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) |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:33:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Silent Whispers
FUN PVP is in 0.0 and low sec, not suicide ganking in high sec. Now go get your hug from CCP.
Not after next patch. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:34:00 -
[242]
I'm as carebear as they come, but the TOTAL removal of insurance on ganks is utter crap. You'll be increasing not only the standings hits from ganks, but also multiplying the suicide gank cost by a significant factor... you could have just as well made highsec a "no weapons zone" this way... it's just TOO MUCH.
_
THE APPRENTICE || mineral balance || nanofix
|
Silent Calling
Gallente North Eastern Swat
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:34:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Apertotes
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
"exploiting" - What rules have "we" broken? Find me ONE! If it was an exploit we would all be banned. At any rate....Another Point for Carebears.
meh.
|
Nathan Baxter
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:35:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Gustav Seriya
Originally by: BritishInvader People seem to have issues with people making profit suicide ganking, when in reality it's pretty hard to suicide gank anyone with anything that will give you any form of profit.
If you spent time on a trade route or hub gate with a ship scanner instead of in asteroid belts looking for hulks you'd have a better chance of profitability. The only problem with this is that there's too much competition about killing the good targets; the reason for which is that suiganks are too easy.
However, I agree highsec/lowsec rewards are way out of whack, the trouble is that lowsec needs to be several times more profitable than highsec because lowsec has an abundance of bored pirates and a great shortage of targets, PVE Raven's lowsec life expectancy is very short indeed.
Now that is constructive, as far as I understand it lowsec doesn't have good mining or ratting ... a few lowsec hub with 4-5 level 4q20 agents ... now thats soemthing that should be address, and the general profitability of low sec
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:37:00 -
[245]
The next problem you should tackle: Invention is not profitable (unless you think and research).
Why not remove t2 BPOS and make NPC buyorders for all t2 items that automatically give you 70% profit after invention?
Another thing: Buying officer and deadspace modules gives players a big advantage, why not make them only drop from special dunge ... er deadspace areas (but dont place them in 0.0 or lowsec, thats just not fair) that have a very low chance to drop the items? But make sure that the powerful modules cannot be traded or sold, so that you actually have to earn them yourself.
|
sakana
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:39:00 -
[246]
"Player vs. Player standing penalty
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.
As it currently stands, every whole point of standing difference will increase or decrease the penalty by 1%. If the aggressor has +5 and the victim -4, the overall penalty would be reduced by 9% (and increased if the other way around).
This is, of course, a major change in the landscape of EVE, but we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone."
lolololololololololololol
stop hiring chimps to make new dev blogs.
|
Arthmandar Valikari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:42:00 -
[247]
As someone who has been suicide ganked a few times and has never participated in anything even close to like it, I bring the victim's perspective.
The direction of these changes are good, but to me, it does sound pretty sweeping, perhaps too much so.
First, the insurance. I'm 100% in favor of that. In RL, lots and lots of jurisdictions have implemented laws indicating you can't profit from crime. It's just common sense. I have no problem with this whatsoever.
Beyond that, I'm not sure it is necessary to go further. I've never had low security status, don't ever plan to, so I don't really know if the standing penalties and regaining are out of whack or not. But I'm more in favor of the cautious approach advocated by others, i.e., implement the insurance change, and see if the results are what you want. If they're not, then move on to the security status and other aspects as necessary.
Side note to all the risk-return whines in the thread: CCP opened the devblog by stating that they believe that risk-return balance involved is imbalanced. I'm sorry that it's your income stream hit by the nerfbat, but everyone gets hit sometime, and the game is not the way CCP intends it to be, so it's gonna change. |
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:42:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Silent Calling
Originally by: Apertotes
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
"exploiting" - What rules have "we" broken? Find me ONE! If it was an exploit we would all be banned. At any rate....Another Point for Carebears.
meh.
from the FAQ on the EVE-O web
"12.1 What is an exploit?
The common definition of an exploit is ôto use the game mechanics in such a way as they were not intended for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over other players.ö"
you do not need to break anything, just use any game mechanic (ship insurance and high sec ganking) on a way that was not intended with the purpose of gaining an unfair advantadge
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:45:00 -
[249]
CCP, friend to AFK haulers and macro miners everywhere! -----------
|
Zilkin
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:47:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Zilkin on 06/08/2008 16:50:45 Might as well post my reply from SHC here too.
Suicide ganking is probably the best example of people who can¦t adapt and die(see what I did there :P ) whining. On my industrial alt I have moved probably around 200 bil worth of stuff over the past 2 years, in and around some of the busiest systems in EVE and haven¦t been ganked once. So far all I have needed to do is not be afk, fit my ship accordingly and do multiple trips if the value of cargo starts rising too high for moving it all at once.
Anyway this change is fine with me as long as it is still possible the gank people with reasonable ease and tbh atm it could be done basically without any risk, though imo just removing insurance would have been enough.
Been almost a year since I have last done it myself but the risk actually makes hisec lot more fun to fly around. Especially when I¦m on my alt with cargo way too valuable for my own good. So to summarize my main fear is that this will make hisec too safe and I hope that isn¦t going to happen. |
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:50:00 -
[251]
Actually, its a good idea.
Gankers can still gank. Nothing changes in that respect which is good. However, you can no longer Gank for almost free due to insurance.
So I guess both sides have a Risk vs Reward now. --
Billion Isk Mission |
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:51:00 -
[252]
all those that moan about sec status, you are a bunch of hypocrites. sec status only affects your ability to go into high sec space. but i am sure all of you whiners have a high sec alt to circunvent the consecuences of your ganking. so please, shut up.
|
Lord Frost
Minmatar Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:53:00 -
[253]
It's a good deterrent, but people will still gank. Look at it this way... now they won't need to pay for insurance.
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:57:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Matalino on 06/08/2008 17:05:47
Originally by: Akita T I'm as carebear as they come, but the TOTAL removal of insurance on ganks is utter crap. You'll be increasing not only the standings hits from ganks, but also multiplying the suicide gank cost by a significant factor... you could have just as well made highsec a "no weapons zone" this way... it's just TOO MUCH.
I agree.
I also fall under the carebear, suicide-gank-victum category, but the total removal of insurance on ganks is too much.
Apply the changes to security status hits that you have proposed. Include fixing the "exploit" where only the ganker laying the final blow receives the full hit.
But please leave the insurance alone until we can see how those changes pan out.
If we can't talk you out of leaving insurance alone, please atleast make it an incremental change by capping the CONCORD related insurance to the basic 40% payout.
Just please don't remove it entirely as that is an extreme nerf to an important game mechanic: high sec is supposed to be safer not safe.
If you truly feel that insurance must be removed, can you justify it with some numbers:
ie to gank a freighter you need approx 15 battleships - current cost to gank ~200 mil - cost to gank with basic insurance limitation ~600 mil - cost to gank without any insurance ~1.2 bil + time and effort
That is just guess work, but how do you (CCP) justify this change to insurance payouts?
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:58:00 -
[255]
TornSoul Approved!
Almost verbatim as a suggestion I posted a looooooong while back. BIG Lottery |
Dhip C
Minmatubbies
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:00:00 -
[256]
Looks like a step backwards in my opinion.
CCP sucicide ganking forces the general carebear and empire runner to be on his toes to be cautious, your basically making empire safer when you should be doing the opposite. Suiciding for insurance should be fixed and that is it.
I am looking forward to the Speed nerf because it speed in eve is completely off-balanaced.
|
Hamish Grayson
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:00:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Hamish Grayson on 06/08/2008 17:02:23 Oh the irony of empire pirates complaining about CCP making the game too easy for carebears!
Emire piracy in general is too easy. There are no consequences for it, even with a -10 people can have their alts do all their highsec shopping, if someone puts a bounty on you - you can collect it yourself, if they get wardec'ed by a real PvP corp that is willing to station camp them for as long as it takes the entire corp, corp hops.
Even worse, empire pirate types cry worse than 'carebears' when CCP swings the nerf bat in their direction. Even with these changes empire pirating won't be near as hard as it should be and still the tears! If the game is too hard for you quit. Seriously, adapt or die. ============================================
It is said the warrior's is the twofold way of pen and sword |
Silent Calling
Gallente North Eastern Swat
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:01:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Silent Calling
Originally by: Apertotes
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
"exploiting" - What rules have "we" broken? Find me ONE! If it was an exploit we would all be banned. At any rate....Another Point for Carebears.
meh.
from the FAQ on the EVE-O web
"12.1 What is an exploit?
The common definition of an exploit is ôto use the game mechanics in such a way as they were not intended for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over other players.ö"
you do not need to break anything, just use any game mechanic (ship insurance and high sec ganking) on a way that was not intended with the purpose of gaining an unfair advantadge
What is the punishment for "exploiting" game mechanics? There is no exploit at all with suicide ganking, it is WELL with in the realms of the game mechanics.
This simply boils down to the Carebears, crying and whining to CCP enough that CCP is willing to make a change to deter high sec ganking.
|
Hatch
Minmatar Bug-Blatter Beasts of Traal
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:05:00 -
[259]
while i don't think that the standings changes will push people towards lower sec status' for piracy, as pirates look forward to the -10 status, i like the suicide gank changes and the inability to go rat for a few days to get your status up to a high sec level.
|
Hatch
Minmatar Bug-Blatter Beasts of Traal
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:07:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Berious 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)
hey genius, mission *****'s hardly get any sec gain from missions now adays.
|
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:10:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Hatch
Originally by: Berious 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)
hey genius, mission *****'s hardly get any sec gain from missions now adays.
No, I definately don't have a 5 sec rating with my level 4 running alt. It's all in my imagination.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Slim Goodbody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:13:00 -
[262]
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?
EVE is about killing f****ts like you and taking your cargo.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:14:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Apertotes on 06/08/2008 17:14:54
Originally by: Silent Calling
There is no exploit at all with suicide ganking, it is WELL with in the realms of the game mechanics.
yeah, what Privateers were doing was also within the rules, until CCP decided that it was no more. now its high sec suicide time. long time needed, btw
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:17:00 -
[264]
I think alot of people in here will stop laughing when goons decide to run L4 missions with 5k accounts. Griefing the griefers goes both ways.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:20:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers I think alot of people in here will stop laughing when goons decide to run L4 missions with 5k accounts. Griefing the griefers goes both ways.
well, goons are like chinese on real world, whatever they do, it gets automatically relevant. but that doesnt mean we have to catter to anything they say
|
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:23:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Haradgrim
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16 CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!
Too late, this is it. GJ CCP, this will kill low-sec.
Whats your proof? Or basis for saying that? What's that? You don't have any?..Heres your sign
This change will further reduce the population of Low-sec because other than FW there is almost no reason to go there anymore. I don't have proof on an equal basis with the fact that you don't have proof it won't, this is due to the fact THAT IT HASNT HAPPENED YET.
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
QFT
This is not the EVE I signed up for. Other than shits & giggles, why would anyone go to low-sec anymore for anything other than FW. If they dramatically increase the profitability of low sec (preferably at the same time as reducing same in high sec), then I have no problem with the changes.... but as it stands this is a serious afront to everything I feel EVE stands for. --
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:24:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Khanto Thor how many of us have accidentally shot at the stargate instead of our war target
That's my biggest concern about these changes. Getting accidentally blown up by Concord because I fat-finger the less-than-perfect interface is the primary reason I BUY insurance. The vast majority of my insurance payouts in this game have been of this type, and I'm dismayed to see them going away.
I do agree that the ganking was getting out of balance, and the security status changes look about right to me, although as an aggressive salvager I was looking forward to exploring this promising career in the future. Oh, well, it's not like the universe is short of stuff to salvage.
Would it maybe be possible to add, somewhere in settings, a list of "never attack" checkboxes, to help people prevent accidents now that insurance won't cover them? I'd use a checkbox that said "Never attack a stargate" or "Never attack a station", and be happy when my fire control computer said "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that." ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Giselle Beaute
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:25:00 -
[268]
Thanx CCP! I really like these changes. Now I only need special self-destruct cargo containers which will explode when my ship got ganked so theres no cargo left to loot.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:30:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Haradgrim Other than shits & giggles, why would anyone go to low-sec anymore for anything other than FW.
i agree that low sec is somehow broken. but what makes you think that anything on these changes will make it worse?
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:31:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Shadowsword Disclaimer: I never suicide-ganked, I've been suicide-ganked once (surfing for pictures of barely-clad chicks while afking is Bad. Bad, I tell you). I also haul billions+ cargos in empire now and then.
Having said that, I think the suicide ganking nerf is too much. Removing insurance would have been enough, imho. But boosting concord response time? If Concord still neut/jam/impotent you, that might make it just too hard.
Quote: It is too easy to gain back lost standing, taking only a few days to erase all the damage done by ganking. This is about to change.
More penalty when doing something naughty, I understand. But will you also change number of npc you need to kill to recover from a sec statut hit?
PS: At first I tougtht it was an april 1th dev blog.
This is stupid. If you are going to haul billions of isk, YOU get a scout, YOU gather intel, YOU DO SOME WORK, don't ****ing come on here and whine about how easy it is to suicide gank, then go alt+tab to see how far you've gone, autopiloting, while you typed this crap. As has been said before and I hope will become true some day, the nerf bat needs to swing both ways. It is bullshit to me that people are going to complain about their shit getting ganked after they left their macro miner (oh no!) on for 4 ****ing hours and then they were going to auto pilot it all to Jita. OH SO SAD YOU GOT GANKED! Deal with it; go afk again for another 2 days while you mine, and WHILE you're afk, why don't you jump on the forums to cry about how easy it is to high sec gank. "NERF THE SUICIDE GANKING, NERF SECURITY, BUFF CONCORD, IDUNWANNADYYYEEEE" Grow a pair, get a scout and COUNTER the high sec ganking, don't expect it NOT to happen and **** and moan when it does you pussies. If i have to put some planning, some smarts, a good setup a good scout AND enough buffer tank/dps to bring down a hauler before dying to concord, then BY JESUS CHRIST GOD DAMN YOU HAD BETTER ****ING DO THE SAME TO TRY TO KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE. If you are going to go afk and haul billions, how DARE you cry about suicide ganking and pirates. God dammit CCP, get you're heads out of your ASSES PLEEEEAAASE and go back to the hard core eve people loved and still love, as long as you don't implement the raping (not nerfing, RAPING) of the MWD, web and scram (just reduce/nerf speed on specific boats. . .duh) and this security shit. I'm done.
Ya know though, I used to be one of those people, one of those guys who complained about salvage thieving and mission ganking. I like what you have done so far CCP, I must admit (minus the drone and Eos nerfs). The inability to gank someone you are not at war with via fleet ganking is good, I like that that was stopped. But seriously, you need to grow some balls, like the macro-ers and afk haulers, and listen to the people. And yes, there is a difference between me, a capsuleer coming up on a year now, and a new player, who has no idea what they are talking about when they cry to you about the complexities of this game. But you do not turn a deaf ear to them, you turn it to me and all those like me, those who enjoyed this game for what it was, not what it is becoming. the days of Carebears and Boring PVP Online are fast approaching, unless someone in CCP heeds our calls, hears what we have to say and understands that, as players, maybe we DO know whats best for the game we play.
I'm done for real this time :P
|
|
|
|
|
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 |