EVE Search - Before you whine, read this:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Before you whine, read this:

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 09:19:00 - [1] Originally by: mahj One Question? if all you say is true then why did zombie corp get banned? and within hours of ganking in empire....of course it might be before yr time For ignoring GM instructions. But you knew that, right? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 09:41:00 - [2] Originally by: Malbolge A post where Malbolge complains that everyone is treated equally by the game mechanics. And? What should we do? The solutions must come from expanding existing mechanics, or refining them in a way which is aligned with Eve's core values. Insurance - bit meh with me, scrap the lot or keep it as is - don't really care which. Market revenge - Absolutely agree that people should be able to restrict sales as they choose (as mentioned elsewhere) Civilian defence - I suggested elsewhere ablative shields/armor mods - vastly increase HP, but no ability to repair the extra amount in any way. Make it expensive. Doesn't eliminate suicide ganks, but makes the requirement for participating ships much higher. The solutions to perceived problems is not to whine or moan about them, or name calling. Try a more constructive approach which suggest real improvements to the game, more complexity; not dumbing down or nerfing. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 12:32:00 - [3] Originally by: Darius Brinn Quote: What part of "cold, uncaring universe" do you not understand? It's cold and uncaring for some, and extraordinarily lenient towards others. No matter the crime, insurance companies pay in full. You're right. No insurance to the victim unless they can prove that they did everything in their power to mitigate their risk. No, wait .. that isn't what you are saying, is it? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 12:39:00 - [4] Originally by: Darius Brinn That logic is flawed and stupid. Crimes null insurances. Except in EVE. And thieves are not allowed to steal in front of the police. Except in EVE. Want piracy in High security? Then you should be facing REAL consequences. So if I leave my car unlocked and the keys in it do you think the insurance company is going to pay up when it gets stolen? Nope, because I did not take reasonable care to mitigate the risk of loss. A bit like leaving an untanked Hulk afk at a belt really. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 12:44:00 - [5] Originally by: Zenlike Calm I agree with most of what you've said, except for the insurance bit... I think that NPC provision of insurance in EVE is a silly idea, and favour scrapping it entirely - let player corps provide the service if there's a demand for it. I said scrap it or leave it. Personally I'd rather it was scrapped .. or at the very least the 40% default "free" payout removed. Pretty much in agreement with the rest of your post. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 12:46:00 - [6] Originally by: Darius Brinn Pirates are morons. Jeez, what does that make the people who get bested by them? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 13:08:00 - [7] Originally by: Darius Brinn All this nonsense is also in EVE. It's a DESIGN FLAW. Unrealistic, and unbalanced. Consequences, yes. For ALL. But that is what we have. Gankers lose their ship, they get insurance. Victims lose their ship, they get insurance. Gankers also get a security status penalty, a criminal flag, and killrights handed to their victim. Seems fair. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 13:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Darius Brinn Just cap the max SP a character can have so that everybody has access to the same potential, and bring on the ganking...if you can. Every single ship in game already has a SP cap. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 14:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Darius Brinn Originally by: Avon Every single ship in game already has a SP cap. That's ridiculous. I meant a REAL character SP limit. A limit that all characters can reach with time. Technically that exists too. It is a long time though Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 14:54:00 - [10] Originally by: Darius Brinn Don't play stupid. Give your real opinion on the subject, please. At least I am playing. I have already given my opinions. You disagreeing with them does not invalidate them - in fact it probably makes them more correct. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Darius Brinn Still, whenever somebody mentions the possible adjustments to balance the whole profit/consequences thing (clearly tilted towards pirate profit), they get called carebears or things like that. No, that generally happens when people try to off-load personal responsibility on to game mechanic intervention. Like asking Concord to go after people, rather than other players. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:03:00 - [12] Originally by: Darius Brinn Please don't BE stupid. Personal attacks are not allowed on the forums, and do nothing to futher the discussion. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:07:00 - [13] Edited by: Avon on 25/03/2008 15:07:24 Originally by: Viglen Originally by: mahj One Question? if all you say is true then why did zombie corp get banned? and within hours of ganking in empire....of course it might be before yr time Because the used an exploit! They put a Tanked Apoc with smartbombs on a gate in Yulai,(back when it was on the highway) they then remote repped it with 6-10 other Apoc's, and back then concord knew nothing about the fact that remote repping a criminal was in fact "criminal" No, they were banned for ignoring GM instructions, not for the ganking. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Ikserak tai Without this infusion of Isk into the market stagnation would inevitably occur. Mining does not "infuse" any ISK in to the economy at all - it just serves to move around existing ISK. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:30:00 - [15] Originally by: Darius Brinn It would allow pilots to have the same potential, and newbies to eventually catch up with veterans where it hurts: PvP. But they already can. As has already been pointed out, every ship has a SP cap. You do understand that, right? People with more SP's aren't automatically better, they are likey to be more diverse. Think of them as multi-classed. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.25 15:39:00 - [16] Originally by: Nyabinghi As I said in another post players should have the ability to enact preventative measures as CONCORD is all about AFTER the criminal act not before. They can already do that if they so desire. When they are ready for that level of gameplay all they have to do is leave hi-sec space. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 00:11:00 - [17] Originally by: Darius Brinn Are you able to read properly yourself? Leaving my keys in my car and having it unlocked and stolen IS specifically covered by my policy. Do you even own a car and an insurance over it? Your imagination is quite vivid, unlike your knowledge of pretty common commercial transactions. Car insurance in the UK will certainly not pay in the senario presented. Maybe that is part of the issue - some people understand personal responsibilty, whilst others expect someone else to constantly hold their hand? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 09:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Victor Forge However regarding High-sec, why shouldn¦t there be a place even for players that doesn¦t like PvP? The PvPers has most of the map, 75%, according to you. Then surely the PvEers can have the tiny 25% that is left. The problem is that no-one in Eve lives in a bubble. If you have a safe area to make money then people will use it to fund dangerous activities. They will supply their combat forces in the knowledge that their logistical and industrial infrastructure is secure - not through their efforts, but enforced by game mechanics. Every step on the path towards that safety net weakens the risk vs reward dynamic. The reason it must be possible to attack any player, anywhere, anytime, is that their are already overpowered mechanics in place to protect individuals. The inability to target NPC corps, and the ability for players to stay in them indefinately, makes suicide ganking a required game mechanic. It is an unfortunate consequence of the NPC corp safety net, but many would agree that they would rather keep suicide ganks than lose NPC corps. The problem with this arguement, and many like it, is that it tends to be the "ganker side vs the "carebear" side, which will ultimately always lead to the "no-u" method of discussion. If you step back and view the game mechanic as a whole it is immediately clear that suicide ganking is a pragmatic balance to NPC corps, like it or not. So, where to go? I have no problem with making invididual ships more defensible against one-off attacks, such as my ablative shield/armour suggestion, because whilst it would deter and prevent most suicide attacks it does not make the player immunte from a concerted and determined effort to kill them. The other option would be to look at the whole NPC corp concept, which is another subject I have previously broached, but I feel falls out of the scope of this thread. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 09:33:00 - [19] Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 09:34:05 Originally by: Darius Brinn Concord'ed ships should receive ZERO insurance ISK. Looting (not Salvaging) yellow wrecks in High Security HAS to be a Concordable offence. Removing insurance on Concord killed ship only raises the break-even point on suicide ganks, whilst punishing anyone who makes a genuine mistake (which tend to happen with mission runners a lot if their posts are anything to go by). Looting wrecks should certainly never be a Concordable offence. The looter is flagged and open to destruction, so get destroying. It is not up to the game mechanics to do your work for you. Ironically this is the most annoying thing you argue for. When can flagging was proposed I was against it and I argued it would be used to grief people by flipping their cans, or used to bait people in to fights, and ultimately lead to people calling for more help - concord protecting loot cans. Did I call that one or what? CCP provide the tools - it is up to you to use them. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 10:02:00 - [20] Darius, I'm afraid that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Your vision of Eve is one of NPC hand holding, and mine is one of player driven content - they are incompatible. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Darius Brinn Oh, yes. Very cold and ruthless, insuring a ship and getting NPC money after comitting a crime. Very cold for you, being allowed to keep the valuables you killed a civilian for. It's not cold and ruthless for everyone. It's soft and easy for crybaby gankers. Well, if you think it is unrealistic, how about Concord take much longer to respond, and can be evaded, they take a long time to investigate, they only solve a small %age of cases, and then don't manage to secure prosecutions on all of those? In exchange, we remove insurance payouts for the odd person who Concord actually gun down? Would that be better? Or would you miss your 20 second vengence, and the chance it may save you? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 12:17:00 - [22] Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 12:17:32 Originally by: Darius Brinn Stop overprotecting high sec gankers. Oh, if overprotection is you concern maybe we should eliminate NPC corp war-dec protection, and make suicide ganking almost impossible, as it would no longer be needed? You could just declare war on the people you want to kill, rather than them being immune to that particular mechanic. That would be much fairer, right? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 13:36:00 - [23] Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 13:36:43 Slightly OT, but any other older players saddened to see the Taggart Transdimensional name being dragged through the dirt by this guy? Generally I am against alt posts, but this would have been a worthwhile exception. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 13:48:00 - [24] Originally by: Darius Brinn I have no alts, "saddened" pal. If it "saddens" you, I can hide my sig or make an alt. Anything to cheer you up. I don't think I am dragging the name through the dirt. I joined a perfectly common topic, and was told to stop because apparently I am too new, or too whiney. My proposals, and those of others, are being ignored, of course. I stand by all I wrote and will gladly leave the corporation if they think I am...embarrasing them. You aren't really in a postition to comment tbh, considering you have no idea what I am on about. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 14:28:00 - [25] Edited by: Avon on 26/03/2008 14:28:41 Quote: For your information, I am going to quit Taggart (don't want to bring them trouble) and let you do as you please. If you want to achieve through muscle what you can't through regular discussion, it's up to you. I think you are slowly starting to get Eve. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.26 16:46:00 - [26] Originally by: Malachon Draco First, look at Ki An's posting. He has a signature that says his corp is recruiting. Now what you need to do is either use an alt (if you got an older character you could use for that) or buy an older character from the salesforum with isk and apply to his corp. Get in, work to gain some trust and then rob him blind. Once you do that, you've shown him you've learned how to really play Eve. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.27 16:18:00 - [27] Originally by: Oleksandr I'm the current CEO of Taggart and stand behind every word of Darius Brinn on this thread. I read his every post in this thread. He's certainly not dragging dirt onto TTi's name. Well, I guess my memory of TTi is very different from yours. But you're the CEO, so if you're happy that's all that matters. Still a bloody shame though. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.27 16:57:00 - [28] Originally by: Mauslin On the other hand, I was in 0.7 mining, when an outfitted Tech 2 Frigate showed up and stole my ore. I knew that if I steal it back I was to be shot. I also knew that if I attack in whatever ship was ready to me, I was to be shot. I knew I didn't stand a chance. So what did I do? Nothing. We stared at each other for about 15 minutes untill he left. THIS is not ok in my opinion. There is no risk included for the ganker, nor is there a big reward. But still, the risk is minimal, as in the eyes of concord he is not doing anything wrong. All he does is using the fact that stealing is ok and waiting for a noob to make a mistake (e.g. taking the ore back), just so he can destroy the fun of others. Such actions should even be in a game like EVE bad behaviour. Now I don't want Concord to vaporize him in 5 seconds for stealing some Tritanium. But after the 10th or 50th theft, Concord would probably start to hunt him down. After all it IS A high sec environment and theft is wrong. Before can flagging an ore thief could up to your can and take stuff with impunity. That was the price you paid for working alone, and being lazy and greedy. You choose to jettison your hard mined rocks in to the cold void of space, rather than ferry them back to the station in your hold, or get a hauler to pick them up. Most of the time jettisoning the ore was more profitable, but there was the risk of it getting taken. You see how that works? Increased potential reward, increased risk. But "No!" screamed the miners - I want to be able to kersplod the dirty git who took my stuff. Counter to the voice of reason, miners were given exactly this option .. which they then refuse to use because they might get hurt. Funny story, huh? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 11:24:00 - [29] Edited by: Avon on 28/03/2008 11:24:39 Originally by: Mauslin That is not what I meant. I don't want jetcan to be safe. I don't want CONCORD to shoot down every ore thief instantly to mine more securely. But what I do want is that THEFT has a consequence as well, beyond the 15 minute aggression countdown. Especially since most ore thiefs are not interested in the ore at all. It will be transferred into another jetcan and eventually blown up... O M G You are serious, aren't you? The risk to the thief is that the miner can, if he so chooses, blow the living crap out of the thief - an option he did not have before can flagging (well, not without being treated like a criminal for it). The risk is in the hands of the players, as it should be, not some automatic game mechanic which comes running to the rescue. I was against can flagging from the start, not because I was against the concept itself so much as where it would lead - and here we are. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 14:32:00 - [30] Originally by: Darius Brinn On the can flipping thing, my one and only opinion is that it should not flag flippers. Jettisonned stuff is thrash by definition. CCP could easily make much bigger secure containers. One mechanic allows an increased reward for an increased risk. The other allows an increased reward for no additional risk. Guess which is which, and thus which is balanced. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon	Posted - 2008.03.29 12:17:00 - [31] Originally by: Mauslin O M G W T F The consequence should be provided by the player, not Concord, or fines, or impounding his ship / favorite exotic dancer .. by the player. Either you punish him by blowing him to bits, or he gets away with it. That is Eve. No additional penalty is required. Concord don't care about your stuff, they just care about keeping the peace. If you have a legitimate grievence, like a war or retribution on someone who has wronged you, they have no interest in the matter. They are willing to turn a blind eye if you or your corpmates feel need to seek revenge, because your reasons are, as far as they are concerned, valid. If Concord don't care, who else is going to action these "other" penalties you ask for? No-one really cares who picks up stuff floating in space enough to do anything about it. Why get involved with the goings on of those pod pilots? Those elite of the universe can solve their own problems, lest they decide to lay waste to a city or bankrupt the planet of those who choose to interfere. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon	Posted - 2008.03.29 12:20:00 - [32] Edited by: Avon on 29/03/2008 12:20:27 Originally by: Marlona Sky I really don't know why the pirates are SO against the removal of insurance payout if you are killed by Concord. You guys talk about how you kill haulers with billions in them and all that kind of stuff. Well if you kill a hauler and Concord comes and kills you and you get the uber loot but no insurance... are you really that concerned about the insurance if you just made a billion or two?? The pirates say that if someone is hauling loot worth waaaay more than their ship is worth they desrver to die. Well, you still would get to kill them, and make off with the loot (if it doesn't go pop too). So by removing the insurance from being concorded you still would get what you want and so would the carebear. How is this bad? You say that the haulers are being greedy but the pirates wanting the carebear ship killed on moral reasons for being "careless", getting uber loot to get rich quick and you want the insurance too?! The carebear just wants you to not get your insurance. Now who the hell is the greedy one?! You just managed to make the perfect arguement for the non removal of insurance. The carebear wants it, even though it would make no real difference, to feel like they have somehow punished their killer. Meanwhile Joe Bloggs, who has just accidentally shot his mate's drone on a mission, is sitting in a pod wishing his insurance had paid. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.29 20:27:00 - [33] Originally by: Darius Brinn Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs. Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself. No insurance for Concord'ed ships. NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships. You logic fails. "No insurance for any ship" would be the logical extension of my arguement, which oddly enough I am perfectly fine with. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon	Posted - 2008.03.31 17:14:00 - [34] The problem with the suicide ganking issue is that it is not taken in context, nor is the broader picture often observed - this is especially true of those who suggest the removal of insurance as a solution. Imagine exactly the same attack as a suicide gank, but both sides are in player corporation, and war has been declared. For a nominal fee the attackers are now immune from concord response, sec status hit, and would still be fully insured if they somehow managed to lose a ship (which would now be far more unlikely). When you consider the penalites a suicide ganker receives compared with players at war, you realise they are far in excess of the small fee they could have paid if war was possible. In order to push their point, those in favour of insurance removal must use it as a single issue, because viewing it as part of the whole measure of penalities weakens their position. For example, what if CCP agreed to remove insurance for Concord kills, but also removes the security status reduction of the attacker? Would that be a better balance? Afterall, people at war don't have to suffer that. Of course that wouldn't be accepted, because the reduction in security status is, if anything, the biggest penalty to ganking - getting you ships killed by Concord is an inconvenience which can be compensated for from loot. However, the very fact that a ganker has to spend an amount of time "atoning" for his sins in order to maintain his security satus is a very real punishment. I have in other threads put forward a proposal for altering the way NPC corps function so that war is possible but unfavorable for the casual ganker. When a system like that is in place there is really no reason why suicide ganking could become more heavily penalised. I have also suggest a method for players to purchase a high level of "one off" protection for their ships, through the use of ablative defences - similar to shield or armour extender, but with far more HP's, but impossible to repair in any way. You see I am not, as some would portray me, a mindless griefer who thinks the current balance is appropriate. However, I still do not believe the nerfing insurance is the correct way to tackle the situation, and nothing in this thread has convinced me otherwise. The problem with focusing on this "solution" is that it really does just get in the way of a far better review of the entire mechanic. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon	Posted - 2008.03.31 18:28:00 - [35] Edited by: Avon on 31/03/2008 18:28:43 Originally by: Darius Brinn Never thought you were. I can see there might be mechanics that could be altered by said insurance removal, but you did not post any that I remember. You just posted that war-decced people have it worse, and war-deccing people have it easier than gankers. That does not, in any way, modify where the conversation was. If you haven't read other posts and other threads on this topic, then I can understand your ignorance - but don't flaunt it like a virtue. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure

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