Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:16:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Farrqua on 05/06/2008 22:18:23
Originally by: Lumen Atra THEN TREAT IT AS SUCH INSTEAD OF SAYING "I FEEL."
I think this sums up most of the posts for change in this forum. There is very little supportive numbers on anything. No one has ever stated how wide spread this is and how often it actually occurs.
Majority of all posts and or responses is based of an emotional protest rather than logging out of their respective character and really look at it logically rather than emotionally. Unfortunately I see this in some sense on the CSM board and that concerns me as to the true objectivity of the decisions being made or if some one takes up the cause to write up a proposal to CCP, how much of that CSM's bias is injected into that proposal.
And how much of the responding player base is ignored because they do not feel it is right. Ank has taken this on to present to CCP, and we all know her stance on the issue and how much she wants to wipe out this kind of play. She has stated it in her video. SO will CCP also see the objections from the player base that do not want to see the change in an issue like this or will it ignored because it does not support the current proposal to make the change?
There has been and always will be player groups that want nothing to do with PvP or anything of the like. And that same player base will do what they can to change the landscape of EvE to mirror other MMO's that have no fight zones stating that if CCP wants more of the market share this has to happen.
Well hate to break it to all you players that think this way but suicide ganking has been going on a very, very long time and with much more veracity than what you see now. And ragequit post after ragequit post was thrown in C&P and yet, the sub base grew. Now why do you think that happened.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:55:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Farrqua
Majority of all posts and or responses is based of an emotional protest rather than logging out of their respective character and really look at it logically rather than emotionally. Unfortunately I see this in some sense on the CSM board and that concerns me as to the true objectivity of the decisions being made or if some one takes up the cause to write up a proposal to CCP, how much of that CSM's bias is injected into that proposal.
Well the CSM members have not exactly tried to hide that they are just in it for their personal agendas. But so far they dont seem to be more than a glorified suggestion forum so does it really matter? Time will tell if this has any merit but cant say it looks promising atm.
Hopefully those that really matter (the devs) can make their decisions from a more objective view of the game.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:31:00 -
[243]
This thread is so ridiculous, cause you seem to forget a ganker loses his privileges in empire which means doing some mindnumbing ratting. I'll agree to nefing up suicide ganking if ratting is made more interesting cause its bloody boring or even more interesting ways to up your sec status. Just to show you how ridiculous this thread is I vote YES cause Im still gonna gank you no matter how high you make it for me. Actually you will be doing me a favour I won't have to waste my time on crappy 200mil kills Ill go straight for the biggies with a bil or more, so more profit less ratting thanks. Make suicide ganking more difficult and you will give people a real false sense of security and bring out even more afk haulers while at the same time making me more focused on getting that uber kill I really love your work do it I friggin dare ya.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:32:00 -
[244]
/signed
|
Professor Pizi
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:36:00 -
[245]
i
|
SocialPolice
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:43:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/05/2008 18:02:59 Just to be reiterate things for the uninitiated, the issue at hand is this:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter. The gankers find the fitting offers enough profit potential, and thus he makes the list of gankworthy targets or something. Now the systems the agents send people to are well known, so the ganksquad waits on the other side of one of the gates till one worthwhile targets comes by. They open up on him and there is nothing he can do to save himself. Concord takes a merry 25 secs or so before they show up in .5 sec, by that time he is dead just from the fire of about 5 ravens with overheated siege launchers and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance. Same thing happens to haulers on the highways I guess, even though there it is usually untanked industrials carrying valueable cargo on autopilot and thus just inviting disaster.
Now I find this to be very wrong, and while there are many solutions, the one I favor is this:
When you are killed by concord, you do not receive any insurance payout if you actually killed someone with your criminal act. If you did not kill anyone, you get your insurance. This would serve the following: - Higher margin of value for mission runner/T2 haulers to put on their ships to be safe from gankers out for profit. - Unsuccessful ganks would still have the same minor consequences they have now. - People can still gank for grudges or ****s/giggles, but it would cost them something now. - Paper indies with billions in cargo would remain the gank targets for caracals they are supposed to be
Ok, but I digressed. Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?
EDIT: And at the same time as a logical consequence, self destruction should also result in insurance voiding.
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:52:00 -
[247]
Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:29:00 -
[248]
Originally by: cain mjolnir Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
Such reasoned arguments in a discussion thread.
Concord doesnt protect you, it provides consequences to those that break the law, to my mind, one of those consequences should be if you lose your ship to them then you don't get an insurance payout on top of what you pick up from the target. It forces people to think about what they are doing more and to weigh the loss/profit balance, to my way of thinking, it introduces SKILL to the profession of suicide ganking.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:01:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: cain mjolnir Edited by: cain mjolnir on 06/06/2008 06:53:05
Originally by: SocialPolice
Stop being such a whiny carebear.
The only people who agree with you are OTHER whiny carebears.
If you want a non pvp server go play WOW and STFU.
Second this
Such reasoned arguments in a discussion thread.
Concord doesnt protect you, it provides consequences to those that break the law, to my mind, one of those consequences should be if you lose your ship to them then you don't get an insurance payout on top of what you pick up from the target. It forces people to think about what they are doing more and to weigh the loss/profit balance, to my way of thinking, it introduces SKILL to the profession of suicide ganking.
Adds skill my ass, all it does is make ships with less than 2+ bil in mods not worth killing and they are rare enough already.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:10:00 -
[250]
If they are that rare, how come you see so many concordokkens as you travel through empire space? Are gankers shooting everything in sight on the off-chance?
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:20:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Jeirth If they are that rare, how come you see so many concordokkens as you travel through empire space? Are gankers shooting everything in sight on the off-chance?
Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
|
Nikeffo
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:43:00 -
[252]
Deffo!
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:00:00 -
[253]
Originally by: lecrotta Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
Why not tell everyone how to easily avoid these ganks, mission ganks, travel ganks, so that the issue then becomes null and void and doesnt have to take up ccp's time?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:11:00 -
[254]
Edited by: lecrotta on 06/06/2008 13:11:31
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: lecrotta Theres roughly 30k ppl online in eve at any time during the day or night and concord stays on the gate until after DT so it will add up and seem like a lot (especially if you include customs by mistake). But the fact is that avoiding gankers is easy unless your lazy and that is the real issue not the insurance.
Why not tell everyone how to easily avoid these ganks, mission ganks, travel ganks, so that the issue then becomes null and void and doesnt have to take up ccp's time?
Why would i want to reduce my income by doing that?, theres enough ppl doing it to avoid getting ganked in eve already let alone giving a blow by blow how to avoid getting ganked guide to every other muppet in eve. In fact theres a few of the ways already posted on here by idiots who's brains are obviously lacking any common sense.
Roflmao typical eve, if you wanna know how to do summat in eve just post a thread about how that it cannot be done and wait for the responses from fools whos ego is not connected to their wallets.
|
Chiana Torrou
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:46:00 -
[255]
signed
|
Haulerella
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:29:00 -
[256]
|
Rich Mann
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:09:00 -
[257]
Supported: No insurance for ships lost to concord. Can you imagine what the insurance company would say when they got the claim form?
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:05:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Lumen Atra Do you believe that the majority of haulers are ganked? Do you believe even 30% of them are ganked? 10%? How many suicide ganks a day would you estimate occur? How many ganks fail? How many total hauls occur without being killed? What sort of net loss on the economy of Eve do you think there is? (please note, this is FOR EVE, not for you...what you lose and what is not destroyed is still on the market or in use, and therefore is not a loss for eve, only for you). If there is a net loss, is there a noticeable impact to the economic system - negative or positive, and if so, what are those impacts?
All true. And I would love to see those statistics, and if indeed suicide ganking is relatively rare, or if it does not noticeably affect the economy, then I will happily surrender the point. From the anecdotal evidence available to me, though, I think the statistics side with the carebears on this one - but if you can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.
Originally by: Lumen Atra It is obvious those farming in concord protected areas hope for peace and quiet to go about their merry business.
That's true. But there are many, many legitimate players who want it too. For the record, as a miner, I vehemently oppose macro miners and other low-lifes, who drive down the prices the real miners can get for their ore and minerals.
Originally by: Lumen Atra The problem with things such as "no insurance payout" is that they are one sided solutions. They cater to the miners, and nobody else. It doesn't address why a miner should have this special protection for the sake of their fun or profit, but a pirate or suicide ganker does not.
Why should an honest miner have "special protection" in hi-sec? Because he's a law-abiding citizen minding his own business, doing something that benefits the economy. Why should a ganker not? Because a ganker is a criminal. The vast majority of New Eden is not policed - and in those areas pirating is a perfectly legitimate playstyle. And anyone who ventures there does so knowing the potential gains and risks involved. But ganking in hi-sec is illegal. Why would we protect anyone's "right" to gank in hi-sec?
Originally by: Lumen Atra What you are suggesting is that people should be so afraid to gank a perfectly legitimate (and juicy) target so that you lose nothing and they lose everything.
We are advocating that in hi-sec punishment generally be sufficient to deter crime. Unless you're at war, no pilot in hi-sec is a legitimate target. That's the way the game works.
Originally by: Lumen Atra You want this so that suicide ganking becomes UNATTRACTIVE to anybody. Afterall, who is really going to suicide gank as a business initiative if it only results in a net loss? And you like that idea - mine in peace. You get to make money for nothing but time. No risk.
Yes, ganking in hi-sec should not be financially viable. If there weren't hundreds of players willing to sit in asteroid belts for days shuffling cargo into a jetcan every three minutes, you'd be mining to build your own ships. Wanna try it? Suicide ganking in hi-sec is bad for the game.
Originally by: Lumen Atra And this seems fair to you? ... If yes, then you boldly admit that your idea of fun - the idea that is NOT supported by Eve itself, is somehow the golden rule.
Yes, it seems fair to me, but YES, it is also supported by EVE: EVE's economy needs carebear miners, because nobody else is willing to mindlessly sit in asteroid fields. The skill system forces everyone to specialize, and it's a safe bet that the folks who want to specialize in mining are mostly carebears.
Now, why do gankers need their "right" to gank carebears protected? Do they only want easy meat, and are afraid to go into 0.0 and pick a fight with someone who could actually defend themselves? Now who wants to enjoy a cushy playstyle?
(Still supported)
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:34:00 -
[259]
What about all the accidental Concords that happen to everyone and the following petitions. How do you think new players will feel when they get Concorded by accident and don't receive the return on insurance they were told to pay for. A ganker won't bother paying for his insurance and still only stand to lose about.
This only serves to frustrate new players and I agree as "Cain Mjolnir" said above it will only give you carebears a false sense of security you are still going to get ganked. What happens then when you remove insurance you are all still getting ganked and people aren't receiving insurance for silly mistakes, you are doing more damage to new players here than suicide gankers.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:20:00 -
[260]
Maybe the solution is not to deny the pirates from ganking but to support those being ganked.
Imagine at each gate instead of the Billboard having a gun it has a Large Remote Shield Repair II and a Large Remote Armor Repair II on it.
If someone attacks you the guns and concord go on the hostile, but the Billboard starts repairing you. The only way to take out a target is to commit more of a force to assault.
Amarr for Life |
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:37:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
All true. And I would love to see those statistics, and if indeed suicide ganking is relatively rare, or if it does not noticeably affect the economy, then I will happily surrender the point. From the anecdotal evidence available to me, though, I think the statistics side with the carebears on this one - but if you can prove me wrong, I'm all ears.
No, it is your burden of proof to show how rampant the crime is and how much it does impact the economy. If you want to propose change you have to show some sort of solid data. Otherwise this is nothing more than emotional unqualified protest.
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
We are advocating that in hi-sec punishment generally be sufficient to deter crime. Unless you're at war, no pilot in hi-sec is a legitimate target. That's the way the game works.
What you are advocating is a WOW type of flag able safe zone. You are pushing for absolutely no combat what so ever except for consensual flagged style. Show me where it states that a pilot in high sec is not a "legitimate target". And show me where it says this is the way the game works.
Look I agree that something should be done to make it a little more difficult. My view is to give the prospective targets the tools to deal with it. What they are might be another thread.
Removing insurance is not going to work. You are not identifying the true motivation of why they do it. They do it because they have fun doing it. And its easy. $$ has little to do with it and is a bonus if they get it.
High sec is not safe. It is just safer. And turning it into some copy of WOW will hurt the game.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:40:00 -
[262]
Originally by: SencneS Maybe the solution is not to deny the pirates from ganking but to support those being ganked.
Imagine at each gate instead of the Billboard having a gun it has a Large Remote Shield Repair II and a Large Remote Armor Repair II on it.
If someone attacks you the guns and concord go on the hostile, but the Billboard starts repairing you. The only way to take out a target is to commit more of a force to assault.
Billboards have guns? I think not such a bad idea can't see it happening though.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 22:36:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Farrqua No, it is your burden of proof to show how rampant the crime is and how much it does impact the economy. If you want to propose change you have to show some sort of solid data. Otherwise this is nothing more than emotional unqualified protest.
Fair enough, but the data either of us needs to conclusively prove our point isn't available on the scale we need it. One interesting number I can point to is that currently this topic is the 5th most-supported topic in the Assembly Hall, out of almost 250.
The trouble with compiling data on miners' losses is that on killboards it's impossible to tell who is a real miner and who is a macro, so I admit that these numbers are inherently flawed. There isn't a universal killboard that I can point to, so I'm going to use as an example the killboard of the Jihadswarm campaign, which got a lot of attention recently. According to their killboard, in March and April of this year they destroyed 923 exhumers, 25 industrials, and 128 mining barges in hi-sec, for total destroyed value which they calculated at 107 billion ISK. That's just losses inflicted by a single group (albeit probably the most active group).
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville We are advocating that in hi-sec punishment generally be sufficient to deter crime. Unless you're at war, no pilot in hi-sec is a legitimate target. That's the way the game works.
Originally by: Farrqua What you are advocating is a WOW type of flag able safe zone. You are pushing for absolutely no combat what so ever except for consensual flagged style.
Why does EVE even have a feature allowing legal war declarations if all combat is legit anyway? And war declarations are not necessarily consensual, they're just fair warning. CCP has emphasized that a big part of the game is nonconsensual combat - and indeed, nonconsensual combat can and does occur all over the map. Nobody is suggesting that you not be allowed to activate a weapon module on an unflagged pilot in high-security space.
Originally by: Farrqua Show me where it states that a pilot in high sec is not a "legitimate target". And show me where it says this is the way the game works.
Can do: Originally by: EVE Help, Intermediate Tutorial, Combat: Choose the Venue, Ambush, Ambush Locations Unless we are in a state of war, all aggression needs to take place in low security space - security 0.4 or below - where CONCORD will not interfere.
Attacking unflagged ships in hi-sec is called a "crime." Pilots are flagged as "criminals" for it. That sounds pretty not legitimate.
Originally by: Farrqua Removing insurance is not going to work. You are not identifying the true motivation of why they do it. They do it because they have fun doing it. And its easy. $$ has little to do with it and is a bonus if they get it.
It's not possible to make it not "fun" for the attacker when that's their motivation. But making it extremely expensive, as opposed to in the neighborhood of breaking even, will help deter it. I'm not married to the idea of voiding insurance, though, and I trust CCP to use reasonable judgement in balance and mechanics if it decides to make a change.
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 22:51:00 -
[264]
Originally by: abbagabba Edited by: abbagabba on 05/06/2008 11:52:36 Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 23:19:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
|
Dray
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 14:18:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
Originally by: Dray To hammer home my earlier point, asking for a change in the game is all well and good if the problem cant be solved because the game is broken, in this case it isn't.
Lets be honest here, its about greed, people don't want to interrupt their isk flow taking a little bit of time to counter the problem.
Are you a miner Dray?
Ive been known to suck a rock or two.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:50:00 -
[267]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:12:00 -
[268]
Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:16:05
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Kailiani
Originally by: abbagabba
Not signed. You seem to be missing the bigger picture and are focused on your paticular playstyle, pimped mission running.
It only takes 1 very useful module, if you call that "pimped". A gist booster, 1B+ ISK for it. It's extremely useful on a torp setup nowadays since you need flight time/velocity rigs. This makes you a viable target even if the rest of your gear is T2. Hardly "pimped"...
And the fact that the module you are referring to has a very very slim chance of dropping is why insurance should not be removed.
And the fact that a 50% chance is anything but slim is why pretty much all arguments you make are invalid.
50%!!!!!!!!!!! on what planet pal???.
19 mod slots on a raven with only 1 worth anything and only a few of them dropping per kill is not 50%.
And thats why ALL the arguments you make are invalid.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:26:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Farrqua on 07/06/2008 17:29:30 Edited by: Farrqua on 07/06/2008 17:26:47 So what are the chances of a certain Module to drop when the ship is destroyed?
Is there information somewhere we can actually see what CCP has used to determine how they determine what modules drop and what don't? And if it is based on a random generator of some kind we can probably find out what the real chance of loot being dropped.
It would help to understand what is the real risk/reward currently and what would be the projected risk/reward based on the proposal. And hey maybe we can find a middle ground? It wont make everyone happy because it is not what every one wants, and does not satisfy their "feelings" on the matter, but maybe able to live with it and accept that it was a balanced proposal?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:54:00 -
[270]
Edited by: lecrotta on 07/06/2008 17:54:57
Originally by: Farrqua
So what are the chances of a certain Module to drop when the ship is destroyed?
Is there information somewhere we can actually see what CCP has used to determine how they determine what modules drop and what don't? And if it is based on a random generator of some kind we can probably find out what the real chance of loot being dropped.
It would help to understand what is the real risk/reward currently and what would be the projected risk/reward based on the proposal. And hey maybe we can find a middle ground? It wont make everyone happy because it is not what every one wants, and does not satisfy their "feelings" on the matter, but maybe able to live with it and accept that it was a balanced proposal?
From experience i can say that more gets destroyed than survives always, but the exact percentage is random i think as it seems to vary but never anywhere near 50% of the mods on a fully fitted ship normally 20-30%ish.
So claiming that a individual item has a 50% chance of dropping is utter b****cks.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |