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 14:22:53 -
[544] - Quote
Highsec is pretty damn safe for players with half a brain. |
Lan Wang
C.Q.B
Snuffed Out
3656
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 14:26:05 -
[545] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Highsec is pretty damn safe for players with half a brain.
/Thread
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 08:01:20 -
[546] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Steffles wrote:
Eve is a PvP & PvE game. EvE was originally designed so that highsec was "Quite Safe", the PvE part of the game. It was supposed to be "difficult" to pirate in high-sec. That was the whole point of high sec.
Anyway the whole point of this part of the conversation was based on my opinion of how to get more subscribers - To gain those people who don't want to PvP but rather PvE CCP would need to revert Highsec back to the way it was before power creep and CCP apathy / developer changes screwed it up.
convert back to the way it was? as long as i've played no space has been safe. your own play history shows this, you've done your fair share of killing those that do not want to engage in PVP and with this history it pretty hard to take anything you're saying serious. why would i think this,,,, well man,,, you're playing long enough to know better. but here's an idea for you. create a high sec corp and protect those that are in need of protection. but nope,,, you want CCP to create this and have NPC's do the work. That goes against everything EVE is supposed to be about and you know this.
Well I've played since 2003 so I know the entire story, not just a small part of it.
The only time I've killed people that perhaps did not want to engage in PvP was suicide ganking which I did twice. It was so easy I decided it was not worth my while.
War declarations are set up in such as a way that those people who do not want to engage in war can leave in the grace period that follows a declaration. Anyone who stays chooses to stay knowing that they are now able to be engaged in high sec. Additionally a red star appears on any war deccers in local offering vital information to the decced person.
I put in a signficant amount of effort including doing absurdly boring missions on a number of alts to get level 4 locators, paying for additional accounts for spys, locators and scouts. Since I didn't like the whole camping gates thing I hunted targets actively and the effort was enormous for the reward.
In comparison to sitting at a gate in a catylyst or thrasher randomly popping any targets I don't think there is any real comparison to be made.
In regards to it going against everything EvE is supposed to be about - read this, you're clearly wrong.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Vigirr
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 08:52:27 -
[547] - Quote
Ganking miners really is rock bottom when it comes to pvp styles, doesn't matter how you market it. The only reason I'm ok with it is because it introduces people who choose to fully avoid pvp, in this pvp game, to pvp so they either adapt or leave. I'm fine with either option they choose.
Would the wardec system be meaningful and workable, while there'd be some sort of solution to the loss of the online list (locators that instantly return info stating the target isn't online while being reusable again, for instance) then ganking can be nerfed quite hard imo.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18184
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 15:33:44 -
[548] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us Whats to explain. I started off in 2003 pirating in low sec killing miners and anyone else. I joined Stain Alliance to repair my security status from -10 and then awoxxed a couple of them before getting podded back to high sec. I started up a war deccing corporation, used alts to get warpin, spy, awox. Did that for a number of years. Started Privateers and watched high sec burn alliances. Went back to war deccing. When barges were released I suicided a couple of them to see what it was like. Declared war on Tribal Band and cloaky camped their staging system for a few months. I'm the owner of Cloakers, which is an AFK cloaky camping corp. I have no issue with killing newbs, highseccers or anyone else, that's what EvE is all about. What I take issue with is when the killing of them becomes so easy that it amounts to zero risk or effort. Especially when that killing results in people not subscribing which means less players to pay for development and ultimately less targets to shoot. There are already mechanics in place to murder high sec players - wars. There is plenty of fights to be had in EvE if you go to low or null sec (7rm-n0 is awesome for fights). xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Steffles wrote:i
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
EVE is a PVP game,, so in fact you are playing on a PVP server, you seem to be able to accept other mmo's having pvp only servers, we don't have that in EVE as there is only one server/universe, so nut up or shut up. Eve is a PvP & PvE game. EvE was originally designed so that highsec was "Quite Safe", the PvE part of the game. It was supposed to be "difficult" to pirate in high-sec. That was the whole point of high sec. Anyway the whole point of this part of the conversation was based on my opinion of how to get more subscribers - To gain those people who don't want to PvP but rather PvE CCP would need to revert Highsec back to the way it was before power creep and CCP apathy / developer changes screwed it up.
Revert several CONCORD buffs and restore insurance for ship lost to them in hisec?
Well ok, if that's what you want...
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 15:36:05 -
[549] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Steffles wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Infinity Ziona, lets do some real talk here for a moment...
After looking at your killboard you seem to be a hypocrite. you have 13+ kills of pve/highsec players on your killboard including 2 retrievers and 2 noctis
please explain to us Whats to explain. I started off in 2003 pirating in low sec killing miners and anyone else. I joined Stain Alliance to repair my security status from -10 and then awoxxed a couple of them before getting podded back to high sec. I started up a war deccing corporation, used alts to get warpin, spy, awox. Did that for a number of years. Started Privateers and watched high sec burn alliances. Went back to war deccing. When barges were released I suicided a couple of them to see what it was like. Declared war on Tribal Band and cloaky camped their staging system for a few months. I'm the owner of Cloakers, which is an AFK cloaky camping corp. I have no issue with killing newbs, highseccers or anyone else, that's what EvE is all about. What I take issue with is when the killing of them becomes so easy that it amounts to zero risk or effort. Especially when that killing results in people not subscribing which means less players to pay for development and ultimately less targets to shoot. There are already mechanics in place to murder high sec players - wars. There is plenty of fights to be had in EvE if you go to low or null sec (7rm-n0 is awesome for fights). xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Steffles wrote:i
Its fact. The top mmo's by susbscription today are all either pve, pve with consensual pvp or their pvp only server counts are tiny compared to their pve server count.
EVE is a PVP game,, so in fact you are playing on a PVP server, you seem to be able to accept other mmo's having pvp only servers, we don't have that in EVE as there is only one server/universe, so nut up or shut up. Eve is a PvP & PvE game. EvE was originally designed so that highsec was "Quite Safe", the PvE part of the game. It was supposed to be "difficult" to pirate in high-sec. That was the whole point of high sec. Anyway the whole point of this part of the conversation was based on my opinion of how to get more subscribers - To gain those people who don't want to PvP but rather PvE CCP would need to revert Highsec back to the way it was before power creep and CCP apathy / developer changes screwed it up. Revert several CONCORD buffs and restore insurance for ship lost to them in hisec? Well ok, if that's what you want...
I'd be happy with a dev blog that says "We forgot that High Security Space was supposed to be quite safe. Pirating in highsec is now difficult. Go to low sec or null if you want to pirate".
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5507
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 20:22:34 -
[550] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
I'd be happy with a dev blog that says "We forgot that High Security Space was supposed to be quite safe. Pirating in highsec is now difficult. Go to low sec or null if you want to pirate".
Okay and? HS is quite safe.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 20:32:05 -
[551] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
I'd be happy with a dev blog that says "We forgot that High Security Space was supposed to be quite safe. Pirating in highsec is now difficult. Go to low sec or null if you want to pirate".
Okay and? HS is quite safe.
No its more dangerous than null. Pirating is a very very common occurrence and much easier to do than in low or null.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 20:39:47 -
[552] - Quote
Alastair Ormand wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve.
I know everyone thinks ganking a freighter for profit is easy, but until you have done it I cannot take you seriously
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 20:48:23 -
[553] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Alastair Ormand wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve. I know everyone thinks ganking a freighter for profit is easy, but until you have done it I cannot take you seriously
Given its being done with multiboxed stealth bombers and a couple of other people I'd say its pretty easy. Look up Jackson Kusion and his alts.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5507
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 21:07:14 -
[554] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:
I'd be happy with a dev blog that says "We forgot that High Security Space was supposed to be quite safe. Pirating in highsec is now difficult. Go to low sec or null if you want to pirate".
Okay and? HS is quite safe. No its more dangerous than null. Pirating is a very very common occurrence and much easier to do than in low or null.
PIrating takes place on trade lanes...so working as intended. Pirating is an illegal activity...again working as intended.
And what is your basis for HS being more dangerous than NS?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5507
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 21:09:38 -
[555] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Alastair Ormand wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve. I know everyone thinks ganking a freighter for profit is easy, but until you have done it I cannot take you seriously Given its being done with multiboxed stealth bombers and a couple of other people I'd say its pretty easy. Look up Jackson Kusion and his alts.
It might be easier to get a fleet up since you don't have to wait for others to log in, but multi-boxing is not as easy as playing on a single client. The fact that one person does it highlights this.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
525
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 00:18:56 -
[556] - Quote
Steffles wrote:In regards to it going against everything EvE is supposed to be about - read this, you're clearly wrong. Here's a lil image to back up my earlier assertion that there are more pve'rs vs pvp'rs. This is a free to play clone of the original EQ. Its quite clear from the player counts that the PVE server is very much more popular than the pvp server as was the case back when I first played EQ. I started on a PvP server back then, Tallon Zek I think it was. CCP tapping into the PvE market is without doubt the smartest thing they could do.
you're really trying to milk it with that image from 2005 11 year ago do you not understand that was said 11 years ago,, games evolve. get over youself... lol 11 year old qoute mining. classic.
oh and ,,,
everquest? really??? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 00:25:54 -
[557] - Quote
The earlier the more accurate it is. Oveur was the original lead developer and therefore the expert personto say what High Sec was designed for.
EQ, DAOC, WoW, whatever mmo you like its the same. The majority of players don't like unrestricted PvP and they're therefore the best market to cater to.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
525
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 00:49:02 -
[558] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
The earlier the more accurate it is. Oveur was the original lead developer and therefore the expert personto say what High Sec was designed for.
EQ, DAOC, WoW, whatever mmo you like its the same. The majority of players don't like unrestricted PvP and they're therefore the best market to cater to.
accurate how? the game has changed a lot, you're talking about history and sound like an old drunk git sitting at a bar tellin all the young folk how is was better back in the day. give it a rest.
it wasn't better back then, it wasn't much different,, if you flew your ship like an idiot you payed the price. i was told within a week of playing not to auto pilot, i was shown how to create bookmarks, it was explained to me how to make an insta undock, i was told not to trust trade routes and to be careful going into them. i was told to get a mate to fly as a scout ahead of me.
so no matter what changes CCP gave into from all the whining fecks, it hasn't caused me any issues.
you want CCP to just give in and cater to those that couldn't be arsed learning how to play a game or even want to compete with others, you want EVE to become like all the rest of the shite games out there, insta dungeons for all, no need to warp anywhere,
no threats from anything but a stupid NPC that has the brain power of your average battery.
if you got your wish this game would slip away into the history books and be remembered only for it's days when it was a dark life sucking unforgiving ***** that would gladly burn everything you worked hard for to the ground. a game that broke the mold.
If EVE was what you'd want it to be, you'd never have felt that feeling of complete loss, you heart beat would have never risen about it's normal rate and you'd have never felt the rush of your first loss or first kill. the EVE you want is not hte EVE i know and remember.
why would you want the game to change into a piece of crap average borefest just to attract more numbers?
wait let me guess,,, EVE is dying. am i right?
so come on then,, save it,,,,, not change it into shite,,,, save it in it's current form.
or are you a one trick pony?
come on,,, how do you attract more players into the game and get them to stay without changing the game?
beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 02:33:58 -
[559] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.
Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash.
Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null.
Not free to play, with a subscription fee.
Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying.
For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc..
Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1233
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 02:51:21 -
[560] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.
Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash. Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null. Not free to play, with a subscription fee. Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying. For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc.. Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go.
What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.
There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH
Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
|
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 04:41:16 -
[561] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Alastair Ormand wrote:Jagd Wilde wrote:Yup, another one.
So OP,
Did you not notice the, like, hundred other carebear opinions on this very same subject? All with the same conclusion? There's nothing new here but the carebear.
If you don't like the sandbox, go play wow. Don't try to F it up for the rest of us.
gtfo But the attacking pilot is as big of a carebear as the freighter pilot. You are able to kill the freighter with huge gains and very little loss even if it's just the hull (seriously, sec status does **** all to anything), just as the freighter pilot wants to haul his/her stuff without interruption and protection. I have to agree with the guy that the punishments aren't harsh enough for highsec gankers. However what punishment could you impose without completely flipping it to being unfair on the ganker. It's a hard equation to solve. I know everyone thinks ganking a freighter for profit is easy, but until you have done it I cannot take you seriously Given its being done with multiboxed stealth bombers and a couple of other people I'd say its pretty easy. Look up Jackson Kusion and his alts.
You clearly don't understand that your assumption of the ease of killing freighters is faulty, as you have absolutely ZERO experience on the matter. Therefore your entire argument is invalid.
Next time choose a subject you have knowledge in, your 'feelings' don't count here.
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
527
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 04:42:07 -
[562] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.
There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH
Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.
you beat me to it,
but it's incredible how these people just don't understand that EVE and everything in it is player created and driven and if you where to do something as stupid as create safe zones it would detroy the marketa and the game.
then asking for a server for them to play without threat of any kind but dumb NPC's,, honestly do these people play the same game we do?
for some reason at some stage when they began EVE they failed to learn to lose ships and recover, the old fly what you can afford to lose only thingy, they never got that.
they failed to deal with it, failed to learn how to get over it, or just too feckin lazy.
it seems they want it all handed to them on easy lvl while they watch youtube videos and talk bollox with their mates online in other games.
which is all cool till someone kerplodes their ship and pod
they shouldn't act surprised, jump on the forums demanding their weak style of play be catered too.
they should take a good dose of kop the feck on, it's like a shite footballer showing up at a game and demanding the rules be changed because their not into some of the game and they shoudl be left alone and be allowed to score when they want.
laughable. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1234
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 05:41:11 -
[563] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:You clearly don't understand that your assumption of the ease of killing freighters is faulty, as you have absolutely ZERO experience on the matter. Therefore your entire argument is invalid.
Next time choose a subject you have knowledge in, your 'feelings' don't count here.
Queue IZ reply saying how he knows all about it because he used to gank freighters solo in rookie ships, AFK, asleep; but he doesn't do it anymore because he wants to play Eve on hard mode, so he mines in highsec as that's the most dangerous thing in the game.
That or some equally stupid tear filled rubbish.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 06:19:23 -
[564] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
beyond the shite you've already suggested,, give us another idea.
Now that CCP has thrown up the white flag and is betting on the 8% who cough up cash. Maybe its time they brought out another server. With PVE only zones, a larger lo-security zone and more NPC null. Not free to play, with a subscription fee. Then let economics control the expansion of the servers, It would not take that much to set up and the base resource use (expansions etc..) on the amounts people are paying. For example the free to play PVP server earns 65% of the cash so it gets 65% of the resources. etc.. Instead of telling people, give people a choice. Let their wallets decide where the resources go. What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists. There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.
Except SiSi is not permanent and I am not talking about a server where PvP is not allowed in most system just a large amout of hi-sec and some others.
Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 06:23:29 -
[565] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
What's wrong with SiSi? It already exists.
There are only 2 systems where non-consensual PvP is allowed: 6-C and PVH
Every other system is a PvE paradise, unless there is a mass test, in which case FD-, X-B and PF- are also used then. Otherwise the whole cluster is available.
you beat me to it, but it's incredible how these people just don't understand that EVE and everything in it is player created and driven and if you where to do something as stupid as create safe zones it would detroy the marketa and the game. then asking for a server for them to play without threat of any kind but dumb NPC's,, honestly do these people play the same game we do? for some reason at some stage when they began EVE they failed to learn to lose ships and recover, the old fly what you can afford to lose only thingy, they never got that. they failed to deal with it, failed to learn how to get over it, or just too feckin lazy. it seems they want it all handed to them on easy lvl while they watch youtube videos and talk bollox with their mates online in other games. which is all cool till someone kerplodes their ship and pod they shouldn't act surprised, jump on the forums demanding their weak style of play be catered too. they should take a good dose of kop the feck on, it's like a shite footballer showing up at a game and demanding the rules be changed because their not into some of the game and they shoudl be left alone and be allowed to score when they want. laughable.
Yes everything in the markets is interconnected. Which leaves either splitting or interconnecting the markets.
Given the move of CCP to go free to play, I believe this is a valid option as this way the PvP players can continue but those more PvE orientated might wish to do something else. All it will harm is the game most people don't want to play.
Call it the ultimate in PvP. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1234
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 07:33:58 -
[566] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server...
Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining?
Nothing. That's exactly what we expect.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
pushdogg
relocation LLC.
297
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 07:41:48 -
[567] - Quote
You can't improve what is perfect. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 07:51:15 -
[568] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server... Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining? Nothing. That's exactly what we expect.
We gained Serenity server and the EvE world did not end.
A more PvE based server would appeal to very few who currently play the game, if the arguments PvP players put forth. So it would not harm the Tranquility server. However it would allow people who want a more PvE focused game who have left or not joined due to EvEs PvP focus to enjoy and play the game.
So either you are right and people enjoy the harsh brutality of EvE or your wrong and a large number of players don't. So in reality you are only arguing with yourself. After all those who don't like the current PvP focus, the majority have already left.
Are you worried a more PvE focused server might be more economically successful like the PvE servers in almost every other game and so distract from your attempts to kill EvE via selfishness. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2931
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 08:06:10 -
[569] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:..., I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server... Of course you see nothing wrong. You're a Carebear. What else would we expect but endless whinging and whining? Nothing. That's exactly what we expect. We gained Serenity server and the EvE world did not end. A more PvE based server would appeal to very few who currently play the game, if the arguments PvP players put forth. So it would not harm the Tranquility server. However it would allow people who want a more PvE focused game who have left or not joined due to EvEs PvP focus to enjoy and play the game. So either you are right and people enjoy the harsh brutality of EvE or your wrong and a large number of players don't. So in reality you are only arguing with yourself. After all those who don't like the current PvP focus, the majority have already left. Are you worried a more PvE focused server might be more economically successful like the PvE servers in almost every other game and so distract from your attempts to kill EvE via selfishness.
No one would go for it. Even the few dozen carebears who went to try would stop playing there when they saw there were no PLEXes on the market or anyone else there to buy any of there wares. It would only appeal to the true, solo-mindset player who wants to grind and build everything for themselves, and I imagine even they would grow tired of paying $15/a month to build useless things on an empty server when there is no visual feedback from the game on their progress.
While it would be an interesting exercise, you would also have the hurdle that current players on the PvP server would be resistant to giving up their investment and starting again there so it wouldn't really be a fair experiment. But practically it would be a complete waste of time and developer resources.
It's all academic really though. CCP has repeatedly affirmed that Eve is a PvP sandbox and thing are working largely as they intend. We can speculate or pontificate on what they should or should not do to make a successful game, but really the only choice we have is to play or not. That is how the free market it suppose to work, so if Eve's isn't what you are looking for, you should show CCP this and move on and try another game that suits you better.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 08:42:07 -
[570] - Quote
Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.
Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.
CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. |
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2932
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 09:18:29 -
[571] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.
Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.
CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play.
Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game.
But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen.
Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 09:36:57 -
[572] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.
Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.
CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment.
EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing.
Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2932
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 09:50:50 -
[573] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing.
Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.
This thread is going in circles like all the similar ones.
Before the insurance nerf, there was much less cost to gank. Even if gankers used battleships, they were mostly covered by insurance, and at some points insurance even paid more than the cost of the hull meaning you made a profit if you failed a suicide gank against the side of a station.
Ganking has never cost more than it currently does, nor has it have been rarer. You can make the case that the general increase in player wealth over the years means those costs to gank something mean less as everyone is richer, but that also applies to the miner or hauler whose losses are equally less meaningful.
I'd love though an improved bounty hunting system and more game play that allows player law enforcement to interfere with criminals though. Those are actually good thoughts on improving the game as this thread is suppose to be about.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45521
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 09:52:02 -
[574] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers.
As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 10:03:14 -
[575] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen.
Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45521
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 10:07:45 -
[576] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them.
Quote one.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 10:28:56 -
[577] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. Quote one.
and back to labradoodles.
Not sure why I bother. General Discussion should be renamed as "Children who scream about having their toy taken away." |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45522
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 10:33:14 -
[578] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. Quote one. and back to labradoodles. Not sure why I bother. General Discussion should be renamed as "Children who scream about having their toy taken away."
No one is screaming here. You've made a claim you can either prove, or you can't.
It's really quite simple.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18184
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 12:52:32 -
[579] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.
Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.
CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.
Gankers didn't "need" to use larger ships back then, it was merely that they were economically practicable to use because they were insurable. Now they aren't, so they use more people in smaller ships instead.
Amazingly, deciding that hi-sec ganking was the one form of activity that should void insurance didn't stop people complaining about hi-sec ganking. Nor did 3 CONCORD buffs. Nor did nerfing sec gains from ratting. Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why?
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Vigirr
30
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 13:00:58 -
[580] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why?
Because with every step CCP moves closer to being a mainstream MMO, safer and more hand holding, the more mainstream people it attracts. Resulting in more people who don't understand what EVE actually is and more people putting in their best efforts to welcome those people to the EVE universe, bringing gifts of antimatter. |
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 13:02:25 -
[581] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server.
Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way.
Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games.
CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. Gankers didn't "need" to use larger ships back then, it was merely that they were economically practicable to use because they were insurable. Now they aren't, so they use more people in smaller ships instead. Amazingly, deciding that hi-sec ganking was the one form of activity that should void insurance didn't stop people complaining about hi-sec ganking. Nor did 3 CONCORD buffs. Nor did nerfing sec gains from ratting. Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why?
I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18185
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 13:14:30 -
[582] - Quote
Steffles wrote:
I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion.
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, the quantity of such events has fallen considerably.
Have you ever been suicide ganked?
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27053
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 14:26:22 -
[583] - Quote
Steffles wrote:I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion. Ganking happens less than it used to, despite the increased visibility due to the propaganda of the 2 major groups that partake in it.
There again, a connection with reality is the last thing we'd expect from you.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
171
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 20:12:23 -
[584] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:
EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing.
Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.
This thread is going in circles like all the similar ones. Before the insurance nerf, there was much less cost to gank. Even if gankers used battleships, they were mostly covered by insurance, and at some points insurance even paid more than the cost of the hull meaning you made a profit if you failed a suicide gank against the side of a station. Ganking has never cost more than it currently does, nor has it ever been rarer. You can make the case that the general increase in player wealth over the years means those costs to gank something mean less as everyone is richer, but that also applies to the miner or hauler whose losses are equally less meaningful. I'd love though an improved bounty hunting system and more game play that allows player law enforcement to interfere with criminals though. Those are actually good thoughts on improving the game as this thread is suppose to be about.
Mark REALLY believes that the old destroyers weren't viable gank ships, but they totally were, there were just better options such as fully insured battleships.
I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this to him, but he has his carebear ear-muffs on.
A part of me wishes the destroyers would go back to the way they were just so we could show Mark how the carnage would continue. |
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
37
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 22:10:21 -
[585] - Quote
Vigirr wrote:Malcanis wrote:Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why? Because with every step CCP moves closer to being a mainstream MMO, safer and more hand holding, the more mainstream people it attracts. Resulting in more people who don't understand what EVE actually is and more people putting in their best efforts to welcome those people to the EVE universe, bringing gifts of antimatter.
"More people who don't understand what EVE actually is", says the two month old (alt?). As others have said already, EVE has changed and if you hadn't noticed, it is not attracting many people, regardless of incremental improvements in graphics/ships/hardware/careers etc.
- There are millions of people who enjoy sci-fi out there. What are CCP not doing to attract them to EVE?
- Someone mentioned the gender discrepancy earlier. WoW had/has(?) ten times as many female players. Why? What are Blizzard doing to attract female players?
- Tens of thousands (more?) of people have tried EVE and left. Why?
There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.
While I don't think the latter are the only reason the PCU is going down, their reputation must certainly play a part in putting people off - both the would-be players and existing casual players who have no means of protecting themselves.
Solution-wise...
The OP was too complicated, but there might be something in it. Sociopaths clearly don't care about costs - they seem to be quite happy to blap empty rookie ships/shuttles for kicks - so solutions based on changes to risk/reward are a dead end. What they will care about is their precious personal time.
If CCP force them to invest as much effort in their activity as other players then they'll get bored and leave... and then EVE might attract more of those "mainstream" people it needs for the long term.
I would go with parts of OP's idea - simply bar negative security characters from jumping into high security space and knock them to down to -10 for every unprovoked attack. If they want to get in they'll have to grind standings for a few hours - ironic PVE activity - and then they lose it all again for a single gank. There's still a risk to the autopiloting freighter with eleventy squillion isk in its hold, but the cost to the aggressor is switched from in-game currency to RL time.
(I guess Alpha clones might offset this, but I suspect the effort of having to reroll just for another [single] kill might be too much.) |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
171
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 23:18:06 -
[586] - Quote
Ilany wrote: Tears... "sociopaths"... more tears...
Lol dream on, HTFU or GTFO
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27055
|
Posted - 2016.11.13 23:58:43 -
[587] - Quote
Ilany wrote:I would go with parts of OP's idea - simply bar negative security characters from jumping into high security space and knock them to down to -10 for every unprovoked attack. That won't fly with CCP, IIRC they've stated several times that they will never mechanically bar negative status players from jumping into hisec.
It would affect more than just hisec gankers; off the top of my head anybody that PvPs in lowsec would be barred, including the FW pilots.
Quote:If they want to get in they'll have to grind standings for a few hours - ironic PVE activity - and then they lose it all again for a single gank. You want to force people to either PvE or spent a sizeable wad on tags every time they PvP with an unwilling volunteer in lowsec or hisec without a wardec? Before you ask, yes PvP in lowsec involves a security hit.
You do realise that Eve is a PvP game, and that the entire universe; including hisec, is a PvP zone, don't you?
Quote:There's still a risk to the autopiloting freighter with eleventy squillion isk in its hold, but the cost to the aggressor is switched from in-game currency to RL time. Even if the dire idea that you support was to come true, you lot would still moan when it's one freighter a week getting ganked.
Quote:(I guess Alpha clones might offset this, but I suspect the effort of having to reroll just for another [single] kill might be too much.) It wouldn't take long for CCP to put it down if it became a problem anyway.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
45524
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 00:15:27 -
[588] - Quote
Ilany wrote:... the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.
I feel like we all need to group hug after this.
We're not all sociopaths. Some of us are mass murderers, rapists, Hitler apologists and just really mean people too.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5507
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 06:11:11 -
[589] - Quote
Ilany wrote:
There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.
I love these comments. Somebody, in a PvP game, who actually shoots another player is of course a sociopath.
Well, if it is okay for those posting these types call those who want to shoot a freighter with 5 billion ISK worth of cargo a sociopath I think it is only fair to point out that such players are lazy, self-entitled incompetents who if they were better at playing the game would have nothing to complain about.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18193
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:00:38 -
[590] - Quote
I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
19033
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:16:26 -
[591] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult.
no its not restricted at all, there is just some more paper work involved.
We're Back in Business ,
have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today
=]|[=
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3088
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:24:12 -
[592] - Quote
Ilany wrote:people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.
Lucky for us the narrative in this thread is that we are the carebears because we risk nothing and only shoot ships that can't shoot back. Going from this, the sociopaths must be the people who whelp their Freighters into Uedama. AmIright?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:25:39 -
[593] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult.
Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says
"Working as intended"
All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death.
CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to.
CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
528
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:26:46 -
[594] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay.
you see nothing wrong with another server,,, oh wow hahahahaha
single shard sweetheart,,, i don't see CCP going away from that anytime soon.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:34:38 -
[595] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:
Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay.
you see nothing wrong with another server,,, oh wow hahahahaha single shard sweetheart,,, i don't see CCP going away from that anytime soon.
So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3089
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:42:37 -
[596] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo.
I am not sure how you get from "EVE is dying" to "remove or limit non-consensual PvP even more". There is not even a hint that this will help to get more players.
Fact is that back when EVE was much more dangerous and more non-consensual PvP happened the number of players where bigger. All the nerfs did so far was making Highsec stale and boring since there is almost no risk left and you have to be pretty much brain dead if you can't figure out how to make yourself pretty close invulnerable there.
And now you suggest they continue on this trend and make it even more boring.
Did you once try to imagine what a Highsec like that would look like?
How would mining look like if there is no risk left? Do you want to compete with swarms of yield faction fitted Hulks who will mine so much ore it will become even less lucrative for a new or solo player?
Do you want Freighter services gone, because if there is no risk to the Freighter, why would you not load all your stuff in a cargo expanded freighter and autopilot it while you go to work or something, no risk doing it, no preparation or security measures needed or therefor no cost, no need for a dedicated service to take care of it.
Do you even think one second about the consequences of what you are suggesting?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
3090
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:44:15 -
[597] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
What they did over and over is listen to whiners like you and nerf Highsec. So no, they should not do that and maybe for a change make Highsec gameplay more interesting instead of removing content with no replacement.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5508
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:44:43 -
[598] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Malcanis wrote:I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo.
Tell us again your statistics credentials. How do you know a huge number of PvE players have left? Lets start with that.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2940
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 08:51:54 -
[599] - Quote
Ilany wrote:"More people who don't understand what EVE actually is", says the two month old (alt?). As others have said already, EVE has changed and if you hadn't noticed, it is not attracting many people, regardless of incremental improvements in graphics/ships/hardware/careers etc. That's the thing, Eve hasn't really changed. Eve Online as a vision is getting close to 20-years old now and has always been a open-world, full-time, PvP sandbox game. A true virtual universe and a dystoptian battle royale.
That is a niche idea which won't attract or keep everyone, but to say that "Eve has changed" is disingenuous. Eve has always featured non-consensual PvP everywhere since the beginning by design.
Ilany wrote:
There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread.
That is quite the (incorrect) statement. If you are incorrectly generalizing groups and mean "builders" and "aggressors" then maybe, but from CCP Quant's analysis we see that most players, and the highest engaged players regularly do both. They "create" stuff and they destroy stuff sort of how this game was designed to work (you know, "Build Your Dreams, Wreck Their Dreams"?).
In fact, the 'create-only' carebear category seems to be the group of players that sticks around for the shortest amount of time. Perhaps because they aren't really looking for a full-time, PvP sandbox game, but your claim that they make up much of the longterm players seems to not fit the data. The longest staying players are the ones that both shoot players and make stuff.
This makes sense of course because that is the whole point of the game. The player-driven economy only exists because of the demand PvP and competition creates, while real PvP in this game absolutely requires the accumulation of resources and the building of stuff. Players who wall themselves off from all the game has to offer are going to have a less engaging experience.
In any case your view of the game seems quite coloured by what you do it in. Most players don't play the game only as conflict-averse highsec carebears despite what some people will try to tell you. They are a significant minority, but most players in this game are "sociopaths" who like to shoot other players, even if many if them have highsec alts to build or gather or trade stuff.
Ilany wrote:If CCP force them to invest as much effort in their activity as other players then they'll get bored and leave... and then EVE might attract more of those "mainstream" people it needs for the long term. Yes, that is a great strategy: make your game more boring so your current customers leave in hopes of attracting some mythical, but larger, cohort of other players.
That is a terrible idea. If CCP really wants to go after a larger, mainstream audience, then they can create some new PvE game. Gutting your existing successful product and attempting to shoehorn it (and it's ancient game engine) into a themepark MMO at a time where that genre is fading in popularity, and at a time where CCP doesn't have the resources to generate enough developer content to keep the themeparkers entertained, is foolhardy. Anyone can see that, especially CCP.
Eve Online will go on as a PvP sandbox until the day it dies. Most of the development work is done, and it could coast and be profitable for years to come. Maybe CCP Seagull's push will reinvigorate things and popularity will grow again, but if not, CCP still has a product that will keep diehards and a certain type of niche gamer happy and paying them for a long while. No point throwing that away to chase some potential customers that probably don't exist.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
529
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 09:01:14 -
[600] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:
So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
you mean like you guys keep posting the same stuff over and over expecting the same. right,,, got ya
|
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18196
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 12:29:42 -
[601] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Malcanis wrote:I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, y mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo.
Who says revenue is down?
Who says pve players have disproportionately left?
EVE has seen off any number of space mmo challenges. o7, swg. Keep trying, e:d. Maybe one day, Star Citizen. At least your mum loves you, Star Trek Online. And so on
You're in the position of coming into a vegan restaurant and complaining that your hamburger doesn't have any beef in it.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
174
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 13:22:52 -
[602] - Quote
A carebear's intuition is like Jenny McCarthy's mommy instinct! It trumps all logic or evidence to the contrary! |
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 13:39:15 -
[603] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:
Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay.
you see nothing wrong with another server,,, oh wow hahahahaha single shard sweetheart,,, i don't see CCP going away from that anytime soon. So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
I don't think they need a PvE server I think they simply need to stick to the core design of the game and make high-sec a viable PvP reduced zone. The current situation in which anyone regardless of ship type can be killed extremely cheaply and extremely easily by any group that decides they should die is the opposite of what high sec was intended to be.
The toxic mindset of many of the gankers needs to be curtailed - its bad for any business to have people in game who have zero regard for other players and whose sole intention is to cause people grief to the point they would unsubscribe.
If CCP HTFU and got rid of that small % it would be both good for the overall game and good for CCP's wallet. This game is not and never was about griefing it is and was about combat.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14901
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 13:48:06 -
[604] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Malcanis wrote:I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP".
All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP.
No one gets a free pass.
Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment.
There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
I just found the above funny. Mal makes a statement of fact, and then this other guy ignores those facts and goes on about things that have nothing to do with what Mal says.
Even if all the above was true, none of that is any one's business but CCPs. And yet time and again the people who for some reason don't like what the game they chose to play is (and keep on playing it) keep pointing to CCPs finances as if that an answer to some question.
Quote:
That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says
"Working as intended"
"Something different" in this case means "destroy utterly what EVE Online is in the HOPE that the removal of non-consensual pvp MIGHT bring in 'new players' who don't like having to deal with unwanted pvp".
I fail to understand people like this also. I'm a PVE oriented player that chooses to play EVE because it has non-consensual pvp, which (while sometimes frustrating) adds incredible value to my game play. If I could not stand non-consensual PVP, EVE would be the LAST thing I'd ever play.
Just last night Pandemic Hordlings came into my home constellation with Stealth Bombers and occupied every one of our upgraded systems. I was forced to modify my ratting activities (ie put up the big rat killing toys, break out the pvp fit VNIs that can survive a hot drop). The result of that is we ended up killing a cyno fit Tengu, several stealth bombers and I got TWO DED 10/10 escalations which turned into a nice pay day.
PVE players who see things the right way (even in high sec) know that non-consensual pvp is an opportunity to be exploited, and a way to measure your ability against opposition. the pinnacle of PVE jockness is being able to go about your day while laughing derisively and the pitiful gankers and codies who repeatedly fail at preventing you from making a profit.
Quote:
All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death.
CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to.
CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo.
Translation: if CCP doesn't change the game into something i THINK I want more than they current game, it will die.
Funnily enough people have been saying this since literally 2003.
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
19478
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 13:59:02 -
[605] - Quote
Changes.
Truth is somewhere between "it is dying because of them" and "its reason it did not die to this day".
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27057
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 18:49:45 -
[606] - Quote
Steffles wrote:I don't think they need a PvE server I think they simply need to stick to the core design of the game and make high-sec a viable PvP reduced zone. That core design being one of a PvP sandbox with elements of PvE; there's far less PvP in hisec than there is elsewhere because PvP in hisec usually comes at a cost, both financial and in terms of time, ergo it is already a viable reduced PvP zone when compared to lowsec, nullsec and WHspace.
Quote:The current situation in which anyone regardless of ship type can be killed extremely cheaply and extremely easily by any group that decides they should die is the opposite of what high sec was intended to be. Is that your opinion, or are you prepared to provide an official source?
In terms of a group vs an individual of course the odds are in favour of the group; that's how force concentration generally works, especially if the individual is ill prepared, doing something daft or just plain AFK.
Quote:The toxic mindset of many of the gankers needs to be curtailed - its bad for any business to have people in game who have zero regard for other players and whose sole intention is to cause people grief to the point they would unsubscribe. The attitude of gankers to their victims is somewhat the result of the vitriol, hatred and threats that some of their victims inflict on them over the loss of a ship in a PvP game.
Quote:If CCP HTFU and got rid of that small % it would be both good for the overall game and good for CCP's wallet. So they head-shot the toxic minority that make threats, wish cancer on people and are generally complete twats when their spaceships explode in a PvP game?
Quote:This game is not and never was about griefing it is and was about combat. What you call griefing is combat; griefing, as defined by CCP, is against the rules and can lead to the ban-hammer being wielded against the guilty party.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1240
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 19:06:57 -
[607] - Quote
Who cares what IZ and Mark write.
No opinion they put is important. Of all the doomsday scenarios put forward by IZ and Mark, the only thing apparent is that the day CCP start taking their advice for game design is the day CCP have truly lost it.
They are two of the least honest people here and there's no concern that CCP is listening to their clap trap.
Let them whinge and whine and moan and bleat. It's only their time wasted.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Josef Djugashvilis
3478
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:05:51 -
[608] - Quote
The introduction of 'cash for skills' and, for me personally, the introduction of 'free to play' mean that when my annual sub expires next summer I shall quit the game.
My leaving will not affect CCP in any way whatsoever, but to make any part of the game pvp free in any way, would I think, be the beginning of the end.
Eve is nothing if it is not pvp - markets, ship battles, awoxing etc and trying to get one over over on other players by any means not forbidden by CCP is what makes Eve the great game it is.
If you do not like pvp, go play another game.
This is not a signature.
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
19529
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:26:01 -
[609] - Quote
Quote:the beginning of the end
It started in 2003.
It only takes longer than expected.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
530
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:29:19 -
[610] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:The introduction of 'cash for skills' and, for me personally, the introduction of 'free to play' mean that when my annual sub expires next summer I shall quit the game.
My leaving will not affect CCP in any way whatsoever, but to make any part of the game pvp free in any way, would I think, be the beginning of the end.
Eve is nothing if it is not pvp - markets, ship battles, awoxing etc and trying to get one over over on other players by any means not forbidden by CCP is what makes Eve the great game it is.
If you do not like pvp, go play another game.
man games change over time, the introduction of cash for skills and free to play are only the natural growth and evolution of our
amazing game, you really should reconsider that decision you've made on not subbing next year.
you enjoy the game, you know where the cash goes once CCP has it, what we get for the tiny 15 bucks a month is pretty good value if you ask me and i wouldn't let something as silly as cash for skills and free to play be the cause of calling it a day.
you could have every skill book in the game trained to 5 but this doesn't mean you got sklls
free to play,, meh,, i've seen enough free to play accounts in many many games to know it's nothing more than an extended trial.
your leaving will effect the community which is a far higher price than the few bucks CCP would lose.
let's not let the bastards grind us down 
|
|
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
530
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:32:00 -
[611] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Quote:the beginning of the end It started in 2003. It only takes longer than expected.
no different than the Nibiru shite the end is NIGH!!!!!!! lol |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Test Alliance Please Ignore
14907
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 20:37:22 -
[612] - Quote
The limited free to play stuff and the cash for skills stuff don't bother me, in fact when compared to other changes CCP has made (like all the safeties and pop ups and hand holding), those two things are minor. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 22:51:01 -
[613] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Who says revenue is down?
Who says pve players have disproportionately left?
EVE has seen off any number of space mmo challenges. o7, swg. Keep trying, e:d. Maybe one day, Star Citizen. At least your mum loves you, Star Trek Online. And so on
You're in the position of coming into a vegan restaurant and complaining that your hamburger doesn't have any beef in it.
CCP has said their revenues are down, it is publically available information. Plus you don't make a game free to play because you are doing well.
PvE players may not have disproportionately left but they have left.
EvE is drowning in all the games around it and all the die hards keep saying is working as intended. CCp need to step out of their comfort zone before this game becomes economically unviable. At the moment they just keep doing the same things, listening to a CSM that is outdated and full of die hards. Reminds me of the leader of Hy-Brasil in Eric the Viking.
Actually it looks like you walked into an accountants office and said, "what do all these funny numbers mean" |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5511
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 22:57:24 -
[614] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Who says revenue is down?
Who says pve players have disproportionately left?
EVE has seen off any number of space mmo challenges. o7, swg. Keep trying, e:d. Maybe one day, Star Citizen. At least your mum loves you, Star Trek Online. And so on
You're in the position of coming into a vegan restaurant and complaining that your hamburger doesn't have any beef in it.
CCP has said their revenues are down, it is publically available information. Plus you don't make a game free to play because you are doing well. PvE players may not have disproportionately left but they have left. EvE is drowning in all the games around it and all the die hards keep saying is working as intended. CCp need to step out of their comfort zone before this game becomes economically unviable. At the moment they just keep doing the same things, listening to a CSM that is outdated and full of die hards. Reminds me of the leader of Hy-Brasil in Eric the Viking. Actually it looks like you walked into an accountants office and said, "what do all these funny numbers mean"
Really where? My understanding it is not publicly available information. So source please.
Oh....so now we get some back tracking. Tell us again who is bad at statistical analysis. The people who have some data and analyze it...or the person making statements based on...well nothing?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 23:09:51 -
[615] - Quote
Gosh, how to rile the socio- oh no that will just upset them more.
Black Pedro wrote:That's the thing, Eve hasn't really changed. If you had been playing long enough - say 12/13 years - then you would know that was quite the incorrect statement. You would remember that PVP was always possible, but that one could safely autopilot a shuttle from Keberz to Obe without incident. You would remember that such a journey would take a lot longer than it does today, with far more opportunities for a would-be attacker to pop your ship and get away with it, but that it never happened. You would remember that we didn't even shoot pods - bad form - even though it was always possible.
So the mechanics might not have changed, but attitudes have. If that's what CCP really want then maybe they should change the name to SIS - Sociopaths in Space - at least we'd all be clear on their intent.
Black Pedro wrote:... but from CCP Quant's analysis we see that most players, and the highest engaged players regularly do both. Yes I was generalising. I agree that those sorts of players create a cycle for themselves which keeps them engaged, but I can assure you that even those types get bored of it the end. If you have been around long enough you would have witnessed this.
Black Pedro wrote:...This makes sense of course because that is the whole point of the game. And what is the point of the game? If you click on "EVE Universe" at the top you'll land on a page entitled "Explore a universe of opportunities" which goes on to say "What is eve online: Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure."
It doesn't look like CCP want to publicise their game in narrow way that some contributors to this thread seem to espouse - they have created options so everyone has choice, but some players seem to want to constrain that choice and force everyone to play the game in a way that they approve of... one which isn't actually listed in that chart, but seems to be a cross between suicide ganking and griefing.
Black Pedro wrote:Ilany wrote:If CCP force them to invest as much effort in their activity as other players then they'll get bored and leave... and then EVE might attract more of those "mainstream" people it needs for the long term. Yes, that is a great strategy: make your game more boring so your current customers leave in hopes of attracting some mythical, but larger, cohort of other players. You mean like all those people who used to play EVE, but left? Oh no, of course, no one has left. That PCU thing is just a conspiracy. Because ~30000>65303 right?
Just to be clear, this isn't about stopping players investing time and effort into HVT Hunting or piracy writ large, but rather, to stop CODE and the like from shooting no-value targets for no reason. The only people this would affect are those who are taking advantage of existing mechanics to grief other players. And losing them would really be no loss to the community whatsoever. They could go and play Space Invaders instead. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5511
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 01:08:01 -
[616] - Quote
Ilany wrote:Gosh, how to rile the socio- oh no that will just upset them more.
Well you incompetent people did get ganked in the old days back then. And people can autopilot in a shuttle now and not be ganked. I recently did it on several alts.
Quote:And what is the point of the game? If you click on "EVE Universe" at the top you'll land on a page entitled "Explore a universe of opportunities" which goes on to say "What is eve online: Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure."
It doesn't look like CCP want to publicise their game in narrow way that some contributors to this thread seem to espouse - they have created options so everyone has choice, but some players seem to want to constrain that choice and force everyone to play the game in a way that they approve of... one which isn't actually listed in that chart, but seems to be a cross between suicide ganking and griefing.
And incompetent at reading comprehension too it looks like. Might want to go re-read that description of the game. Note it is player driven--i.e. you cannot exempt yourself from interacting with other players. This is not a game like Homeworld that had a play alone option. It is a game where your only option is where players can interact with you and not necessarily in friendly and helpful ways...although that is also not precluded either. So yes, you do not have the option of playing the way you want to play if that entails not interacting at all with other players.
Quote:Just to be clear, this isn't about stopping players investing time and effort into HVT Hunting or piracy writ large, but rather, to stop CODE and the like from shooting no-value targets for no reason. The only people this would affect are those who are taking advantage of existing mechanics to grief other players. And losing them would really be no loss to the community whatsoever. They could go and play Space Invaders instead.
Want to stop CODE, stop being incompetent. Stop taking large risks. That simple.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
EVEolution.
532
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 02:18:20 -
[617] - Quote
Ilany wrote:
Just to be clear, this isn't about stopping players investing time and effort into HVT Hunting or piracy writ large, but rather, to stop CODE and the like from shooting no-value targets for no reason. The only people this would affect are those who are taking advantage of existing mechanics to grief other players. And losing them would really be no loss to the community whatsoever. They could go and play Space Invaders instead.
shooting no value targets for no reason.
well now, let's look at this.
value - each ship lost must be replaced, ships cost isk, i.e.: they have a value.
reason - player refuses to learn how to play the game, refuses to move system, refuses to engage in the game they clicked I agree to when they installed the game knowing well it was a PVP game with non censenual combat, refuse to accept how things are and instead of doing something about it,, oh like getting together and kicking the gankers faces in, nope jump on the forums and have a whine and claim the reason why numbers are down is solely down to ganking and griefing,. total and utter bullshite.
i think it's yourself that needs to go play space invaders.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2951
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 08:44:40 -
[618] - Quote
Ilany wrote:If you had been playing long enough - say 12/13 years - then you would know that was quite the incorrect statement. You would remember that PVP was always possible, but that one could safely autopilot a shuttle from Keberz to Obe without incident. That's the thing though, non-consensual PvP was always possible. You can quibble about how much safer an autopiloting shuttle was in 2004 vs. 2016, but nothing fundamental has changed. The rule set always allowed highsec criminal engagments and still does.
If CCP intended for Eve to be a nowhere-is-safe, 100% full-time PvP sandbox in 2003, they have not wavered from that grand vision even if many of the specifics of the game, and player behaviour, has. Asking them to throw that all out now and abandon their vision, so many years into development, in some sort of Trammel-esqu appeal to a completely different class of players seems poorly thought out.
I mean, go ahead and ask for it if you think it would make you happy, but don't expect much enthusium for such a bad idea on the part of CCP.
Ilany wrote:Black Pedro wrote:...This makes sense of course because that is the whole point of the game. And what is the point of the game? If you click on "EVE Universe" at the top you'll land on a page entitled "Explore a universe of opportunities" which goes on to say " What is eve online: Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure." It doesn't look like CCP want to publicise their game in narrow way that some contributors to this thread seem to espouse - they have created options so everyone has choice, but some players seem to want to constrain that choice and force everyone to play the game in a way that they approve of... one which isn't actually listed in that chart, but seems to be a cross between suicide ganking and griefing. Criminal gameplay (AKA "suicide ganking and griefing") has always been intended. Crimewatch, and its successor Crimewatch 2.0 represented a huge developer effort to bring player-driven risk and danger to Empire space. You are never intended to be safe, including in highsec. This is been confirmed many times by CCP developers, and is even spelled out in the official New Pilot FAQ (p.22).
No one is "forcing" anyone to play the game a certain way. Unless of course you mean CCP who is indeed at least making it possible for you to interact with anyone else by purposely designing the game such that you are always vulnerable to other players, even in the safest spaces of the game. It is a PvP sandbox after all, as it has always been since the beginning.
Ilany wrote:Just to be clear, this isn't about stopping players investing time and effort into HVT Hunting or piracy writ large, but rather, to stop CODE and the like from shooting no-value targets for no reason. The only people this would affect are those who are taking advantage of existing mechanics to grief other players. And losing them would really be no loss to the community whatsoever. They could go and play Space Invaders instead. Of course though this doesn't just do that. It also makes shooting targets of value that much more difficult. Highsec piracy has be nerfed year after year to the point where it is really a rare occurrence and there are only few dozen players who try to make a living at it. Do we really need to make highsec even safer and risk-free?
The converse side is that if you get shot by CODE. or the like while flying a "no-value target" you haven't lost anything of value right? But realistically there are good reasons to shoot "no-value tagets" that sometimes contain valuable items like PLEXes and skill injectors, or the players who have expensive bounties which are paid out on the destruction of expensive pods.
The fundamental idea of Eve is still the same as it was in 2003 when the servers went online. I know it is hard, especially after all these years to admit that perhaps the game you are playing is not the one you think it is, or want it to be, but if you find yourself unhappy with your gaming experience you should look inward (and stop calling other gamers sociopaths), not at the developer who is developing, or the other players who are playing, the game as they want it to be.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Bubba Freedom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 12:52:03 -
[619] - Quote
The only way to make them happy would be to lock safety green in high sec. Not going to happen.. Personally i rotate where i'm at and suck royally at pvp. Still i have been known to attempt it from time to time |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
178
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 14:40:11 -
[620] - Quote
Ilany wrote: ...maybe they should change the name to SIS - Sociopaths in Space - at least we'd all be clear on their intent.
Now there's an idea! |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5517
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:20:46 -
[621] - Quote
Ilany wrote:So the mechanics might not have changed, but attitudes have. If that's what CCP really want then maybe they should change the name to SIS - Sociopaths in Space - at least we'd all be clear on their intent.
Well, Incompetent Ilany, have you read any of the lore articles. Yes, Sociopaths in Space would not be too far off.
Like this one.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Kitsune Rei
Tastes Like Purple
83
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:26:05 -
[622] - Quote
All I can say to this entire thread is, "LOL". |
Selene Dukat
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:31:14 -
[623] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible (and well-deserved) reputation.
It doesn't have a horrible reputation. Just the opposite in fact.
It has the reputation of being one of the most engaged, active, collaborative communities in existence. It ALSO has a reputation for staunchly defending the things that make EVE unique from people who start advocating that 10+ years of game tradition be tossed out the window in favor of making EVE more like every other game out there.
Eve is harsh. It's an anarchist free for all with very few places where there are enforced rules and even in those places those rules can be broken - for a price.
That's the game. And the community doesn't react well to people coming in and trying to change that, especially when those changes make the game feel less unique.
There are plenty of places to go to have more secure, safer, less dangerous gameplay - like literally EVERY OTHER GAME OUT THERE.
Oh and by the way, I speak as a low skill player who has gotten my ass handed to me over and over and over again by pirates, thieves and brigands. The harshness and consequences of EVE are what make it difficult - but also great in a way that no other game is. |
Selene Dukat
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:39:09 -
[624] - Quote
Quote:Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
So guess what? None of that is true.
I've had the fortune to come and and out of the Eve world all the way since 2004. And you know what? Concurrent players have stayed about the same, with some mild eb and flow, that entire time.
"Huge" number of plays have always left the game. And come back. And leave. And come back. This is not a crisis.
CCP revenues - I think you just threw this one in there because it sounded good. CCP posted 60000000 in profit last year.
CCP losing half their staff? - what are you even talking about? CCP currently employs something like 330 people. |
Kitsune Rei
Tastes Like Purple
84
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:41:07 -
[625] - Quote
Xander Jade wrote:
ok, so take the aspect of governments, if you go outside, and torch a car in front of police, and get away, but they know who you are, they start impounding your stuff .. you flee the country so you won't be caught ... that is a consequence ... in eve you have no consequence because there is low to no standard, I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying there needs to be a consequence. it needs to be more difficult, not something that a day one noob toon can do, .. if i was an empire that owned systems with gates i would make it so i could stop people i did not like ... criminals ... from comping within my borders, the tech is there but unused,
Why do you feel entitled to tell a day one noob what they can and can't do? The draw of this game is that you can make an impact on day one. You seem to prefer they what? Pay their dues? Know their role? That seems a bit elitist to me. |
Keno Skir
931
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:44:42 -
[626] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:Ilany wrote: ...maybe they should change the name to SIS - Sociopaths in Space - at least we'd all be clear on their intent.
Now there's an idea!
Yeah definitely, also anyone who has a fight on Telmex is also a dangerous criminal.
Muppet..
Gùï> 30 Day Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 30 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
Kitsune Rei
Tastes Like Purple
84
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:46:02 -
[627] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops.
"EVE is dying"
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27070
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 22:45:01 -
[628] - Quote
Kitsune Rei wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops. " EVE is dying" Despite being a shambling corpse according to some, it lives on like the obnoxious uncle that nobody likes, just to aggravate the naysayers.
Added the obligatory graph for you 
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 23:31:22 -
[629] - Quote
Selene Dukat wrote:So guess what? None of that is true. I've had the fortune to come and and out of the Eve world all the way since 2004. And you know what? Concurrent players have stayed about the same, with some mild eb and flow, that entire time.
The current max PCU is about 30k. In 2004 we would have celebrated getting over 30k online... but that level wasn't reached until 2006. It rose to over 60k in 2013 and has dropped back to 30k since. That's not "mild ebb and flow" by any reasonable measure.
Teckos Pech wrote:And incompetent at reading comprehension too it looks like. Might want to go re-read that description of the game. Note it is player driven--i.e. you cannot exempt yourself from interacting with other players. This is not a game like Homeworld that had a play alone option. It is a game where your only option is where players can interact with you and not necessarily in friendly and helpful ways...although that is also not precluded either. So yes, you do not have the option of playing the way you want to play if that entails not interacting at all with other players.
Hush. I don't think you're in a position to talk about reading comprehension. No one said anything about not interacting. Try your strawman arguments somewhere else.
Black Pedro wrote:Ilany wrote:Black Pedro wrote:...This makes sense of course because that is the whole point of the game. It doesn't look like CCP want to publicise their game in narrow way that some contributors to this thread seem to espouse - they have created options so everyone has choice, but some players seem to want to constrain that choice and force everyone to play the game in a way that they approve of... one which isn't actually listed in that chart, but seems to be a cross between suicide ganking and griefing. No one is "forcing" anyone to play the game a certain way.
If you'd read that properly you'd have seen that I said "seem to want to constrain that choice and force..." - this thread being evidence enough of that. The fact that it exists is evidence that they're not succeeding in actually forcing people to change or else no-one would be complaining. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
86
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 23:37:09 -
[630] - Quote
Selene Dukat wrote:Quote:Maybe its the fact that
- Concurrent Play numbers keep falling
- Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game
- CCP Revenues are down year after year
- CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff
- There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past
So guess what? None of that is true. I've had the fortune to come and and out of the Eve world all the way since 2004. And you know what? Concurrent players have stayed about the same, with some mild eb and flow, that entire time. "Huge" number of plays have always left the game. And come back. And leave. And come back. This is not a crisis. CCP revenues - I think you just threw this one in there because it sounded good. CCP posted 60000000 in profit last year. CCP losing half their staff? - what are you even talking about? CCP currently employs something like 330 people.
As you are so great at financial statements. Here is a simple question for you.
If I bought a plex in 2010 and its still in my cargo hold, where is that displayed on a balance sheet?
Also not exactly what I would call staying about the same
And CCP posted a 20.7m profit last year while this is up, revenue is down as is the account I mentioned earlier is down. And as I said they have halved their staff compared to CCPs peak. |
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5518
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 06:31:46 -
[631] - Quote
Ilany wrote:
If you'd read that properly you'd have seen that I said "seem to want to constrain that choice and force..." - this thread being evidence enough of that. The fact that it exists is evidence that they're not succeeding in actually forcing people to change or else no-one would be complaining.
No player can force you to do anything in the game. What they can do is punish you for making a mistake or not being as good as the other player or just having some dumb bad luck.
That is what CODE. does when they gank freighters. That is what Goons do when they gank freighters. The target has put too much isk value into t heir cargo hold. That is a mistake. It is no different that blind jumping your carrier to a beacon only to find a saber there and local spiking. Everything working as intended by the game designers.
So, if you want to play stupid...by all means do. But why you are surprised or upset when somebody comes along and takes advantage of your stupid risk taking is something most people are going to have a hard time understanding.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2955
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 06:51:04 -
[632] - Quote
Ilany wrote:If you'd read that properly you'd have seen that I said "seem to want to constrain that choice and force..." - this thread being evidence enough of that. The fact that it exists is evidence that they're not succeeding in actually forcing people to change or else no-one would be complaining. I see no evidence of anyone attempting to "constrain that choice and force" anyone to play the game in a certain way in this thread, other than perhaps you. The OP asked for immunity to freighter piracy by grinding standings, and then later you called for a massive increase in NPC-enforced restrictions of outlaws with the goal of eliminating a playstyle through tedium. Most of the rest of the posts are just asking to play the game as it is, was designed, and is intended to work without changes or even removal the fundamental PvP sandbox nature of the game.
This thread exists because selfish players exist who feel entitled to play Eve exactly as they want (I want to grind in peace! I want to watch Neflix while I haul! Make the game safe so I can "win" and get resources while I make a sandwich in the other room!) without consideration for the many other players who were attracted to the game and stay because of the competitive nature, the harshness and the grand vision of a virtual universe where losses and decisions matter.
True, both versions of Eve are not compatible. You cannot have a full-time, PvP sandbox and a happy, everyone-is-a-winner grind/buildfest where no one can lose. But CCP built the gritty, virtual universe version of Eve, not the fluffy, FarmVille-in-space and I-can-do-whatever-I-want playground you seem to want Eve to be. I think it only natural that the two views conflict so often of the forums and elsewhere, but there is a clear arbiter in this: CCP It is CCP's game and they have said it is a nowhere-is-safe, 100% PvP sandbox game and it always has been. If you don't like that, you are literally playing the wrong game.
CCP has made freighter pilots prey items on purpose. By design. They, and everyone else for that matter, are not suppose to be able to secure safety. Again, by design. Other players are not attempting to "constrain that choice and force" players not to be haulers by trying to shoot them, they are just playing the game as intended as a pirate.
We are all each others' content. That is the basic conceit of the game. If the way you want to play the game is incompatible with that, well I am sorry, but agitating to have the game changed so you are safe makes you the one trying to "force" players to play the game in a different way. Do not be surprised if other players object to your 'ideas' or CCP flat-out ignores you like they apparently have for the last 13-years.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Aspira-dora Fuerte
No one can hear you scream
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 10:16:09 -
[633] - Quote
I am a little unsure about joining this thread as it's my first ever post to a forum of a game I have played since 2008.
If I had to classify myself. then I'm a solo player, a casual player and play in Hi sec. Don't ask me why I just enjoy it. I don't have the dedication others do for corporation play etc. I'm a supplier of minerals and planetary commodities to the "Big guys" I have a good cash base and run 4 characters on two accounts dual boxing level 4 missions and salvaging them with my dedicated character. I maintain my subs but come and go from the game as the mood takes me and when I can be arsed I play quite a bit. I'll still do that despite F2P as i enjoy running my characters together. I even imagine personalities for them (a hangover from RPG days)
I listen to all the arguments and yes i guess players leave because they get ganked regularly in Hi sec but then as it's been said maybe this wasn't their game anyway. You see I like the ganking. How boring would hi sec be without it. if we are honest ganking is good for the game. If I was asked if I wanted anything changing (which i haven't been ;) ) I think the 15 minute penalty is just way to short and the suspect cooldown too however I guess there's a greater risk on the looter as he has to fly to a base with a suspect tag. If only folks would shoot the damn suspects .
Now where was i? Oh yeah ganking is good . I don't do it as I see myself as an honest joe trying to make a living but I damn well learn from them and that's what folks should do rather than whinging. There are basic survival rules in the game that the NPE doesn't teach you , only gankers can really do that. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. If you must idle then be aligned. DO NOT GO AFK. If you know who the gankers and looters are then red dot them in standings then at least you can see them coming. Tank your miners and freighters Make them hard to scramble etc etc etc Above all learn from others read the online guides and learn to play what is for me the most boring and exciting game i ever played. even in Hi sec.
So what was the point of my post. thanks for a great game CCP I think you have it about right for most players. Tweak yes but don't change The new patch works for new players and old alike i think thank you.
BTW ignoring all the content, EvE has to be the most beautiful game graphically i have ever seen.
|
KuramaKitsune1
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 13:06:38 -
[634] - Quote
I'm more casual of a player as well
i logged in and saw taht all my stuff required skills taht are alpha only
so i figured ok, what about my old mining ships?
nope
cant even hop in a retriever on the FTP model
so thats a bummer.
i would have thought that at least the FTP people could at least
sorta
work as an industrial backbone to the alpha players
get those ftp peeps out there crackin those rocks and lowering the prices of materials on the market |
Jagd Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 14:23:03 -
[635] - Quote
KuramaKitsune1 wrote:I'm more casual of a player as well
i logged in and saw taht all my stuff required skills taht are alpha only
so i figured ok, what about my old mining ships?
nope
cant even hop in a retriever on the FTP model
so thats a bummer.
i would have thought that at least the FTP people could at least
sorta
work as an industrial backbone to the alpha players
get those ftp peeps out there crackin those rocks and lowering the prices of materials on the market
Nope nope nope nope
And nope
You cannot give easy access to isk, to non-paying accounts. They don't deserve anything they have not paid for. That is what's best for EVE.
every alt I own has a red safety
this has brought my friends much laughter
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
179
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 14:32:42 -
[636] - Quote
Ilany wrote: The fact that it[this thread] exists is evidence that they're not succeeding in actually forcing people to change or else no-one would be complaining.
You heard it here first, folks.
The very fact that carebears are whining is proof that there's a problem.
I guess there always has been a problem and always will be, 'cause if there's one thing I know, it's that the whine of carebears is eternal.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5520
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:36:57 -
[637] - Quote
Aspira-dora Fuerte wrote: Now where was i? Oh yeah ganking is good . I don't do it as I see myself as an honest joe trying to make a living but I damn well learn from them and that's what folks should do rather than whinging. There are basic survival rules in the game that the NPE doesn't teach you , only gankers can really do that. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. If you must idle then be aligned. DO NOT GO AFK. If you know who the gankers and looters are then red dot them in standings then at least you can see them coming. Tank your miners and freighters Make them hard to scramble etc etc etc Above all learn from others read the online guides and learn to play what is for me the most boring and exciting game i ever played. even in Hi sec.
Right. These are all basic "rules" of the game, or one could call them norms. You can do these things, BTW, just be aware that these things also carry increased risks. The longer you go AFK, the more likely something bad could happen.
As for people quitting the game over repeated ganks....that is a person not willing to adapt. It is unfortunate, but that is kind of one of the aspects of this game. When something stops working, adapt. If refuse to do that then the game could become rather unfun and yes, then quitting is reasonable. However, that is on that player IMO, not the game. The game has always been this way.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
5520
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:39:45 -
[638] - Quote
KuramaKitsune1 wrote:I'm more casual of a player as well
i logged in and saw taht all my stuff required skills taht are alpha only
so i figured ok, what about my old mining ships?
nope
cant even hop in a retriever on the FTP model
so thats a bummer.
i would have thought that at least the FTP people could at least
sorta
work as an industrial backbone to the alpha players
get those ftp peeps out there crackin those rocks and lowering the prices of materials on the market
Wow, that came out of left field, but...given the title I guess that it shouldn't be totally unexpected.
The problem with this is that if people were allowed to do their industrial stuff without paying, people currently paying to do that stuff would stop....like me. Probably not a good move in terms of maintaining the game let alone improving it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Aaron
Stain Syndicate
415
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:49:46 -
[639] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KuramaKitsune1 wrote:I'm more casual of a player as well
i logged in and saw taht all my stuff required skills taht are alpha only
so i figured ok, what about my old mining ships?
nope
cant even hop in a retriever on the FTP model
so thats a bummer.
i would have thought that at least the FTP people could at least
sorta
work as an industrial backbone to the alpha players
get those ftp peeps out there crackin those rocks and lowering the prices of materials on the market Wow, that came out of left field, but...given the title I guess that it shouldn't be totally unexpected. The problem with this is that if people were allowed to do their industrial stuff without paying, people currently paying to do that stuff would stop....like me. Probably not a good move in terms of maintaining the game let alone improving it.
I perceive FTP as a marketing tool because people can get a taste of what the game is like without any financial commitment. Obviously they can't allow you to do too much on FTP because there would be no incentive for you to pay anything.
Perhaps in the future CCP will look at a medium subscription level where you pay -ú5.00 GBP and get slightly more access than FTP. FTP seems to have gone reasonably well as there are more people logged in.
Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:50:20 -
[640] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:KuramaKitsune1 wrote:I'm more casual of a player as well
i logged in and saw taht all my stuff required skills taht are alpha only
so i figured ok, what about my old mining ships?
nope
cant even hop in a retriever on the FTP model
so thats a bummer.
i would have thought that at least the FTP people could at least
sorta
work as an industrial backbone to the alpha players
get those ftp peeps out there crackin those rocks and lowering the prices of materials on the market Wow, that came out of left field, but...given the title I guess that it shouldn't be totally unexpected. The problem with this is that if people were allowed to do their industrial stuff without paying, people currently paying to do that stuff would stop....like me. Probably not a good move in terms of maintaining the game let alone improving it.
Hell Yeah, I wouldn't pay for my 4 accounts if I could do it for free. After all Pay and use T2 Exhumers or dont pay and use Mining barges.....Barges win. |
|
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
231
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 16:38:26 -
[641] - Quote
Of course there are more sheep than there are wolves, study ecology! |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page] |