EVE Search - NEWS FLASH: CCP caves in to carebears, film at 11:00...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

NEWS FLASH: CCP caves in to carebears, film at 11:00...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:30:00 - [61] Originally by: Veldya Originally by: Malcanis No, it's just factual. What you really mean is that CONCORD don't provide enough consequences for your liking. I observe that 99.9% of overview encounters in hi-sec between non-blues do not result in combat and conclude that they're doing a fine job. Hey, we all have wishes: I wish my drake did more DPS. The difference is there is a lot of choice in terms of combat ships. The choice of mining or hauler ships is very limited and there are no real alternatives, ie taking a more defensive ship unless you mine in a battleship and they are not really designed for it, about half as effective as a real mining ship. There are no really defensively oriented mining ships, hard to expect a frigate-like ship without the speed or maneuverability to last very long against combat ships. Fair enough. Although I notice that people who complain about ganking rarely seem to use all the protective options available. Or any, come to that. Fitting a DCU II and having a buddy with a Seige Mindlink, and maybe running a Harmonisation warfare link adds a surprisingly large amount of EHP to a Hulk... CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Maalan Selinir	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:38:00 - [62] I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market... Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers... --- You think you are a pirate? You should see how much I made selling you that ship you just went and got blown up... ((Until CCP admits what I look like please pretend my face looks normal))
Gilahan Mcortama A-L-O-N-E	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:39:00 - [63] Originally by: ArmyOfMe remove insurance payout on ships blown up by concord, simple as that really. Agree. Should have been in all along.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:40:00 - [64] Originally by: Gilahan Mcortama Originally by: ArmyOfMe remove insurance payout on ships blown up by concord, simple as that really. Agree. Should have been in all along. It's been like that for so long, and would be so easy to change, one might almost wonder if it was a deliberate policy. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Grarr Dexx Naval Protection Corp Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:44:00 - [65] Originally by: Maalan I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market... Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers... Skyflyer! I think I might have found you a girlfriend!
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:48:00 - [66] Anything pro carebear is viewed by a small (very vocal) minority as catering to the whiners. The truth in this matter is that if we as players behaved ourselves in-game as we're expected to then yes, Eve could truly be that sandbox game we all would like it to be. Unfortunately we don't. And so, unfortunately CCP has to lay down the rules and include them as part of game mechanics. And before my opinion is taken out of context I will just say that PVP is fine in my books. I'm specifically referring to those constantly pushing mechanics of the game to the edge, whether it is with the war declaration system, gang mechanics, suicide/insurance mechanics, module mechanics (POS bowling, nano craze, etc). We're constantly testing CCP's designs in many instances driving them bluntly into exploit territory. As much as you'd like to convince yourselves and us (the carebears) that there is no such thing as a griefer in Eve, you (and we) know that is not true. There are players (and it only really takes a few) that log in to make others literally miserable. Their pleasure derives in driving others out of the game. And the more the merrier. Now ask yourself, is this good for business? It is much easier to be a jerk in this game then it is to be helpful and respectful. CCP has given us the freedom to make this game what we want. We're allowed to use PVP as a means to enjoy every single aspect of the game. Instead some of us have decided to use it as a tool to grief. Want to see Eve be more sand box-like and less riddled with rules? Do your part. Instead of applauding someone for figuring out a way to beat the mechanics and grief shun them and hunt them down. It only takes a trip into C&P to see how much griefers are glorified in this game. In short, this game was designed as a means to enjoy ourselves, and yes, this includes ship pew pew, not as a tool to grief others and gain satisfaction from knowing we can upset many more people using Eve than going to the local park to bully children. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:51:00 - [67] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Originally by: Maalan I just say we add the ability for manufacturers to not allow someone to buy their stuff based on standing. Then the suiciders would suddenly find a lot less to buy on the market... Though this would probably fail miserably between the Goons infrastructure and greedy manufacturers... Skyflyer! I think I might have found you a girlfriend! She could stand to have a few multivitamins though. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Zev'Nar	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:52:00 - [68] Edited by: Zev''Nar on 03/06/2008 13:52:01 "small, common-sense" Ths thread rant has very little of it. Maybe the Devs would like to see Empire safer, IE less griefing more active players = more profit. Maybe the Devs would think it's sensible to have the PVP players gank and kill each other with Faction Farfare in low sec. Or maybe they are just talking because they know something is broke but haven't decided how to fix it yet. ----------------------------
Val Vympel Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:53:00 - [69] Originally by: Brachis God, why are people so single-minded when it comes to topics about protecting players? EVE is not a game intended to be a PvP-fest where everyone has to fight to exist. EVE is a game built around emulating real-society conditions, with the twist of being in space. When they talk about EVE being a sandbox... that's what they mean. You can do what you want to do in EVE, but you must also face the social and political repercussions of your actions. Griefing isn't punished because "CCP hates Pirates", it's punished because that's how society works. It is punished because mankind organizes itself to prevent being abused by one-another. EVE is such a small fraction of mankind that it is necessary to emplace NPC powers which regulate LAW within the game world. The NPCs are there to make the game playable for new players. Right now, in EVE, the punishments for griefing and piracy are not equal to the crime. Because of the design of EVE, it is difficult or costly for the players to fairly police the other players, so active law enforcement, and preventative law enforcement are impossible in what is supposed to be secure space. Because of this, CONCORD and the punishments for players who break social laws in what is supposed to be protected society needs to be ramped up. So grow up, guys. EVE isn't a PvP playground. If it was, there would be no CONCORD, there would be no punishment, there would be no NPCs or sentries or anything but the players. Does this mean that CCP caters to Carebears? In a way, yes. But in real life, we're all Carebears. If you're not a Carebear in real life, you should be in prison. In general,I agree with your opinions and comments. However... If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality. CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo. People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not. The option to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism. My 2 ISK
Euriti Caritas.	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:54:00 - [70] Originally by: Wolfmoon The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp. I stopped reading right there.
Captain Agemman Legio Ultra	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:57:00 - [71] Edited by: Captain Agemman on 03/06/2008 14:06:46 Originally by: Malcanis Fair enough. Although I notice that people who complain about ganking rarely seem to use all the protective options available. Or any, come to that. I think if there were defensive measures one could take that would offer reasonable protection levels for the efforts involved, people would use them. But 2 days ago, an Armageddon bought in Rens was an after-insurance loss of just under 4m ISK. Slap on some low metalevel named gear that mission runners sell for next to nothing and you look at what, 15m isk for two of these? And two of these can suicide a fully tanked transport ship. So starting at 70-80m cargo you might as well switch to a freighter. Nothing is per se wrong with the fact that you can be suicided in highsec, but the amount of protection needed should scale reasonably with the value of the involved cargo. Also, the whole suicide ganking lacks involved risks for the attacking force. Unless you do horribly stupid things like taking on a Charon in a Nemesis, there is just about no way to really make a loss, even though the dropped loot is random. Maybe the Concord timers should be variable? [Edit] TL;DR: If I bring a 90m tank fitted tech 2 transport ship to the table, you should have to bring 90m in losses too. Not 15m.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:59:00 - [72] Originally by: Riho this has made me think about starting griefing aswell.. cant have the carebears roam free and farm isk like turds What? Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:02:00 - [73] This is why the Devs hate to say anything and not communicate with us because no matter how innocuous, no matter how qualified and restrained, we get Chicken Littles like the OP wailing that the sky is falling. Reading comprehension FTW buddy: "There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same." There have been a zillion threads on not having CONCORD pay out for suicide ganks. Most think there is some better balance to be had here. Regardless feel free to cancel your account in protest. I'm sure someone will want your stuff. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Misanth Electro Fuels	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:02:00 - [74] I thought it made perfect sense to me. On another question in that dev chat (guy asking if his corps assets in high-sec will be 'safe'), they guys at the chat clearly show that they have no intentions to make this game 'safe' by any means. If you read the stuff you quoted again, you see that that's the case. If you look at certain griefers, you see they are often (ab)using game mechanics to get certain advantages non-griefers can't counter. It would seem to me that's exactly what they want to fix. You can try to spin things whatever way you want, but fact is still they stressed in the chat multiple times that they want the sandbox to stay, that any sense of safety is anti-EVE. It's a matter of selective reading, do you want to see what they say, or see the words they use? More pew pew, less QQ.
Tippia School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:03:00 - [75] Originally by: Euriti Originally by: Wolfmoon The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp. I stopped reading right there. Makes sense to stop reading after that – it's all that needs to be said, after all. PvP is not griefing – everyone seems to agree with this (at least the PvP:ers do) – so any change that removes griefing from the game won't affect PvP. Griefing is also explicitly forbidden in the game, so the only ones who'd object to stronger counter-griefing mechanics are the ones who would risk getting banned – a very tiny subset of players compared to the two main groups (PvPers and carebears). So, honestly, I don't see why so many are upset about this, unless the game has a far higher population of EULA-breakers than anyone wants to admit.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:05:00 - [76] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Euriti Originally by: Wolfmoon The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp. I stopped reading right there. Makes sense to stop reading after that û it's all that needs to be said, after all. PvP is not griefing û everyone seems to agree with this (at least the PvP:ers do) û so any change that removes griefing from the game won't affect PvP. Griefing is also explicitly forbidden in the game, so the only ones who'd object to stronger counter-griefing mechanics are the ones who would risk getting banned û a very tiny subset of players compared to the two main groups (PvPers and carebears). So, honestly, I don't see why so many are upset about this, unless the game has a far higher population of EULA-breakers than anyone wants to admit. Well said. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Forum Fanatic	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:05:00 - [77] Anyone browsing these forums looking to join Eve... take a good look at the vast majority of pvp posters in this thread. This gives you the perfect picture of the low life griefing, forum whoring, flaming, baiting, scum you're going to find in game. Subscribe now !
Soliscout	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:10:00 - [78] Edited by: Soliscout on 03/06/2008 14:11:43 Edited by: Soliscout on 03/06/2008 14:11:06 Originally by: Bellum Eternus compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist. The right to exist is granted by paying the monthly subscription, and there is NO reason, why a subscriber who is not interested in PvP should have less fun, than the normal PvP yarrrr ganker kiddy...there is a fight for existance in the low/null-sec, for sure...but there should be none in highsec/carebear country
Caiman Graystock Quantum of Solace	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:10:00 - [79] I love these threads where people start making wild, unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact based on one sentence uttered somewhere by a dev, which usually turn out to be totally incorrect.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:13:00 - [80] Originally by: Malcanis No, it's just factual. About as factual as, oh, saying speedbumps are an impediment to travel, for example. The consequences are so pitiful, that's all they are, a speedbump. You can roll your eyes all you wish, that's the current state of affairs. Originally by: Malcanis It's been like that for so long, and would be so easy to change, one might almost wonder if it was a deliberate policy. Yes, the other thread hit the nail on the head. This is griefers online, with game mechanics designed to facilitate and encourage such playstyles. All that's changed in the last year or so is that mineral prices moved and faulty insurance mechanics failed to account for it, leading to zerocost suicide ganks. This is what needs adjusting, and that's what I'm guessing the Dev was talking about.
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:19:00 - [81] The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused" Simple fact of the matter: a player in a vaguely tanked Transport should be able to afk through 50 empire jumps with 100mil cargo and a 99.99% chance of not being attacked. A couple of years ago I frequently commented my approval of the way CCP allowed players to CHOOSE the level of risk (and possible rewards) they faced, while at the same time keeping at least some danger in the "safer" areas. I am RABIDLY against "safe" space. I am RABIDLY in favor of high sec being "safer" in the manner it was a couple of years ago. 0.0 and low sec are fine, although I'd make a significant increase in ore quality in low sec. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:30:00 - [82] Originally by: Val Vympel If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality. CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo. People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not. The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism. That's a balance to the almost complete lack of punishment in Eve. As you know, irl, you can get locked up for good, or even killed in some places. Permadeath, none of this clone business. I've said it before, but just take the Goons Jihadswarm against hulks. If it were realistic, all Goonfleet members would be detained, all known assets freezed or seized, all suspected financers of goons arrested and their assets seized. That's not the Eve people want, not even me.
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:32:00 - [83] Originally by: Sergeant Spot The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused" The fact of the matter is, nowadays there's tons of money to be made by suicide ganking, say, a freighter. The isk loss from fully insured ships pale by comparison to what you might find in the can of some freighters. Suicide ganking has become "casual and cheap" because moving large volumes of expensive goods through high security space has become casual. warp drive active \| nature vraie
floggar	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:32:00 - [84] Originally by: Bellum Eternus From the latest devchat transcript- "MMORPG_Taera: kimsand asks, To a carebear, EVE is primarily a game of destruction... What takes me 10 hours or more to create, takes someone 5 minutes to destroy, will there be taken some steps in the future to make some REAL safe zones, where GoonJihad will not be able to get in and have their fun on my behalf... im feeling a little like the cannon fodder ccp needs to feed the pvp'ers Greyscale: Absolutely safe zones aren't currently on our to-do list; there's a very lengthy conceptual reason why they're a bad idea, and a much shorter explanation that it's just not EVE. That said, we do feel that the current balance is out of line and we are working on changes to various mechanisms in this area which will redress this balance Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same." ANY change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist. Tell me CCP, when is the hand holding going to stop? Stop whining and go back to tri...oh wait epic fail
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:35:00 - [85] Quote: ANY change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist. If you don't realize there's something wrong with the current suicide ganking mechanics, you're an idiot pirate wannabe who wants to avoid real risk. It sounds like they're looking at a couple small changes that would raise the threshold for when suicide ganks are profitable to a more reasonable place, so that people who are just out mining aren't automatically great suicide gank targets with no hope of fitting a tank to defend themselves.
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:47:00 - [86] Originally by: Veldya Instead of making miners a freaking Deer, make them an Elephant. Lion is still king of the jungle and if enough of them attack they will drop the Elephant, but the Elephant is a slow moving, durable beast and because of that is not "easy" prey. Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs) True story. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Jmanis Catharg Stickler inc	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:48:00 - [87] Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 03/06/2008 14:50:40 I love how everyone reads the bolded: Quote: Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same." and not Quote: Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same." Christ, mountain, meet molehill. End of the day, only reason why this carebear has a fat wallet is because all the PvPers buy my ships and weapons.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 15:01:00 - [88] Originally by: Winterblink Originally by: Sergeant Spot The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused" The fact of the matter is, nowadays there's tons of money to be made by suicide ganking, say, a freighter. The isk loss from fully insured ships pale by comparison to what you might find in the can of some freighters. Suicide ganking has become "casual and cheap" because moving large volumes of expensive goods through high security space has become casual. Actually, it seems to be more and more common to blow up haulers no matter what their content is worth. The loot is just icing in the cake. As an additional example look at the goons' Jihad (whatever it's called). I think that was also just for the "LOL" effect. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Donald Truman Innovaneer Technologies	Posted - 2008.06.03 15:01:00 - [89] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Shakka Zulu Any time something is done that can in any way be construed as "pro-carebear", the whole forums are up in arms that Eve is going down the drain. Precautions. We have to stomp on the creeping carebearism right away. So, you want to make sure that when any specifics on this come out, that your complaints are evaluated in a context of "this person doesn't actually care about the specifics; this person is anti-CB no matter what". GG.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2008.06.03 15:02:00 - [90] Originally by: Alz Shado Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs) So, we are supposed to be using a hammer on a screw because the screwdriver breaks once you apply a little force? Doesn't that sound wrong to you? I usually adhere to the motto "the right tool for the job", but since I've started playing Eve I reconsider. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.