| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Red Desire
Republic Military School
   |
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:16:00 -
[61]
Waaay back, before I started playing Eve and was playing some MMORPGS, a friend of mine told me this story about Eve :
He knew a eve player who worked one month to get a ship and next day the ship was destroyed and he lost everything.
I thought back then, what a crappy game, no respawn.. raiding for my stuff one month and then to loose it all..
But here I am in Eve now... this is the game, there are no newb areas where you can kill rats or flying space bats,in a safe enviroment.
Your ship can be destroyed in any part of the map, if the attacker really wants it.
CCP jobs is just to keep it balanced and it's balanced now, the attackers loose their ship. Even though in EVE you can play afk more then in other games, if you are not on your tows you will loose your ship.
So don't keep all your eggs in one basket and think.
|
Cipher7
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:24:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Spoon Thumb
The community in Eve (and not just those vocal on forums) seem to have got into an us and them mindset, as if you're somehow more elite or cool for understanding what the game is supposedly all about, vs. some whiny carebear who just logged on to mine some roids and chat with friends
Labels like carebear are purposely and obviously derogatory and designed to annoy people. Fact is some people just don't want to engage in combat pvp.
The real point of my post is whatever you think this game is about, every time you tell someone "it is a pvp game" or "you're never 100% safe" or "concord provides consequences not protection" just remember that this is not how Eve is advertised
Quite frankly, there'd be a fraction of the current playerbase if you were told you could be blown up anywhere after a week of play and lose all your stuff for no real loss on the part of your attacker, and that if you petition it, you'll probably get denied a reimbursement after a two week wait for a response and lambasted on forums to boot.
Whether you have anything to do with the original gank or not, it is fascinating to see so many peoplem providing verbal bullying and abuse from the sidelines behind the anonymity of the crowd and/or your character's avatar, completely non-identifiable and disconnected from the real world.
Eve might be only ones and zeroes in a server farm somewhere, but so is your bank balance. Doesn't mean the time put in by the player for that ship isn't valuable to them.
So next time you decide to break the news about what Eve is really about to someone, just remember Eve isn't exactly what it says on the tin
10/10
Eve advertising claims Eve has a place for everyone.
Then people find out that it really doesn't, and whine, and we tell them "can I have your stuff."
|
PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 11:45:00 -
[63]
What exactly is the problem here? That there is not a
"safe" area for new players in which to get accustomed to eve or that there isnt a safe area for accustomed players to grind missions/"quests" (gasp- wow reference!!!)?
From what I can tell high sec ganks are ONLY aimed at high end ships such as freighters, faction fitted faction Battleships OR tech two(2) high range mining ships.
Is that an accurate estimate of the situation?
Now, who is flying these ships? If you have a) the necessary Skillpoints and b) necessary financial backing/bankroll to buy these ships than you are NOT a new player therefore the idea that you NEED a safe area in which to learn the game is MOOT.
Hence what we are dealing with is the arguement that there should be a safe area in which to generate isk/ play eve FREE from any RISK whatsoever, correct? Well there is that too. Its called "docking". Alot of these ebil pvpers that I know in fact also run alts in major hubs and TRADE to finance their pvp. So therefore there is, if really necessary- a "safe" area for established players to generate isk and participate without risk of pvp.
So perhaps the general arguement is that industrialists, miners and mission runners/grinders what a risk free environment. Well thats where the dev's were smart enough to draw the line.
Removing the risk removes (essentially) the value of the isk/goods pertained. If you dont believe me go onto the test server and see the types of setups everyone fields there. Only the best. Do they care if they loose it? Nope. So why doesnt everyone just play on the test server? I mean you could totally buy all the bpo's, pos and mine all the roids you could handle. The reason why noone plays solely on Sisi is because ALL RISK IS REMOVED and therefore ALL VALUE IS REMOVED. I dont think anyone wants that for TQ.
So perhaps what you are asking for is special consideration for yourself or someone like you? YOU want to be FREE FROM RISK, while still applying the risk/reward scale to everyone else, therefore producing profit and VALUE.
To this again the majority of the community is going to say NO WUCKING FAY. Not because they would get the bad end of the stick but because it would remove the reason for play.
Alot of us LOVE the fact that eve involves real risk and reward. Its not all one way believe me. Ive blown around 500mil in the last week in lost ships- do you see me on here whining about getting game breaking boosts to my fav ship (although the gallentee recons could use some "unnerfing" when it comes to the damp nerf- grumble grumble)? No you dont. Why? Because it is the reason I play.
There are a plethora of ways to counter suicide ganking in high sec, nothing is broken, nothing is exploited. It just requires you to start using your head to negate risk rather than semi afk l4 missions or mine in expensive ships with no thoughts of security.
Peace WithinSo if the theory of relativity is true, shouldn't i arrive at my destination before i warped in the first place?
Neon GhostYou do, but this is compensated for by lag |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 12:32:00 -
[64]
u can't be blown up after a week of play, in fact u could theoretically be blown up from the point u undock for the first time, offcourse blowing up noobs on purpose is a bannable offence now, but as soon as that noob leaves the comfort of his spawning system he's fair game.
Theres nothing wrong with that, the more u get blown up when ur young the better, cuz u get used to it later.
_______________________________________________________
CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
|
Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 12:39:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Winterblink
Originally by: Erialor Godsent
Here they actualy tell You that You shouldn't expect CONCORD to prevent the crime, only that they'll make sure they get punished....
Which, by the way, is what happens. It's not called a "suicide" gank for nothing. :)
Actually it is called that for nothing. Concord don't pod, there is no death, no loss of clone and implants, not much loss at all really.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:16:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Actually it is called that for nothing. Concord don't pod, there is no death, no loss of clone and implants, not much loss at all really.
Ship loss != 0.
|
Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:38:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Winterblink
Ship loss != 0.
Ship loss = covered by insurance = 0
Sorry, I must be missing something here.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:53:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Originally by: Winterblink
Ship loss != 0.
Ship loss = covered by insurance = 0
Sorry, I must be missing something here.
Base insurance doesn't cover 100%, and even full insurance doesn't cover module loss properly.
Anyway, we can go back and forth like this, but you've basically just pointed out how the loss of the Hulk is mostly meaningless anyway thank to insurance.
|
Jolliejoe
Quad Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:56:00 -
[69]
110% agree with the original post from Spoon Thumb!!! I couldn't have said it better.
|
Cipher7
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:57:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Winterblink
Anyway, we can go back and forth like this, but you've basically just pointed out how the loss of the Hulk is mostly meaningless anyway thank to insurance.
What's the %100 payout on a Hulk?
|
Riho
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:58:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Originally by: Winterblink
Ship loss != 0.
Ship loss = covered by insurance = 0
Sorry, I must be missing something here.
go back to 2nd page and read my long post there....
ship cost is never 100% covered by inusrance. as you pay ship price + insurance price and that together is more than the insurance will pay back
----------------------------------
This is Me, fighting stupidity one post at a time.
PS: There are no computer BUGs, there is stuff called "Random Features"
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 13:59:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Ship loss = covered by insurance = 0
Sorry, I must be missing something here.
By that arguement, what is the victim losing?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:00:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Winterblink
Anyway, we can go back and forth like this, but you've basically just pointed out how the loss of the Hulk is mostly meaningless anyway thank to insurance.
Not so the loss of a fully-pimped mission running ship, the pimping of which is the entire point of the game for many people, myself included. Such pimping that I will not indulge in should my investments become too difficult to protect.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:03:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Not so the loss of a fully-pimped mission running ship, the pimping of which is the entire point of the game for many people, myself included. Such pimping that I will not indulge in should my investments become too difficult to protect.
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Inconstant Moon
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:18:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Avon
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Great advice that. If I cannot partake of the joy of finessing faction fits on a CNR (which is what I currently pay CCP for - and there is nothing else I enjoy, sorry) then I will have to find some other game to occupy my limited spare time.
Better advice would be, "don't fly somewhere dangerous with anything valuable" - except there is nowhere safe, not even for the NPC-corp solo casual player.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:19:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
Originally by: Avon
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Great advice that
Yes, it is.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Azirapheal
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:28:00 -
[77]
to be honest, and ive seen the argument that "they pay the same subscription fee"
for this same open sandboxed game.
tbh if they want to be safer, take steps to be safer, there is nothing stopping people from ganging up or getting clever. i have hundreds of bestowers for sale in heavy macro areas at 4 mill a pop. i spend hours popping bestowers in those systems.
even the bloody macros have adapted to my wiles, and its been a frequent oh**** moment when im suddenly jammed by a noob corp falcon and 6 ravens jump through to try and barbequeue me.
i dont like labels such as carebear or evil pirate ive dabbled in all areas and have never been risk adverse (im famous within my own corp for taking people on regardless of the odds)
its a fun game, play it the way you want to. but dont ask for the mechanics to be changed still.
the privateers were nerfed (and that was definately fun)
the goons have their own agenda they are persuing
and i have mine.
get on with it please
|
Garia666
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
White Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:47:00 -
[78]
when i joined in 2003 its was way ahead of every other space game..
It still is btw..
Quote:
CCP Chronotis
Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic
|
Amarth Thargan
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 14:55:00 -
[79]
The whole we are Uberultramega-Hardcore PVP ownagers and you're a sorry little carebear is a common mentality across every single online game.
If you still enter EvE believing it'll be a cross between Star Trek and Gullivers Travels I wonder if you even have had anything to do with gaming for the past 5 years, because by now EvE has received plenty of attention for being about hard business in a hard universe.
If a gamer decides to hand over cash with the promise of receiving intrest in any kind of online game, then he/ she is not a carebear, but plainly stupid.
If a gamer makes big money, start a corp, makes it succesfull only to be ripped of by co-investors who turn out to be infiltrators, then you get the kind of event we all love to see in movies or read about in books, it just sucks if it happens to you.
If EvE ever reaches the point where it annoys me (and it will, all games do imo) I'll just quit instead of endlessly complaining about the game like a hundred other idiots before me did.
PS: I once whined about an online game, it was called EQOA and it was not especially about the game, but about the lack of any updates being made for the European market, but guess what. I smarted up and quited.
Complaining is a waste of time, time one could better spend on something new.
|
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 15:07:00 -
[80]
I have yet to see a carebear provide any argument sans ad hominem.
|
Tehyarec
Erasers inc.
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 15:39:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Tehyarec on 25/03/2008 15:39:44
In short:
Suicide gankers who are against stopping insurance payouts to suicide gankers are contradicting themselves. They tout EVE is a game of danger, risk, consequence, or whatever. Fine. But they themselves want to avoid the consequences of their actions by wanting risk-free insurance payouts for their criminal activities. Now who is the real carebear here? 
In more detail:
Simple fact of the matter is that suicide gankers should not get paid insurance. Anyone who argues against this is just being silly. Fine, you can gank this in high-sec, why not. After all, you can walk out of your house and shoot someone in the head. But you have to pay the price.
EVE is a harsh place, yes, and you should take precautions against various dangers. But the game mechanics shouldn't actually FAVOR the ganker (i.e. law breaker) the way high-sec suicide ganking currently does. As it is, the suicide ganker basically has no downsides to his profession. The sec status loss is very easy to recoup, and there's no real monetary loss. The fact that the attacker can get the target's loot without the in-game "police" preventing it should be more than enough compensation for a suicide ganker, there should be no insurance paid for committing a crime.
Of course people will reply saying but how about accidents and all that jazz, but face it, how many of those happen compared to suicide ganks? And it's easy enough to not attack things you're not supposed to. If you use this as a basis for not removing insurance payouts for being CONCORDOKKENED, you're most likely a suicide ganker who is even more whiny than the carebears he suicide ganks.
The Jihadswarm is a very good example of abusing the insurance mechanic on a large scale, it exemplifies all that is wrong with it.
And no, I've never lost anything valuable to a suicide gank, and no, I'm not a carebear. I spend 90+ % of my time in 0.0. Not that is should even be relevant, what I do personally doesn't change the simple facts of the matter.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 16:07:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Avon on 25/03/2008 16:07:53
Originally by: Tehyarec
A reasonable post
The point is though that removing the insurance for people killed by Concord does punish those who do something stupid by accident, without making much difference to those who choose to suicide gank.
All it does is add a few million ISK to the break-even point on a gank .. and a well funded organisation isn't going to miss that ISK for a very long time.
In fact, you could easily earn enough doing missions for a day to fund your suicide ganks for a week, even without insurance.
I know that insurance is often blamed for the current situation, but I honestly don't think it makes as much difference as people seem to think.
Personally I could care less if the system was changed, but I feel that the calls for it are more desperate pleas from those who want a solution, rather than a well thought out arguement.
It isn't a solution, and it would disproportionately hurt those who make genuine mistakes.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Nyabinghi
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 16:10:00 -
[83]
I joined EVE because apparently there was an engrossing storyline to be a part of...somewhere...out there...somewhere.
***
|
Amarth Thargan
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 16:19:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Nyabinghi
I joined EVE because apparently there was an engrossing storyline to be a part of...somewhere...out there...somewhere.
It's happening right here! Goon turns out to be the father of Gank, but refuses to acknowledge it, much to the displeasure of Whiner who feels she should at least be given alimony for everything she needs to pay for Gank's shenanigans.
Meanwhile Miner is in fear of losing his Finacial Imperium because of the hostile takeover by Jihad, rumored to be a half-brother of Gank.
Then we have the upcoming galactic elections and the fear that the formed council will be nothing more than a legal front to white was the billions of isk made by Goon through insurance-fraud over the last several months.
And not forgetting this season possible revelation of who the sinister CCP really is.
|
Tehyarec
Erasers inc.
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:02:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Avon
The point is though that removing the insurance for people killed by Concord does punish those who do something stupid by accident, without making much difference to those who choose to suicide gank.
...
In fact, you could easily earn enough doing missions for a day to fund your suicide ganks for a week, even without insurance.
...
It isn't a solution, and it would disproportionately hurt those who make genuine mistakes.
The game doesn't protect people from stupid accidents in other areas, so why would it need to do so regarding suiciding due to attacking something you shouldn't? Especially as it's a lot easier to avoid than many other mistakes that are much more easier to make and potentially more harmful.
In empire you can have the safety message on, in which case you get warned if what you're about to do something that gets you CONCORDOKKENED. The only time I've been killed by CONCORD was when I had that message turned off after fighting in 0.0 and accidentally shot at another player's loot wreck in a high-sec complex. That message sucks for needing to be disabled in 0.0, but for empire dwellers it shouldn't be a big issue.
And if you suicide a battleship and get no insurance, 70 mil or more lost per ship is still quite a bit to recoup, even if it's doable. Figure several battleships a week, and you certainly don't earn enough with a day's missioning. I'm quite certain that if insurance from suicide ganks was removed, a majority of them would stop. Or they'd move to smaller gank ships, but that'd also limit the toughness of the targets they can take down.
It might not be an optimal solution, but I can't think of a more reasonable one just now, and it'd certainly be better than the current situation. Currently the system benefits no one but the suicide gankers. In my EVE career I've only witnessed THREE accidental occurences of getting CONCORDOKKENED, and one of them was my experience above. But suicide ganks? Plenty of them.
|
Harm Gently
Naughty 40
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:02:00 -
[86]
To the op: You're wrong..
(Cause it seems like the in thing to do)
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:18:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Erialor Godsent
Originally by: Tyria Sharken
In any other game, attacking someone that your not normaly sapose to be 'able' to attack withough loseing SOMETHING would be considerd an exploit... yet in Eve, the Devs simply roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders and spit out the phraze "safe space isnt realy 'safe' "
Here they actualy tell You that You shouldn't expect CONCORD to prevent the crime, only that they'll make sure they get punished....
Much like the real-world police. I don't mean that in any sort of derogatory way toward police, it's just my understanding that police don't have an legal obligation to protect individuals or prevent crime, just to arrest people who commit crimes. It may different in different areas/countries.
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 17:21:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Inconstant Moon
...a fully-pimped mission running ship, the pimping of which is the entire point of the game for many people, myself included.
That's sad.
|
Morgaaan
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2008.03.25 18:33:00 -
[89]
Seriously CCP should just remove the insurance payout on criminal acts.Sure it wont stop organized groups from suicide ganks for prophit,but will prob weed out alot of the lil gank/grifers out there.And putting aside all the other arguments for both sides of the issue,lets face it,doesnt it just strike ya kinda odd getting reimbursed for your losses(full or partial) while trying to commit a criminal offence.At the core of it ,it just seems off.
while ther at it stop payout for self destructs,seems a blatant breach of contract wih my insurance company to me,and does feel that way every time I do it :)
|
Talkuth Rel
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 15:55:00 -
[90]
Originally by: PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik
What exactly is the problem here? That there is not a
"safe" area for new players in which to get accustomed to eve or that there isnt a safe area for accustomed players to grind missions/"quests" (gasp- wow reference!!!)?
From what I can tell high sec ganks are ONLY aimed at high end ships such as freighters, faction fitted faction Battleships OR tech two(2) high range mining ships.
Is that an accurate estimate of the situation?
Now, who is flying these ships? If you have a) the necessary Skillpoints and b) necessary financial backing/bankroll to buy these ships than you are NOT a new player therefore the idea that you NEED a safe area in which to learn the game is MOOT.
Hence what we are dealing with is the arguement that there should be a safe area in which to generate isk/ play eve FREE from any RISK whatsoever, correct? Well there is that too. Its called "docking". Alot of these ebil pvpers that I know in fact also run alts in major hubs and TRADE to finance their pvp. So therefore there is, if really necessary- a "safe" area for established players to generate isk and participate without risk of pvp.
So perhaps the general arguement is that industrialists, miners and mission runners/grinders what a risk free environment. Well thats where the dev's were smart enough to draw the line.
Removing the risk removes (essentially) the value of the isk/goods pertained. If you dont believe me go onto the test server and see the types of setups everyone fields there. Only the best. Do they care if they loose it? Nope. So why doesnt everyone just play on the test server? I mean you could totally buy all the bpo's, pos and mine all the roids you could handle. The reason why noone plays solely on Sisi is because ALL RISK IS REMOVED and therefore ALL VALUE IS REMOVED. I dont think anyone wants that for TQ.
So perhaps what you are asking for is special consideration for yourself or someone like you? YOU want to be FREE FROM RISK, while still applying the risk/reward scale to everyone else, therefore producing profit and VALUE.
To this again the majority of the community is going to say NO WUCKING FAY. Not because they would get the bad end of the stick but because it would remove the reason for play.
Alot of us LOVE the fact that eve involves real risk and reward. Its not all one way believe me. Ive blown around 500mil in the last week in lost ships- do you see me on here whining about getting game breaking boosts to my fav ship (although the gallentee recons could use some "unnerfing" when it comes to the damp nerf- grumble grumble)? No you dont. Why? Because it is the reason I play.
There are a plethora of ways to counter suicide ganking in high sec, nothing is broken, nothing is exploited. It just requires you to start using your head to negate risk rather than semi afk l4 missions or mine in expensive ships with no thoughts of security.
Arguments like this hold no water, as they are predicated on the idea that there is risk to every action in EVE, that highsec is not free of such risks, and that haulers, etc., should not be immune. Yet they make no requirement that those who suicide gank in highsec experience proportional risk, rather they grant them full immunity from risk. This is blatant hypocrisy, which only undermines your position. If you want to argue in favor of keeping the suicide gank situation unchanged, fine, but don't try to hide behind some self-serving holier-than-thou risk argument. You're not being consistent in the application of your ideas, which means that you're just using it as a screen to defend your actions.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |