Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
MuffinsRevenger
EmpiresMod Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:29:00 -
[31]
This works pretty well to :o |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:47:00 -
[32]
Originally by: MuffinsRevenger This works pretty well to :o
That's not honor tanked... what the hell were you thinking??? Where will you keep your honor now?
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:50:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Keyser Sozie Edited by: Keyser Sozie on 21/04/2008 06:28:48 I will have to admit that I rarely get inurance on any of my ships, so I do agree with your comment. But the issue is trying to solve the pestilence that is HS Ganking.
Please demonstrate that suicide ganking is a problem for the game, given that CCP intend it to be the primary form of non-consensual PvP in Hi-sec. Use facts and evidence (opinions and forum weeping are neither) in your answer.
From the knowledgebase:
"Kamikaze attacks
Despite the lack of absolute safety, empire space is still relatively safe. The biggest threat to the average player in Empire space is the risk of ôkamikazeö attacks when carrying a cargo of noteworthy value."
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Keyser Sozie
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:03:00 -
[34]
Well, where did I say that we should get rid of High-Sec Ganking? I said we should just remove the insurance payout to those who opt to do so.
Also, Tech 1 haulers no matter what they are can not fit a large enough tank to resist any real concentrated attack. Also, people are not just ganking high value hauls, they are just fitting Battleships with SmartBombs and sitting at gates in High-Sec and just firing them off.
|
gordon861
Minmatar PROGENITOR CORPORATION
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 10:39:00 -
[35]
I made this suggestion on another thread, might as well make it here as well.
If you shoot at another player and get Concorded your insurance payout goes to the victim not you. If it was a mistake and it's a friend you shot at they can just return the ISK back to you.
So the gankers stop using insurance on their gank ships, doesn't matter the default insurance payout goes to the victim instead.
So suicide ganking would still be available in it's current form but the ganker would have to take a bigger ISK risk to actually do it. They would have to decide if they can take down the target with just one BS or if they'd need to risk twice as much by using a second BS to guarantee the kill.
This would address the risk <-> reward link as currently the gankers don't actually risk anything with the insurance payouts
Originally by: CCP Arkanon I frown on employees being power players to the extent that their gameplay results in any sort of domination over others. I donÆt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe. |
Gravecall
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:50:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Keyser Sozie Edited by: Keyser Sozie on 21/04/2008 06:28:48 I will have to admit that I rarely get inurance on any of my ships, so I do agree with your comment. But the issue is trying to solve the pestilence that is HS Ganking.
Please demonstrate that suicide ganking is a problem for the game, given that CCP intend it to be the primary form of non-consensual PvP in Hi-sec. Use facts and evidence (opinions and forum weeping are neither) in your answer.
From the knowledgebase:
"Kamikaze attacks
Despite the lack of absolute safety, empire space is still relatively safe. The biggest threat to the average player in Empire space is the risk of ôkamikazeö attacks when carrying a cargo of noteworthy value."
Note the underlined bit, few, if any, of the Jihadswarm victims would have dropped anything of noteworthy value. Also the removal of insurance payouts in cases of concording would in no way violate the definition of Kamikaze attacks given above, it would simply shift upwards the isk value of what would be considered a "noteworthy value" cargo.
|
Trojanman190
The Conflagration
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:54:00 -
[37]
It isn't hard to tank a hauler to survive a gank... really... it isn't.
|
Xaldor
New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:58:00 -
[38]
The problem with high sec ganking is that the cost of breaking the law and blowing up ships in empire space is trivial and easy to fix rep standings.
Eve piracy is just too bland, gate camps in low-sec, boring...
There should be a better system of piracy. Once head towards a life of crime it should take a very, very, very long time to redeem yourself so it is more a long-term ideology change rather than a weekend ratting.
Pirates should access to ships specially designed for piracy, smuggling and avoiding the law. Concord needs to behave more like a police force and less like an automated defense mechanism.
Main form of piracy should be the crippling of shield and engine systems and stealing of cargo, blowing ships up should result in very little cargo.
Concord should also be not very forgiving of ccrps which harbor criminals. EVE just has a too simplistic system where you just blow **** up without any real consequence. Pirates historically destroy military targets but leave merchants so they can rob them again in the future.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:04:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Gravecall
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Keyser Sozie Edited by: Keyser Sozie on 21/04/2008 06:28:48 I will have to admit that I rarely get inurance on any of my ships, so I do agree with your comment. But the issue is trying to solve the pestilence that is HS Ganking.
Please demonstrate that suicide ganking is a problem for the game, given that CCP intend it to be the primary form of non-consensual PvP in Hi-sec. Use facts and evidence (opinions and forum weeping are neither) in your answer.
From the knowledgebase:
"Kamikaze attacks
Despite the lack of absolute safety, empire space is still relatively safe. The biggest threat to the average player in Empire space is the risk of ôkamikazeö attacks when carrying a cargo of noteworthy value."
Note the underlined bit, few, if any, of the Jihadswarm victims would have dropped anything of noteworthy value. Also the removal of insurance payouts in cases of concording would in no way violate the definition of Kamikaze attacks given above, it would simply shift upwards the isk value of what would be considered a "noteworthy value" cargo.
In other words, you want to nerf the primary method of non-con PvP in hi-sec. OK well that's fine, but first you have to explain why it should be nerfed. Once again, forum whines are not a reaon. Facts. Data. Numbers.
Try and think about this in the context of EvE being a complex economy. Suicide ganking is relatively common because T1 ships are cheap (virtually free after insurance). Why are they cheap? Because minerals are so cheap.
Will additional protection for miners in hi-sec cause minerals prices to rise or to fall, do you think? What are the likely follow-on consequences when it becomes possible to build ships for a lot below insurance value?
Will additional protection reward smarter players who pay attention, or (how to put this delicately?) players who devote the absolute minimum of attention (ie: none) to each individual account they run? When genuine new players find the belts in 0.8-1.0 systems stripped bare by asdgfdfg & co., do you think they'll be grateful that hey, at least anyone who suicide-ganked their bantam wouldn't get insurance?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Cissnei
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:14:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Surgu
Originally by: Keyser Sozie Noobs have it hard enough trying to learn how to play EVE without
Who would suicide gank a noob? Noobs don't carry expensive stuff, the older players do.
Originally by: Keyser Sozie having to contend with lazy "Pirate" who are not man enough to pirate in low sec.
High-sec piracy isn't about manhood, it's about taking from the rich and giving to the poor (themselves)
who would suicide a noob?
friend in corp made a new char in amarr. was moving it to where we are and was suicide ganked in his newbie ship two jumps out
why? because
that's right. that's the reason he was given. because.
he wasnt in low sec, he was in a .08 system auto piloting the newbie frigate. i hadnt realized that civilian pulse lasers were worth so much now
it happens all the time, everywhere. they do it because it gives them a sense of entitlement and power over another individual. that's all the reason they need, and the fact that nine times out of ten they can get a larger insurance payout than what they used for the gank is just icing.
|
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:15:00 -
[41]
This is a new and interesting subject which has never been discussed before in hundreds of threads. Furthermore, it is obvious that the OP's interest lies with protecting noobs who gets suicided in droves and not the richer players who never gets suicided.
Yes...
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Zaqar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:18:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Wu Jiun and those people who mistakenly lose their CNR's or [insert shiptype here] to noobishness or a misclick while locking a war target?
That is what the petition system is for.
It really isn't!
|
Gravecall
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:19:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Gravecall on 21/04/2008 12:19:29
Originally by: Malcanis
In other words, you want to nerf the primary method of non-con PvP in hi-sec. OK well that's fine, but first you have to explain why it should be nerfed. Once again, forum whines are not a reaon. Facts. Data. Numbers.
Try and think about this in the context of EvE being a complex economy. Suicide ganking is relatively common because T1 ships are cheap (virtually free after insurance). Why are they cheap? Because minerals are so cheap.
Will additional protection for miners in hi-sec cause minerals prices to rise or to fall, do you think? What are the likely follow-on consequences when it becomes possible to build ships for a lot below insurance value?
Many nullsec corps mine in nullsec and then sell the minerals in high sec, as such the effect of high sec ganking of miners on T1 ships is questionable at best, do we even know where the T1 ships the gankers are using are being built in the first place? Facts. Data. Numbers.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:22:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Gravecall
Many nullsec corps mine in nullsec and then sell the minerals in high sec, as such the effect of high sec ganking of miners on T1 ships is questionable at best, do we even know where the T1 ships the gankers are using are being built in the first place? Facts. Data. Numbers.
I used to buy my suicide ships on the market. Strenghtening the economy ftw!
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:35:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Gravecall Edited by: Gravecall on 21/04/2008 12:19:29
Originally by: Malcanis
In other words, you want to nerf the primary method of non-con PvP in hi-sec. OK well that's fine, but first you have to explain why it should be nerfed. Once again, forum whines are not a reaon. Facts. Data. Numbers.
Try and think about this in the context of EvE being a complex economy. Suicide ganking is relatively common because T1 ships are cheap (virtually free after insurance). Why are they cheap? Because minerals are so cheap.
Will additional protection for miners in hi-sec cause minerals prices to rise or to fall, do you think? What are the likely follow-on consequences when it becomes possible to build ships for a lot below insurance value?
Many nullsec corps mine in nullsec and then sell the minerals in high sec, as such the effect of high sec ganking of miners on T1 ships is questionable at best, do we even know where the T1 ships the gankers are using are being built in the first place? Facts. Data. Numbers.
Ho ho, my friend. You're the one calling for changes to be made, so that means that I'm the one who gets to ask for evidence that the change needs to be made. I'm not definitely asserting that a change shouldn't be made, I'm just asking you to prove that it should, while also kindly prompting you to answer the most obvious of several possible counter-arguments.
Just saying "Nuh-uh, you prove it doesn't need to be made" isn't making an argument for change.
Anyway, since we're talking facts let's start with a basic one: how long does it take a player to get in to a Hulk and use T2 strips? Are they still a "noob" by then?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:38:00 -
[46]
General forums just aren't complete without someone having one of these "brand new genious" ideas.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:01:00 -
[47]
This would be exactly like it works in the real world, yes. But this is an MMO and things here don't work like the real world. It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies.
Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Then think about how you would have felt when you were left with 10k ISK in your wallet and your first cruiser gone. Then you go to the forums and get told that CONCORD doesn't pay insurance out to criminals.
The current system makes high-sec a little less secure due to the proliferation of suiciders. Suiciders don't target newbies but rather people with actual assets who, due to those assets, can recover from the loss. Newbies lose their first cruisers because they Smartbomb an asteroid, get most of their ISK back and note down that asteroids are touchy creatures who will report them to CONCORD if they're exposed to anything other than Mining Lasers.
In the end it comes down to it being the lesser of two evils. It's not perfect. Could most definitely be worked on, but not by ruining the new player experience and allowing even worse grief tactics on players who don't have a complete grasp on game mechanics.
~ Prism X EvE Database Developer Relocating your character to a cozy, secure container since 2006. Relocating your cozy, secure container to the EVE cemetery since 2008. |
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:08:00 -
[48]
Originally by: CCP Prism X In the end it comes down to it being the lesser of two evils. It's not perfect. Could most definitely be worked on, but not by ruining the new player experience and allowing even worse grief tactics on players who don't have a complete grasp on game mechanics.
No direct offense intended sir but I wave disagreement at you! (With small gestures for sure.) While it what you state is reasonable essentially accidental concordings would naturally fall under the petition system. I know as I have specifically been there in such situations (as a newb and not) and have received clear answers and/or compensation for the event. Now it is not intended to swamp the petition system but let's be real... the system gets loaded with such petitions any way. (Anecdotal btw). Would it not be, fair or prudent, to seriously consider the alternative? We at least know, definitively, that status quo is broken.
To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean. |
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:11:00 -
[49]
What makes you think the alternative hasn't been looked into. On multiple occasions? I just had this exact conversation with Tux last Thursday. I know it might come as a shock, but I'm actually not talking straight out of my rear here.
~ Prism X EvE Database Developer Relocating your character to a cozy, secure container since 2006. Relocating your cozy, secure container to the EVE cemetery since 2008. |
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:15:00 -
[50]
Originally by: CCP Prism X I know it might come as a shock, but I'm actually not talking straight out of my rear here.
I should point out that I never once consider the noises that come from there, no matter how loud, as conversation.
To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean. |
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:20:00 -
[51]
How about a compromise... paying out HALF insurance to criminals?
This ensures both that highsec ganking is less profitable, yet a newbie still gets back some of their ISK when they smartbomb their first asteroid.
Bored during Downtime? Why not try Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN! |
Flaming sambuka
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:22:00 -
[52]
NO AL U CARBAERS MUST DIE
WE PLAY WITH OUR MEMBERS |
Maverick Ice
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:30:00 -
[53]
CCP Prism X, how about a reasonable alternative....if you were involved in a killmail that was a criminal act, you get no insurance. Just delay the insurance payment until after the killmail waiting period (the point at which your damage is no longer considered for a killmail) is over.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:36:00 -
[54]
Or limit insurance payout for CONCORD 'victims' to trial accounts. Once you're beyond your trial phase you should have acquired the experience to avoid accidental CONCORD activation. So those veterans who have learned on how to utilize suicide tactics won't get the benefit of insurance and the hapless 'noob' gets some compensation from a learning experience.
People that use trial accounts for suicide ganking are basically using the 'throw-away alt' exploit and should receive an extended ban anyways. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:37:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Maverick Ice CCP Prism X, how about a reasonable alternative....if you were involved in a killmail that was a criminal act, you get no insurance. Just delay the insurance payment until after the killmail waiting period (the point at which your damage is no longer considered for a killmail) is over.
Again, an alternative we've discussed. Along with X many insurable criminal acts before no further payouts. Security status dictating whether you get insurance payout. Player Age dictating insurance payout. Etc. Etc. Etc.
All I can tell you is that we've discussed it ad infinitum. If someone here manages to bring up an idea we've not covered over coffee breaks, smoke breaks, during lunch, at the bar or on the plethora of different places were we discuss EVE.. then you really should be working here.
~ Prism X EvE Database Developer Relocating your character to a cozy, secure container since 2006. Relocating your cozy, secure container to the EVE cemetery since 2008. |
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:38:00 -
[56]
Originally by: CCP Prism X This would be exactly like it works in the real world, yes. But this is an MMO and things here don't work like the real world. It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies.
Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Then think about how you would have felt when you were left with 10k ISK in your wallet and your first cruiser gone. Then you go to the forums and get told that CONCORD doesn't pay insurance out to criminals.
The current system makes high-sec a little less secure due to the proliferation of suiciders. Suiciders don't target newbies but rather people with actual assets who, due to those assets, can recover from the loss. Newbies lose their first cruisers because they Smartbomb an asteroid, get most of their ISK back and note down that asteroids are touchy creatures who will report them to CONCORD if they're exposed to anything other than Mining Lasers.
In the end it comes down to it being the lesser of two evils. It's not perfect. Could most definitely be worked on, but not by ruining the new player experience and allowing even worse grief tactics on players who don't have a complete grasp on game mechanics.
You can't be serious with this, CCP Prism X. It's not only that this would not happen in RL world (here you'd might even end up in Jail for insurance fraud). It just is not rational and would not happen in any human society, or alien society that thinks rational and economical. Paying insurance for an event where the ship is destroyed deliberately (has 0.0000 chance to survive, otherwise it's an exploit) is simple a bad and irrational game mechanics.
Newbies: what most of them lose is a noobship, when they do their tutorial. Or maybe a frigate - and in many cases they won't have it insure anyways (since they are newbies or feel save in highsec) - and even if they lose a cruiser, it's their first experience, they will learn from it while it's cheap. They did something wrong, they paid for their first expirience - that's totally diffrent if they did nothing wrong but just got ganked - don't you think the level of frustration is a little higher in the second case ?
And even with hunting in 0.8 or mining with a bantam, they recover the loss of a t1 frigate or cruiser within an hour or two. Not so those who were ganked flying a frighter with their corp's assets. Or an expensive missionrunner ship, that can cost them billions and whill take months to recover. And it is not only the very rich, which insurance-gankers go for. We see hate-campaigns where mining barges are destroyed for the purpose of griefing, not a rational profit. We see veteran players destroying barges of a newb, his first barge he saved weeks for and is happy that he finally can afford it - and then BAM - away it is, and the attacker mocks on him in local while getting almost all his money back with insurance.
I see former fanbois bashing the game on fansites because of this. People leave the game because of this, since they are denied a startup in highsec by older players out of pure grief-fun, or because they want to be "dark/evil" but stand no chance in real pvp.
How can you say it's the lesser of two evils.
|
fuze
Gallente InfoMorph Services Ltd
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:38:00 -
[57]
Edited by: fuze on 21/04/2008 13:39:26 How about the 1st time you get CONCORDENED you get 100% payout. And after that it's no more insurance for them. If they didn't learn the 1st time they can learn the 2nd (and 3rd, 4th etc). |
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:54:00 -
[58]
Originally by: CCP Prism X This would be exactly like it works in the real world, yes. But this is an MMO and things here don't work like the real world. It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies.
Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Then think about how you would have felt when you were left with 10k ISK in your wallet and your first cruiser gone. Then you go to the forums and get told that CONCORD doesn't pay insurance out to criminals.
The current system makes high-sec a little less secure due to the proliferation of suiciders. Suiciders don't target newbies but rather people with actual assets who, due to those assets, can recover from the loss. Newbies lose their first cruisers because they Smartbomb an asteroid, get most of their ISK back and note down that asteroids are touchy creatures who will report them to CONCORD if they're exposed to anything other than Mining Lasers.
In the end it comes down to it being the lesser of two evils. It's not perfect. Could most definitely be worked on, but not by ruining the new player experience and allowing even worse grief tactics on players who don't have a complete grasp on game mechanics.
Ok so if a frig gets Concorded it gets a full payout, if a cruiser gets concorded it gets a half payout.
Then again I put my smartbombs offline when going into high sec.
Originally by: HEXXX In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:56:00 -
[59]
Originally by: fuze Edited by: fuze on 21/04/2008 13:39:26 How about the 1st time you get CONCORDENED you get 100% payout. And after that it's no more insurance for them. If they didn't learn the 1st time they can learn the 2nd (and 3rd, 4th etc).
Yep, that's the natural learn process. Do an error, pay the price for it, next time you won't do it. With the insurance system newbs are denied this learning process. Instead they will "learn" it, when it gets more expensive and time consuming to recover the loss.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:59:00 -
[60]
Originally by: CCP Prism X This would be exactly like it works in the real world, yes. But this is an MMO and things here don't work like the real world. It's not that the people here at CCP believe that insurances should be payed out to criminals. It's more a factor of our newbies.
Just think about how often you accidentally aggro'd CONCORD one way or the other as a newbie. Then think about how you would have felt when you were left with 10k ISK in your wallet and your first cruiser gone. Then you go to the forums and get told that CONCORD doesn't pay insurance out to criminals.
The current system makes high-sec a little less secure due to the proliferation of suiciders. Suiciders don't target newbies but rather people with actual assets who, due to those assets, can recover from the loss. Newbies lose their first cruisers because they Smartbomb an asteroid, get most of their ISK back and note down that asteroids are touchy creatures who will report them to CONCORD if they're exposed to anything other than Mining Lasers.
In the end it comes down to it being the lesser of two evils. It's not perfect. Could most definitely be worked on, but not by ruining the new player experience and allowing even worse grief tactics on players who don't have a complete grasp on game mechanics.
i am sorry, but i disagree entirely.
1st: it is not the same to recover from loosing a rupture than a hulk or cargo full freighter.
2nd: new players can be advised that smartbombs are dangerous on high sec just as they are warned that they are about to jump to a low sec system
3rd: even though i am not a developer, i am sure your logs (and GMs) can tell whether a 3 months player smartbombing a GSC is different from 15 dominixes attacking a hulk at the same time.
4th: just the concept that insurance is paid to criminals is completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |