| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:38:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Caiman Graystock
Simple. Stop insurance pay outs
Fixed that for you.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 09:11:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Avon on 11/07/2008 09:15:46
I'll compromise on my "No insurance at all" stance, and move to a position of "Insurance only paid to members of player corps, and invalid if killed by Concord" - because that is the only fair solution unless the underlying issue is addressed.
Of course, as previously noted, the real problem revolves around the structure of NPC corps in the first place - and unless that issue it tackled then no true, fair, and balanced resolution can be brought for suicide ganking.
I strongly believe (and have posted before about it) that there should be a difference between a starter npc corp and other npc corps.
I am fully in favour of protecting new players to a certain extent, a little safety net until they get their head around things, but not forever.
Restrict starter corps in a similar way to trial accounts, encouraging players to join either other NPC corps, or player corps, as they out-grow the starter corp.
Allow warfare against NPC corps (not starter ones), but with a high costs and factional penalties (Concord might not care, but the corps and the Empires aren't going to be happy about it).
Player corps remain as they are.
In this senario it is possible to fairly remove insurance pay-outs on Concord kills, because it offers up alternatives to suicide ganking on all but the newest players.
Added: I made a more detailed post a while back on how the revised NPC corps would work, and the penalties for going to war with them. I'll save it all for a thread on the subject however, rather than further derailing this one.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 14:40:00 -
[3]
This thread is still no more than people discussing the best way to fight symptoms.
The root cause is the ability to stay in an NPC corp to avoid the war declaration mechanic, and with no real penalty, and it is that which is unbalanced.
When that situation is addressed, then I'll be all in favour of a big nerf to suicide ganking. Doing anything before that only skews the game balance further towards those who abuse the "free" protection meant for newer players.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:52:00 -
[4]
I have, on several occasions, posted how NPC corps should be redesigned, and it is a far more useful way to approach suicide ganking, along with a host of other balance issues.
This, however, is not the thread for it.
The whole problem with this thread is that it does not look at the whole problem - and thus it is doomed to fail to find a complete and balanced solution.
I expect that from the majority of the community, but I am somewhat surprised that some members of the CSM actually seem to encourage patching the symptoms rather than looking to cure the root cause of this and other related issues.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 18:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
While I am still amazed that players can somehow tie this issue to NPC Corps, when every hauler I've seen go down in the last 3 weeks or so have been in PC Corps.
But all those haulers are still vulnerable if (in an extreme example) suicide ganking was totally removed, whereas those in NPC corps would be invulnerable.
Whilst the hyperbole of the example is clear, it also serves to clarify the bounding of the balance issue.
Suicide attacks can not be balanced whilst the underlying mechanics of conflict in Empire space remain unchanged.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 01:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Avon
But all those haulers are still vulnerable if (in an extreme example) suicide ganking was totally removed, whereas those in NPC corps would be invulnerable.
We aren't talking about removing their ability to be suicided. If that was the question, I wouldn't support it.
I never said we were.
The point of an upper bounds example is to demonstrate the underlying problem.
The more you "nerf" suicide ganking, the more desireable you make it for players to be in NPC corps.
The protection provided by those corps is free, and asking for it to be increased is somewhat disturbing - especially when the people in those corps also moan that suicide ganking should have a higher cost involved.
They ask for a cost increase for attack, and yet are happy to indulge in free "protection". (I know it isn't absolute protection, but it is an NPC spawn to help you which is not available to members of player corps if they are a victim of a war declaration).
Concord does not sanction random acts of violence in the space they protect, but they do sanction wars. However, so long as people have a free mechanic they can use to avoid a war, with no penalty, many will abuse it with no regard to how it upsets the general game balance, just so long as they are alright.
Renforcing that mindset is ultimately bad for the development of the game, and is a much broader issue than the symptom which is getting all the attention in this thread.
The proposal I made for non-newbie NPC corps managed to bring together some factional protection, and penalties for attackers, which would heavily discourage prolonged war, but would make selective targeting of ships viable.
I agree that there needs to be a level of protection as currently exists for new players (which would also restrict some player activities and development, so as to encourage migration to either player run or the new style NPC corps), but unfortunately it is being abused to an unbalancing extent by players who really are ready to stand on their own two feet.
Asking for the penalties for suicide ganking to be increased without addressing those issues is playing in to the hands of those who already abuse the situation.
The calls from those who gain free NPC help to increase the cost for those who would do them harm are distasteful, especially because they make those calls mainly so they can further absolve themselves from any personal responsibility for their own protection.
I am not particularly fond of suicide ganking, but I feel that nerfing it without tackling the larger inbalance is like taking asprin for a brain tumor because your head hurts.
That is what annoys me about the CSM approach to this whole issue. They are looking at gaining glory by dishing out knee-jerk responses to flavour of the month problems, without actually considering how the whole thing can be used as a jumping off point for widespread game improvements.
How about using it to suggest item ownership as a hidden stat on things?
If it is in the posession of someone else, that person is flagged to the owner an his player corp - a stolen module fitted to a ship, or something in the cargo, whatever.
With skills the "theif" might be able to "clean" the item, but they would never know 100% for sure if it was tagged in the first place, and failure to remove a tag (if it exists or not) would result in the item being destroyed.
That is just an idea off the top of my head, used as an example to point out that there are far more interesting ways to tackle this issue rather than just trying to go with the flow.
That is what the CSM should be doing.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 11:39:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
The wardec system is the reason why NPC Corps are a potentially broken mechanic. Fixing one will not effect the other.
If the only way to attack a player is via a suicide attack then a suicide attack must remain a viable game mechanic.
If there is an alternative way to attack a player, then there is no reason to defend suicide attacks.
So long as players can choose free immunity from war then suicide attacks are a fair game mechanic response.
War declarations and suicide attacks are inter-related, and wishing it were not so does not make you right.
You will not be able to fairly balance suicide ganks whilst they remain the only way to attack some players, even if they are a cheap way to attack anyone.
The problem isn't that the attacks are too cheap, it is that the cost of avoiding the alternative method of attack is even cheaper.
If everyone was a potential war target then it would be perfectly possible (from a balance perspective) to remove high sec suicide ganking completely, because an equal and fair alternative mechanic to attack people would exist.
Honestly, the solution is a revamp of the war and NPC corp systems - anything else is a band-aid for a heart-attack.
Hell, I don't even think making it more expensive would work anyway.
People used to do it even when insurance fell well short of the market price of ships; although ships were easier to kill back then.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 11:58:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2008 11:58:55
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
What you are talking about is a completely seperate issue. The wardec mechanics, in the opinion of many players, is broken. THAT is what keeps them in NPC Corps. Whether it is accurate or not is up for debate right now, but the more you whine that there is no way to wardec them, the more your affirm that thought.
I think you wildly misunderstand my position on this, and maybe you should look up previous posts I have made on this subject.
All my suggestions for changing NPC corps have imposed heavy and very real penalties on people who declare war on them, which tie in very nicely with factional warfare.
Personally think the problem isn't with the attitude of people wanting to stay in NPC corps to avoid wardecs, but that the possibility even exists.
What exactly are they actively doing to gain an immunity that other players can not have, no matter how hard they work at it in a player corp?
Why should we have 2 classes of players?
Why should some be able to absolve themselves of a certain level of personal responsibility, with no cost or effort, and yet compete on an equal footing with those who take that responsibility?
That whole mindset is bad enough ... but then when they moan that the bubble they live in still isn't strong enough .. 
Eve need the whole war-dec, npc corp, suicide ganking, kill rights, contraband, bounty systems looking at. Not in isolation, but as part of a holistic approach to improving the general feel and balance of the game, especially as it exists in Empire space.
Trying to tackle any one of these issues alone is bad enough, but tackling multiple issues without consideration for the others is a recipe for disaster.
To be clear:
I am not in favour of suicide ganking.
I am not in favour of NPC corps being open season for war decs.
Trying to represent me as being 100% either of those positions would be, at best, disingenuous.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 16:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Right now it's out of whack that a suicide gank of a cargo frigate loaded with 500m3 of T1 missiles can almost be considered profitable (even if the missiles are simply reprocessed and sold with mineral loss) just because a couple of the cargo hold expanders might drop
Sorry, explain to me how profiting from that playstyle is less valid than mining, for example.
Miners don't have to pay to suck on a roid to profit, but "gankers" should have a cost involved in their trade?
By your arguement people should have to carefully pick and choose their asteroids in case they actually make a loss ... or does your arguement only apply to people who adopt a playstyle you personally do not support?
As to the choice over loads of 1 man corps vs NPC corps, I would take the 1 man corps thank you very much.
However, the proposals I made are not so as inane as yours, and allow for a balanced way to continue with NPC corps, with advantages and disadvantages - rather than a stupid example which does not even support the position you try to represent.
I am not, as you are so keen to imply, trying to grief people out of the game - but rather looking for a way of expanding and enriching the entire game whilst bringing more balance and less extreme gameplay.
I envision a system where members of NPC corps (not starter corps) are part of the Eve story, rather than opting out of it. They gain benefits from the corps they are in, and with the Empire they are part of. People who would attack them would suffer penalties to that corp, and the Empire. If at war they would take penalties in line with factional warfare, or even more.
Imagine a NPC corp where you benefit from the backstory advantages of the actual corp, and their relations with other corps effecting you.
A corp which would help defend it's interests, and its members.
Empires providing assistance to those who are being attacked, even in Concord sanctioned wars.
Those corps and Empires penalising those who would bring violence to bear against them .. factional hits, station sentry guns, docking rights, and even the factional navy being part of a scaled response.
That is a better vision than "nerf ganking", or "zomg 1 man corps".
The CSM should be about vision, not reaction .. and it certainly shouldn't pander to those who still think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 17:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
A miner balances risk vs reward by:
1 - picking the systems (security rating, risk of suicides, competition for asteroids)
2 - mining style (secure cans, hold mining, jet can)
3 - time (distance from trade hubs, isk per/hr of the ore)
So yes there are risks and other factors that affect mining besides pew pew...
Indulge my stupidity - which one of those risks is it that means a miner may actually make a loss if he activates his lasers on the wrong asteroid, as opposed to not making a good profit? Quote:
So what would you do about a person that sits an alt in a station and makes millions and soon billions in isk by day trading goods?
You can't shoot them even with a wardec, so they are invulnerable to you...
People having ISK isn't actually an issue - it is about logistics and how people can use NPC corps to protect activities which support PvP activities.
I don't care if someone makes billions of isk a day in a station - it is meaningless if he doesn't use that isk to project power.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 20:21:00 -
[11]
Just give up mate.
They don't want a better game, they want an easier one.
The silly thing is, ISK is so easy to make now I could suicide T2 ships all day long just for the lulz, with no concern for loss.
They *hope* that putting a price barrier up will stop people killing stuff for fun .. but they fail to realise that fun is the whole point of a game. It won't stop people ganking, because on the whole they enjoy it.
Let them have their nerf. No doubt they will be back a couple of weeks afterwards crying about how CCP didn't do enough to protect their playstyle, and how Eve had no place for griefers. Although those whines will hopefully be drowned out by those from mission runners and new players who have screwed up somehow and found out that their insurance was invalidated due to a misguided carebear crusade.
Shame really. I honestly thought that the Eve community would have been able to see how this could have been tackled by expanding and enriching gameplay, rather than knee-jerk reactions which will, I fear, prove futile and add nothing.
Again, I am not in favour of suicide attacks, but I am pragmatic enough to realise that they are currently a required mechanic, and that the attempts to restrict them will not have the desired result.
Without tackling the underlying problems the situation will change little, or will become further unbalanced.
Really the ultimate question is should we approach things like this with a mind to restrict gameplay, or to enrich it.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 20:28:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Because your straw man fails.
You claim it's the fact the NPC corporations are immune to wardecs...
Which is utter BS
Because you can get the npc corps reworked, but guess what. You can't stop the logistics machine feeding the beasts.
You can only wardec so many, then it becomes more costly to try it.
Rework the corporations and people will form fleets using small corporations (even 1 man ones).
File a wardec, they make it mutual. Then switch corps with whatever delay is necessary or simply dock and ransom your bottom line. Because till you surrender or disband, that war slot is used...plus it raises the wardec fees for all future wars. And I don't expect them toaccept surrenders without a fee. So the option would be pay the fee or disband.
So that tool used to defend your bottom line can easily be reversed on you. It's a sword that cuts both ways.
So, your arguement is that if NPC corps are reworked (without actually making any effort to look at the proposed systems, which would make random attacks highly undesireable), players should then be encourage to protect their playstyle by exploiting flaws in the current war declaration system?
I think that speaks volumes about you.
Again you try to construct your position around taking things in solitude. If only you would use your ideas to try to construct a better system, embracing tweaks and changes to all related game mechanics, rather than picking and choosing extreme examples as an excuse to maintain the status quo, or worse, push your own agenda, then maybe it would be so frustrating reading your posts.
You obviously have good ideas, and understand some of the issues involved - if only you could step away from your playstyle and see how a changed system could better embrace and balance other ways of enjoying Eve.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 20:41:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2008 20:40:58
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Or accept it's a tweak that doesn't remove anything but insurance payments and adds a bit more cost to the activity.
But cost will not stop people having fun (you think there is much profit for me in alliance warfare?), and removing insurance payouts has knock on effects to people who are *not* suicide gankers.
Game mechanics, and in particular selective insurance, can not determine intent.
It will not solve anything, no matter how much you hope it will.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 20:48:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Make the game all 0.0 and then it dies. Even if there were npc corporations that were of benefit, the fact they would be open to wardecs means someone would wardec them. Which makes them less attractive to a portion of the playerbase that pays the bills for CCP.
If you had ever read any of my proposals you would never have made such an inane response to me.
I am totally against making all of Eve 0.0; but if you had done any research you would have already known that.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 20:53:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2008 20:53:18
Originally by: Ashen Angel
It would impact the ones that are not in it for giggles
It is a game, everyone is in it for giggles.
Just because some people get giggles from avoiding combat it does not make their fun more valid than people who like looking at pretty explosions.
You have already stated that CCP must pander to those who dislike combat for fear of losing subscriptions ... but I guess they don't need money from people who like blowing stuff up?
Oh, as a side note, you really, really, really, need to stop with the UO references, because you clearly have no idea of how much influence it had on the people who brought you Eve.
You are so far of the mark it isn't even funny.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 23:12:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You assume one thing: that I care about the forums. They are fun to visit, and listen to people whine about any change.
How sad.
If you see the forums as a form of entertainment; rather than a way that the people who really matter in Eve, the players, can discuss openly how they would like to see the game develop; why post?
Why come here and disrupt open discourse which, as you have just said, you have no real interest in?
Maybe you could at least have the courtesy of letting people who are interested in having a discussion do so in peace?
After all, you have made it abundantly clear that you have no constructive input to make.
Unless, of course, it is impossible for you to put the game before your own forum ego stroking?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 13:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Only professions that do not directly hurt other players should require no cost.
Why?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:13:00 -
[18]
Maybe the solution is for ship producers to put up their prices?
Insurance pays on a base mineral price - if people are selling ships for less than that price, and therefore the gankers can mitigate their costs through insurance, then why aren't we all just buying and reselling/melting down/insurance frauding all these underpriced ships?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Avon
Maybe the solution is for ship producers to put up their prices?
Insurance pays on a base mineral price - if people are selling ships for less than that price, and therefore the gankers can mitigate their costs through insurance, then why aren't we all just buying and reselling/melting down/insurance frauding all these underpriced ships?
Simple, when one person attempts to sell a ship at higher price someone will inevitably undercut them if possible.
This is made worse when many consider minerals they mined to be free (rather than consider the actual market value of them), or value them as cheaper. [makes me laugh to see someone say they can make a profit on a module that costs 500k to make and sells for 450k for example because they mined the minerals]
Only real way to get the insurance =< ship cost for the more popular ships would be npc only sales of all ships.
And for awhile people were melting them down, and some still do (though it's usually more effective to just buy modules to reprocess) [shuttles were a good example]
It's the amount of market competition : people see which ships are in demand so they work on producing them as cheaply as possible to still make a profit while undercutting the others.
So basically there isn't enough risk or loss to drive up costs?
Hmmm...
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:36:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Avon on 19/07/2008 17:36:35
Hey, I've just had an idea ...
Say if there was a way for people to randomly attack peaceful miners, and the logistics chains that support ship production, maybe mineral and ship prices would rise to a point where suicide ganking would be unprofitable?
Maybe suicide gankers could do it... oh, wait.
But ships still cost less than the insurance.
Oh.
In that case, the only logical conclusion is that suicide ganking does not have enough of an impact to drive up prices to the point where it then nerfs itself..
Sorry, what was the problem again?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:53:00 -
[21]
So, in a nutshell, we are saying that it is too easy and too safe to produce minerals and ships - thus prices are rock bottom?
So, we should be looking at ways to encourage more widespread and effective suicide attacks on miners in order to force up prices, and thus raising the cost of ganking?
Agreed.
(This twisting logic thing that you guys use is just so much fun.)
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 17:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
I could just as easily say that eliminating suiciding, non-consensual PvP, etc from the game will not "hurt" it either. It might actually grow as it becomes safer and more players stay. Of course it wouldn't be Eve anymore, but some great WoW in space. I would leave also.
What this is doing is hurting gameplay in the weakest areas of the game AND driving off younger players before they even have the option of discovering other areas. There is also an illogical concept of the government funded insurance rewarding you for performing illegal actions. Think "younger" in this case as a mental state, not "age". They haven't graduated to attempting other aspects willingly.
I would even say that by suiciding mining barges and haulers you are even driving more players to other more PvE oriented contect like missions where they are less likely to get ganked because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. We all know how well most people love mission runners and their "risk free" ISK.
I would ALSO say that suiciding miners increases macros and ISK Sellers. Every legitimate mining barge you blow up equals a player that has to consider going back into the belts again. Macros and ISK Sellers don't care; they go right back because it is not a game they play for fun. Think about that one; if you play for fun are you likely to continue an activity that results in you losing your stuff all the time? Macros don't care about the fun aspect.....
I'm framing this and sticking it next to my PC.
Comedy gold.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 18:01:00 -
[23]
I don't remember anyone suggesting that.
Is that your new position?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 18:22:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Well you and others see everything though combat, why do you care about the other play styles?
And that just goes to show how little you understand me.
I would stongly urge you read over some of my past threads before you make me out to be some PvP meathead.
I look for a balanced, varied, and interesting game.
That means embracing gameplay which I am not myself paricularly fond of, and ensuring that it is balanced and integrated.
I have have pushed for many changes in Eve which would have adverse effect on my own playstyle, simply because I want what is best for Eve, not for me.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:36:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
If it was a pure pvp game, there would be no way for them to be anything but targets.
But there isn't, therefore by your own arguement Eve is a pure PvP game.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You can't shoot a trader in a station.
And yet he can shake the very market.
You have industry, again something they never need to undock to do.
There are pure non-combat styles of play.
Not everyone is out shooting other players in combat.
quite a number never engage a target at all.
I didn't say combat, and neither did you - the term was PvP.
Stop changing the parameters.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:35:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Mozetta
why are you even arguing this ashen? the data shows u were wrong. kian might be an ass about it but hes right.
The data is statistics, which can be manipulated as needed most times to show what you want.
Especially when as he admits he is not even cosnidering the gaps in it because it wouldn't help his argument.
Plus I'm bored.
At least he went to the effort to present some facts tbh.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 17:32:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Windjammer
Probably one of the reasons why the study found that at any given time around 80% of EVE players are in high sec.
Windjammer
Characters, not players.
Now who is twisting?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 08:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
lulz @ all the suicide ganks getting emo rage about ccp taking away thier "You ISK is now my ISK at no cost to me" button and talking about quiting the game.
P.S. - Can I have your stuff?
Nice summary of the whole thread.
Now maybe you should actually try reading it.
I'll clue you in on the general theme:
"I personally do not like playstyleX, and therefore I think it should be made harder. I do not think it is fair that someone should be able to interact with me without my explicit consent. I want to play Eve in a bubble, and anyone who tries to burst it must be punished. My style of play is correct because it is in line with some moral code which I am unable to step outside of in a game where it really does not apply."
I wonder how the thread would go if it was asking CCP to stop insurance payouts for people who declare war, because it is unfair on the victim?
Or stopping insurance on self destructed ship?
Or at gates in low-sec?
Or in 0.0?
Insurance should not be based on what some players think fair or unfair, because in all honesty it is a stupid enough mechanic already. It should apply to all players equally.
If suicide ganking is an issue, tackle it (although I'd be interested to see how many ships are killed per day with the attackers subsequently being killed by Concord). Tackle the heart of it. Don't slap a stupid knee-jerk bandage on it and hope for the best.
The problem is, people don't want to face up to the underlying problems, because that may mean things that they think favorable to their playstyle being ajusted too, and that would never do.
They aren't after fairness and balance, they want vengence.
If only they'd take that spirit and do something with it, rather than crying for CCP to do it for them.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 16:17:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
To repeat: it's high risk insurance.
And before you ask the question again(with the vagueness that makes it no yes or no answer): a soldier, police officer, or anyone commits a criminal act (determined by the courts with legal jurisdiction over them) and is killed, then it is not paid to the beneficiaries.
So, all I have to do is claim I am a soldier interdicting covert enemy supply lines in a black-ops mission, and then the insurance will pay out because I was killed by a hostile police force whilst on active duty?
Seems fair.
At the same time we can stick anyone who self destructs a ship in to e-prison for a few years, because fraud is bad.
Yeah?
Or we can accept that insurance in Eve is a game mechanic buffer open to everyone equally, because it is far simpler and fairer than making judgement calls on each claim.
But then I guess you 'd be happy for that to happen, so long as it was you making the calls.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 22:37:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Avon, everytime this topic comes up you fly in with 100 post in each thread trying to highjack it.
Its done, its over with. Accept the fact that you wont be able to suicide gank for free anymore.
Your extreme arguments are virtually always dismissed because you take the topic and keep spinning it and spinning it till it doesn't even resemble what it once was.
Cancel your sub to Avon-Online and try playing EVE-Online more...
lol wut?
I don't suicide gank, I haven't for about 4 years.
I don't like it as a mechanic, and I would welcome a way to limit or remove it as part of a holistic review of many conflict related mechanics.
However, I honestly think that people who go on banging the "zomg insurance ain't fair" drum do so precicely because they would rather try to punitively punish people who play in a way they don't like, than to take a step back and see how Eve could be enriched and balanced in a broader way. They don't want that because the know that the game is unbalanced in more ways that advantage them than those they dislike.
Insurance is not the solution to this, and it only serves to skew balance further in favour of people who already have huge advantages, whilst obscuring the the real problems.
I'm sorry you got me so wrong.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 22:46:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Avon on 21/07/2008 22:47:40
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Red Raider
Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?
YES
Look at you forgetting to switch character. Oh dear.
There are few ships where the insurance payout = cost of ship + mods + insurance premium; or even close to it.
Lower the cost, sure. Mitigate it entirely, no.
The real question is: would removing insurance on concord kills stop or significantly reduce suicide ganking?
I don't think it would. And if it wouldn't, is the call for it an attempt at balance, or a way to lash out because they feel powerless?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 08:47:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Windjammer
I don't think it would either. Neither does CCP. The call for it is an attempt to balance. Not an attempt to lash out. By increasing the penalties for the suicide ganker, it is reasoned that frivolous/casual suicide ganks will be reduced. Even those won't be eliminated and the serious suicide ganks won't be touched.
With increased penalties the suicide ganker will be more inclined to calculate the relative gain versus cost of his activity rather than simply blowing the crap out of everything because he's bored or doesn't like the name of that character that just went by.
Windjammer
The thing is though, the cost of ganking, even without insurance, is always going to be a fraction of the potential reward.
4 years ago when the cost of a cruiser was a significant investment, and insurance was pretty much a joke, fittings expensive, and targets relatively low value, people *still* suicide ganked.
Why?
Because they find it fun.
Now ISK is readily available, targets are potentially very juicy, and ships are comparitively cheap - removing insurance is not going to make people stop doing something they find fun. Even without insurance the cost of a suicide gank, will be covered by killing the NPCs it takes to recover the security status - loot is just a bonus.
If your goal is to reduce deaths to ganks, this is not the way to go.
If your goal is to stop people whining that it isn't fair, then I can understand why CCP are looking at it.
If you want to reduce ganking you need to make it harder, not more costly.
If you think I say all this because I favour ganking, then I suggest you look back on my posts in other threads about this subject.
If I favoured it, I wouldn't have proposed things like ablative defences for ships - a huge HP buffer to shields or armour (or both), but which can only be repaired in a station at a repair facility. If you get attacked you are likely to survive, but will have to pay to have your defences repaired.
That is a way to balance risk and reward, make suicide ganking less of a worry for the individual pilot, and to reward players who proactively seek to protect themselves.
Removing insurance does nothing to lower the risks for potential victims - if they are attacked they are still going to die, the ganker is still going to have fun, and the victim is still going to be sitting in their pod crying.
The proposal does not tackle the issue, not matter how much you want to think it would.
Look at PvP combat in general. I fly almost exclusively T2 ships, so I am in a position to know what it is like to be basically uninsured. If I lose a ship then there is far less prospect of me recovering my losses from gathering loot than a suicide ganker has, and yet I do it all the time.
Does it make economical sense? Is it profitable?
No, of course not ... but it is a hell of a lot of fun.
I am happy to absorb the cost of loss to be able to play the game in the way I enjoy, and it is exactly the same for suicide gankers.
This *is* a proposal to punish, not to balance, and so I respectfully disagree with you.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 09:09:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Windjammer
You do not know anyone who has raked in 80 mil in a day of high sec mining.which is the type of mining I specified.
This guy is lying when he says high sec mining is worth 10mil/hr then? Or you are saying that 8hrs is more than a day?
I'm confused.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 15:17:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Letrange
That's in a 6-10 hour day in high sec - with the hulk you just ganked, when it only takes minutes for the 0.0 suicide ganker to recover his isk losses by ratting, that's just a wee tad unbalanced.
He can't recover the sec status in minutes though.
You really must try to look at the whole picture.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 23:02:00 -
[36]
This thread is now about how great I am, and I nominate myself to lead CCP's Suicide Ganking Task Force.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
| |
|