| 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) |
Elrca
Brutor tribe
   |
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[61]
There should always be risk vs reward. So no risk in high sec, no reward.  Remove all agents from 0.7 and up and remove all belts
|
Primnproper
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[62]
Not bad 
Now if we can get some sort of new bounty system to go with the security status changes it would be great  |
Jackie Fisher
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:07:00 -
[63]
Looks to me like these various proposed changes should have been ôorö not ôandö.
If the desire is to make the attacker take the consequences of their actions then why reduce Concord response time û thatÆs not making people accountable for their actions, just effectively preventing them from taking action.
I donÆt see the logic in changing sec status loss according to attacking and target relative sec status either. If the other changes happen what is this for and IÆm not sure on what basis something is a crime against person A but the same action is less of a crime against person B.
Sadly typical CCP overreaction to an issue - reducing insurance payouts to Concord losses would have been enough rather than all these changes.
|
Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:09:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 08:12:57
 Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO
Anymore whiners you want to give into ccp ?
What the hell is happening to this game?
You are very lucky there is so little competition in the sci fi mmo market.
The internet spaceships competition is coming:
http://www.blackprophecy.com/
http://www.jumpgateevolution.com/
Hopefully they don't patch all of the fun out of eve before a replacement is found. When I say fun I don't mean rock carving or space trucking. Which is all that will be left at this rate.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:10:00 -
[65]
Looking very good. I especially love this bit:
Quote:
"In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future."
Getting insurance from ships destroyed by the police has never made any sense, and it lets people suicide gang with little financial risk.
These changes should make suicide ganking something that is possible, but only worth it for extremely high-value targets (not just a random mission ship with one low-end faction module). Just as it should be.
Good job.
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:12:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Aelin Dao
Quote:
Be safe out there!
That's kind of a given, considering what sounds like an unbalancing CONCORD buff. I hope some kind of lessening in Empire profitability is similarly forthcoming.
here is a hint
Quoted for truth.
CCP repeats time after time that they are looking at ways to make lowsec/0.0 more attractive - in fact, this was one of the big talking points they used to drum up enthusiasm for FW. So now they buff CONCORD AGAIN, making highsec even safer than it already is while saying nothing about a reduction in the rewards for missioning/mining in highsec, thus discouraging anyone who isn't in FW from ever leaving 0.5+ space?
GG.
Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:13:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 06/08/2008 08:13:59
Ok, serious comment this time:
These changes are long overdue. For all the people crying about it: suicide ganking still works. The only difference is now you'll have to work a little harder, and you'll have to actually pick your targets instead of just ganking every ship you see.
The simple example of why suicide ganking was way too easy and cheap:
My alt was hauling some new ships to my main, since I'm not allowed into highsec anymore. It was a long highsec trip, so I went AFK in my untanked T1 hauler. Well, big surprise, I got suicide ganked by a Drake. Now, what's the problem with this scenario? Guess what my cargo was:
...
...
Raptors. Two Raptors.
Yes, that's right, my hauler was suicide ganked for the most utterly useless interceptor in the game, a ship whose sole reason for existing is the fact that because it sucks so much, it's dirt cheap and a perfect throwaway ship. Two ships I'd bought to use as suicide tacklers, because they're so worthless I wouldn't care when I lost them.
So yeah, I'd say there's a problem with the risk/reward balance of suicide ganking when a cargo of the most worthless ships in the game can actually be a profitable gank.
|
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:13:00 -
[68]
Whole insurance business is pure nonsense. Pay out the insurance for losses in highsec. For everything else, no insurance.
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:18:00 -
[69]
changes sound stupid and go against the nature of EVE.
insurance payouts I would agree with, but this?
where's the ultraviolence?
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Vaedian GER
Excidium.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:18:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Vaedian GER on 06/08/2008 08:18:13
So, the missionrunners and AFK-players whined enough by now?
|
|
|
Riho
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:20:00 -
[71]
im not a suicide ganker nor i have been ganked BUT this is just utter crap. WHINEING CAREBEAR SUCM is winning eve it seems... they whine and dev go for it, in turn turning this game from "cold, harsh world" to Hello Kitty Online.
suicide ganking is a way to kill of ******s in eve. if your hauling 2 bil worth of stuff in a t1 hauler... you deserve to die.
like in real world... if you have 1 million dollars cash showing out of your pockets and you go to a dark alley.... you get robbed and its your own damn fault that your are to stupid.
----------------------------------
Fighting for Minmatar o7
Yes... this is my main.
Extreme Troll Slayer...
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:25:00 -
[72]
this won't solve anything... security lvl is useless as a penelty for the once who gank, since they do it on targets that are wellworth killing, what does it matter to them to move to their home in 0.0 and rat for another day or two per 10billion suicide ganked?.
there shouldn't be a limit for how much minus you could get, so if your doing something regular you will end at -100 security +, which would be fine since you didn't catch the warning and you do destroy other peoples fun with no risk at all (yer i have been a pirate to, there is no risk to it if you choice your victim right)
killing in high sec just shouldn't be possible in anything but belts, concord should hit you with jammers the moment you aktivate your guns, and then instant kill your drones (a hard hitting bs can easily take out 4-8 drones in one volley if it has the tracking and we are talking about concord here), so scenerio:
you get one volley then your permajammed and your drones are gun and you die..
and the most importent thing, if you are killed by concord there is NO insurance...
but this other change is just stupid..
I declare war on stupidity |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:29:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Riho
im not a suicide ganker nor i have been ganked BUT this is just utter crap. WHINEING CAREBEAR SUCM is winning eve it seems... they whine and dev go for it, in turn turning this game from "cold, harsh world" to Hello Kitty Online.
suicide ganking is a way to kill of ******s in eve. if your hauling 2 bil worth of stuff in a t1 hauler... you deserve to die.
like in real world... if you have 1 million dollars cash showing out of your pockets and you go to a dark alley.... you get robbed and its your own damn fault that your are to stupid.
hey this does not change that. it changes the loss/gain ratio on the gankers, so they need to pick more profitable targets. that's all ...
--- SIG ---
CSM: your support is needed ! |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:31:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Riho
suicide ganking is a way to kill of ******s in eve. if your hauling 2 bil worth of stuff in a t1 hauler... you deserve to die.
...and this patch changes that... how?
Right. It doesn't.
What it does change is that people can no longer do completely risk-free suicide ganks, and automatically make a profit.
I'm fine with people carrying extremely valuable cargo or flying uber-expensive mission gear getting ganked, with the pirates making a huge profit. That's how it should be.
All this patch changes is that gank pirates have to actually select their targets and decide if it's worth it. You know, the old "risk & reward" bit, which has been totally missing the "risk" part up to now.
|
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:33:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 06/08/2008 08:13:59
...
It was a long highsec trip, so I went AFK in my untanked T1 hauler. Well, big surprise, I got suicide ganked by a Drake. Now, what's the problem with this scenario?
By all means, let me help you with that. I took the liberty of bolding the problem with your scenario, hope this helps.
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:33:00 -
[76]
Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO
Anymore whiners you want to give into ccp ?
What the hell is happening to this game?
You are very lucky there is so little competition in the sci fi mmo market.
Whats next, you going to outlaw scamming ? corp theft? Make ransoms petitionable ?
And no, I have never suicide ganked anything, my sec status does not allow me to get into empire to do such things.
hehehehe, you made me laugh so hard XD
"outlaw scamming"
tell me a mmo where it is allowed to scam besides eve, come on you can do it :P
now take a quess WHY...
because scamming is illigal even in the RL and it is impossible to protect yourself against without being overperinoid and if it was legal you will get a paranoid and unhelpfull sociaty, ow wait eve is like that.. guess why? ;)
hehehe.... you people are so far out you don¿t even realise it, you are the course of this games end, and yes it will die, slowly but surely..
mmo'ers are made for pve, that compensate the pvp, not pure pvp, which this game is surely trying to do.
the only pure pvp games you find is fps games, now guess why ? ;)
I declare war on stupidity |
XxAngelxX
Amarr
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:37:00 -
[77]
It becomes more obvious every dev blog that there is no hope for the real issues in the game (lag, macros, isk farming) so the smaller whines are being tackled 1 by 1 in hope of appeasing the majority of the player base.
--------------------------------------
Dance Puppets, Dance |
Ki An
Gallente
Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:39:00 -
[78]
I thought you where joking when I read about some of these changes in that CSM post. Now I see you're not, and it makes me very worried. Do you realise what a HUGE boost to risk free level 4 high sec mission running this is? I mean, not only are you making it a LOT harder to kill them without completely ruining yourself, but you're also boosting their already ludicrously high rewards by making ganking them (having high sec ratings) tougher on your own sec rating.
CCP, what the hell are you doing?
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:42:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 08:12:57
Originally by: THEGREAT LOBO
Anymore whiners you want to give into ccp ?
What the hell is happening to this game?
You are very lucky there is so little competition in the sci fi mmo market.
The internet spaceships competition is coming:
http://www.blackprophecy.com/
http://www.jumpgateevolution.com/
Hopefully they don't patch all of the fun out of eve before a replacement is found. When I say fun I don't mean rock carving or space trucking. Which is all that will be left at this rate.
trust me, if you think it is fun to scam, and be a jerk to every one else like a 10 year old trying to play though, then those games will be NOTHING for you, they surely will not allow such an attitude..
eve is the only game that will allow that kind of lameass half brain attitude to exist inside a game... i mean seriously, wow seems more mature in that department which means eve seriously hit the bottom :/
I declare war on stupidity |
Blancanieves
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:43:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Buyerr
you get one volley then your permajammed and your drones are gun and you die..
This sounds like you want to be perfectly safe in Highsec... I tell you what: You are already ARE perfectly safe in Highsec, without the changes in the devblog and without your proposed change, if you're not completely dumb and prepared.
Originally by: CCP Fear
We have decreased the response time (...) The frigates will lock almost instantly while the battleship takes longer to lock
So you decreased response time and at the same time increased lock time of the important CONCORD ships? Which means in the end you still have the same time to fire on your target before you're popped, or do I misunderstand this?
Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
This change alone makes all other changes irrelevant. You won't need them.
Originally by: CCP Fear
This works in reverse, too. If you have low and the victim high, you will get an increased penalty.
I would love to see a change in the opposite direction: That killing a mission ***** with +5.0 sec status would be punished less hard. Can't you imagine the police arriving at a crime site just to notice that the man being beaten up is one of those "honored" and "respected" politicians that they hate as much as everybody else does, with their knit-free suits and eloquent but always unsubstantial answers to any question, and the police decides to just look away a bit longer than usual?
-
|
|
|
Blancanieves
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:48:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
the only reasonable change id the CONCORD spawn composition and the insurance change.
The security status mechanic changes are incomplete.
1. REMOVE security gains from rats if somebody is less than -1 sec status
2. less than -1 sec status players ONLY gain sec status by killing players with lower sec status than theirs. Means you are -10 forever ...
That would be fair.
While this is a slap into the face of every pirate and you deserve to die horribly in pirate camps till the end of your eve career, such changes would actually have the adverse affect of what you might have planned with it, and I would be happy if they were implemented. You'd only need to bring an alt to -10 and then repeatedly kill him without any effort, making it quite easy for every pirate to remain at a comfortable +5 regardless of how many ganks you do. That would be fair.
-
|
ElanMorin6
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:01:00 -
[82]
Edited by: ElanMorin6 on 06/08/2008 09:01:36
Once again, CCP completely fails to get it.
Quote:
Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down.
Also, whoever wrote this:
Quote:
It is too easy to gain back lost standing, taking only a few days to erase all the damage done by ganking.
spends too much time playing EVE. Currently I'm averaging a standing increase of about 0.1 per hour (starting at -2). I'm pretty sure most of us don't consider "only a few days" to be more than a fulltime work-week of ratting.
On a final note, it's truly depressing to see these changes go in without the badly needed parallel fixes to NPC corps and the bounty system. Which is a shame, because player-driven solutions to these problems would've been much more interesting and fun.
|
Ki An
Gallente
Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:06:00 -
[83]
I had a bad dream a few nights ago. In my dream, the head honchos of CCP where meeting, discussing the future of the company. They decided that they needed to use all corporate resources to get their new WoD MMO out the door, and cut back on all other projects. Someone said that it would leave EvE out in the cold, and some fat guy said "Let it die!".
So, in order to get as much revenue out of EvE as possible before finally letting it die off, they decided to move all the EvE devs over to WoD, hire a bunch of cheap SOL guys to keep EvE running until they decided to pull the plug, and finally to open up EvE to the "casual market" by removing the PvP elements in the game.
The dream then took me six months into the future. The new WoD MMO had just been released to mixed reviews. The old EvE crowd, shunned by CCP since a long time, had made an effort and tried out the game. After a high initial rush of players, the game levelled out at about 100k subscribers. Subscriber retention was low.
EvE was running on a single server, sceduled for termination the following week.
Boy, that was a bad dream.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Gustav Seriya
Corp 1 Allstars
The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:17:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Gustav Seriya on 06/08/2008 09:18:01
100% support for this as an all-sec pvp pilot. Suicide ganking is way too easy, and a scheme that relies on insurance payouts to criminals perpetuating crimes is just silly. If you've got a decent supplier than an insured BS with T1 mods is about free; 20 free ships should not be able to inflict billions in damage to some poor sod's undefendable freighter in a 'high security' system. It should cost the ganker something too.
Here's a great suicide gank:
http://kb.souls-of-vengeance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=30724
Someone's clearly staked this guy out, planned a job, laid in wait and executed it for billions in profit. This guy is worth suicide ganking, just as a t1 Industrial slowboating around with a valuable cargo will still be worth suicide ganking, but it should really be the high-end jobs that make this sort of thing worthwhile; suicide ganks should not be a matter of routine.
|
Dinkytot
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:18:00 -
[85]
good thing.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:21:00 -
[86]
Do you really want to mess around with a core mechanic (Insurance) to fix one little problem?
Also, continued lulz at those who have and will mention "insurance" and "making sense" in the same sentence.
-
DesuSigs |
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:28:00 -
[87]
I like how in one turn, a good bunch of you go "If you have nothing constructive to say, don't hit the post button", and in the next breath you collectively go "CCP caves in to whiners again!"
Look unless you have proof of what you're saying, then honestly you're just ranting and raving because it's the "cool" thing to do, without having any clue whatsoever as to why you're saying the things you are in the first place.
How about a little independant thought with a little common sense on the side? Hm? Or is that too much for ya'll to handle?
|
Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:30:00 -
[88]
I love how everyone thinks suicide ganking is insanely profitable. It's not. It might have been before everyone knew of it's existance. I'd love to see some of this research the devs did. I bet none of it includes actual testing on TQ.
|
BritishInvader
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:32:00 -
[89]
*Goons announce Suicide Ganking Jihad on EVE*
*Forums explode*
*Suicide Ganking gets nerfed to all hell*
Hilariously, the reason it is so easy to suicide gank is because Battleships are so cheap to lose, they're cheap to lose because you can sit in space and AFK mine minerals to build them.
The thought process behind this is hilarious.
-----+-----
Mail : BritishInvader for signature orders.
|
Rhak Amharr
Minmatar
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:34:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Maximillian Power
I don't understand why the criminals whine.
Think this is a good thing myself - Always thought suicide ganking was too easy.
Totally agreed (and you know I'm a criminal :)
Every game mechanic change will trigger whines from the nerfed side. That's just the misery that human race in general is in (not starting RL comparisons here, but you get the point that this is not exclusively done in MMOs).
Suicide ganking is (well, was) too easy. I just did it for the lulz on my alt to suicide nonworthy T1 fitted macro mackinaws (which is a good thing though) with a Moa that cost me like 1 or 2mil after insurance, can't even remember that. I risked less than when I'm baiting in a lowsec belt, and that is what risk/reward in highsec (for the ganker) is all about, it should be more risky for the suicide ganker in highsec than in lowsec.
BUT
What I do see as a valid point of some of the whiners until proven otherwise by CCP is the risk vs. reward of the typical carebear. Level 4 Missions and mining Veldspar are certainly not the most rewarding thing in this game, but their risk vs. reward is far out of line, especially now that suicide ganking has been made more expensive and risky. With the wardec changes, and NPC corps, it makes highsec a place where the risk is steadily decreasing, but the reward stays the same, or even goes up: Veldspar is a too good ore, Level 5 missions were added and sometimes send you to highsec, etc.
This is something I can't for the life of me understand and it would seriously need to be looked at, but it's easier to nerf 10.000 paying customers than 100.000 paying customers.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |