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) |
sg1jack
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:36:00 -
[361]
The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.
I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.
I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.
Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?
|
Huan CK
Gallente Koshaku
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:42:00 -
[362]
LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.
RL-Example: If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.
It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue. The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all. This is the only thing changing.
You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.
Good move ccp, very good one! ----------
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:43:00 -
[363]
Originally by: sg1jack The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.
I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.
I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.
Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?
So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to? ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:46:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Huan CK LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.
RL-Example: If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.
It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue. The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all. This is the only thing changing.
You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.
Good move ccp, very good one!
RL anology;
You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.
After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
sg1jack
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:47:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: sg1jack The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.
I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.
I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.
Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?
So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to?[/quote
no i would never agree with that 0.0 has always been and hopefully always will be completly lawless
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:59:00 -
[366]
Edited by: Pesadel0 on 07/08/2008 12:00:22 double post. ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sher Khanid
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:59:00 -
[367]
As i have a Carebear and a pvp alt i think i can state for a few peeps that the Insurance loss for ganking should be enough. Getting your Sec status back form -5 is a horrifically long time to do as a couple of my PVP corpies can testify too, all you're really doing is protecting the peeps with high sec status when they fly through lowsec.
CCP are just kicking the yarrs when they are alrady being nerfed for other things. If you want to make this game more balanced then get rid of the macros and sort the lag out, Everywhere in Caldari space atm moment is Lag central which just ruins the game more than high sec ganking. Ganking affects one or 2 peeps at a time Lag affects whole systems at a time..... you should really sort out your priorities and Macro's and Lag are way higher up on most peeps lists than Ganks which generally are only flown int by Afk haulers that should know better.
Ps apologies for my rambling
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:00:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: sg1jack The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.
I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.
I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.
Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?
So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to?[/quote
no i would never agree with that 0.0 has always been and hopefully always will be completly lawless
I was talking about low-sec,and the principle is the same ,reward stupidity and penalize smart people or people that donŠt conform and want to do their thing . ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Huan CK
Gallente Koshaku
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:00:00 -
[369]
Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: Huan CK LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.
RL-Example: If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.
It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue. The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all. This is the only thing changing.
You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.
Good move ccp, very good one!
RL anology;
You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.
After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional.
You'd think surveillance in space would be far more advanced than in RL ;)
Also, most suicide ganks happen at gates or stations, only little happen in missions where there's no neutral or police forces nearby. Keep in mind that at gates in high-sec as well as at stations there's always some law-enforcement units nearby, so you wouldn't go unnoticed. ----------
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:10:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Huan CK LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.
RL-Example: If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.
It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue. The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all. This is the only thing changing.
You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.
Good move ccp, very good one!
Actually the insurance change isnt the problem. I always said it is dumb to pay insurance for suicide ganking ships. Then again, removing the insurance is a FREAKING BIG STEP in itself against high sec ganking. Add the rest of whats detailed in that blog post, and you have what i just call the CCP syndrome.
+ this:
Originally by: Shevar
RL anology;
You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.
After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional.
versus this:
Originally by: Huan CK
You'd think surveillance in space would be far more advanced than in RL ;)
You'd think that space is just a tiny bit bigger area to monitor than the streets of a city.
I'd say you go back to your fleet of AFK barges and think hard about the next subject to whine about. Basically any two possible nerfs to high sec ganking from that blog would have been too much for balancing. So CCP decided to go with all 4 of them.
If you are going to go overboard, then at least do it big time. Hats off CCP.. really. My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe. Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>----> |
|
Ironnight
Caldari x13 X13 Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:11:00 -
[371]
Where are the old devs, the one that believed in people having to do the work and thing to succed? These new guys are useless, Hello kitty online rejects?
EO a pvp game, yeah right Server isnt build for large fleet actions (Large being more then 10 ships on gird) BAH PVP ships are to fast BAH You cant PVP there BAH
They're like 'oh shit son, its a trap ' *Doomsday* |
Axhind
Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:23:00 -
[372]
Originally by: No Beard "In many cases, unsuspecting victims have no chance to escape , nor any help from CONCORD. We want to change this." CCP Fear.
I take issue with this, if people mine in weak barges without being aligned and without being at their keyboard paying attention, then why should they have automatic protection? If people are stupid enough to haul valuable cargo afk in unsuitable craft then again why should they get automatic protection?
This nerf to sui ganks will benefit alliance alts and semi afk second account cash cows, not to mention macro miners. As usual CCP bows to whining carebears, when the game is perfect for these hanky wavers then all the real people will leave and you can have mining tournaments 24/7. That time is getting near.
Might I suggest trying to use the mentioned mining barge or a freighter before whining here? You can not mine while aligned and at speed. It takes about 10+ seconds for a hulk to get up to warp speed. If the suicide ganker hasn't killed you in that time (or at least scrambled) he is such a morone that it's incredible that he is still alive as breathing takes more brain power than that.
Other problem is freighters who are easily ganked (escort can't do shit about it as DPS is huge, logistics can't do anything either as it's shield and armour buffers are so low). Worst of all it's stupidly cheap to gank them making the whole ship class glorified t1 hauler as even filled with trit it's profitable to gank. And with todays free torp ravens no matter what crap is in the freighter you are still making money and ruining someones day without them having any viable option to defend them selves.
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari PURE Legion Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:52:00 -
[373]
CCP Fear..
You FAIL...
|
Maplesyrop
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:00:00 -
[374]
I would like to see an economic blog about the state of Eve after some of the suggested change like moving all positive quality agent to lowsec and cutting the bounty for mission in half and lets see how it look in about 6months ... lets face it pvper don't fly marauders or faction bs or much faction modules ... who would buy your loot... many officers and faction modules only find buyers in the PVE and spliting PVP and PVE server ... and I'm fairly confident that most suicide gankers are not the one producing T2 modules, heck they don't even us them obviously...
The length of the thread says a lot also ... 14 pages ... that is a minor issue, the speed "adjustement" had 110 pages in 4-5 days .
|
Damned Force
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:02:00 -
[375]
And after destroying the nanostyle of pvp devs working hard on destroy this style of fight too....
Good work a.s.s.holes
|
Daelin Blackleaf
The Reclaimed
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:18:00 -
[376]
While I agree suicide ganking in it's current form needed to go it would have been nice if you'd thrown the pirate profession a bone before making life more difficult for them yet again.
Many great suggestions have been made regarding security status, all have been ignored in place of a system that seems to aim to keep pirates in lo-sec, something that would be fine if there were more targets there.
0.5 Systems could allow outlaws entry while still providing CONCORD protection. This would give them an area to trade at reasonable prices instead of Outlawship being economic suicide for anyone without multiple accounts.
Lo-sec needs more bait. Plain and simple.
Pirate hunters should be able to engage pirates without penalty. This could be done using relative sec status, licenses, or changes to criminal flagging.
And why are there no pirate faction agents in our shark infested custard (lo-sec) are these entire factions supposed to be alliance content only?
Hell, you could go crazy and actually make something of the pirate factions. Have them pay bounties (relative to insurance) on FW militia members. Create lo-sec pirate havens, policed by the local pirate faction, where standing with them and not CONCORD determines protection. Perhaps even smugglers gates accessible only to those with the right faction standings that lead from their lo-sec havens to their 0.0 territories. The possibilities are both endless and completely ignored at the moment.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:24:00 -
[377]
More suicide ganker emo rage quit tears please. EVE is a cruel and harsh place and you just lost your ISK button. Grow up!
|
Tildah
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:30:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf While I agree suicide ganking in it's current form needed to go it would have been nice if you'd thrown the pirate profession a bone before making life more difficult for them yet again.
Many great suggestions have been made regarding security status, all have been ignored in place of a system that seems to aim to keep pirates in lo-sec, something that would be fine if there were more targets there.
0.5 Systems could allow outlaws entry while still providing CONCORD protection. This would give them an area to trade at reasonable prices instead of Outlawship being economic suicide for anyone without multiple accounts.
Lo-sec needs more bait. Plain and simple.
Pirate hunters should be able to engage pirates without penalty. This could be done using relative sec status, licenses, or changes to criminal flagging.
And why are there no pirate faction agents in our shark infested custard (lo-sec) are these entire factions supposed to be alliance content only?
Hell, you could go crazy and actually make something of the pirate factions. Have them pay bounties (relative to insurance) on FW militia members. Create lo-sec pirate havens, policed by the local pirate faction, where standing with them and not CONCORD determines protection. Perhaps even smugglers gates accessible only to those with the right faction standings that lead from their lo-sec havens to their 0.0 territories. The possibilities are both endless and completely ignored at the moment.
Totally agree , now that is something interesting and many good ideas for the futur of eve ... there's little reason to go to lowsec if you aren't looking for a fight , except the few lowsec pos and such ... if only we had more poster like this ...
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:38:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Marlona Sky More suicide ganker emo rage quit tears please. EVE is a cruel and harsh place and you just lost your ISK button. Grow up!
The point of your post is..
what exactly?
This isnt just about suicide ganking. This is about the way CCP approaches problems. Instead of making fine adjustments to the system and watch how it reacts, they constantly keep going to the extremes.. Hell even for newly added stuff, they add is 'pre-nerfed' so that they make sure its not unbalanced, but the fact that it is pre-nerfed usually makes it unbalanced and worthless to begin with.
This is a clear sign that people over there are either unwilling (lazy) or just plain unable (incompetent) to make proper game design decisions.
None of those options are really promising.
So please, for f..s sake.. go troll somewhere else and let the honest people shout the living s..t out of CCP for what they are doing. Not that it matters anyway, but at least they can't say noone told them they are wrong. My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe. Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>----> |
Gumpy Nighthawk
Amarr Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:50:00 -
[380]
Can we also get concord in 0.0 please, because it's just too dangerous there.
Also 2 titans in system make that impossible, it means i actually have to use my head before jumping into a system. I mean i want to make money with just my auto-pilot. Please make it so that when i enter a system no weapon systems will work anymore.
CCP good work, oh wait..... Signature Locked. Please refrain from amending a moderated warning. Navigator |
|
Simorgh
The People's Front of Judea
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:53:00 -
[381]
Hmm,
Whilst the removal of insurance for suicide ganking is probably a good balancing measure (making it still possible whilst not making it risk-free anymore) I'm not so sure about the sec status changes - grinding up sec status is hard as it is before making sec status gain harder (by an as-yet unspecified amount) and by introducing higher sec status hits for piracy (even in 0.4, which is madness).
If CCP wants pew pew to happen in low-sec, then it needs to:
a) throw the pirates a bone - slightly reduced sec hit in 0.3 or below is not enough; b) give targets a reason to go there. Lowsec is a rubbish place to rat or mine. If you want jaspet/omber/kernite you can get it in (not very) hidden belts without too much hassle. And as for ratting - am I going to flit nervously around a 0.3 system, looking for battlecruiser spawns in between dodging pirates and sweatily keeping an eye on local, or am I going to a nice juicy L4 agent and slap an endless procession of battleships and get LPs as well? Even a middling L3 agent will earn you more isk.
Lowsec needs to be more attractive to both pirates and those they hunt. Lowsec needs better roids, better rats and maybe more faction spawns, to make the risk/reward ratio closer to hisec mission-running.
|
Sgt Blade
Caldari M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:14:00 -
[382]
whats really funny is how some people think that ccp are caving in to those whinging/crying noobs.
now i dont like them either BUT they do somtimes have a point and on this situation, i think ccp have acted/will act well. if they have never changed anything on how concord worked then we will all be sitting in jita with 40 man fleets with logistics cruisers repping everyone and killing anyhting non blue on site.
the move is to make what concord do what they are intended for and these sec status changes are just a little extra
Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5 |
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:36:00 -
[383]
Originally by: Sgt Blade whats really funny is how some people think that ccp are caving in to those whinging/crying noobs.
now i dont like them either BUT they do somtimes have a point and on this situation, i think ccp have acted/will act well. if they have never changed anything on how concord worked then we will all be sitting in jita with 40 man fleets with logistics cruisers repping everyone and killing anyhting non blue on site.
the move is to make what concord do what they are intended for and these sec status changes are just a little extra
That's pretty funny coming from a carebear thats a member of a carebear corp in a carebear alliance. Just come out of the closet and join hands with your empire brethren to cheer CCP Fearful on.
|
denpeng
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:23:00 -
[384]
Giving the grand scoop to that eve has (from marketing and trading to alliance and corp management) I would like to see a lawyer skill added to the skill list. I figured we could bring Concord up in a class action law suit for failure to provide the protection that everyone seems to think they pay for.
It could open the door for awhole new type of player. They could train in Law, Felony and Misdemeanors, and could fly around in cloaked ships that could instantly warp to anytime someone gets killed.
lol
|
Gienah Corvus
Wolf Stone
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:34:00 -
[385]
Edited by: Gienah Corvus on 07/08/2008 15:40:50
I've been suicide ganked once, learned my lesson and moved on. I have mixed feelings about these changes. While I agree that suicide ganking should be more challenging, I think CCP is going to far. They're changing four different mechanics, when one or two of them would probably balance it.
Originally by: CCP Fear
We will also count the standings of the two players involved; this extra variable can affect the total penalty received by a few percent. For example, if an aggressor has a high standing, and the victim negative standing, the aggressor get less of a penalty hit. This works in reverse, too. If you have low and the victim high, you will get an increased penalty
I think this is way too much. I agree with taking down the insurance and increasing CONCORD response time. But I see no point to making the security hit relative to player security standings. My friends and I occasionaly go to lowsec looking for Pew Pew (to give the pirates something to do). I like the decrease in security hit in lowsec, but I think the security hit you take for aggro should remain based on location, and not on player standings. This change effectively extends additional protection to carebears who enter lowsec.
I also think the massive increase in security standings penalty in the higher security systems is way too harsh, especially combined with the other changes.
I'm happy to see CCP trying to balance the issue of highsec suicide ganking, but I think they're going to far with this.
|
Karando
Random Goods
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:45:00 -
[386]
Requesting balance in EVE, CCP has to implement the following changes in order to improve the game. 1) Disband the CSM and ban all of it's members with no interest in PvP from EVE 2) Fire newly hired CCP employees (employeement time < 6 months) (Including, but not limited to CCP Fear and CCP Nozh) 3) Restrict forum access to accounts with over 100 player kills.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:48:00 -
[387]
Edited by: The Economist on 07/08/2008 15:52:24 Hey, I've got an idea!
Let's take an aspect of the game that's been unchanged, widely accepted for four years and that we've said many times was an intended part of the game and was working fine and start to re-design it and re-think the underlying principles that we've always claimed informed our vision of eve so that we can appease a vocal minority of players that happen to like posting the same whine threads every week because they're too lazy/weak/stupid to adopt the tactics necessary to avoid being ganked in high sec that everyone's been happily using for years.
To the dev blog!
Seriously though, I think, more than anything else, the perceived problem is due to high sec lvl 4-no-risk-missions, isk buying (not just illegally but also gtcs etc), the ease with which one can grind missions in safety as a newer player and convert lp's into fast cash and faction ships/mods; which they then feed back into their missions until you have characters a couple of months old flying around high sec in faction/deadspace/officer fit cnr's who don't know much about the mechanics of eve, don't know how to recognize an incoming gank, don't know how to defend themselves and feel cheated because they were under the impression that high sec was carealot. Haulers getting ganked are a non-issue, no-one with a brain carries anything of worth in a t1 hauler, and those that do quickly learn not to. Freighter ganks can be spotted a mile off if you keep your wits about you. Move all lvl 4 agents to low sec and I think a lot of the perceived problem will take care of itself [you've been talking about it for bloody long enough, why not do it before you start messing with shit that's been working fine for years].
Tbh though, it's not so much the letter of the changes that bothers me (aside from the faster concord spawn meaning you need more people per kill which means less profit, which combined with the pot luck involved in the module drops makes the whole thing massively less worth-while. Oh and the bigger sec hits meaning it takes even longer and is even more boring to recoup sec status. Incidentally I think the sec status mechanic needs altering; at the moment recovering sec just involves grinding npc's, which is basically punishing piracy with soul-crushing tedium, not only that but one thing ccps's always been against is mindless grinding in mmo's. Well the sec treadmill is exactly that and has been for years.) but rather the spirit, the implied switch from ccp's attitude of "eve is cold and dark, high sec ain't safe, if you died you made a mistake and should learn from it not whine to us" to one of appeasement, one of catering to vocal minorities and making tiny incremental steps towards the pink and fluffy side.
For shame.
Eve is meant to be a brutal and unforgiving universe.
CSM: This so called council got elected by 5.7% of the player base! (12678 votes)
Who the hell are they going to represent??? |
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:58:00 -
[388]
good changes on the whole IMO. Good to see CCP are finally fixing their game. ...
|
Ahzara Zhin
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:03:00 -
[389]
Edited by: Ahzara Zhin on 07/08/2008 16:05:11 Way to go CCP, great fixes for pvp-crazed Jarhead ***holes.
|
Sethose Olderon
Deepcor
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:04:00 -
[390]
HAHA! Looks like the Jarheads aren't liking this one too much.
I'm loving this. Corporate Owned Stargates
|
|
|
|
|
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 |