| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Morgan La'Chance
Caldari
Dynamic Reallocation and Logistics
   |
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:32:00 -
[271]
The insurance change is a good and positive change and does not in any way make this "carebear online".
The sec status changes, on the other hand...
|
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:35:00 -
[272]
 Originally by: Giselle Beaute
Now I only need special self-destruct cargo containers which will explode when my ship got ganked so theres no cargo left to loot.
Hey, I kind of like that, though they should have a substantial capacity penalty.
What I'd really like is a "Giant Secured Container" (note the one-letter name difference to trap the unwary) which is secured with explosives. Armed upon contact with vacuum after ship destruction, it explodes in the face of the first pilot to approach it (possibly after offering a brief opportunity to enter a disarming password).
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:41:00 -
[273]
Fully supported! I'm not a ganker and I've never been ganked, but I think these changes are a positive step.
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:43:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Slim Goodbody
EVE is about killing f****ts like you and taking your cargo.
I see what you did there Mr. Spineless 
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:57:00 -
[275]
Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
This is pretty much exactly what I thought when I read about these changes. Good thinking on CCP's part. I support any change that makes an element of play more challenging for everyone, while still leaving Eve the cold, harsh universe that it is.
|
Daelorn
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:00:00 -
[276]
I like.
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:01:00 -
[277]
sure, suggest killing high sec suicide ganking altogether why don't you.
|
Zun Da
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:05:00 -
[278]
Good changes.
Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.
Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.
I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.
However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.
|
Kethry Avenger
Krell-Korp
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:07:00 -
[279]
I think these changes make a lot of sense.
One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:17:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Zun Da
Good changes.
Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.
Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.
I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.
However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.
Yes i agree, i am not whining cause suicide ganking will be harder, it is hard already. i'm ****ed cause of the people whining about how EASY it is, when all they have to do is afk for 15 minutes and bam, they are wherever they were going. if the lure of low sec was made more. .. luring. . . then i would not have a problem, as i could kill whoever i want and make money that way.
|
Vincent S
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:27:00 -
[281]
It's amazing how every single way to have fun unless you're a mission running drone gets squashed into the ground with merciless force.
CCP: The game needs less security, not more!
|
Peter Powers
Master Miners
Intruders.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:28:00 -
[282]
did anyone take into consideration
that the part
"Player vs. Player standing penalty"
pretty much means:
if your negative and shoot a noob
you will get less security hit
compared to when your negative
and shoot at someone whos playing for a while,
has the isk to afford getting shot at
(getting high sec status == making isk)
and maybe the knowledge to defend himself?
other then that part nice ideas.
I love CCP Morpheus<3 xXx CCP Morpheus xXx <3
|
Druadan
Aristotle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:33:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Druadan on 06/08/2008 18:35:16
Originally by: Kethry Avenger
I think these changes make a lot of sense.
One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?
Very good question. I had assumed that insurance would still pay out in lowsec, but I've been in the game long enough to know that what is a good idea and what actually gets implemented diverge further each month. Since FW was introduced I have zero reason to go to lowsec and pirate, but should I want to whack a guy in lowsec I'd like to know that I won't be insurance-fracked for it.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Trojanman190
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:41:00 -
[284]
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:42:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 -
[286]
I'm pretty sure the "no insurance for gankers" only applies when CONCORD is involved. Therefore, lowsec would be unaffected by the change.
I'm all for boosting the sec penalty in highsec, but similarly I think they should lower the sec penalty across the board for 4.0 and below. Also, 3.0 and below should have weaker gate guns so battleships aren't required just to tank them. It could actually help boost non-PVP traffic because of the less threatening ships doing the camping.
////
---------===
[]=
---------===
\\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 -
[287]
it has been easy enough to not get ganked in eve ever since I started playing and we have seen several buffs to concord in that time
lets make it so the only meaningful way to gain sec status is to kill player pirates, I mean seriously npcs whats the challenge in that 
don't listen to the idiots ccp please 
although lower concord response numbers and maybe even despawning concord would be quite fantastic 
|
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 -
[288]
yay!
|
DaiTengu
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 -
[289]
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.
Even if you've 2 billion worth of ISK in a freighter, it's going to even out in the end. it'll take 15-20 Ravens to pop a freighter in highsec with the concord response changes, etc. Each raven is about 90-100m for the hull and mods.
This cuts in to the empire ganking profit drastically, and if I recall correctly, CCP said they didn't want to do that.
|
Morfane
The IMorral MAjority
Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:54:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
That was my first thought as well, but killing freighters will be so risky after the patch (1.5 b risked for a less than 50/50 chance at 4b? - ok, but not with giant sec losses) that the bears will undoubtedly just haul all their expensive bobbles in them.
|
THEGREAT LOBO
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Korinn
Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
QFT
Eve is just not the same it used to be.
I never thought i would be considering what accounts to keep and what to sell for isk. But the time is coming to drop to just one. And im not the only one thinking this.
Thanks to that guy that told me about the other sci fi mmo's coming out soon. They do look intresting, Looking forward to a lot more competition in the internet space ship market. Once people have a choice, we will be able to see if most people think ccp is taking the game in the right direction.
|
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Morfane
bobbles
Baubles? Or do carebears have, like, bobble-headed dolls stuck to their dashboards with suction cups, swaying away under the fuzzy dice?
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:04:00 -
[293]
as an aside, I really don't see what the suicide ganking squad is complaining about since they can still suicide gank...
I've also noticed something rather amusing: CCP seems to operate by the "give em enough rope to hang themselves" philosophy. When someone finds an borderline exploit that their game design lets thru, they wait till it becomes obvious to everyone that it's an exploit, then wait a bit longer, and finally bring the boom down. When they do it, it's only a surprise to those who's logic goes: "They've been letting me get away with it for so long, I'll be able to get away with it forever".
CCP has stated that they want a game where actions have consequences, when they find something where actions don't have enough consequences they eventually do address the problem.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:09:00 -
[294]
First off, like the problems with War Decs that were not fixed until the PrivateerĘs started War Decing Everybody, it took the expansion of suicide ganks to finally get CCP to look into the issue, I am glad they did.
On Securityą your security rating only concerns Concord, it is Concords view of youą it makes total sense that in space with little if any Concord presence (Low Sec Space) should affect your standing with Concord at allą I hope this is carried into 0.0 space as well where there is NO concord presence. This will Increase the activity in Low sec space as you could no longer ōGrindö up your security rating in null sec space. Granted, the low sec pirates will not be happy as the security grinding characters out of null sec space may be a tougher fight then the noob or carebear that wanders in for what ever reasoną
It also makes sense that Concord would not treat you so harshly if you are beloved (Sec 5.0 +) and you pop a trouble makerą. And treat you harsher for shooting at someone they likeą
That concord shows up fasterą well, who can sayą as long as there is time for that well planned gank squad to do their thing, then I am ok with itą Oh, and I am all for the stupidity tax (Suicide ganks on AFK haulers with billions as well as no insurance and a greater Security hit for Gankers that fail (to either pop the ship or to get the loot dropped)
--------*****--------
"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!"
--George Carlin |
Losvial
Amarr
The Flying Dutchmen
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:16:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Letrange
as an aside, I really don't see what the suicide ganking squad is complaining about since they can still suicide gank...
And that's the same as saying "Why are all mission runners complaining? They can still run missions" if they were to cut the profits of missions in half.
|
Drake Arson
Minmatar
Infernal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:17:00 -
[296]
Yet, again, CCP Falls to the *****ing and whining done by those who want no PVP.
This, would, perhaps be a good addition, If there we're 'NO' Macro Miners, Isk sellers, Isk Selling MIssion farmers.
Most High sec ganks ARE those who are Isk sellers, so your bending to the will of those you supposedly are "against".
Like I said to the Drastic Speed Nerf too Two diffrent races, And I'll seay it again for this Bullshit.
EPIC FAIL, CCP.
Dare you Defy me?!
|
Matalino
Gallente
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:30:00 -
[297]
I am actually begining to wonder if this change might actually get me to start suicide ganking.
I think that I have found a few cruiser fits that might be able to gank a cargo expanded indy.
If people start doubting that gankers will continue to opperate without insurance payouts, we might start to see more people going AFK with their expanded indies.
Doesn't take much loot to cover the cost of a T1 fitted cruiser.
Anybody have the updated numbers for CONCORD response times?
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:33:00 -
[298]
Guys, guys don't worry. It only takes a few DAYS to get your sec back up, no big deal right? 
|
Seetesh
Caldari
Pixels Docks
Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:39:00 -
[299]
Omg well done CCP finally a boost/nerf im actually looking forward to
|
jokerb
Caldari
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:42:00 -
[300]
Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
Bad move CCP. Again way too much heavy handiness, a simpler solution would have produced less agitation.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |