EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Serious Security

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Serious Security

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Pesadel0 Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:20:00 - [211] Originally by: Khatred Originally by: Pesadel0 Originally by: Khatred I have the solution for you all: 1. High sec gankers can go to WoW pvp servers, level to 70 and then gank 20's in Ashenvale. 2. High sec carebears can go to WoW pve servers and do whatever. That will also solve Jita lag. There, I want a Noble prize now. Thank you for your input ,here take a buck of STFU. And why exactly do you f**ing care? Aren't you like supposed to be in 0.0 where this changes have no effect whatsoever? Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i grasp* actually like the eve concept. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Khanto Thor Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:23:00 - [212] Originally by: Vitrael 4. You're removing insurance for CONCORD losses - why? Over suicide gankers? What about the dozens of ships that are CONCORD'd accidentally every day? I think you've fallen down a slipperly slope. oh wait... you're right there! how many of us have accidentally shot at the stargate instead of our war target
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:23:00 - [213] I have a question that will hopefully get an answer instead of being lost in the whining: Will this change impose a full security hit for ALL attackers? Or will only the person laying the final blow take the full security hit, with the other attackers taking a hit for attacking, but not for destroying the target?
Danyael Tyren Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [214] I would also like to point out how horribly out of balance this puts the isk/risk ratio. Running level 4 missions in near perfect safety in empire gives the same or better isk as ratting in 0.0, where your ship can be ganked with no consequence. If you're going to make Empire perfectly safe, make 0.0 more valuable. ------ NAPs (nap means we wonÆt kill you today, maybe, but thatÆs all that means unless you help and contribute to coalition or being useful to us there is no obligation for us to keep that +standing
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [215] Edited by: Clansworth on 06/08/2008 15:31:08 NVM New Prospector Class
Adam Coyle Caldari Vesa Supply Corp	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [216] I cannot understand you all whiners, the proposed change is for one thing only a proposed change and for another thing very small. I have no basis for saying the following, it is just speculation: But from what I have understood and from my own destructions while hauling most suicide ganking happens in 0.5-0.6, right? The proposed change will only increase the penalty slightly for suicide ganking in 0.5-0.6 anyway, so why are so many complaining about the end of the world. I say that since the reward from security systems is gradual already I am all for that the risk should also be gradual (best mission agents are always in lower security systems and best ore is the same). But the change that your own sec status and the attackers sec status should make any difference, that I do not understand. If I am a law bidding citizen and have never drawn attention from CONCORD before, why should I get less penalty than a pirate that has made his career in confronting CONCORD? A crime is still a crime regardless of who is doing it, right? Third, I do not approve of just removing insurance from CONCORD involved incidents. Please make an overhaul of the complete insurance system instead. If I am a mission runner and am careless to lose a lot of ships, then I should have to pay a higher premium than pilots that never lose their ships regardless of reason. Maybe it is enough to raise the hand payment, but introduce a lower fee to extend an existing insurance. That way you punish those that lose a lot of ships, but reward those that take care of them. Yes, changing the insurance system will always draw insults from forum readers that CCP is giving in for whining carebears. But the insurance system needs an overhaul sooner than later anyway.
Khatred ReallyPissedOff Guinea Pigs	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:30:00 - [217] Originally by: Pesadel0 Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i grasp actually like the eve concept. I wouldn't worry to much, considering this blog and the "speed balancing" one it's obvious that CCP loves big alliances and empire dwellers. After all, you are probably 95% of the player base.
Pesadel0 Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:38:00 - [218] Originally by: Khatred Originally by: Pesadel0 Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i grasp actually like the eve concept. I wouldn't worry to much, considering this blog and the "speed balancing" one it's obvious that CCP loves big alliances and empire dwellers. After all, you are probably 95% of the player base. Are you dense? ------------------------------------------------------------------
Slim Goodbody	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:47:00 - [219] Originally by: Harris I don't think its sad. It places consequences in your way that you have to consider more seriously than before. Isn't that what Eve is about Ganking will still happen - which is good. I suspect it will be more intel-driven targets now, rather than 'just-happened-to-scan-his-cargo-at-the-gate-and-liked-what-I-saw'. I particularly like the fact that there will be some sort of difference between Hi & Null sec rather than just acting as a buffer zone between 0.1 and 0.4. I think that should be developed further in the future. What about the consequences of transporting valuable goods without proper protection? Goes both ways.
Badly WrappedKebab THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:47:00 - [220] Any chance of making webbing, remote repping and remote sensor boosting not cause aggression if you are in the same fleet regardless of alliance/corp? It sucks royally to take a sec status hit if I want to stop a neutral cyno alt's ship getting blown up and/or not being able to web a neutral freighter in highsec..

Skraeling Shortbus Caldari Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:48:00 - [221] Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 06/08/2008 15:49:09 Pathetic changes. Except for the insurance one. "Concord provided consequences not protection"... not anymore! Also how about fixing GCC mechanics and just remove gateguns now maybe? Remote rep my own corpmate for GCC ftw!
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:51:00 - [222] Make PVE server instead. Vote against the nano nerf!
Rooker Lysian Enterprises	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:54:00 - [223] Oh good lord. I'll agree that getting insurance for a suicide gank should be removed. That never made any sense. I can't agree with the rest of this, particularly the security status changes. Some of the most active suicide gankers come into empire from 0.0, where they often have 5.0 or higher sec status from farming officer and faction rats, so that does nothing at all to them. On the other hand, you have people that live in empire who, because you do such a terrible job of removing them, take matters into their own hands to suicide gank ISK farmers. An ISK farmer can farm his way to 5.0 or higher in just a couple of weeks. You also have people whose low security status comes from fighting with non-outlaw pirates who just might have a higher sec status than they do. There's also people at war (Faction War in particular) who take sec hits from shooting neutral scouts. You fix things by tweaking them and standing back to see what happens, not by grabbing it by the power cord and slamming it against the wall. You people are changing too much, too drastically, too quickly. -- Let Us Avoid Systems Via Autopilot
Nathan Baxter Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:55:00 - [224] I think those are fine changes, not sure why all these people are complaning ... nothing really drastic ... but it will be less profitable for sure , an increase in loot drop seem a well deserve counterbalance... or some good salvage , something to make it worthwhile still. Nathan
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:58:00 - [225] Meh . I never suicide ganked but really removing insurance alone would be more then enough (if not to much already). What's happening with the cold hard space ideology? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:01:00 - [226] Originally by: Shevar What's happening with the cold hard space ideology? its being promoted. now it affects suicide gankers too.
Cypher Run	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:01:00 - [227] Originally by: Shevar What's happening with the cold hard space ideology? It's still there. Hint: You'll have to look a little beyond hi sec to find it.
Auraurious Subjugation	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:02:00 - [228] Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say, Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW If you AFK trough High sec and get ganked. It's your fault you made a misstake of thinking high sec is completly safe. So ganking is going too get harder at the cost of Low sec pvp?. Oh w8 didn't you freaking devs wanna make Low sec more active. More sec loss everywhere is stupid. Perfection.
Cypher Run	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:03:00 - [229] Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: Shevar What's happening with the cold hard space ideology? its being promoted. now it affects suicide gankers too. Bah! Even a better response than mine.
Mik Starret	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:05:00 - [230] The forum posting pirate minority never ceases to amaze me. Many of you seem to think that it is CCP's responsibility to provide you a playground to do the things you want to do, no matter if they interfere with the activities of a larger group of paying customers. Get a clue, it isn't. CCP's only responsibility is provide positive ROI to their owners, and if they best way to do that is to make the empire experience safer then that is what they are going to do. Their goal is to attract and keep paying customers, the advantage for us is that to do that they need to create and maintain the best game possible, for the majority of players. How can you possibly question that as a goal? Although I don't know, I would assume before they make these changes they study the available statistical data concerning accounts, joins,quits, in game actions, etc. The game system is so sophisticated I'm sure it provides these kinds of reports, which players never see and have no basis on which even to make any assumptions. Thus, if they are doing their jobs as well as I think they are, any changes like this are made, after careful study, for the good of the game. It won't please everyone, and forums exist largely for an outlet for complaining, but the posts that imply that CCP owes you the right to gank other players is just silly. MS

Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:05:00 - [231] Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 06/08/2008 16:05:44 "Eve online is not designed to look like a caring and sensitive world, it is a caring and sensitive world" Thanks for caterating to a bunch of carebears
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:10:00 - [232] Originally by: Mik Starret The forum posting pirate minority never ceases to amaze me. Many of you seem to think that it is CCP's responsibility to provide you a playground to do the things you want to do, no matter if they interfere with the activities of a larger group of paying customers. Get a clue, it isn't. CCP's only responsibility is provide positive ROI to their owners, and if they best way to do that is to make the empire experience safer then that is what they are going to do. Their goal is to attract and keep paying customers, the advantage for us is that to do that they need to create and maintain the best game possible, for the majority of players. How can you possibly question that as a goal? Although I don't know, I would assume before they make these changes they study the available statistical data concerning accounts, joins,quits, in game actions, etc. The game system is so sophisticated I'm sure it provides these kinds of reports, which players never see and have no basis on which even to make any assumptions. Thus, if they are doing their jobs as well as I think they are, any changes like this are made, after careful study, for the good of the game. It won't please everyone, and forums exist largely for an outlet for complaining, but the posts that imply that CCP owes you the right to gank other players is just silly. MS The more they move into the mainstream MMO market (with features such as safer space) the more they will alienate the player base that's paying for this game because it isn't like the other MMO's. Not to mention that they will have to compete more with the nicer MMO's. And if you look at the development of nice MMO's subscription rates you will notice that outside EQ1 and WoW not one has been able of doing much, let alone be comparable with eve's yearly subscriber increase rate. And I hope it isn't the case but really 95% of those MMO's have declining player bases not increasing ones after the initial hype. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Mik Starret	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:16:00 - [233] I don't disagree, but I think you are over inflating the group that plays EvE because it allows endless opportunities for violence. The great thing about EvE is that it is a sandbox, you are not limited by strict paths and previous decisions in how you approach the game. Unlike many other MMO's, the basic EvE concept is extremely strong and compelling. For some, the best part of that concept is that you can kill at will. For others, that is the worst part. Only CCP knows who the majority is, but I can guess, and I'd wager the balance tilts far to one side. MS
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:23:00 - [234] Originally by: Silent Calling WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle. what is stopping you from ganking him and getting the loot?
Arric Rohr Gallente Intergalactic Science LLC	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [235] Originally by: Silent Calling WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle. Why not just make CONCORD a giant Commet that once a person commits a violation it comes out of no where and destroys them? That might save on lag? How often do you think that happens, compared to the number of times someone ganks a noob in a frigate just for their idea of fun? Where do I get one of those cool signatures?
Berious Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [236] Edited by: Berious on 06/08/2008 16:26:01 Never suicide ganked but these changes are once again an overnerf and slightly bizzare (why should relative security status make a difference to sec hit - pointless buff for mission runners)
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:26:00 - [237] Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: Shevar The more they move into the mainstream MMO market (with features such as safer space) the more they will alienate the player base that's paying for this game because it isn't like the other MMO's. Not to mention that they will have to compete more with the nicer MMO's. we've been doomed before. remember when jump clones were anounced? the riots were quite big. the game kept on growing on players. remember when carriers were nerfed? well, the game kept on growing. remember the privateers and how CCP changed the war system? well, the game kept on growing. remember torps nerf? oh my god, by the looks of the forum whines, the game would go to one third of its subscribers. but the number of players kept raising. remember ECM nerf? NOS nerf? the reduction of drones from 15 to 5?... i could go on and on. players adapt, and most of them, after some time, end up agreeing with past changes. The last real cave in to promote a nicer game style where people are made more immune to harm has been the introduction of base insurance several years ago (and arguably warp to zero but then again who didn't have hundreds of bm's already to do that?). So I don't really see how re balancing is in any way comparable with a change like this. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Silent Whispers	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:27:00 - [238] Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: Silent Calling WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle. what is stopping you from ganking him and getting the loot? Nothing, other then the fact I'm being punished (even more) via Security Status for their stupidity.
Silent Whispers	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:29:00 - [239] Originally by: Arric Rohr Originally by: Silent Calling WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle. Why not just make CONCORD a giant Commet that once a person commits a violation it comes out of no where and destroys them? That might save on lag? How often do you think that happens, compared to the number of times someone ganks a noob in a frigate just for their idea of fun? Did you just fall and hit your head? FUN PVP is in 0.0 and low sec, not suicide ganking in high sec. Now go get your hug from CCP.
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:31:00 - [240] Originally by: Silent Whispers Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: Silent Calling WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle. what is stopping you from ganking him and getting the loot? Nothing, other then the fact I'm being punished (even more) via Security Status for their stupidity. well, it could also be that they were finnancially punished for your exploiting of the rules



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.