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) |
|
CCP Taera
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:49:00 -
[1]
CCP Fear joins us again for a look at some security standing and suicide ganking issues. Check out his new blog Serious Security for information on upcoming CONCORD and security standing changes!
Taera Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Aelena Thraant
Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:28:00 -
[2]
Great Ideas...... Can't wait to see this on TQ... And no I've never been suicide ganked |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:40:00 -
[3]
Looks good. I actually thought this was a good system outline and good progress. It will help I think, we might see more of a shift to wars, but that's better than just unsuspecting ganks.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Wen Jaibao
Soul Ripper Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:46:00 -
[4]
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.
Hahaha, lol, etc
I can't wait to see the whines from the people who abuse the insurance system. All in all, epic dev blog.
|
Lysander Kaldenn
Viper Intel Squad Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:54:00 -
[5]
As long as suicide ganking remains possible... I don't really care about doing it, but i always thought high sec violence made the game more credible.
|
Pak Narhoo
Gallente Pacific Starfleet Command
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:55:00 -
[6]
LOL. CCP drops da bomb.
Again.
Hope you guys wear your extra protective flame suit.
Originally by: Haakelen That is a terrible idea, you have no idea what you're talking about, please don't do it anymore.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:03:00 -
[7]
CCP fear, you are indeed feared :P
good changes.
Originally by: Dapanman1 Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Lo Lightshard
Insurrection Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:09:00 -
[8]
Good. Thanks. [IMA6E REMOVED] |
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:10:00 -
[9]
most excellent changes to the sec status roles, and makes so much sense.
1 question though from the following quote;
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.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Does this mean that any changes to the insurance program will occur in a patch after EA 1.1 or will the insurance change occur in EA 1.1? --
|
Kil'Roy
Minmatar The Rat Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:21:00 -
[10]
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.
I fully support this message.
Never really made sense anyways.
|
|
Aelin Dao
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:21:00 -
[11]
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
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:29:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nyphur on 06/08/2008 04:30:21
I see information on what's being changed but not much of an explanation as to why. They could be good changes but with no reasoning behind them and no goals laid out they could be shots in the dark for all we know. Most of the changes look good on paper, I'll have a proper look over them later.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Lep Erd
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:34:00 -
[13]
Quote: 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).
I'm not familiar with security rating loss in detail.... but will this nullify the security rating loss in extreme cases (i.e. a +10.0 player attacking a -4.0 player in a 5.0 system)?
|
Tareen Kashaar
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:37:00 -
[14]
Interesting. Looks like this TEA1.1 patch will be quite something. ____________
|
Essque
Starlancers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:41:00 -
[15]
Good changes. Could you now please have the same team look at the speed balancing?
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:54:00 -
[16]
It's sad to see CCP cave again. Oh well, it wasn't unexpected. On the flip side, this'll keep the lesser players away from killing in high sec and let the pros get on with culling the braindead carebears and taking their ISK.
So, question: with the removal of insurance, will you still get the default 50% insurance payout that you normally get when the ship isn't insured? Or will you get no payout at all?
The funny thing is, this won't even slow down the high sec killings that much. It may raise the bar a bit on what is considered worth killing, but it won't stop it. Thank God.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
LASER WATCHER
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:09:00 -
[17]
no insurance just means we'll use more caracals vOv _____
|
Arekaine
Gallente Booming Industry Operations Galactic System Lords Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:13:00 -
[18]
Just another good step to making pirates in Eve real pirates. Having to scout, research, and plan to take out targets in high sec while weighing the factors of roaming police groups. Will also promote escort fleets in high sec as well. High ISK traders will know that the gankers won't be messing with the small targets anymore and will be tring to find the big fish. And anything that promotes fleet ops and corp teamwork is just super with me
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:25:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The funny thing is, this won't even slow down the high sec killings that much. It may raise the bar a bit on what is considered worth killing, but it won't stop it. Thank God.
that's the point :)
Quote: I hope some kind of lessening in Empire profitability is similarly forthcoming.
I would honestly still like to see all positive level 4 agents taken out of empire space.
Originally by: Dapanman1 Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
BlackMoon Thrawn
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:31:00 -
[20]
I've never suicide ganked anyone and never been ganked either, that said I really don't understand these ham-fisted changes to mechanics that need minor tweaks. Game balance is a delicate thing, why not change one thing (like insurance to concord deaths)and give it a few months to see if that gives the desired effect before buffing concord, or increasing sec hits?
The same thing applies to the speed nerf, there was 1 rig that was way out of whack compared to others why not nerf that back in line(like 8-10 months ago tbh) and see what happens?
|
|
Scout R
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:35:00 -
[21]
This game get nearer and nearer to being carebears online every day
|
GOd SAvior
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:35:00 -
[22]
Nice read.
Idea for the insurance removal: If you've been involved in (non-warred/flagged) ship destruction during aggro timer, you won't be able to get insurance payout. Might help with accidental aggression, where you'd still get the insurance after aggro timer ends.
|
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:37:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 06/08/2008 05:41:40 Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 06/08/2008 05:40:18 Keep bending over for the whiners CCP, it's really what's made this game unique among the sea of other MMOs.
Here's what's wrong with the patch:
- People are going to keep suicide ganking, ergo people will still complain. - No one that suicide ganks cares about insurance. - Security status is a moot point when you can just rotate alts in and out of empire and 0.0. ---
|
Haks'he Lirky
Dominion Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:40:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Treelox most excellent changes to the sec status roles, and makes so much sense.
1 question though from the following quote;
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.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Does this mean that any changes to the insurance program will occur in a patch after EA 1.1 or will the insurance change occur in EA 1.1?
I am going to guess that they want to see the changes in the dev blog alive on their own before changing the insurance as well, at least it would make sense to see the exact impact of one change before going all the way.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:46:00 -
[25]
Quote: Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down. This should move most ganking to the lower security areas where it belongs.
CCP, please do not nerf low-sec like this. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep a perfect -10.0 when your gang-mates insist on killing random belt rats while waiting for targets? By nerfing security status loss in 0.1-0.3 systems, you force pirates to grind even more shuttles/noobships/haulers on gates just to stay -10.0.
|
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Quote: Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down. This should move most ganking to the lower security areas where it belongs.
CCP, please do not nerf low-sec like this. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep a perfect -10.0 when your gang-mates insist on killing random belt rats while waiting for targets? By nerfing security status loss in 0.1-0.3 systems, you force pirates to grind even more shuttles/noobships/haulers on gates just to stay -10.0.
Lol thanks for the chuckle.
I'm not laughing at but at you unique problem, there is indeed a flip side to every coin. --
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:10:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16 CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:16:00 -
[28]
Quote: we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.
I'm not.
Black Hand.
|
Nofonno
Amarr Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:25:00 -
[29]
Very nice dev-blog, well put together. Althought I have never been ganked and I never ganked, I think that the changes proposed are beneficial for most of the players.
We'll see on SiSi
---
A scientist must be an optimist at heart - to have the strength to rally against a chorus of voices saying "it cannot be done". |
Plave Okice
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:25:00 -
[30]
Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?
Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?
Would you like to know more? |
|
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:32:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Plave Okice Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?
Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?
Originally by: CCP Fear Be safe out there!
Hopefully this answers to your question of where CCP is steering this game. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:35:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Dev blog
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
Do NOT put this in. This is a hugely terrible change. If you want to modify insurance, then MODIFY INSURANCE.
Explain to my why suiciding ganks get no insurance, but SUICIDING into 0.0 or SUICIDING your own ship via self-destruct gets you insurance.
Explain to me why Pend Insurance Inc. would insure any ship that is to be flown by a player in a 0.0 alliance or a -10.0 pirate or someone who loses 10 ships a day or someone shooting Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar/Caldari ships in a mission. No, if insurance doesn't make sense for suicide ganking then you have to modify it for ALL types of SUICIDING and RISKY behavior.
This is a bad move CCP. If you do this, there needs to be *balance*, a way for pirates to increase security standings or at least get SOMETHING cool out of it. The pirates/suicide gankers and such are the people providing non-NPC content, nerfing them is penalizing players for interacting with each other in a god damn mf'ing MMORPG.
The rest of the changes I don't care about, but FFS no insurance on suiciding ships is flat-out caving to the whiners, you have ZERO basis or reasoning on this change and I'm calling you out right now. Nerfing level 4 missions is a "highly requested feature" so where is that? --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:39:00 -
[33]
****ing garbage - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Viper ShizzIe
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:40:00 -
[34]
Glad to see that a decrease in the profitability is also being included in this hisec PvP nerf.
Oh, wait.
Did every single person at this company get heat-stroke in Morocco and decide to make idiotically stupid changes to game mechanics?
|
Harris
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:40:00 -
[35]
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.
|
Kyguard
Game-Over The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Viper ****zIe Glad to see that a decrease in the profitability is also being included in this hisec PvP nerf.
Oh, wait.
Did every single person at this company get heat-stroke in Morocco and decide to make idiotically stupid changes to game mechanics?
Wish I knew.. ;Z -
|
Nelson Vandermark
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:44:00 -
[37]
Wow CCP kinda of crumble pretty hard.
|
Harris
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:48:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Vaal Erit ....you have ZERO basis or reasoning on this change...
The fact that just engaging the target would allow you to break even in some cases so that everything that dropped would be profit is the basis and that's plenty imo.
I do agree that the base insurance at least should continue to apply as a minimum if you lose your ship in any circumstances.
Perhaps it should work that you only get your 'premium insurance' payout if you lose your ship to other players (as opposed to CONCORD) or NPC (i.e criminal) pirates. Don't know how the logic would apply to FW tho...
|
Khamal Jolstien
Caldari The Monkey Sanctuary
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:48:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Plave Okice Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?
Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?
Quoted for emphasis. Where are you guys? CCP? Anyone? The nano-nerf I can understand, but seriously? The main drawing point to the game is being phased out.
|
Tomic
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:56:00 -
[40]
Oh great, another move to carebears online.
|
|
Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:56:00 -
[41]
CCP you took my only weapon against Makrominers away!
Please do not let them destroy our game. If you take suicide ganking away, PLEASE remove THEM first!
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:56:00 -
[42]
Lame. Mega Ultra Lame. All you are doing is reinforcing people to be stupid. AFK Industrials ahoy. ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:57:00 -
[43]
Interesting ideas but I think it could go further. How about allowing a security gain (or at least no loss) for ganking someone with bad security standing? -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:00:00 -
[44]
I don't understand why the criminals whine.
Think this is a good thing myself - Always thought suicide ganking was too easy.
It will still happen. It will still happen a lot. People will still make a lot of ISK from it. The fact that you need to work a lot more after doing it to get back in and do it again is a good thing. The fact that the target has to have a more in their hold is a good thing.
What does this really mean:
1. It is still very profitable and worthwhile ganking a newb ship or hauler with faction goodies. 2. That freighter you want to gank better have some nice stuff in there before you spend 12 domis (or whatever it is these days) to pop it. 3. Smart gankers will still make a lot of ISK. 4. More and more people will still afk with stupidly expensive stuff in their holds.
5. No-one will read this through the haze of whining. |
Little Matt
Caldari New Fnord Industries Black Scope Project
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:01:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Little Matt on 06/08/2008 07:01:27 What I find amusing and not at all ironic is the people who are complaining about this. Or, more accurately, their affiliations.
Pandemic Legion, REPO, Incredibly brave forum alts (pirate characters maybe?) etc...
|
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Little Matt Edited by: Little Matt on 06/08/2008 07:01:27 What I find amusing and not at all ironic is the people who are complaining about this. Or, more accurately, their affiliations.
Pandemic Legion, REPO, Incredibly brave forum alts (pirate characters maybe?) etc...
Yeah would you imagine that. Empire carebears dreaming of rainbows and absolutely riskless afk-mining not complaining and those who thought they were playing a game where no place was safe complaining. Didnt see that coming.
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:07:00 -
[47]
About time. I'm all for suicide ganking and all, but having 2-month-old newbies trying to take on a T2 tanked indy just to grab the named T1 loot I haul around is a bit grating.
going in, I get agressed by t1 frigates
going out, I get agressed by the same two, now in cruisers (yay)
Both cases, new CONCORD spawn.
Only damage done: Lag. -
|
MarcusCole
Gallente Spacelane Ghosts
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:09:00 -
[48]
While you're nerfing different playstyles into oblivion would you care to take a look at the players who spend their entire careers in noob corps, unable to be attacked and generally not interacting with others at all.
If say after 3 months (arbitrary time) they were moved into their factions militia via some sort of graduation ceremony idea it would provide some sort of gradual introduction to the harshness of eve without making them entirely fair game in high sec. In addition they should not be allowed to rejoin the starter corp, the factional militia BECOMES their default corp.
the nerf bat should swing both ways
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:10:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Andrue Interesting ideas but I think it could go further. How about allowing a security gain (or at least no loss) for ganking someone with bad security standing?
well, you know, not everybody can kill any thief/murderer, only the police, and the police, on EVE, is concord.
but i think your idea would be perfect for 0.0, but sadly security gains/losses are deactivated there
|
Ron Wright
Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:16:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Andrue Interesting ideas but I think it could go further. How about allowing a security gain (or at least no loss) for ganking someone with bad security standing?
Would be good for LowSec Systems!
|
|
Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:17:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Nautsyn Thome on 06/08/2008 07:18:28
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.
It will still happen. It will still happen a lot. People will still make a lot of ISK from it. The fact that you need to work a lot more after doing it to get back in and do it again is a good thing. The fact that the target has to have a more in their hold is a good thing.
What does this really mean:
1. It is still very profitable and worthwhile ganking a newb ship or hauler with faction goodies. 2. That freighter you want to gank better have some nice stuff in there before you spend 12 domis (or whatever it is these days) to pop it. 3. Smart gankers will still make a lot of ISK. 4. More and more people will still afk with stupidly expensive stuff in their holds.
5. No-one will read this through the haze of whining.
I agree that the game mechanic "suicide gank" is not a very good thing. I am NOT a criminial, but it was the ONLY thing i could do against makro's! Petitioning them did absolutly nothing. And if it does, it takes way too long. You all who think "great job CCP, suicide ganking sucks" please understand that there are worse things in eve, which mean even more unbalance in this game, like makros.
-unfair wars (due more financial power) -real money trading -unfair ressources (pos fuel en mass) -ruined pos fuel market and therefore -ruined gameplay as an ice miner (who realy sits in his mackinaw)because it's absolutly not worth the time
A Makro-group of 6 Accounts makes 500 mio isk a day, in a week, all of this accounts payed their online fee for a month, and in the remaining 3 weeks they make 1,5 billion isk! please ccp do not let this happen anymore! ffs
|
Kern Hotha
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:17:00 -
[52]
None of the security changes are necessary.
Removal of insurance payout for Concord actions is necessary (and long overdue).
|
Kyguard
Game-Over The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:19:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Little Matt Edited by: Little Matt on 06/08/2008 07:01:27 What I find amusing and not at all ironic is the people who are complaining about this. Or, more accurately, their affiliations.
Pandemic Legion, REPO, Incredibly brave forum alts (pirate characters maybe?) etc...
I am complaining, where does that put me? PL pet or something more sinister..
If you don't have anything constructive to add apart from CAODesque and trolling comments, don't hit the post button.
--
I gotta give in to the insurance changes as I can see that as a good countermeasure to people using 5m cheap BS to highsec gank. However, the rest of the changes are absolute garbage and I don't say that about any change I dislike or don't agree with. This is a path that I believe is steering away from the dark and unforgiving universe of eve that we all know and love.
I don't know where you get your information from, but the grind from negative sec status to positive sec status is not an easy one nor a short one. It requires patience and it really is as I called it, a grind. There's fun about it the first few days and then it ends and turn into neverending weeks of this activity.
Finally, with this change you would be promoting more afk play than present. Even at present with how highsec security mechanics, you still have a large number of the playerbase that conduct afk play in empire, some pay for it, some don't and some learn, some don't learn. The way eve is right now, there is a perfect-sized gap between security of traveling AFK in empire and traveling at the wheel.
This patch would shorten that gap too much from where I'm standing and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. -
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:21:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The funny thing is, this won't even slow down the high sec killings that much. It may raise the bar a bit on what is considered worth killing, but it won't stop it. Thank God.
Second time in a week I agree with the Pirate!
It may cut down on 'I'm bored...' ganking, and make it more purposeful when it happens. This should work towards a balanced cost/reward system, and I really hope it doesn't stop high sec ganking.
BTW, did I miss a bit? The mentioned that they thing ratting back up sec status is too easy, and didn't say what they were doing to change that.
|
Kyguard
Game-Over The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:34:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Ralitge boyter Finally CCP does know how to make a game fun it just takes them a while to actually implement these kinds of things.
Current ganking is really taking some of the fun out of playing EVE, even in high sec space moving around in anything smaller then a Battle Cruiser is basically waiting to die. Add some lagg to that and you will usually be crawling out of a clone vat before you even saw anyone at the gate when you are in anything smaller then a BC.
Not true. If you are at your computer traveling manually (this game isn't meant to be played afk duh) the chance to be killed is reduced by a lot. Add a good fit and it's reduced even more. Also this only applies if you are carrying valuables in your cargo. -
|
Miasia
KDZ - Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:39:00 -
[56]
When will this change hit the testserver?
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:43:00 -
[57]
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. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Ambo
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:47:00 -
[58]
Good changes then new system makse much more sense. --------------------------------------
Trader? Investor? Just want to track your finances? Check out EMMA |
THEGREAT LOBO
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:48:00 -
[59]
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.
|
Apocryphai
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:51:00 -
[60]
This is pathetic. I've never suicide ganked but protecting yourself from it it easy. Don't fly untanked haulers AFK. Simple.
Removing insurance for all Concord losses is idiotic. It's so easy to get accidentally Concorded in EVE, especially for newer players, and this will make those mistakes very painful for people.
Why not a sliding scale? One Concord death in a week gets reimbursed, more than that and you're on your own. Should protect most accidental losses whilst not giving too much to the gankers.
Typical CCP, completely heavy-handed and caving in to forum whiners. Sad to see the way this game has gone downhill since the launch of the failed China venture. Would love to get those old devs back, the crappy ones left behind have no vision. ________________________________________________________________
Originally by: Victor Valka What the skull-chick said.
|
|
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.
|
|
maarud
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:36:00 -
[91]
I suppose just fixing the game so that insurance didn't pay out if concord was involved was too much work, so you've opted to make a pirate in low sec's life a living hell now.
Nice work.
Maarud.
|
Chruker
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:48:00 -
[92]
hehe, now we just need CONCORD to transfer ISK from the agressor(s)' to the victim's wallet to cover the victims insurrance payout. ----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online ----- Top wishes: - No daily downtime - Faster training on sisi - Speedup IGB table rendering |
Boma Airaken
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:52:00 -
[93]
Tread lightly in lowsec until you make all lowsec lowsec. The fact that we cant do jack shit with 0.4 needs to go.
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:57:00 -
[94]
In many cases, unsuspecting victims have no chance to escape , nor any help from CONCORD.
Easily the best part.
If you're flying around in a ship thats worth someone suicide ganking, maybe you should USE A ****ING SCOUT.
I used to think CCP had a backbone but this and the speed nerf and all the other terrible game design decisions lately pretty much prove that you've got about as much spine as a rubber chicken
|
Gustav Seriya
Corp 1 Allstars The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:09:00 -
[95]
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.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:14:00 -
[96]
EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:18:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 10:18:26
Originally by: BritishInvader
*Goons announce Suicide Ganking Jihad on EVE* *Forums explode* *Suicide Ganking gets nerfed to all hell*
You assume that the nerf is due you/your alliance, but I'm sorry you didn't exactly invent suicide ganking, and I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people out there who aren't goons who suicide gank, who had just as much, if not more influence on this coming change.
Originally by: BritishInvader
The thought process behind this is hilarious.
This thought process being? Please,elaborate..are you saying you have inside information?
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. 99% of the time even if you plan out your attack and the target drops the mods you wanted to make your profit, it won't cover the loss of your ship even counting insurance.
No by all means, make profit in doing suicide ganking, I for one endorse it..as long as the system isn't being abused, which it is..cause battleships are being built and fitted specifically to more or less pay for themselves through insurance - It's not a complex equation here, you just want it to be.
Originally by: BritishInvader
Also, insurance not being paid out in CONCORD events is going to lead to a huge amount of crippled newbies who accidentally shot someone in highsec with their shiny ship, got CONCORDED, and lost all their money.
That's what newbie ships are for..If beyond that you that you get those accidents and end up with zero money, and for some reason don't have any friends or corp to help you back on your feet, then I'm sorry..you deserve it..even the most vile of personalities, have people who'll lend them a hand if things get rough.
Originally by: BritishInvader
Economically, this will make everything cheaper, move everyone the hell out of lowsec (Why would you go there when the risk:reward ratio is better in Highsec?)....
For some number examples, you can kill an untanked Hulk with a full suicide fit faction ammo Rupture...
People don't suicide gank for profit, they do it for tears. We've run the numbers and decided that the days spent grinding sec status are well worth the chat**** you get on EVE-O and ingame, for every 6 hours of sec grinding, I get 6 minutes of angry pubbie chat....
So you start out by saying how suicide ganking will no longer be feasible pure economically, and somehow this means people won't be in lowsec (as opposed to now where theres plenty of people in lowsec..oh wait), yet you provide no solid basis for this argument..what? Your hulk suicide example? What??? Finally you end your bleeding heart speech(and yes, I do think it was a good speech) by saying economics don't matter, all that matter is, as they say "the lulz" or rather as you say "the tears" or chat**** - I'm sorry what???
Here you are making a dash for an economical argument about these changes, to then habhazardly do a swirly and take a nosedive into a pile of dung..Dude???? I'm sorry but at that point if your final word is you just want tears, then I don't even sympathize, or see how anything has changed for you, as I'm pretty sure plenty of people will always cry when you shoot them..it's the way of the gank.
Originally by: BritishInvader
Off I go to gank the hell out of everyone before this nerf pops through.
That's right! Don't let "The Man" keep you down! REVOLT! Be a rebel! I'm sure the implied hints towards your proverbial disapproval is so vast and numerous in that one liner that it's beyond my comprehension..
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:25:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Esmenet EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.
It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:28:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 10:27:02
Originally by: Esmenet EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.
It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp. Did these new devs get recruited at blizzcon?
CCP Fear? More like CCP FuzzyBunny.
Heres your sign..and tinfoil
|
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:31:00 -
[100]
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. --
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:34:00 -
[101]
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
|
Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:34:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21 I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.
Ass-holes |
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:39:00 -
[103]
LOl is CCP overrun by carebears now? ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Karentaki
Gallente Maximum Yarrage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:40:00 -
[104]
I'm sorry, but this change just doesn't work on a purely risk-vs-reward basis. You say you want to move more combat to lowsec, but at the moment only stupid people and pirates even go to lowsec. Lowsec has virtually no profits compared to highsec, but even now, about 100 times the risk.
With the changes you're proposing it won't be worth doing ANYTHING other than running level 4 missions in highsec.Ganking a faction ship will become IMPOSSIBLE (except with prohibitively large numbers of torp ravens) due to the concord response time. This will mean that basically, all those people who sit in NPC corps, running missions in an officer fitted CNR will be INVINCIBLE in game. They will never lose their ship, and they will only work to damage the profitability of the market for newer players.
The only time I would EVER support this change would be if you removed, or at least made less profitable, L4 agents in highsec. Move them all to lowsec, and it will be a huge boost to Piracy. Highsec will have low profits but almost complete safety, while lowsec will be profitable but also risky. However, now you are just reading my signature... Or are you...
========= Sporks FTW |
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:40:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Miklas Laces Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21 I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.
Ass-holes
So..whats the simple straight forward fix?
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:41:00 -
[106]
If you are serious about this stupidity it needs to be accompanied by a severe nerf to high sec missions. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:42:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
So..whats the simple straight forward fix?
God, you're dumb.
Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?
Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:44:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
So..whats the simple straight forward fix?
God, you're dumb.
Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?
Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???
Word ,stop being stupid is a start to fix high sec ganking. ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Hiro Nagamura
Amarr eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:49:00 -
[109]
I hear that CCP has a professional, honest-to-god academic economist on staff.
I'd like to hear his take on this, because I think care-bears really screw with the economy a lot.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:51:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 10:55:12
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
So..whats the simple straight forward fix?
God, you're dumb.
Implement one of the other millions solutions dreamed up over the years? Tradeable killrights? Removal of insurance (completely)? Boost to low sec? Convoy system? Ability to mask cargo?
So I ask again..What's the simple straight forward fix?
Or why not just simply STOP ****ING FLYING AFK???
So whats the simple straight forward fix? None of that sounds simple, or straight forward...No, seriously, they don't..tradeable killrights? Think about that for awhile, it's far from simple, or straight forward.
Removal of insurance?
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.
Boost to low sec? That's the most ambiguous "fix" I have ever set eyes on..In other words, it's completely useless.
Convoy system? Now I'm assuming you got that off a much more elaborate idea somewhere, fine..but it's not simple, I guarentee it, nor is it straight forward..thing like that would need balancing, tweaking and most of all, implementation with existing systems.
Cargo masking..what's the counter for that? There has to be, remember? No counter, well there goes suicide ganking completely. Okay so we make a counter for it..what's that? We're back where we started? Well whadda ya know.
|
|
Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:51:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:53:44
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Miklas Laces Edited by: Miklas Laces on 06/08/2008 10:34:21 I agree on removing insurance for suicide-gank, it was long due. But again CCP can't do the simple and right thing. Nooo, we have these new super-cool game designer that want to re-invent the game to prove they're so great, so instead of a simple straightforward fix we get all that crap about more standing loss and fastest concord and additonal penalty here and there and blah blah blah.
Ass-holes
So..whats the simple straight forward fix?
Remove insurance when concord is involved, period. No need for all that pile of crap in the dev blog, it's over-complicated, unnecessary, a fix to things that aint broken, go away
|
|
CCP Fear
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:54:00 -
[112]
Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
|
|
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:55:00 -
[113]
totally ******ed, this will just mean that less people go to lowsec, and there is STILL no reason to. now there is even less reason to.
not only that you could have fixed this by just removing insurace where concorden was involved.
way to go ccp, ******ed change. Neotheo Dark Materials
Linkage
|
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:59:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Reikku on 06/08/2008 11:05:25
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
List of things afk-miners had to fear up until now:
1) suicide-gankers
List of things afk-miners will have to fear after this patch:
-
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:00:00 -
[115]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Are you a new employee? I seriously can't believe you actually believe what you just wrote.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Dr Sheepbringer
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 -
[116]
This:
"no-risk no-thought ganking"
Might get obsolete with this...but only when sober. Enough beer and say hello to no-risk no-thought ganking!
Flawed. Yes, there are people who like to mess RP-players just for kicks when they are feeling merry
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didn¦t deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools don¦t take them away. ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:07:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
Since you obviously can't read, I've bolded and italisized the important part for you. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Sopha Serpentia
Core Dynamics
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 -
[120]
What a bunch of geniuses at CCP eh? I love how it take five years for them to come up with this stuff.
|
|
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
You dodged the question.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Pesadel0
Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didn¦t deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools don¦t take them away.
How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????
Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.
|
Hoody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:10:00 -
[123]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
You sir seem to have no clue, how are people supposed to stop the botters now? not only do they have to spend ages fixing their sec status after ganking the macro barges they now have a financial penalty as well, all because CCP does jack shit about them when they are petitioned.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:11:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
Since you obviously can't read, I've bolded and italisized the important part for you.
Pardon me..I got a little carried away, I apologise for not reading your post properly. :(
Now let me undodge the question: macro-miners is not something that's being covered in this change as far as I'm aware (re-reading the devblog), and you can hardly justify suicide ganking remaining the way it is because of macro miners - Atleast I don't think you can. It's just 2 different things
|
Caol
Minmatar UK Corp Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 -
[125]
The changes to the insurance payout are only really adding a real deterence to freighter ganks using t1 bs/bc. The people flying bpos or other small volume high value items around in shuttles/frigs/t1 industrials etc will still be at risk for stealth bombers etc, though there will be an increase in effort for the suicider to get his sec back up again to get into high sec.
In this respect, the dev blog changes don't obviously make high sec 100% safe.
However,
In contrast to the speed rebalancing changes, these ideas seem to be a shift in Eve's philosophy. The games credibility as one of, if not THE, game where a players in game choices and behaviour can be black, white or a multitude of greys seems to be up for a knock. In a game of choices, another one seems to have just got struck off.
I say this seriously and without venom or spite but after reading this dev blog i thought: Could they be possibly looking at locking jet cans in the future, only for those of the same corp/alliance to be able to remove ore/items from? If changes based on the popular forum opinion of the moment, such as the removal of insurace payouts, are now part of the CCP operating procdure can we expect to see other such moves?
Whatever is said however, in a years time after these changes have gone through, no one will know the difference probably. It will be as if it always was and alittle of the danger, the risk, the excitment when you [a player on an alt or main] transport something of value in high sec will be gone. In effect, high sec will become a bit more flat and boring (if thats possible).
Originally by: "CCP Fear" 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.
Assuming i haven't misunderstood you and your actually refering to the dev blog itself, when can we expect to hear possible other major changes involving sec status?
Changes/ideas/content additions along the lines of:
- Smuggling plans/ideas
- Plans/ideas for a black market
- Plans/ideas for kill right trading and bounty hunting
- Sec change tweeks and content addition for those in the pirating profession - ideas like possibly be able to enter 0.5 space but only fire if fired upon and so forth
- Plans/ideas to link sec status into factional warfare
- Plans/ideas for other imaginative schemes that link into the Eve sandbox idea
If im completely off the mark with the above are there any other plans/ideas on horizon with regards to the game mechanic of security status? Or are current plans as stated: just to reduce suicide ganking in high sec and make getting your sec status back up harder?
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Pesadel0
Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didn¦t deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools don¦t take them away.
How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????
Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.
Because:
"In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1."
This was just an informative blog not a ask for help ,they most of the time listen to fedback and don¦t change a thing so yes mate i've been around for a lott of time and the only time i say them backing out was the carrier nerf and when tux send a bone to the minmatars in red moon rising.
I still have a bit of faith they are actually asking for feedback but mhee ,i'am too old to believe in fairy tales.
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:13:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:14:39
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
It REALLY sounds like you're trying to solve two mutually exclusive issues here with a single set of changes revolving around security; making 0.1 - 0.3 harsher does precisely **** all, and making it harder to rat up sec also makes precisely **** all difference to suicide gankers so I don't really see what these changes are designed to do. Lowsec is still absolutely ****ing pointless (HERES A HINT GUYS MOVE ALL THE ****ING LEVEL 4'S TO LOWSEC JESUS ****ING CHRIST THEN MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY USE LOWSEC MORE THAN JUST A CONDUIT BETWEEN EMPIRE AND 0.0), and it's still just as viable to suicide gank people and YET AGAIN it's CCP's game design department wielding an elephant rifle instead of a scalpel.
Oh and maybe if you want people to test things you should sort out a goddamn SISI mirror that isn't 3 months old.. not like it'll matter since nothing that's made it to sisi aside from the carrier nerf has ever been severely altered by player input.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[128]
CCP really do appear to be losing their way here. There are plenty of mechanics in place for players to avoid being suicide ganked. Spawning Concord in their belts/gates they intend to travel through. Using a scout. Using a corp mate with a web to get their freighter through without being scanned. All this does is gives idiots extra security which they do not deserve. Tears aside with this and the nano changes (which were due but not to that extreme) I am seriously looking at my eleventy billion accounts and whether or not I wish to continue.
If you want suicide ganking for 'lulz' to stop. Bring back NPC mineral buy orders to stabilize the market somewhat. Currently mods and ships are too cheap, that is what is funding the speight of suicide ganking atm. Assumption of Risk |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[129]
...and yeah, low-sec needs to be made more enticing and profitable. But that's a separate matter.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 11:39:06
Originally by: Pesadel0
Low-sec been long time dead.I lolled when i read in the blog that this was a way to encourage more ganking in low sec :)
Which is fine - We'll see how it pans out, but I can hardly fault you for being amused. It's when people spread doom and gloom with no basis for what they're saying that I want to slap someone..you know, cause it's "cool" to go "omg this will kill EVE!".
*EDIT: un-pyramiding my post*
|
|
Ron Wright
Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:41:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Ron Wright on 06/08/2008 11:46:22 BAN MACROMINERS and actually start reading petitions about them and the "Suicideganking-Problem" disappears by itself....
[Edit] in times where suicideganking is more effective to get them out of the game instead of petitioning them and let CCP do the punishment stuff you can't start to penalize the ones that really want to do smth against those macroguys...
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:41:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks I semi-agree with that, atleast as far as the highsec ganking thingie. Lowsec piracy though? Yeah it's dead..as far as if this change will do anything in bringing it back to life? Maybe not, but it's a step in the right direction imho.
Yeah don't get me wrong I kinda agree with the varied sec hit thing based on system status (not based on victim security rating though, just because someone has run loads of highsec missions they should be less of a target because they give a bigger sec hit? ), what I don't agree with is someone effectively writing a blog attempting to solve 2 problems with 1 set of solutions that deals with neither effectively, continuing to prove that the route CCP has taken recently with regards to game design have changed significantly since I started playing.
Rather than introducing more options, or ENCOURAGING people back into lowsec, they simply reduce the number of options with blanket nerfs, and effectively try and FORCE people back into lowsec by making it more of a grind to recover sec.
It's not going to work, and unless lowsec becomes a damn sight more target-rich, we'll be sitting in the same place in half a year whinging about how CCP applied another patch which achieved absolutely jack shit apart from annoying people
(yes I'm trying to control my nerdrage over the fact we've had 2 blanket-nerf, over-complex dev bog solutions in 2 weeks, both of which have asked people to test and yet the test server has yet to be mirrored even after it was said it would be done last week )
|
Veldya
Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:43:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler CCP really do appear to be losing their way here. There are plenty of mechanics in place for players to avoid being suicide ganked. Spawning Concord in their belts/gates they intend to travel through. Using a scout. Using a corp mate with a web to get their freighter through without being scanned. All this does is gives idiots extra security which they do not deserve. Tears aside with this and the nano changes (which were due but not to that extreme) I am seriously looking at my eleventy billion accounts and whether or not I wish to continue.
If you want suicide ganking for 'lulz' to stop. Bring back NPC mineral buy orders to stabilize the market somewhat. Currently mods and ships are too cheap, that is what is funding the speight of suicide ganking atm.
Spawning Concord to avoid getting ganked is against the rules.
You can't blame the high-sec miners who have had enough. The writing was on the wall for months but nobody chose to behave responsibly. Now you have your consequences.
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 11:39:06
Originally by: Pesadel0
Low-sec been long time dead.I lolled when i read in the blog that this was a way to encourage more ganking in low sec :)
Which is fine - We'll see how it pans out, but I can hardly fault you for being amused. It's when people spread doom and gloom with no basis for what they're saying that I want to slap someone..you know, cause it's "cool" to go "omg this will kill EVE!".
*EDIT: un-pyramiding my post*
I spell doom and alot of pirates spell dooom because this is a shift in the psychological balance,you have the means to not get killed in high sec ,but you dont use them you are lazy and stupid ,and now even CCP helps the lazy and the stupid .
Dont get me wrong we will still suicide gank ,what i find hilarious is CCP position in all of this ,the cold hard place eve was is transforming into a warm place for stupid people and that i see a problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Dev Rom
Caldari Masterminds Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[135]
Guys, what creazy insurance would insure criminal' ships??? And what insurance would pay for a ship loss because of a criminal act??? And what insurance would accept to insure again something belonging to a well known criminal?
PLEASE, don't cry for this you pirates! This is simply a good sense patch. Full stop. I am not your carpet ride, I am the sky.. |
Tchu
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[136]
Please change name of this game to Hello Kitty Online. Empire will be carebears paradise soon, well done =(
|
Veldya
Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ron Wright BAN MACROMINERS and actually start reading petitions about them and the "Suicideganking-Problem" disappears by itself....
I agree macro miners should be hunted down and banned... by CCP.
I don't know why anyone would macro mine, there are so many easier ways to make isk in and outside of empire.
|
Laudicia
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:49:00 -
[138]
ATM you can get in to -10 in just a couple of kills. However to raise the standing it takes to much time. I think in low sec you shouldnt have such high standing loss. As people take the risk to get in to lower sec.
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:49:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:49:37
Originally by: Pesadel0 Dont get me wrong we will still suicide gank ,what i find hilarious is CCP position in all of this ,the cold hard place eve was is transforming into a warm place for stupid people and that i see a problem.
It's funny because it's almost _exactly_ like the nano nerf in the fact that both have perfectly adequate counters which are well documented *EVERYWHERE*, and yet CCP still feel the need to make massive changes to areas of the game which aren't especially "broken" (in need of slight rebalance maybe) rather than sorting out major issues such as the market (price of mods + base minerals) and the UI
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:50:00 -
[140]
Originally by: BritishInvader Also, insurance not being paid out in CONCORD events is going to lead to a huge amount of crippled newbies who accidentally shot someone in highsec with their shiny ship, got CONCORDED, and lost all their money.
+1 to that. I've lost a ship to CONCORD before (after being in Eve for 3 years), because of ill-explained game mechanics and poor documentation. If newbies start loosing their ship and all their ISK, then you can bet your conversion rate from trial>full will drop.
Saying that, I don't mind insurance payouts being modified by the standing. The blog mentions the difference in security rating between pilots, so perhaps insurance should also fit with this (-10% to insurance payout, if a -5 player unlawfully kills a +5 one).
The best thing about Eve, to me, is that despite how much of a pirate or Caldari-hating s****you are; you can always claw back standing for the other side. Fine if low-sec rats no longer give out security increases, but you have to offset that with something else the pirates can do to increase their standing(1).
(1) Could CONCORD start having low-sec agents, which specifically improve security rating (I understand they did this in the olden days of Eve). Give 'convicts' low-grade missions, such as hauling garbage and other boring missions ('go clear out this drone infestation'), and the power to raise their -10 rating to something less dangerous. At least then, they'd have to suffer the same risks as high-sec mission runners (such as being probed out and ganked!)
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:53:00 -
[141]
hmm pvp might now move to low sec/0.0, which I'm pretty sure is what ccp intended. Yeah I know a lot of ppl out there like to stay in empire to pvp and this is a pretty major nerf to them but I've always believed empire ganking should be for those you really hate or trying to find that gtc seller with the officer fitted cnr. But hey that's just my opinion and I havn't been ganked (I have more than half a brain) and I haven't ganked (I like my 5.1 sec status) so I'll leave talking about balance to the people that care/know what they are talking about. however that does bring me on to my point:
1. What about those people who have >+5 sec status?
iirc it was once possible to have your sec status go all the way up to 10 at one point until it was changed to max of 5 (I may be totally wrong here as it was a few years ago back in my noob days). There are probably a few people out there who still have the high sec status of 10 or so. Does this mean some of the grizzled ancient carebears will have extra penalties for ganking them which no other player can ever reach?
2. drones.
ok this one I'm even less sure about but iirc rouge drones don't give sec status increase (ignore this point if wrong). With new mechanics coming in for sec status could it be possible to make sure they do effect security status (concord tried to send an attack against them last I remember rp wise).
3 more drones.
do concord stop your drones? I don't know about empire ganking mechanics but from what I understand the moment concord show up your jammed and dieing. If they are slowing down the dieing part (by making the bs take longer to lock you and less ships show up) wouldn't this make ganking domi's the obvious choice for suicide ganking as they can do extra damage with their drones while other ganking ships sit there jammed.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:54:00 -
[142]
Slight boost for anti-pirates \0/ It is all in perspective.
Still need to figure out the security penalty for a +5 security status pilot attacking criminals of various security rating.
Wouldn't it be a harsh cruel universe if >+5 security pilots could attack -10 pirates without having to worry about a security lose - wait, anti-pirates/bounty hunters can shoot first blasphemy!
Eve is dark and harsh, but it should be that way for everyone; not just those following the rules
|
Granmethedon III
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:56:00 -
[143]
Terrible proposal, utterly terrible. Another way to remove the scope and depth from Eve by removing the one thing that makes Eve greater than any other MMO by making there be a certain element of risk at all times and instead helps turn it into another dull grinding paradise. Way to go.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:57:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Typhado3
do concord stop your drones? I don't know about empire ganking mechanics but from what I understand the moment concord show up your jammed and dieing. If they are slowing down the dieing part (by making the bs take longer to lock you and less ships show up) wouldn't this make ganking domi's the obvious choice for suicide ganking as they can do extra damage with their drones while other ganking ships sit there jammed.
That's how it used to be up until the LAST nerf to suicide ganking. It's not commonly known/remembered that suicide ganking has already been severely nerfed. Now, drones are jammed by CONCORD.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Hoody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:00:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
macro-miners is not something that's being covered in any patch ever
Fyp
|
Falun Assad
Caldari Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:00:00 -
[146]
Quote: But what for the future?
We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes.
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Be safe out there!
CCP Fear
Ohh great, now the last weapon against macro miners goes down the sink....
excellent thinking there...
Unless you do something against 7+ noobcorper squads in Hulks or mackinaws mining 23/7, you should not implement this. Right now a disco-geddon is the only weapon against them, take away insurance and nobody is going to fight them anymore, so they can finally ruin mining as an income for legitimate players.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:01:00 -
[147]
Less security loss in lowsec, well, this could make pirating a possible part time activity, which is a good move.
The loss for lowsec could be significantly lower, not just a bit, we could have amateur pirates raise into activity, shooting randomly factional warfare pilots. But as always, as for a sandbox, people will dig it or not, other will even say it's bad sand...
The cost of popping a mining barge in hisec was ridiculously low, even for the more expensive T2 ones, it was just a joke. Loosing a brutix to a mack, well... Too easy with insurance and top cheap fitting + faction ammo (just the guns loaded with 20 bullets or so, still cheap).
Planning to kill people and scanning them on a trade route will still be possible, for better loot only. Well, no one should afford to randomly pop industrials and barges. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:04:00 -
[148]
Keep fighting those symptoms, CCP! Pretty soon your game is going to look like a mummy with all the patches to the patches to the patches.
WHY IS IT SO CHEAP TO SUICIDE GANK??? What caused that in the first place? Why is ship costs down to nearly a profit with insurance? Why is base cost so apparently out of wack? It didn't used to be... hmmm... I wonder if one or two of your past changes brought this about... What do you think?
Keep coddling the 6 month whiney wonders, CCP!! The game used to be about evolving, learning, adapting. Your game will never be WoW. You shouldn't even try to please that crowd. What makes your game great is the very fact that it ****es that lot off. It is a totally different way of thinking that alot of refugees from other games just never get. It's natural that they whine. And they'll continue to whine after these changes as well.
A poor man's WoW will just be something no one plays.
I'm not so worried about this specific change. It's just the change in theme and direction that seems to be eminating from CCP HQ lately. Hold the line, man. Carebears will whine you out of a buisness.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:05:00 -
[149]
the insurance changes were bound to happen, the other changes are a bit meh tbh
|
Syrinthal
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:07:00 -
[150]
While I do gank to afford GTC's to afford gametime to actually play (yay for being a student in the 3rd world :D with the :jewclaw:)
I think the reduction in reaction time is a pretty stupid idea - the rest I dont really have an issue with. Sec status losses will **** a lot of good high sec pvpers off :/
Cant fix lag or make pvpers happy? HALP TAH BEARZ! Think your market share is small cos everything isnt mass market appeal? MAKE SUM NERFZ Why bother trying to keep the game cold and gritty? I for one would love pink stations and cute flower named "space buggies", om nom nom
|
|
Rhak Amharr
Minmatar Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:08:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Rhak Amharr on 06/08/2008 12:09:21
Originally by: CCP Fear Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
Originally by: Devblog ...It is too easy to gain back lost standing...
So, you made low security more harsh by making those who go there to shoot non wartargets / non outlaws take 1 hour less to grind their sec back to -1.9? And you seriously call it "harsher"? -- rant begin --
In my opinion, there are 4 groups of people going to lowsec: - Pirates who do not care about sec status - People who shoot at enemies only (anti-pirates -> pirates, FWer -> other faction FWer, etc.), no standing loss - People who don't know what they're doing, but in general they don't shoot other players, no standing loss - People who do it for the rush of doing missions/ratting/plexing in lowsec, no standing loss
Oh, I forgot a fifth group, for which this is actually good: Our beloved Weekend PVPers, who run missions / rat in 0.0 during the week to build up funds and sec status so they're not outlaw, and who blob the crap out of everything on weekends. Great thing they need to grind less for sec status.
-- rant end --
I'm glad you didn't call this a lowsec buff, otherwise this post would contain IRL threats. :)
|
agent apple
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:09:00 -
[152]
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:12:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Granmethedon III Terrible proposal, utterly terrible. Another way to remove the scope and depth from Eve by removing the one thing that makes Eve greater than any other MMO by making there be a certain element of risk at all times and instead helps turn it into another dull grinding paradise. Way to go.
Yeah. The element of risk for the highsec gankers has been immense so far.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:13:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Hoody
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
macro-miners is not something that's being covered in this patch
Fyp
Please don't "fix" my qoutes for me..I mean I say, and I say what I mean. If you think it's a deliberate thing that's being avoided by CCP, then please..share..What can be done to stop macrominers.
|
Kvarium Ki
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:15:00 -
[155]
If you are going to do this then limit the ship types that people can fly while in NPC corporations.
You shouldn't be abble to fly a freighter while in an NPC corp.
You shouldn't be abble to stay in an NPC corp for ever and be pretty much immune to pirate attacks.
|
namesarehard
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:24:00 -
[156]
Originally by: CCP Taera CCP Fear joins us again for a look at some security standing and suicide ganking issues. Check out his new blog Serious Security for information on upcoming CONCORD and security standing changes!
Wow, with carebear changes like this, you guys may aswell just take out PvP altogether and make it consensual. Thats pretty much the path you are going down.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:26:00 -
[157]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 12:28:18
Originally by: Kvarium Ki Edited by: Kvarium Ki on 06/08/2008 12:16:29 If you are going to do this then limit the ship types that people can fly while in NPC corporations.
You shouldn't be abble to fly a freighter or any type of mining barge while in an NPC corp.
You shouldn't be abble to stay in an NPC corp for ever and be pretty much immune to pirate attacks.
Is that so..are you saying that while in an NPC corp, you can't be suicide ganked? Dude, where HAVE you been?? Yes, you'll still be able to after this, it'll just hurt a lot more..
You say that people should NOT be able to fly a freighter or mining barge while in an NPC corp? I'm sorry but did you even BOTHER thinking that through? No? Let me give you an example:
Joe Hauler is puttering along in his freighter, CEO Jim boots Joe Hauler in midroute..what happens to freighter? Same thing with the miner.. The explotation value of that system with be immense..
You say people should NOT be able to stay i an NPC forever? Okay, say you played 2 weeks, then took a break due to whatever RL reason..come back 4 months later to continue and..??..WOW, didn't think that far did you?? How can you be FORCED into a player corp? Hm? Suppose the people in that corp don't want new members..tough luck huh? What about the people who make alt spies, and all they have to do now, and sit and wait until they end up in some random player corp..the game is infiltrating for you! Hurray! List goes on!
Do you hear yourself talking???? omg man.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:29:00 -
[158]
Eve is supposed to be a harsh universe. Favorite words of a suicide griefer ?
Stop crying and learn to adapt Second favorite words of suicide griefers ?
Well now eves harsh and unforgiving for u and your gonna have to learn to adapt like your victims have had to do for the last 2 years.
Suicide griefer tears are even sweeter than carebear tears
|
Syrinthal
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:31:00 -
[159]
Calling it now:
Once the new server is running, they will mirror EVE and move it to the new cluster while the old one will remain. The servers will be linked by the EVE gate, on the old server which will have a different name like mmm... I donno "Felucca 2.0" they will allow PVP, while on the fancy new cluster they will have place for bears to hug eachother and run lvl4's all day while never having to fear being killed... they can call it "Trammel 2.0", I hear there are some Blood Raiders off the gates in NOL, everyone get your Ravens!
|
Ron Wright
Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:31:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
You say people should NOT be able to stay i an NPC forever? Okay, say you played 2 weeks, then took a break due to whatever RL reason..come back 4 months later to continue and..??..WOW, didn't think that far did you?? How can you be FORCED into a player corp? Hm? Suppose the people in that corp don't want new members..tough luck huh? What about the people who make alt spies, and all they have to do now, and sit and wait until they end up in some random player corp..the game is infiltrating for you! Hurray! List goes on!
Do you hear yourself talking???? omg man.
What do you think FW Corps are for? Every faction has FW Corp... so after 14 days trial time you will be forced to be in that belonging to your chosen faction... if you do not want to be in there... look for a player corp or create your own!... this is a mmo not a massive singleplayer online game!
|
|
Onyx Asablot
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:35:00 -
[161]
My two pence.
- Raising the bar on suicide ganking - Good. As long as the bar isn't raised too high, it still needs to be a viable option for killing AFK haulers, or if you have intel on multibillion shipments. Abolishing the insurance is a positive and logical step to ensuring that a pilot cannot just randomly suicide with a raven at hardly any financial penalty.
- Changes to sec status - Proceed with extreme caution. The relative sec changes depending on players involved is a great addition, and hopefully will encourage anti-pirate players / bounty hunters to become more active and effective. However overall this must not discourage piracy in general, low sec must remain full of danger for it to be exciting for all involved. If the pirates leave, the fun leaves. Pirates are already penalised strongly enough for aggresive actions and it does already take a fair amount of time to regain sec rating through ratting.
- NPC Corps & Corp Jumping to avoid war decs - This system MUST be revised. The gankers here (the ones that take their time to make a reasoned argument anyway) have a legitimate point that there is too much profit and not enough risk involved with running lvl 4's.
In general a thumbs up and good step forward, but could work harder. B-
|
Hoody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:38:00 -
[162]
Originally by: agent apple
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:39:00 -
[163]
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Gealbhan
Caldari Infernal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:40:00 -
[164]
You can persecute us, nerf our standings, buff your concord and remove insurance for concord related deaths but you will NEVER, EVER stop us!
Pirates will Always be a part of Eve in every system from 0.0 to 1.0!
Yarrr with me brothers!!!!
P.S. This will increase war dec's on small empire corps 10x and turn empire into a warred out wasteland.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:43:00 -
[165]
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Where is the risk for the many afk miners/macro miners? Where is the risk for a semi-afk mission runner?
Missionrunning is already outcompeting things like 0.0 ratting for most and you just take away the tiny risk it had left? Ridiculous. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:50:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks Lowsec pirating will be even MORE feasible after this...helloooo???
The universe is too well connected to make low sec travel worthwhile now. Its usually 30 jumps on the safe route, and 26 on the low sec route. Why bother risking it?
|
Pinkranger
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:54:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Where is the risk for the many afk miners/macro miners? Where is the risk for a semi-afk mission runner?
Missionrunning is already outcompeting things like 0.0 ratting for most and you just take away the tiny risk it had left? Ridiculous.
QQ
|
XXXAKTIVE
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:55:00 -
[168]
Oh guys, come on..... There is a chance to stay alive after ganker attack. There is thermodynamics skill which will help U to live till Concord arrives. U have to read local chat to be aware of such attacks. It's life in EVE to be aware of everything and to predict situations. Thats why I play EVE)))
Also if U decrease the time of Concord arrival it will be bad... very bad.... suicide attacks sometimes is the only way to get rid of mining bot users. Dunno why, but when somebody loading a lot of them at once lead to lags... Lags mean your destroyed ships and your lost equipment on a mission.
If U start a war against mining bot users, so yes, cut the Concord arrival time... Since I dont see much GM work against bot users, leave the X time of Concord plz alone)))
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:57:00 -
[169]
Does anyone remember this quote:
<DesignerDragon> We can stand to lose the killers, they cost us revenue.
I wish I could find the old flash movie it was in.
Reminds me of this situation.
|
omgomgomgxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:57:00 -
[170]
this sucks devs concords already baby sitting people to much as it is
|
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:57:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 13:00:28
Originally by: Ron Wright
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
You say people should NOT be able to stay i an NPC forever? Okay, say you played 2 weeks, then took a break due to whatever RL reason..come back 4 months later to continue and..??..WOW, didn't think that far did you?? How can you be FORCED into a player corp? Hm? Suppose the people in that corp don't want new members..tough luck huh? What about the people who make alt spies, and all they have to do now, and sit and wait until they end up in some random player corp..the game is infiltrating for you! Hurray! List goes on!
Do you hear yourself talking???? omg man.
What do you think FW Corps are for? Every faction has FW Corp... so after 14 days trial time you will be forced to be in that belonging to your chosen faction... if you do not want to be in there... look for a player corp or create your own!... this is a mmo not a massive singleplayer online game!
I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you right..are you saying..in all seriousness, that Joe hauler, upon being booted from player corp, will be put in a FW corp like that..Are you even THINKING at this point?? If not let me clarify: EXPLOITEXPLOITEXPLOITEXPLOITEXPLOIT
You're trying too hard to avoid what you already know is right, in favor of something that's not even an idea, it's a passing brainfart.
2nd brainfart: After a 14 day trial, you're forced in a FW corp. WHAT??? So now in all your all knowing wisdom and genuis, crying for this change not to force you to change your methods or outcome, but you want to FORCE new players, into full out sanctioned War...No, not suicide ganking, but Sanctioned War.
I think FW Corps are a new flavor of PvP, that brings the fights of 0.0 alliances to the empire areas in a much more managable scale, granted still pretty blobby, but not on the same level as it comes to in 0.0 most of the time. If that's what you want to do, feel free...But it should never EVER be the game that decides what you want to do - and EVE is about freedom of choice, and I have seen no argument from you or anyone else that proves that you can no longer suicide gank, and be succesful, if you really want to, that simple.
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:06:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Dzajic on 06/08/2008 13:06:21
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Where is the risk for the many afk miners/macro miners? Where is the risk for a semi-afk mission runner?
Missionrunning is already outcompeting things like 0.0 ratting for most and you just take away the tiny risk it had left? Ridiculous.
Ok, for the Nth time.
Not everyone does L4 in Salia and Motsu in a faction fit CNR or Golem.
Meaning... I can only envy the per hour income of someone ratting in alliance 0.0. I work L4s in a non Caldari non missile spewing ship, for a -10 agent because handful of positive quality agents (not doing missions for Caldari corps...) have bajillion people in the system, laging the hell out of them.
If you removed L4s from empire people would move to places with several L3 kill agents in system, if you removed even that people would go to mining or 0.5 and 0.6 exploration. If you removed all empire belts, all plexes with DED rating greater than 2, do you know what would you get?
Will you get thousands in faction fit Drakes and Ravens flocking to low sec agents?
No, you would see 20-30% drop in subscriptions. Mission running in low sec, unless you are in a corp and practically lock down the system and keep guarding it, is way too much risk for way not enough cash.
Everyone can see location of agents on map and estimate probable mission hubs in low sec. You can trivially gank mission runners on station, and rather easily on gates. If they were stupid and haven't rolled Caldari Achura, and are not in Raven they will do missions longer, giving you more time to probe them. If low sec mission runner is silly enough to use drones, he will be probed even easier.
So to summarize. Pirates will know where are you running the mission, they will know what gate you pass, they are able to find you in the middle of the mission.
And everyone needs those ISKies.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:15:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Where is the risk for the many afk miners/macro miners? Where is the risk for a semi-afk mission runner?
Missionrunning is already outcompeting things like 0.0 ratting for most and you just take away the tiny risk it had left? Ridiculous.
Well, actually, the risk has not been removed from those professions.
The level of risk HAS been upped (some would say balanced) for those that choose to prey on these citizens. Even I have to admit that suicide ganking was extremely easy and profitable... and I am a firm believer that it should continue to exist as it is a good thing for the game. That being said, I really doubt these changes will have much effect on suicide ganking, at least not from those that are competent at it. Disorganized or opportunistic groups will quickly loose their stomach for it, which is also a good thing.
A well organized attack designed for maximum profit/minimum penalty is a good thing for EVE (yes, even in 1.0 systems).
Disorganized spur of the moment attacks taking place in very high security systems simply because it is easy, profitable, and relatively risk free are a bad thing.
So I'm not concerned for the pirates of high sec., the ones that have earned their skull and crossbones will survive this just fine.
I am, however, awaiting the outbreak of protest from the law abiding community of EVE once this goes live. The penalties involved for an accidental module activation in say Jita will now be much, much harsher. If I am a new character with a neutral sec. status, and I accidentally activate something on a max security rating mission runner I'm going to be hurting for a long, long time.
Just as the EVE community discovered that being able to defend your cans in high sec is not necessarity a good thing, this change will bring its own brand of reality check (pardon the pun)soon enough.
|
Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:17:00 -
[174]
First, let me get some of the preliminaries out of the way. I am a hauler and manufacturer in high/low sec systems and frequently pass through heavily populated areas. I've never been suicided, I don't engage in suicide ganking, I don't mission and I do some PVP-lite on the side. I guess I still qualify as a Carebear anyway *shrugs*.
I don't usually post on controversial issues, since I am typically indifferent to most of this stuff, but I felt the urge to chime in upon reading the newest dev blog. Do I feel the new changes are a good thing? Yes, but more importantly no.
In my opinion, suicide ganking is currently a little too easy mostly due to insurance payouts. I won't say suiciding was an epidemic, but it became more common as more and more players heard about its potential profit and of course, the all-alluring carebear tears. I will say though that if you're silly enough to AFK-haul in millions upon billions of cargo, then that's your own damn fault for being such a juicy target. If you flew safe and smart, you wouldn't have a problem.
To put it bluntly, the removal of ALL insurance for ganking is a tad extreme. I feel that a 50% or more cut in insurance would have sufficed. You can't honestly say that suicide ganking is worthy of no insurance when you trick out your ships with guns and rocket launchers, head out to the nearest low or null area and have at it. Same goes for killing pirates, you flew your ship into the mission putting yourself in danger...yea, yea you get the point. Real life comparisons are moot here for the most obvious reason: This is a game and games sacrifice realism for fun.
Thankfully these changes will not completely rid the game of suicide ganking. It may make High sec safer than it already is, but there'll always be a juicy target to bash and it may be a little more difficult, but it's still possible. Something I'm very happy about. I joined EVE for its consequences. I don't want anyone to hold my hand and any mistakes I make are my own fault. I think some people need to come to grips with that.
Nobody likes being the victim, but irrevocably there is always a victim in this game whether indirectly or not. That's the name of EVE: Online. Someone's always a victim.
TL;DR - 1. I am a carebear, but I mostly disagree with the changes. There is some good here though 2. No insurance is too much 3. Real life comparisons are moot, this is a game 4. Ganking may be a little harder, but still possible 5. You AFK-haul and get ganked it's your own fault 6. These changes may help curb the bored gankers, but may open up opportunities for more lackadaisical targets
Flame away.
|
Malen Nenokal
Eden Federal Recon
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:18:00 -
[175]
I like the dynamic losses based on current standing, that's clever.
Eden Federal Recon
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:19:00 -
[176]
I'm just going to shamelessly cross-post my thoughts from a different thread:
These changes are mostly affecting the bottom feeders of Eve. And overall it is to shift the bulk of this kind of "PVP" to the outskirts of empire where it belongs. Unless you fit the category you won't see much change and there is no need for hysteria. It is not 'dumbing' down Eve.
Eve is a game for everyone, including the casual players that don't want to overly trouble themselves with details of precaution. Keep in mind there will still be risk for these players, but not as bad as in say, the lower levels of high security space and low security altogether.
TL;DR: The changes are good and won't affect but the worst kind of PVPers (the bottom feeders of Eve). Will bring more PVP to low sec and less to high sec, as it should be.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:19:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Dzajic Edited by: Dzajic on 06/08/2008 13:06:21
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Where is the risk for the many afk miners/macro miners? Where is the risk for a semi-afk mission runner?
Missionrunning is already outcompeting things like 0.0 ratting for most and you just take away the tiny risk it had left? Ridiculous.
Ok, for the Nth time.
Not everyone does L4 in Salia and Motsu in a faction fit CNR or Golem.
Meaning... I can only envy the per hour income of someone ratting in alliance 0.0. I work L4s in a non Caldari non missile spewing ship, for a -10 agent because handful of positive quality agents (not doing missions for Caldari corps...) have bajillion people in the system, laging the hell out of them.
What ship you use is completely irrelevant. Its easy to make 20+ mill/hr in a simple t1 battleship with t2 fittings. I earn more isk/hr doing lvl 4 in high sec than i do ratting in the same ship, and i can do it while doing something else like watching TV. As i dont need to pay attention to what i am doing. Noone can hinder my isk making in high sec, while a single silly cloaker can lock down my system and keep my isk/hr to zero in 0.0. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Mr Rive
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:20:00 -
[178]
OK, Ive been suicide ganking for almost 2 years now, and im not against this nerf like i am with the nano nerf. It was simply too easy before for people to suicide gank. I think the change with the larger security hit vs larger security systems is a good one.
Saying this though, it would be nice for CCP to implement an easier way of grinding sec up, as once you implement the patch, the system for updating sec is gonna be incredibly outdated.
|
Falun Assad
Caldari Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:21:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac
Originally by: Falun Assad
Ohh great, now the last weapon against macro miners goes down the sink....
excellent thinking there...
The main weapon is called a GM...
The number of macro miners has been much reduced in some places, it takes some time to check a galaxy of asteroid/ice belts... At least in the ice belt we use, there used to be 100+ people, now, there are like 30, and they look like players with a corporation and I don't always see the same people when we are there. The 70 others were always there and would be macros, banned macros.
Did it ever occur to you that they might just have moved to a system with more lucrative ice?? Macros and farmers move around..
Just because they left your system doesnt mean that they got banned....
And none of the farmers / macros i petitioned ever got banned, mostly because it is quite hard to prove the use of a macro, while the farmers need to be proven of selling isk before they can be banned.
So petitioning doesnt really help, having a way to kill them would at least drive them from you constellation/ region, plus it is much more satisfying than petioning someone, only to receive an automated response...
|
namesarehard
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:39:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Gealbhan You can persecute us, nerf our standings, buff your concord and remove insurance for concord related deaths but you will NEVER, EVER stop us!
Pirates will Always be a part of Eve in every system from 0.0 to 1.0!
Yarrr with me brothers!!!!
P.S. This will increase war dec's on small empire corps 10x and turn empire into a warred out wasteland.
Thats the attitude! If anything pirate corps can just start wardeccing and atleast they get 24 hours to kill to their hearts content.
|
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:45:00 -
[181]
Originally by: namesarehard
Originally by: Gealbhan You can persecute us, nerf our standings, buff your concord and remove insurance for concord related deaths but you will NEVER, EVER stop us!
Pirates will Always be a part of Eve in every system from 0.0 to 1.0!
Yarrr with me brothers!!!!
P.S. This will increase war dec's on small empire corps 10x and turn empire into a warred out wasteland.
Thats the attitude! If anything pirate corps can just start wardeccing and atleast they get 24 hours to kill to their hearts content.
Hope you got a lot of money and patience with corphopping then. Vote against the nano nerf! |
KurmoL VI
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:46:00 -
[182]
THIS IS OUTRAGIOUS! PIRATES ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED. AND THE CAREBEARS ARE CARRIED ON HANDS. THIS IS LIKE REAL LIFE ALL THOSE POOR BLACK PEOPLE BEING ABUSED AND DISCRIMINATED AND ALL THE WHITE MAJORITY HAS ALL THE GOOD STUFF
DEAR DEVS PLEASE GO BACK TO EXODUS.
|
Maverick Ice
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:58:00 -
[183]
I actually see more high-sec ganks coming with this change, at least for a while after the change, as the carebears will be lulled into a false sense of security.
I like the variable sec hit for system security level, think it is long overdue. I also, in principal, like a variable by standings difference, although I don't like the implementation here. If you shoot someone with a negative standing, it should increase your standing to CONCORD, not decrease it. Should be just like shooting NPC rats , perhaps CONCORD bounties placed on individuals too
To those complaining about the decreased security hit in low-sec, two points...1) encourages you to kill more shit....how can that be bad? and 2) reduces the hit that people take to proactively engage you, meaning you might get more real fights, instead of ganking only carebears.....how can that be bad unless you are a griefer?
|
Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:59:00 -
[184]
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
This.
We have super-star game designers, they want to change everything. Here's the tip, dumb-asses: Eve is good as it is. At most it needs some minor tweak here and there over time. If you have an issue deal with it, don't change game mechanics that have nothing to do wit the issue and that are not broken.
Remove insurance for high-sec ganks, it's ok and it makes sense. An insurance company would never insure for illegal activities.
No, too easy for "CCP Fear", the super-game-designer has to show he really is a pro. And we get tons of crap ideas like in this dev blog. Look how smart he is, you get 1% less penalty loss for each point of relative difference in concord standing between aggressor and victim.
Lol pathetic.
- not my singature
|
Zoom Cheesedog
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:59:00 -
[185]
Sheesh. PvPers are always the biggest whiners in any MMO, but I swear, EVE's players raise it to a whole new level.
PvP is not going away. Want pew pew? Join faction warfare. Move to 0.0. Wardec somebody. Join a mercenary corp. Gank a faction-fit battleship.
We just got a huge content upgrade dedicated entirely to PvP, but when the rules are changes to make ganking newbies and mining barges less profitable, all you see is "WAAAAH CCP STOP CATERING TO CAREBEARS!! SO NOT FAIR!!"
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:07:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Miklas Laces
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
This.
We have super-star game designers, they want to change everything. Here's the tip, dumb-asses: Eve is good as it is. At most it needs some minor tweak here and there over time. If you have an issue deal with it, don't change game mechanics that have nothing to do wit the issue and that are not broken.
Remove insurance for high-sec ganks, it's ok and it makes sense. An insurance company would never insure for illegal activities.
No, too easy for "CCP Fear", the super-game-designer has to show he really is a pro. And we get tons of crap ideas like in this dev blog. Look how smart he is, you get 1% less penalty loss for each point of relative difference in concord standing between aggressor and victim.
Lol pathetic.
- not my singature
A case of the blind quoting the blind...
|
Tova Hilt
North Star Networks Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:11:00 -
[187]
Hmm, I guess I just missed it, but I assume that along with these changes, you will also remove all bugs and useability problems with the Overview?
Because, let's face it, the number one reason for being Concordokkened is a misclick of one kind or another. I've never done a suicide gank in all my EVE career, but I've lost count of the number of ships I've lost to Concord because of bugs, lag, tiredness or just plain stupidity.
The sec status hit from an accidental attack shouldn't be that much of a problem for a non-pirate, but losing a fully insured and fitted BS costs somewhere around 150M if you get no insurance payout. This is a big deal for a lot of players, and it is generally very hard to get any reimbursement for bugs involving the Overview.
My suggestion would be, make the sec status changes, but don't touch the insurance payouts. It's not like it's free to lose a BS anyway, just because it's insured.
|
Gaius Gallius
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:12:00 -
[188]
Along with the other recent dev blogs, all of this gives the impression of "too much, too fast".
Please start by removing the insurance payout from CONCORD-caused ship kills and see what happens.
The shotgun debugging approach that you are taking currently makes it quite difficult determine which specific change is causing a resultant effect.
|
namesarehard
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:15:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Zoom Cheesedog Sheesh. PvPers are always the biggest whiners in any MMO, but I swear, EVE's players raise it to a whole new level.
PvP is not going away. Want pew pew? Join faction warfare. Move to 0.0. Wardec somebody. Join a mercenary corp. Gank a faction-fit battleship.
We just got a huge content upgrade dedicated entirely to PvP, but when the rules are changes to make ganking newbies and mining barges less profitable, all you see is "WAAAAH CCP STOP CATERING TO CAREBEARS!! SO NOT FAIR!!"
I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.
|
Eric Lendall
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:16:00 -
[190]
Quote: The changes to security standings will make it harder for players to casually gank another player, and creates a challenge, so that if you are going to kill someone, you better realize the consequences. We are also considering merging EVE Online with Hello Kitty Online.
Fixed.
|
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:17:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Qual on 06/08/2008 14:18:08 1st priority should have been "no pay out".
But hey, you cant win 'em all.
Sec loss based on sec sounds resonable to me, though I would set the curve so that 0.4/0.5 was equal to today and go from there.
Taking char sec status into the equation seems a bit over the top tbh. I would scrap that for now and see how the rest works out first.
Concord response time? Did that really need fixing? Me thinks not!
"The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf |
Umit Davala
Corpus PCG
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:18:00 -
[192]
Originally by: CCP Fear But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
Erm... Well no it isn't. But thats kind of the point, surely? Just like belt piracy, scamming, gatecamping, can baiting, ganking, and so on, and so on... None of these are sporting. And yet is a large basis of what made Eve unique.
Now I don't agree that the sky is falling like some of the more vociferuous pilots are saying, but it does seem to be a step in slowly removing the elements that made Eve stand out in the first place. A shame really.
|
Arctur Ceti
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:22:00 -
[193]
Originally by: namesarehard I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.
I don't think Eve was designed with the intention of being a griefer's game or a game to take pleasure on other people's miseries. Perhaps this isn't the game you're looking for.
|
Khanto Thor
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:23:00 -
[194]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
#
That's the problem, Pirates aren't very bright, but they sure do whine a lot!!
|
Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:24:00 -
[195]
"Welcome to World of Minecraft, where you can macro to your hearts content in the warm, cuddly embrace of Concord." - CCP
This change makes it abundantly clear who CCP listens to and cares about. Macro-miners and Empire missioners get immediate results with their constant whinging and vast numbers, while 0.0 alliances are forced to wait years for responses after writing detailed manifestos.
CCP just gave up even trying to make design decisions themselves, delegating that to the CSM. It's too bad CCP can't be arsed to play their own game and actually see how their own game mechanics work. Can't really blame them, though, the game isn't that well documented.
Used to be that Eve-O was about the harsh, unforgiving environs of space, and the social consequences of your actions. Now it's clear CCP wants it to be about the warm comfort of AFK macro mining and Empire missioning.
Space just got a little safer. ------ 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 |
Laconis Dax
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:25:00 -
[196]
Originally by: MarcusCole While you're nerfing different playstyles into oblivion would you care to take a look at the players who spend their entire careers in noob corps, unable to be attacked and generally not interacting with others at all.
If say after 3 months (arbitrary time) they were moved into their factions militia via some sort of graduation ceremony idea it would provide some sort of gradual introduction to the harshness of eve without making them entirely fair game in high sec. In addition they should not be allowed to rejoin the starter corp, the factional militia BECOMES their default corp.
the nerf bat should swing both ways
I'd vote for this, and I'm in an NPC corp. It's an exploit, but at the moment a legal and widely-used one.
NPC corps should not be used as a shield against aggression. I admit I'm in the NPC corp ONLY to provide protection from wardecs-- it sure isn't for the stimulating conversation or because I love ISK-seller spam. |
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:28:00 -
[197]
Increase the % chance that the victim's items will drop as loot, rather than be destroyed, to counterbalance this nerf.
|
Breaky Uzumaki
Caldari Colorectal Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:29:00 -
[198]
When does Trammel come out?
|
Myra2007
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:29:00 -
[199]
Good times. When will we have this pvp-flag everyone was talking about?
|
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:33:00 -
[200]
these proposed changes are great. there's just one thing missing: most people go into high-sec ganking for profit. a ship that is destroyed by concord should not get any insurace payout...
the other proposed changes are great - let's see how that changes the makeup of the galaxy. (Can we have concord agents back please (two of each level per empire)? A positive standing with concord makes sense now...) --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
|
TheG2
Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:36:00 -
[201]
The security sec "buff" to pirates is great. It makes low-sec pirating not as brutal on your security status, I'm very pleased with this.
Suicide ganking will still be possible. I've done it twice myself, 1 successful, 1 not. It's fun, and a great way to strike back against macro miners.
Insurance...well, I think completely removing insurance from Concord intervention is a bad idea. How about this, if a ship gets blown up while ganking, and in the process of ganking they result in the destruction of a ship, they forfeit insurance, otherwise insurance still applies.
|
Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:39:00 -
[202]
Originally by: CCP Fear And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
Not Sporting? I cannot believe you wrote that. Since when has Eve ever been about gentlemen's rules or being polite and "sporting"? Eve is supposed to be harsh and brutal.
How can you possibly state that a change that makes Empire even safer for afk macro miners and missioners doesn't reward being careless and AFK
I can't believe you're allowed to have input on game design. |
Slanty McGarglefist
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:41:00 -
[203]
Edited by: Slanty McGarglefist on 06/08/2008 14:40:43 I fear CCP Fear. His changes and logic are out of right field. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:42:00 -
[204]
Waiting for the death threats. |
Phillipe d'Rothschild
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:49:00 -
[205]
I'm not in favor of hassle free freighter travel. As a freighter pilot myself, part of the reward balancing is determining how much ISK you are willing to risk on a trip thru Niarja, etc. The fact that people that are 'relatively' safe lose ships and other items is an intrinsic part of what made my friends wish to play eve in the first place. Turning this into WoW is NOT the way to proceed forward.
|
Celedris
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:03:00 -
[206]
It's nice to see you devoted an entire TASK FORCE for this one. The Lord knows making money while AFK in empire needed a boost.
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:05:00 -
[207]
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.
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:11:00 -
[208]
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?
|
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:17:00 -
[209]
1. You're decreasing CONCORD response time. Fair enough. But the very least you could do is tell us how much you are decreasing response time.
2. You are decreasing the amount of CONCORD that spawns. That's good, because currently they are a huge cause of lag. But why does it matter that their frigate locks faster than their battleships when every ship has infinite tackle, CONCORD deactivates all modules and evading CONCORD is an exploit?
3. You're making sec loss even higher in high sec. I don't think you understand exactly how bad it is right now. I think a dev should have to grind up a -5 character and add his input before this change is implemented.
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.
|
Apertotes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:19:00 -
[210]
there was a big thread 4 months ago about this topic here
just because it is satisfying for me i will quote myself on the 23rd of April of 2008, at 11 in the morning.
Originally by: Apertotes it will happen the same with this. there is no need of any evidence. it is just time, until CCP decides that paying insurance to criminals is no longer within the spirit of the game, and they will reafirm the change with lots of big words about honorability, morality, economy health and bOObs.
everybody will applaud them for doing so. a few will fill the forums with threats to leave the game with 400 alts, and fewer still will wonder how on earth that was not against the spirit of the game some weeks ago.
oh my God, how sweet it feels now. keep crying, it will make it even more rewarding
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Morgan La'Chance
Caldari Dynamic Reallocation and Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:32:00 -
[271]
The insurance change is a good and positive change and does not in any way make this "carebear online".
The sec status changes, on the other hand...
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:35:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Giselle Beaute Now I only need special self-destruct cargo containers which will explode when my ship got ganked so theres no cargo left to loot.
Hey, I kind of like that, though they should have a substantial capacity penalty.
What I'd really like is a "Giant Secured Container" (note the one-letter name difference to trap the unwary) which is secured with explosives. Armed upon contact with vacuum after ship destruction, it explodes in the face of the first pilot to approach it (possibly after offering a brief opportunity to enter a disarming password). ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:41:00 -
[273]
Fully supported! I'm not a ganker and I've never been ganked, but I think these changes are a positive step.
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:43:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Slim Goodbody
EVE is about killing f****ts like you and taking your cargo.
I see what you did there Mr. Spineless
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:57:00 -
[275]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
This is pretty much exactly what I thought when I read about these changes. Good thinking on CCP's part. I support any change that makes an element of play more challenging for everyone, while still leaving Eve the cold, harsh universe that it is.
|
Daelorn
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:00:00 -
[276]
I like.
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:01:00 -
[277]
sure, suggest killing high sec suicide ganking altogether why don't you.
|
Zun Da
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:05:00 -
[278]
Good changes.
Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.
Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.
I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.
However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.
|
Kethry Avenger
Krell-Korp
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:07:00 -
[279]
I think these changes make a lot of sense.
One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:17:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Zun Da Good changes.
Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.
Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.
I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.
However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.
Yes i agree, i am not whining cause suicide ganking will be harder, it is hard already. i'm ****ed cause of the people whining about how EASY it is, when all they have to do is afk for 15 minutes and bam, they are wherever they were going. if the lure of low sec was made more. .. luring. . . then i would not have a problem, as i could kill whoever i want and make money that way.
|
|
Vincent S
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:27:00 -
[281]
It's amazing how every single way to have fun unless you're a mission running drone gets squashed into the ground with merciless force.
CCP: The game needs less security, not more!
|
Peter Powers
Master Miners Intruders.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:28:00 -
[282]
did anyone take into consideration that the part "Player vs. Player standing penalty" pretty much means: if your negative and shoot a noob you will get less security hit compared to when your negative and shoot at someone whos playing for a while, has the isk to afford getting shot at (getting high sec status == making isk) and maybe the knowledge to defend himself?
other then that part nice ideas.
I love CCP Morpheus<3 xXx CCP Morpheus xXx <3
|
Druadan
Aristotle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:33:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Druadan on 06/08/2008 18:35:16
Originally by: Kethry Avenger I think these changes make a lot of sense.
One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?
Very good question. I had assumed that insurance would still pay out in lowsec, but I've been in the game long enough to know that what is a good idea and what actually gets implemented diverge further each month. Since FW was introduced I have zero reason to go to lowsec and pirate, but should I want to whack a guy in lowsec I'd like to know that I won't be insurance-fracked for it.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Trojanman190
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:41:00 -
[284]
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:42:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Trojanman190 When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 -
[286]
I'm pretty sure the "no insurance for gankers" only applies when CONCORD is involved. Therefore, lowsec would be unaffected by the change.
I'm all for boosting the sec penalty in highsec, but similarly I think they should lower the sec penalty across the board for 4.0 and below. Also, 3.0 and below should have weaker gate guns so battleships aren't required just to tank them. It could actually help boost non-PVP traffic because of the less threatening ships doing the camping. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 -
[287]
it has been easy enough to not get ganked in eve ever since I started playing and we have seen several buffs to concord in that time
lets make it so the only meaningful way to gain sec status is to kill player pirates, I mean seriously npcs whats the challenge in that
don't listen to the idiots ccp please
although lower concord response numbers and maybe even despawning concord would be quite fantastic
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 -
[288]
yay!
|
DaiTengu
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 -
[289]
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Trojanman190 When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.
Even if you've 2 billion worth of ISK in a freighter, it's going to even out in the end. it'll take 15-20 Ravens to pop a freighter in highsec with the concord response changes, etc. Each raven is about 90-100m for the hull and mods.
This cuts in to the empire ganking profit drastically, and if I recall correctly, CCP said they didn't want to do that.
|
Morfane
The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:54:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Trojanman190 When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.
That was my first thought as well, but killing freighters will be so risky after the patch (1.5 b risked for a less than 50/50 chance at 4b? - ok, but not with giant sec losses) that the bears will undoubtedly just haul all their expensive bobbles in them.
|
|
THEGREAT LOBO
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Korinn
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
QFT
Eve is just not the same it used to be. I never thought i would be considering what accounts to keep and what to sell for isk. But the time is coming to drop to just one. And im not the only one thinking this.
Thanks to that guy that told me about the other sci fi mmo's coming out soon. They do look intresting, Looking forward to a lot more competition in the internet space ship market. Once people have a choice, we will be able to see if most people think ccp is taking the game in the right direction.
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Morfane bobbles
Baubles? Or do carebears have, like, bobble-headed dolls stuck to their dashboards with suction cups, swaying away under the fuzzy dice? ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:04:00 -
[293]
as an aside, I really don't see what the suicide ganking squad is complaining about since they can still suicide gank...
I've also noticed something rather amusing: CCP seems to operate by the "give em enough rope to hang themselves" philosophy. When someone finds an borderline exploit that their game design lets thru, they wait till it becomes obvious to everyone that it's an exploit, then wait a bit longer, and finally bring the boom down. When they do it, it's only a surprise to those who's logic goes: "They've been letting me get away with it for so long, I'll be able to get away with it forever".
CCP has stated that they want a game where actions have consequences, when they find something where actions don't have enough consequences they eventually do address the problem.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:09:00 -
[294]
First off, like the problems with War Decs that were not fixed until the PrivateerÆs started War Decing Everybody, it took the expansion of suicide ganks to finally get CCP to look into the issue, I am glad they did.
On Securityà your security rating only concerns Concord, it is Concords view of youà it makes total sense that in space with little if any Concord presence (Low Sec Space) should affect your standing with Concord at allà I hope this is carried into 0.0 space as well where there is NO concord presence. This will Increase the activity in Low sec space as you could no longer ôGrindö up your security rating in null sec space. Granted, the low sec pirates will not be happy as the security grinding characters out of null sec space may be a tougher fight then the noob or carebear that wanders in for what ever reasonà
It also makes sense that Concord would not treat you so harshly if you are beloved (Sec 5.0 +) and you pop a trouble makerà. And treat you harsher for shooting at someone they likeà
That concord shows up fasterà well, who can sayà as long as there is time for that well planned gank squad to do their thing, then I am ok with ità Oh, and I am all for the stupidity tax (Suicide ganks on AFK haulers with billions as well as no insurance and a greater Security hit for Gankers that fail (to either pop the ship or to get the loot dropped)
--------*****--------
"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
Losvial
Amarr The Flying Dutchmen
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:16:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Letrange as an aside, I really don't see what the suicide ganking squad is complaining about since they can still suicide gank...
And that's the same as saying "Why are all mission runners complaining? They can still run missions" if they were to cut the profits of missions in half.
|
Drake Arson
Minmatar Infernal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:17:00 -
[296]
Yet, again, CCP Falls to the *****ing and whining done by those who want no PVP.
This, would, perhaps be a good addition, If there we're 'NO' Macro Miners, Isk sellers, Isk Selling MIssion farmers.
Most High sec ganks ARE those who are Isk sellers, so your bending to the will of those you supposedly are "against".
Like I said to the Drastic Speed Nerf too Two diffrent races, And I'll seay it again for this Bullshit.
EPIC FAIL, CCP.
Dare you Defy me?!
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:30:00 -
[297]
I am actually begining to wonder if this change might actually get me to start suicide ganking.
I think that I have found a few cruiser fits that might be able to gank a cargo expanded indy.
If people start doubting that gankers will continue to opperate without insurance payouts, we might start to see more people going AFK with their expanded indies.
Doesn't take much loot to cover the cost of a T1 fitted cruiser.
Anybody have the updated numbers for CONCORD response times?
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:33:00 -
[298]
Guys, guys don't worry. It only takes a few DAYS to get your sec back up, no big deal right?
|
Seetesh
Caldari Pixels Docks Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:39:00 -
[299]
Omg well done CCP finally a boost/nerf im actually looking forward to
|
jokerb
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:42:00 -
[300]
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
Bad move CCP. Again way too much heavy handiness, a simpler solution would have produced less agitation.
|
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:57:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Drake Arson Yet, again, CCP Falls to the *****ing and whining done by those who want no PVP.
Erm? Please explain me how suicide ganking is serious pvp.
Besides what is the problem? You can suicide gank all you want. Just the rewards are lowered so you need to pick your targets more carefully. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. You need to think at least a little bit - and this is good. Remember? Eve is a harsh world.
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:15:00 -
[302]
Thinking about it a bit more it would be acceptable if CCP would have the balls to move all level4 agents to low sec as well.
But without such a measure this really is over the top. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Bitter Brain
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:21:00 -
[303]
I welcome this. Especially the change in insurance payout is much needed.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Maximum Yarrage
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:28:00 -
[304]
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
I've just found a new signature ============= RE: The piracy nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Hul'ka
Minmatar MicroFunks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:29:00 -
[305]
Suicide ganking is really a big issue, but with this changes you only affect it a little.
Problems are: Guys with little hassle win in most cases great rewards. They get refund from getting their ships blown up, so they lost almost nothing. They get some security penalty which can be fixed in few days ratting (also brings isk).
Some solution: 2 guys are camping and scaning travelers as they pass. One guy full with POS materials or faction items enters system, and those 2 guys engage. Will Concord be fast enough to stop them?
How about insurance is not paid out if ship was lost in a criminal activity in high security? That way ganking will become real risk, because you newer know will the victim cargo burn in the explosion.
And for the last problem you offered no solution and that fact stays that those guys will after they spend their riches return to the ganking business, with no risk and with high reward.
How about CONCORD pays bounties from rats in percentage related with your security status (leave security gain as it is or increase it a bit for those “reformed” guys who suddenly want to come back to the light side)?
--------- I want to phew phew
|
Liz Laser
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:38:00 -
[306]
It is *still* utterly ridiculous that the cargo of the victim of a suicide ganker remain floating out in space for anyone to loot.
Such a situation would never be tolerated by any civilization organized enough to field an undefeatable force like Concord.
Pirating simply doesn't belong in high sec. Rather than try and field a feeling that we're never safe, CCP needs to find a way to make low sec more rewarding in order to tempt people out there.
I love the concept of pirating, but accepting successful/profitable suicide ganking in high sec requires players to suspend far more disbelief than they should have to.
It's sillier than a Bugs Bunny cartoon. In fact, legitimate space farers would view Concord as the Wiley Coyote of law enforcement.
|
NAT Mav
TribalWar Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 21:06:00 -
[307]
Edited by: NAT Mav on 06/08/2008 21:07:22 This is actually a good thing for the hardcore suicide gankers.
False sense of security anyone?
This will make it tough for CaldariCitizen12312434234 to solo gank a T1 hauler in his throwaway Caracal, but it won't stop an organized group from ganking a AFK freighter carrying many billions worth of cargo. This will just make them feel a bit more safe when they think about going AFK.
*Edit: Something does need to be done about the noobcorp system though.
|
mishkof
Caldari Finis Lumen
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 21:18:00 -
[308]
Overall the changes are good. I have to question the increased security hit in Hi sec a little bit.
There seriously was no risk at all to high sec ganking. What was the over under...10 mil tops? A little security hit that you got back up through ratting. Yeah ratting is the most painful punishment I can think of. I dont do it, but then again I dont high sec gank either.
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me |
Gerard Deneth
Caldari Equilibrium's Shadow
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 21:31:00 -
[309]
I endorse this product and/or service.
No, Seriously. This dosen't make highsec ganking any less impossible really. It just makes it a bit more logical. Cops tend to respond harder and faster when you're in the big city near a police station as opposed to hell's kitchen at 3 in the morning (1.0 and .00001 sec, I suppose)
Secondly, losing the insurance payout makes even more sense logically. You go burn your house down IRL, you're not gonna get your insurance. Ought to be the same thing in EVE.
---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 21:43:00 -
[310]
Originally by: NAT Mav This will make it tough for CaldariCitizen12312434234 to solo gank a T1 hauler in his throwaway Caracal, but it won't stop an organized group from ganking a AFK freighter carrying many billions worth of cargo.
Exactly! And this is how it should be. Well out thought attacks should still be possible - and they will be possible without too many problem. But it would stop every joe and smoe to run in their cheap caracals and gank senselessly everyone without the need to think a bit first.
The only point missing now is that CCP needs to make the low sec systems more profitable so that more players (and especially non-hardcore pirates) will be there. More rewards for low sec roaming!
|
|
El Mauru
Amarr Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 22:10:00 -
[311]
I can live with these changes as long as something is done about players in NPC corps.
IMHO the bounties/Loyalty points/Rewards of players in NPC corps should be capped or taxed. Heck, make it only for lvl 4/5 missions and I'd be happy.
-
|
Tetsuo Hourai
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 22:17:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: NAT Mav This will make it tough for CaldariCitizen12312434234 to solo gank a T1 hauler in his throwaway Caracal, but it won't stop an organized group from ganking a AFK freighter carrying many billions worth of cargo.
Exactly! And this is how it should be. Well out thought attacks should still be possible - and they will be possible without too many problem. But it would stop every joe and smoe to run in their cheap caracals and gank senselessly everyone without the need to think a bit first.
The only point missing now is that CCP needs to make the low sec systems more profitable so that more players (and especially non-hardcore pirates) will be there. More rewards for low sec roaming!
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Drake Arson Yet, again, CCP Falls to the *****ing and whining done by those who want no PVP.
Erm? Please explain me how suicide ganking is serious pvp.
Besides what is the problem? You can suicide gank all you want. Just the rewards are lowered so you need to pick your targets more carefully. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. You need to think at least a little bit - and this is good. Remember? Eve is a harsh world.
"Without too many problem". . . besides the massive sec hits and now-barely-breaking-even-which-is-not-profit, profit. I pirate for a reason, same as you run missions and rat for a reason (and for ****s sake, do NOT post after me, "oh i don't rat, oh i don't run missions", i don't care and you would still miss what i am telling everyone, not just you). This change will make my ganking rarer, my wallet lighter, and you will continue droning on. IT IS ABOUT BALANCE. This is a harsh world, as has been said, quoted above even, so, you deal with the loss of whatever it took you nothing to make. It amazes me that people are posting about how simple it is, oh any moron can suicide gank, oh its no consequence, oh you are whiners. What I see, what I see are mission running care bears who will have very little risk, since no one wants to drop enough sec to be banned from high sec, running vast sums of money around afk, running their missions afk, mining with macros afk, and playing eve afk. This is going to hurt the personal economies for people who want to PLAY THE GAME.
This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking.
Then. . . I. . . DO. . . NOT. . . want. . . you. . . to. . . make. . . isk. . . running. . . missions, cause every moron and their mom and their dog can run a mission blindfolded in their chairs upside down. I want mission rewards halved and all the rats in every mission 10X damage and HP buffed. I HAVE TO LOSE MY SHIP to take what i want from you, you will make isk every second of the day mindlessly running missions. You should not be able to play this game without the fear that someone like me will be able to kill someone like you and take what you've worked for, by WORKING myself. "EVE is a harsh world". . . WHY IN GOD'S NAME SHOULD IT BE LESS HARSH FOR YOU? It's called balance. If it's hard for me, why should it not be hard for you? cause you're in high sec? cause I'll drop standing like a rock for killing you? Please, STACK the sec penalties for suicide ganking until everyone can infinitely run everything through every sec without consequence. The insurance thing, that is okay to an extent, the reason for it is solid, even if i don't like it; if am willing to commit a crime, and the police are there to kill me, by all means. As has been said before, if you burn you own house down, you don't get the insurance for it. lol Or, looking at it differently, in some states, if you kill someone, we kill you back.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 22:44:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Tetsuo Hourai ...stuff...
Obviously you missed a main part of what I said, even though I wrote it in bold font. Therefore I will repeat it:
Originally by: Gnulpie
The only point missing now is that CCP needs to make the low sec systems more profitable so that more players (and especially non-hardcore pirates) will be there. More rewards for low sec roaming!
|
Hul'ka
Minmatar MicroFunks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 22:45:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Tetsuo Hourai
"Without too many problem". . . besides the massive sec hits and now-barely-breaking-even-which-is-not-profit, profit. I pirate for a reason, same as you run missions and rat for a reason (and for ****s sake, do NOT post after me, "oh i don't rat, oh i don't run missions", i don't care and you would still miss what i am telling everyone, not just you). This change will make my ganking rarer, my wallet lighter, and you will continue droning on. IT IS ABOUT BALANCE. This is a harsh world, as has been said, quoted above even, so, you deal with the loss of whatever it took you nothing to make. It amazes me that people are posting about how simple it is, oh any moron can suicide gank, oh its no consequence, oh you are whiners. What I see, what I see are mission running care bears who will have very little risk, since no one wants to drop enough sec to be banned from high sec, running vast sums of money around afk, running their missions afk, mining with macros afk, and playing eve afk. This is going to hurt the personal economies for people who want to PLAY THE GAME.
This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking. This way not every moron can profit from suicide ganking.
Then. . . I. . . DO. . . NOT. . . want. . . you. . . to. . . make. . . isk. . . running. . . missions, cause every moron and their mom and their dog can run a mission blindfolded in their chairs upside down. I want mission rewards halved and all the rats in every mission 10X damage and HP buffed. I HAVE TO LOSE MY SHIP to take what i want from you, you will make isk every second of the day mindlessly running missions. You should not be able to play this game without the fear that someone like me will be able to kill someone like you and take what you've worked for, by WORKING myself. "EVE is a harsh world". . . WHY IN GOD'S NAME SHOULD IT BE LESS HARSH FOR YOU? It's called balance. If it's hard for me, why should it not be hard for you? cause you're in high sec? cause I'll drop standing like a rock for killing you? Please, STACK the sec penalties for suicide ganking until everyone can infinitely run everything through every sec without consequence. The insurance thing, that is okay to an extent, the reason for it is solid, even if i don't like it; if am willing to commit a crime, and the police are there to kill me, by all means. As has been said before, if you burn you own house down, you don't get the insurance for it. lol Or, looking at it differently, in some states, if you kill someone, we kill you back.
well, it's a bit off topic and a whine, your post, it is.. yes, there is a problem with high sec income, and it would be peachy if CCP would move all lv4 agents in low sec. Briliant!
But i doubt you gank mission runenrs. you gang people that are doing moon mining, doing t2 production, carrying their precious faction loot from ratting and exploration...
yea, i know, i know, it's shinny and it's got to be yours.. and I think most of those guys carrying facrion loot in a t1 hauler and afk are dumb and deserved what happened to them... one more reason i support your point of view is that most of those afk dumba**** are actually isk farmers.. 99,9999% certain...
well, devs have a way of introducing this kind of changes... kinda... like... not looking at the whole picture... who knows, maybe some day they'll nerf carebears? lolz --------- I want to phew phew
|
Max Teranous
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 23:35:00 -
[315]
Was implimenting tradable kill rights considered?
That would have given the players the power to deal with criminals & introduce a new profession and style of gameplay to eve, which would be awesome. This change just imposes more controls on the players by the system, which in my opinion is a step away from eve's sandbox concept.
Max
|
Narffy
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 23:45:00 -
[316]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How many thousands of people have been suicide ganked in the past 3 months? What was the average value of their modules and cargo? What was the average value of the victims ship when ganked? What percentages of the ships were not tanked and what percentage was on autopilot? Even if you say something like 30,000 ships suicide ganked in highsec in 3 months, that might only be about 1 person every four minutes which isn't that bad.
If you're focusing on the no-risk ganking, then what are you doing about throwing the risk vs reward for hauling and missions out of wack? How much faster is Concord's response time in each system?
You did a great job of brainstorming, however, it is not a wise idea to implement almost all the possible solutions at once.
|
Ioan Metorsky
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 23:55:00 -
[317]
I think what's funny about these changes is that they won't deter anyone bent on Empire ganking. Blowing up a freighter carrying 4 billion in assets but losing 2 billion in battleships in the process still equals 2 billion profit. And for those of us that live in 0.0, we can still easily just go home and grind our sec status back up and return for more ganks. |
Trotula
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 23:55:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Trotula on 06/08/2008 23:55:20 Eve is about to get some serious competition in the sci-fi spaceship MMORPG genre within the next couple years. I expect that these recent changes are needed to keep the more casual players from jumping ship, which has already been shown to make up the majority of Eve's player base.
I'm sure CCP has done surveys and one of the common player concerns is non-consensual PvP (or ganking to use a term more recognisable). To attract and keep the carebear players, Eve needs to be less harsh, I don't see how it can continue to grow if it doesn't. The number of gamers wanting a harsh free for all PvP environment doesn't compare to the number of casual gamers, and CCP's ability to grow, to add to Eve and develop other MMORPG projects depends on bringing in those casual gamers.
To sum it up:
Dear Devs, It Is Safe To Ignore The Vocal Minority Crying In This Thread
|
Isanoe nothwood
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 00:21:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Isanoe nothwood on 07/08/2008 00:23:20 Edited by: Isanoe nothwood on 07/08/2008 00:22:48 Edited by: Isanoe nothwood on 07/08/2008 00:21:31
Originally by: "CCPLagfest"
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
That's all you needed to do. Good job. (¬hanc_ock)
...CCP Security hole in empire V done.
Ok now get back to work, hire mawr hamsters to make decent servers with no lag when 300v300.
|
SDragoon
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 00:34:00 -
[320]
Edited by: SDragoon on 07/08/2008 00:35:28 Wait, reduced response time for concord? I thought the original response time was too fast. It takes around 20 seconds for a real player to do even a short range warp due to the long acceleration and deceleration periods. How exactly do you explain concord apparently having warp drives that have 10-20 times the acceleration rate with 50AU/second top speed? tech 15 warp drives anyone?
|
|
Thorradin
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 00:44:00 -
[321]
Originally by: Silent Calling "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.
CONCORD has a rule prohibiting attacks on invalid targets in their jurisdiction. You disobey and get your ship torched and they hate you a little more for not obeying their laws.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:13:00 -
[322]
My view. Suicide gankign was not working a nice way. BUT'' I always hated cocnord magical response. Too fast.'' I think woudl be far better for gameplay and interesting game if concord response was WAY WAY slower. But the punishment was way way more severe.
Example?
YOU attack a ship in 0.5 and concord shoudl take like 30 seconds to 1 minutes to arrive! Yes the target wil very likely die. But the punishment shoudl be way more severe. You loose your ship and you get a TEMPORARY IMEDIATE move to OUTLAW status. That status would persist for a tiem varign on the value of ship you blew up. So if you ganked a frigate you stay outlawed for 30 min. If you ganked a Battleship you stay outlawed for a FULL DAY! If you gank a freighter you stay outlawed for a full week!
Durign this time you are effectively banished from high sec.
The effect? Woudl make suicide gankign mroe believable. And it woudl be easier to make. But no oen woudl be able to LIVE form doing it only. So suicide gankign would be feasible only when you know before hand a specific valuable cargo is beign moved and its very very worth to do that.
That woudl simply remove the people living from suicide ganking and woudl make it a much rarer event. But at same tiem woudl make it a much less PATHETIC event. Because 30 battleships waitign at a gate for a freighter to jump in then 15 secodns later only wrecks in gate remais is PATHETIC. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Sixer70
Ferro Ignique
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:21:00 -
[323]
just another wussy change to make the *****s happy and comfy. Space is so safe with CCP on the watch. high sec becomes full sec.. what a load of crap.
get some nads CCP... keep this up and you'll lose anyone with any creativity or energy playing. You'll leave it to the isk farmers, macro miners, macro mission runners and poindexters.
|
Artemis Rose
Odd End of the Universe
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:39:00 -
[324]
Wow, thats all pretty lame...
Great changes you have going... what's next? Full module insurance and autopilot warp to 0?
__________________________________________________
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat. |
Akhavir
Minmatar Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:48:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Akhavir on 07/08/2008 01:51:24 Worst Idea Ever.
Look at all of the corps that these people are in. Go figure. Re: Suicide Ganking Nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Akhavir
Minmatar Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:49:00 -
[326]
Edited by: Akhavir on 07/08/2008 01:51:49 Doublepost.. Re: Suicide Ganking Nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Berious
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 01:57:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Trotula Edited by: Trotula on 06/08/2008 23:55:20 Eve is about to get some serious competition in the sci-fi spaceship MMORPG genre within the next couple years. I expect that these recent changes are needed to keep the more casual players from jumping ship, which has already been shown to make up the majority of Eve's player base.
I'm sure CCP has done surveys and one of the common player concerns is non-consensual PvP (or ganking to use a term more recognisable). To attract and keep the carebear players, Eve needs to be less harsh, I don't see how it can continue to grow if it doesn't. The number of gamers wanting a harsh free for all PvP environment doesn't compare to the number of casual gamers, and CCP's ability to grow, to add to Eve and develop other MMORPG projects depends on bringing in those casual gamers.
To sum it up:
Dear Devs, It Is Safe To Ignore The Vocal Minority Crying In This Thread
Yes lets turn Eve into a nice safe themepark ride to compete with the other 10 thousand lame WoW clones (figure accurate at time of post)
|
Hamish Grayson
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 02:01:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Shevar Thinking about it a bit more it would be acceptable if CCP would have the balls to move all level4 agents to low sec as well.
But without such a measure this really is over the top.
I'd love to see L3s go too. ============================================
It is said the warrior's is the twofold way of pen and sword |
Hamish Grayson
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 02:09:00 -
[329]
Edited by: Hamish Grayson on 07/08/2008 02:15:03
Originally by: Sixer70 just another wussy change to make the *****s happy and comfy. Space is so safe with CCP on the watch. high sec becomes full sec.. what a load of crap.
get some nads CCP... keep this up and you'll lose anyone with any creativity or energy playing. You'll leave it to the isk farmers, macro miners, macro mission runners and poindexters.
It's not CCP's fault you can't handle 0.0 and have to survive off noobs. "Real tuff men gank people who are not at their computer or in nice fat ships that can't fight back in an internet space ship game" Yes, your no 'wussy' at all. ============================================
It is said the warrior's is the twofold way of pen and sword |
Funky Feeling
Ventis Secundis R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 02:43:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Hamish Grayson Edited by: Hamish Grayson on 07/08/2008 02:32:46
Originally by: Sixer70 just another wussy change to make the *****s happy and comfy. Space is so safe with CCP on the watch. high sec becomes full sec.. what a load of crap.
get some nads CCP... keep this up and you'll lose anyone with any creativity or energy playing. You'll leave it to the isk farmers, macro miners, macro mission runners and poindexters.
It's not CCP's fault you can't hack 0.0 and have to survive off noobs. "Real tuff men gank people who are not at their computer or in nice fat ships that can't fight back in an internet space ship game" Yes, your no 'wussy' at all.
If you want to play a hard character, and not a carebear you should expect things to be...hard. If you want to talk the talk you should have to walk the walk. You aren't upset because CCP are making it easier on the carebears your upset because they aren't handing them to you tied up and on a silver platter anymore and now you can't hack being an empire pirate either. I'll sell you a badger carebear.
says the 'lieutenant' carebear.
guys that whine that they get suicide ganked are simply that.. whinging... space should be as it is.. protected. but wild. THere is heavy risk.. if you want to put 41 billion of faction items on your freaking navy raven and slowboat around.. don't be surprised when corps like the souls of vengeance decide to be the corsairs of space and remove your stupid keester from owning those items.
if you don't like it.. go play wow or eq or some other testicle-less game.
|
|
Terra Mikael
NightCrew
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 02:44:00 -
[331]
I say we modify concord to make it warp into peoples missions, kill their rats, shield/armor rep them, and give happy endings.
Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto All piracy is built upon honoring one's word.
|
Hamish Grayson
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 02:55:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Funky Feeling
guys that whine that they get suicide ganked are simply that.. whinging...THere is heavy risk..
And guys that whine that CCP is making it harder for them to pluck that nice juicy 41 billion isk apple harder are simply...whining...because now there is heavy risk.
If you don't like it.. go play wow or eq or some other testicle-less game.
Originally by: Funky Feeling says the 'lieutenant' carebear.
I do role-play, and i sometimes trade stuff and run missions, but for the most part I spend my game time preying on your kind.
============================================
It is said the warrior's is the twofold way of pen and sword |
Deaths Minion
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 03:00:00 -
[333]
Originally by: MarcusCole While you're nerfing different playstyles into oblivion would you care to take a look at the players who spend their entire careers in noob corps, unable to be attacked and generally not interacting with others at all.
If say after 3 months (arbitrary time) they were moved into their factions militia via some sort of graduation ceremony idea it would provide some sort of gradual introduction to the harshness of eve without making them entirely fair game in high sec. In addition they should not be allowed to rejoin the starter corp, the factional militia BECOMES their default corp.
the nerf bat should swing both ways
the nerf bat needs to seek out all playstyles, all ship configs, and all tactics that do not have a viable counter playstyle, configuraton, or tactic. imagine what rock/paper/scissors would be like if rock beat everything. the suicide nerf has been needed for awhile and i am glad to see it being addressed players hiding in NPC corps is a different problem and i will be happy when ccp nerfs it as well
|
Akhavir
Minmatar Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 03:16:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Terra Mikael I say we modify concord to make it warp into peoples missions, kill their rats, shield/armor rep them, and give happy endings.
This. Re: Suicide Ganking Nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 04:19:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Dev Blog CONCORD
CONCORD has some issues, mostly that pilots are killed long before CONCORD arrives. We have decreased the response time, meaning they will arrive quicker, and we should see a more helpful CONCORD aiding those in need.
We also changed the functionality and reduced the spawn. CONCORD now spawns in groups of 3 ships: 2 frigate sized vessels, which will lock the aggressor down in place, and a heavy hitting battleship to reduce his or her ship to metal scraps. The frigates will lock almost instantly while the battleship takes longer to lock, and the aggressor is made more aware of his or her impending doom.
So when will these changes be hitting SiSi so that we can test them?
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 04:19:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Akhavir
Originally by: Terra Mikael I say we modify concord to make it warp into peoples missions, kill their rats, shield/armor rep them, and give happy endings.
This.
no, not concord, but if you faction standing is high enough they should send in the navy to help you!
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:31:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Ben Derindar on 07/08/2008 05:34:55 The move to dynamic security status penalties makes things interesting. The net effect will be that people will be able to get away with carrying more valuable cargo, with the knowledge that suicide gankers will have to more carefully consider their targets in order to make the pain of recovering that increased sec hit worthwhile.
However, I am concerned about the prospect of complete insurance removal for all CONCORD kills. Insurance should only be removed for those who succeed in killing their target, otherwise anyone who has ever accidentally shot a station, stargate, container etc will also pay the price. While this can happen to anybody, I particularly worry for the newbies who will struggle the most to replace such losses.
EDIT: I don't really see the point to speeding up CONCORD response times, either. The suicide ganker is supposed to die regardless, now sans insurance as well. This is nothing more than a direct nerf to the profession, which it won't need with the other changes also in place.
/Ben
|
Player One
Minmatar Die wilde 13
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:33:00 -
[338]
dont get it ... from no risk to some risk and look at all the gankerbears ....
p1
WTB: Jim Button corpse |
TheStarman
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:40:00 -
[339]
Edited by: TheStarman on 07/08/2008 05:41:04 OK then, so what are you going to do about the macro miners killing the economy? Now this drives up the cost of removing them from the area.
Oh yeah, petition them. Like that ever does anything. This just will cost us more to get rid of them.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:43:00 -
[340]
TBH you were only really likely if you were to get suicide ganked if you were lazy or incompetent - exactly the kind of people who should be punished for their inattentiveness while flying a ship loaded with valuable cargo to one of the most dangerous spots in the galaxy.
Additionally, what's next? no insurance if sentry guns are on the killmail? no insurance if you're in lowsec or 0.0? I know you haven't mentioned any of these, but if "logically" CONCORD kills don't pay out any insurance, then there are any number of good, "logical" reasons for insurance not to pay out in most combat situations at all.
Committed a crime? no insurance if your ship gets popped. Crimes include stealing, can-flipping, w/e.
Went into lowsec? no insurance. Ran a combat mission where you knew there were likely to be npc pirates? what insurance company would insure that ship?
Logically you should only really get insurance if you're flying a civilian (industrial/mining) ship with no offensive modules fitted to it, through hisec only.
But that would destroy the game and remove several styles of play, and I don't see any compelling reason why you, CCP, wouldn't institute the above changes if you're willing to make the insurance exception for CONCORD.
Plus, what about those poor noobies who don't understand the aggression mechanics and get concorded? they get double-screwed - suddenly losing their ship and modules, and additionally not getting insurance for it.
IMHO the other changes you made are fine, but the removal of insurance for CONCORDOKKEN?
It's in violation of the spirit of EVE, will cause more trouble than it's worth, and - let's face it - if you got suicide ganked, the fact that your attackers didn't get insurance payouts isn't going to make you whine any less.
People who carelessly ship valubale stuff in untanked ships are still going to get suicide ganked, they are still going to whine about it, and they will still say that they aren't safe enough.
If you want to make suicide ganking more difficult - and this doesn't make it any harder, it just restricts the target selection somewhat, increasing the value of cargo necessary to make a suicide gank worthwhile - then you need to make defending the ships easier and more productive. __________________________________
Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
|
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:51:00 -
[341]
one does really wonder, why CCP sees Hello Kitty Online as such a big threat that they kiss the noob-corp-hugger-carebear-a55es with such a joy...
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 06:34:00 -
[342]
im spanish so i barely speack english sry about mi lousy english and again im gona say one thing
I SEE YOUR LACK OF "DEVS" DISTURBING..
PS: THIS NEW PATCHS IS GONA BE REMEMBER WITH THE NAME OF " WE GONA MAKE EVE EVEN WORST THAN WOW AND WE DONT CARE ABOUT IT BECOUSE YOU ARE STUPID AND PAY FOR PLAY XD"
PS2: XD THIS NOT GONA STOP THE KILLING ON HI SEC IN SOME WAYS MAKE IT EASY IF YOU NOW WHAT YOUR DOING XD think ccp think!!!
|
Sophia Esperanza
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:06:00 -
[343]
Well, i'll still gank after this patch.
Say 555 if you wanna join me and fit a shitload of torp raven ganking ships.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:15:00 -
[344]
LOL @ all you suicide gankers that are crying about losing your ISK button.
Are you serious? You can still suicide gank the AFK hauler with billions. So whats the problem? So you have to actually put forth effort now, well welcome to EVE, if you don't like it go back to WoW.
CCP, good changes, was worried it would go from one side of the spectrum to the other but you managed to keep from doing that. I especially like the part of no insurance on Concord related kills, I mean come on, getting paid insurance for suicide ganking never made any sense anyways.
Still can't believe all the crying from the gankers, just LOL... too funny. More EMO ganker tears please.
|
Axhind
Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:15:00 -
[345]
The standing change is unnecessary. It will work just fine without it. Insurance change will make sure that gankbears actually have to scan and pick targets (wow now there is some real risk and hard work, I hope they will be able to cope with it).
And lastly NPC corp nerf is long overdue. There is a bunch of people hiding there that need to get out in to the player corps where they are targetable (and fix war decc/corp jump timers while you are at it).
PS: To all the whiners in here this change will only affect mission ships with faction gear (plex gear is still worth enough that it's worth ganking the mission runner) and freighters. Main change here is that freighters will actually be usable for transporting larger amounts of cargo now. Before it had to be almost empty to prevent break even and with the torp raven being esentially free...
|
Alexandra Silverscream
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:31:00 -
[346]
Originally by: namesarehard
Originally by: Zoom Cheesedog Sheesh. PvPers are always the biggest whiners in any MMO, but I swear, EVE's players raise it to a whole new level.
PvP is not going away. Want pew pew? Join faction warfare. Move to 0.0. Wardec somebody. Join a mercenary corp. Gank a faction-fit battleship.
We just got a huge content upgrade dedicated entirely to PvP, but when the rules are changes to make ganking newbies and mining barges less profitable, all you see is "WAAAAH CCP STOP CATERING TO CAREBEARS!! SO NOT FAIR!!"
I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.
Ok, I rarely respond in these type of threads, but here I feel compelled to do so anyway.
Eve was designed as a game that is harsh, where PvP is the name of the game, where you have to work hard and long for a little bit of improvement, where you can get blasted out of the sky by anyone, always. In other words, it caters to people who love high adrenaline, high difficulty game play, where other human beings are their opponents.
What Eve was -not- designed to be is a game that caters to a few people who like to grief, offering them unsuspecting players on a silver platter as sacrifices for their indulgence.
Personally, I love to play the bad guy. Note: PLAY the bad guy, as in ICly. Eve is perfect for that. Now, if you actually get off on the misery of people on an OOC level, then you are just a social and mental deviant. Someone like that is seen as unacceptable in society and I seriously doubt that CCP has created a game with these kind of people in mind as their main customer base.
I like blowing people up in a game. I like to show that I can be the bad guy, that I can own another player, despite his skill and experience. In the end, though, I'll sit with that player in a bar, having a drink and a nice chat, talking fondly about our friendly rivalry. I do not go up to him and kick him when he is down, laughing at his misery. If the last is your bread and butter then I seriously suggest that you evaluate your own motivations. If not for yourself then for the sake of your next of kin.
|
TheStarman
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:47:00 -
[347]
Edited by: TheStarman on 07/08/2008 07:47:42
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
The only suicide ganking I've done is of Macro Miners, but hold on guys, the GMs are gonna help!
Hi,
Thank you for reporting this. I will investigate the issue and take the appropriate action.
Best regards, GENERIC GM WHO WILL DO NOTHING EVE Online Customer Support
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Elitist Cowards
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 07:51:00 -
[348]
Awesome change CCP.
Now give me back my gallente carrier skill that I lost and we'll be OK! ----------------- Friends Forever |
Pavlinka
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 08:30:00 -
[349]
finaly ...
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 09:20:00 -
[350]
Edited by: Shinigami on 07/08/2008 09:22:36 I for one am happy to see less self policing by players, and more hand holding from the game. Can we get can flipping to summon ccp next? Also we need fair looting rules. If someone loots your wreck, concord should kill them, and mail your items back to you. I would also like to see arkonor and bistot spawns in 1.0 space. And 40 man raid instances would be nice too with purple loot.
|
|
JanSVK
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 09:22:00 -
[351]
Cpp, You got my full support on 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.
If possible I would love if you implement another warning (like the warning when you enter 0.0 for the first time) or something like that, if your action causes a concord attack, or simply doen't allow you to activate the module, or turn it off if it would result in concording. I know there is the one that your acion could result in concord attack (activating samrtbomb in empire).
|
pardux
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 09:32:00 -
[352]
Hello kitty online
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 09:46:00 -
[353]
*Scratches one item down from my list of CSM issues*
Good work.
Suicide ganking will still be possible under the new mechanics. I think everyone can agree that under the old system, the only ones that had a zero-risk playstyle were the gankers themselves. By making suicide ganking have some actual consequences in the form of a bigger sec hit and eventually more of a financial hit as well, it will actually make these people work into finding proper targets, not ganking as indiscriminately as the current system allows you to. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Adrellias
Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:00:00 -
[354]
Its funny how ccp always cave's to the crying/weeping non smart carebears... o i died cause i went through a KNOW GANKING system and they gangked me... O please ccp do something. This game is turning into a wow lookalike where pvp is a really special thing. COME ON GUYS its easy dont mine solo in a 0.4 system have all your buddies there to protect you thats how its supposed to work you know 0.4 less secure than 1.0 ??? Same with the ganking happening you do release there are routes around these systems ?? Or take a escort with you ? Instead of nerfing the game to death, for the pvp guys. If they would think a little they wont get killed the whole bloody time. You get killed if your stupid about where you travel and how you travel... But thats my 10'cs worth
|
Mr Banzai
Caldari Rogue Squadron
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:45:00 -
[355]
Good, long-awaited change, thanks CCP. Though i consider sec status mechanics update a rather minor one, main impact will come from the criminal insurance removal.
And yeah, gotta love all the usual suspects whining about it. Sad to inform you guys, but "adapt or die" principle applies to you too.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Maximum Yarrage
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:00:00 -
[356]
Actually - I've changed my mind - I support the removal of insurance.
I've found an even better way of making carebears cry. Ninja-salvage their mission, wait for them to shoot me (a few will), and laugh as their raven explodes with no insurance
Also, even if they don't suicide me I can still loot their mission freely and hope they attack me once I'm flashy red. Then it's off to get the nice big ganky domi
============= RE: The piracy nerf
Originally by: agent apple I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,
Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:05:00 -
[357]
From on side, im happy as i will be able to haul billions around (again) without worrying about getting my stuff blown up.
On the other side however, i think someone should seriously be fired from the CCP design team. Whoever came up with these ideas is.. well.. let's just say, that the person never heard about balancing and it shows.
You have a problem and there were several ideas circulating to correct the problem. What would a NORMAL designer do? Make small changes and adjustments to fine tune the system.
What does CCP do? Throw everything they heard at once into the game completely going overboard and falling onto the other side of the horse.
Seriously guys.. It's been how long? 5-6 years now? Would be about time to grow up. 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 >>----> |
Adrellias
Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:06:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Karentaki Actually - I've changed my mind - I support the removal of insurance.
I've found an even better way of making carebears cry. Ninja-salvage their mission, wait for them to shoot me (a few will), and laugh as their raven explodes with no insurance
Also, even if they don't suicide me I can still loot their mission freely and hope they attack me once I'm flashy red. Then it's off to get the nice big ganky domi
Or we could always do that :D To the guy above you im not whining just sad to see eve turn into a girlie game where crybaby's cry cause they fail horrabily. When i got ganked in my earlier days. I didnt go ooooo booohooo ccp this is a bug booohhooooo ccp fix this. NAH I JOINED THE RANKS!!
|
Adrellias
Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:07:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Mr Banzai Good, long-awaited change, thanks CCP. Though i consider sec status mechanics update a rather minor one, main impact will come from the criminal insurance removal.
And yeah, gotta love all the usual suspects whining about it. Sad to inform you guys, but "adapt or die" principle applies to you too.
Ohh and believe me we always addapt little person. At least the game stays intresting for us... Unlike mining a roid to death.
|
No Beard
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:21:00 -
[360]
"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.
|
|
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 don¦t 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
|
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:06:00 -
[391]
Originally by: csebal
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.
Mmmmmmmm... the tears taste so good.
|
General Paul
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:14:00 -
[392]
a solution to suicide gankign already exists =/ a buffer tanked vulture.
Now thats secure space will be so much more secure and hundreds will flock to this lovely place what happens to the lag caused by all the invicible noobs grinding agents in there 6 billion isk ratting ships?
This seems in effect to be a boost to unethical people who exploit third world countries populations to farm isk and change it into real world cash. People should live in fear or defend themselves.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:22:00 -
[393]
Originally by: General Paul a solution to suicide gankign already exists =/ a buffer tanked vulture.
lol ...
|
Ahzara Zhin
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:24:00 -
[394]
Originally by: Karando 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.
You can take that and stick it in your ***!
|
Lucy'Lastic
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:38:00 -
[395]
Originally by: General Paul a solution to suicide gankign already exists =/ a buffer tanked vulture..
lol. Please post when you know what you are talking about.
Originally by: General Paul
Now thats secure space will be so much more secure and hundreds will flock to this lovely place what happens to the lag caused by all the invicible noobs grinding agents in there 6 billion isk ratting ships?
No extra lag will be created by making it more difficult to suicide gank someone and those 6 billion isk ships will not be invincible.
Originally by: General Paul
This seems in effect to be a boost to unethical people who exploit third world countries populations to farm isk and change it into real world cash. People should live in fear or defend themselves.
Oh dear. You really are bitter.
|
General Paul
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:46:00 -
[396]
do many gank squad do 300K damage against a command ship hull ? I always transport expensive goods in tanked ships.
Not bitter either, im not a suicide ganker, I just feel empire space should be clsoed down forever, you would get less clustered sectors of space and so less lag. Everyone wins.
|
CliveMerric
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:58:00 -
[397]
i feel hurt, i believe that eve is a 'cold dark place' that should be fundamentally unsafe. And as it now stands there are numerous counters to ganking, like not using ap with expensive cargoes or just paying attention. Ive never ganked but i strongly oppose this MASSIVE change in gameplay. Please do not make high sec into totally safe space
CCP please oh please when you want to change something MAJOR please change 1 thing at a time not 4 and hope the place dosent go to hell.
|
Sal Alo
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:00:00 -
[398]
I feel the fear
|
Raneru
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:16:00 -
[399]
Originally by: Karando
3) Restrict forum access to accounts with over 100 player kills.
Loving that idea!
|
Dominatus Crispus
Gallente Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:29:00 -
[400]
i agree with this change, and for the whiners...
learn to adapt... ____________________
ravetrax.com ... player owned and operated |
|
Axhind
Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:31:00 -
[401]
Originally by: CliveMerric i feel hurt, i believe that eve is a 'cold dark place' that should be fundamentally unsafe. And as it now stands there are numerous counters to ganking, like not using ap with expensive cargoes or just paying attention. Ive never ganked but i strongly oppose this MASSIVE change in gameplay. Please do not make high sec into totally safe space
CCP please oh please when you want to change something MAJOR please change 1 thing at a time not 4 and hope the place dosent go to hell.
How about you try and play the other side before all the whine? Manualy flying the freighter doesn't help against the suicide ganks. Nor do almost free torp ravens. Hulks are also easy target as they can not perform their function without exposing them selves to any ganker with half a brain cell.
I know it's nice to have an ISK button that is almost as risk free as trading but that doesn't make it balanced. At least traders have to suffer the isk wars.
But don't let reality interupt your whine.
PS: I've never thought I would agree with a member of DOOM but tears are real tasty in here (almost as good as the EPIC nano whine).
|
Hero Crane
Bilge Rats of Tortuga
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:25:00 -
[402]
Originally by: General Paul
This seems in effect to be a boost to unethical people who exploit third world countries populations to farm isk and change it into real world cash. People should live in fear or defend themselves.
....
WHAT!?!?!
~_^ WHO'S...YOUR...HERO!!! |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:28:00 -
[403]
This is nothing but a boost to high sec money making. Sorry but ccp is hoe'ing for money again. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:38:00 -
[404]
Edited by: Kurann on 07/08/2008 18:39:26
Originally by: Sethose Olderon Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 07/08/2008 16:22:46
HAHA! Looks like the Jarheads aren't liking this one too much.
I'm loving this.
Also, Empire space is supposed to be secure folks, if you want to gank each other, you should have to go to low-sec and 0.0.
Jarheads prey on noobies, and easy targets in empire simply because they are easy targets, and they think it's funny to watch someone loose a billion isk everytime their freighter is ganked.
If it weren't for industrialists you'd be sitting in dock with nothing to fly. THINK ABOUT IT!
These changes are badly needed, and appreciated.
Personally, I find it rather annoying that Jarheads get all the Goodies. They get something in every patch and whine about what they think they should have regardless.
Rarely do the Industrialists get anything worthwhile, and mostly its something else for Jarheads to shoot at.
Jarheads in this game have it pretty easy, so can the Indies get a few Goodies, huh?
/rant
and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
My solution (compiled from other posts and my own thoughts): Since CCP likes doing the extreme, move all level 4's level 3's to low sec, have say a 30% chance of level 2's take you to low sec (and you can decline the mission if you want to stay in pink fuzzy high sec with concord giving you a reach around anytime you want), move all hidden belts to low sec, spawn some good roids in low sec, spawn faction ships in low sec, and forget the sec changes. I don't want to work harder to get to -10, that would be silly. The reason i pirate is for the -10, and cause i like pew pewing anything i see.
you want to populate low sec? there ya go. you can't solo mine, or you will get ganked. you can't solo mission, cause you will get ganked. both forces "players" into player corps, because noob corps are just that, full of noobs. and please, bring your shiny faction gear too, i has to feeds my pirate babiez.
k thnx bai
|
Akiko Reikio
Intergalactic Squad
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:56:00 -
[405]
To balance this, how about you disallow players from staying in NPC corps indefinetly, or make them war decable. The later would really just be funny.
Just a thought.
|
Ironnight
Caldari x13 X13 Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 19:46:00 -
[406]
Originally by: Sethose Olderon Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 07/08/2008 16:22:46
HAHA! Looks like the Jarheads aren't liking this one too much.
I'm loving this.
Also, Empire space is supposed to be secure folks, if you want to gank each other, you should have to go to low-sec and 0.0.
/rant
Its supposed to be safer, not safe, well that was the way it was, before the hello kitty online people took over. Go back there please.
They're like 'oh shit son, its a trap ' *Doomsday* |
Dray
Caldari Malevolent Emo Herders
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:13:00 -
[407]
Bottom line is cash flow, back in the day when eve kicked off people were drawn to it for the very reasons most cry on the forums, losses hurt, and there was no real safety beyond the safety you and your friends gave each other.
Now eve is a different beast, theres a lot of money in this game and people want safety and no risk, they are in the majority, for me the galling thing is CCP wont admit this so f**k them, but i dont blame them, catering to the needs of the few wont keep subs up, and ultimately thats what pays the bills, and that what feeds the kids.
I'd rather they just came out and admitted this.
|
Joey Meow
MURAKAMI INDUSTRIES
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:49:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Dray Bottom line is cash flow, back in the day when eve kicked off people were drawn to it for the very reasons most cry on the forums, losses hurt, and there was no real safety beyond the safety you and your friends gave each other.
Now eve is a different beast, theres a lot of money in this game and people want safety and no risk, they are in the majority, for me the galling thing is CCP wont admit this so f**k them, but i dont blame them, catering to the needs of the few wont keep subs up, and ultimately thats what pays the bills, and that what feeds the kids.
I'd rather they just came out and admitted this.
Pretty much what it is. CCP needs to make money, majority of people want "safer" environment, CCP needs to accommodate in order to continue to make money. EVE will never revert to the 20k Online, unless it enters the decline, as all games do eventually. The way things are going, we will only see more growth and more "mainstream" player coming in, which is all good.
|
Solomon XI
Caldari Hoist The Colors.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 21:13:00 -
[409]
CCP is epic fail.
Nuff' said.
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 21:25:00 -
[410]
Edited by: Shinigami on 07/08/2008 21:27:11
Originally by: Joey Meow Pretty much what it is. CCP needs to make money, majority of people want "safer" environment, CCP needs to accommodate in order to continue to make money. EVE will never revert to the 20k Online, unless it enters the decline, as all games do eventually. The way things are going, we will only see more growth and more "mainstream" player coming in, which is all good.
It's a good way to pay back all those people who have been loyal over the years, and those who came because they wanted something different. You know the guys who kept them from going bankrupt before they could afford ads on BSG.
|
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 21:31:00 -
[411]
but I always liked reading the whines, moving a billion isk, coming back and reading more whines. Looks like I won't be able to do that anymore
|
Minessis
Rebirth. Ashes to Agony
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 22:59:00 -
[412]
well these changes would be fine and dandy if the population of low sec (0.3 - 0.1) wasn't approaching zero...
fact of the matter is that there really are no benefits to carebearing in lowsec atm and so as it stands, low sec is virtually uninhabited...
maybe if crokite and bistot spawned in lowsec systems... spawning more and more depending on the systems ship losses?
but again, as it stands now... lowsec populations are way way too low and pushing the penalties of ganking in higher sec won't push the carebears into lowsec... it'll only push the pvpers out of highsec.
|
SPIONKOP
Caldari Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 23:34:00 -
[413]
Oh Joy.
About bloody time this was done.
For those about to leave the game cos of this can I have your stuff, it may have been mine once upon a time.
--------------------------------------------- Space For Rent.
100mil ISK/Week.
|
Ahzara Zhin
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 00:05:00 -
[414]
Yay! Jarheads are leaving! WOOT!
|
AngelusK
Minmatar Lost Connection
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 00:05:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Scout R This game get nearer and nearer to being macro-miners online every day
Fix'd. As of this "upgrade", the only winners in Eve are those cheating the system.
CCP, if you're gonna decry 'cheating' as unfair on your greater player base, *PLEASE* stop implementing changes that only pander to and support those who are cheating.
Ah feck it, destroyers are cheap...
|
Heikki
Gallente Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 01:09:00 -
[416]
Removing insurance (increasing cost to kill someone in highsec) and increasing sec penalty sounds all fair...but reducing the Concord arrival time sounds a bit scary.
Almost like CCP didn't want players chance to kill everyone they want (even if that required high cost).
-Lasse deep in 0.0
|
Garat Mant
Minmatar Moons of Pluto
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 02:21:00 -
[417]
CCP Taera, a lot of people here make a valid point: You're removing our last weapon against macro miners.
Please change the rules in this way: NPC corps' members can not fly Barges or Hulks. These complex and large mining ships can only be supported by true player corporations.
That way the Macros have to form a corp to mine their ice, and thus can be wardec'd.
--
|
DaemonBarber
Sesquipedalianites Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 03:35:00 -
[418]
Too lazy to read the whole thread (though for some reason, I expect the devs to), so this may have been posted...
Can you differentiate between concord responses resulting from action against an NPC, and one against another player? Can you still payout for the NPC actions (the 'oops, I just attacked the stargate'), but not for the players (or both - ie, gate THEN player)?
|
STUPIDandUGLY
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 04:21:00 -
[419]
First: suicide gankers, low-sec and mining pirates, mission raiders.....just another way of saying not good enough for nullsec, and someone who is bored with hisec noobs running around blabbering in local about almost losing a rifter to a level 2 NPC. Get a freaking life! Well, everyone except goonswarm punks. They're just worthless wastes of oxygen and should all be shoved out the nearest airlock.
To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "The Universe is a big place. Perhaps the biggest." Get your stupid, whiney, arses into a militia where you can whine all day in local about getting pwned by someone with a +5 sec rating. Or, actually take the plunge. Go to null/losec and compete with someone who can fight back. It's pretty easy logging each night knowing you've got enough skills to obliterate a Retriever within 15 seconds. And that's all you're going to do. And nobody's going to stop you. Not even ConCoRd. So stop sitting outside a 1.0 station with four jetcans, creating lag, waiting for a noob to pop one so you can do the same to them. I can only imagine that highsec station camping has got to be almost as fun as camping the local star waiting for people to go afk.
There's a reason for the term "high" security. Not just the recreational definition. Let me get this straight; those people who commit crimes get paid to do so?!? WTF? Does that mean I can rob a 7-Eleven and when the cops trash my car (with me still in it trying to escape at high velocity) my insurance company gives me full compensation? And I only get to stay in jail overnight? And if I put in 2.5 hours of community service within the next year, then my arrest and incarceration is completely expunged?!? Sign me up for that reality. BTW, for all the goons out there, expunged means like it never happened (wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement) and incarceration means to be in jail (wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration).
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm schizophrenic and so is this alt :P
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 04:26:00 -
[420]
Official Comment form UCAM: The changes that are outlined in the devblog leads us to think this is a nerf to us (UCAM as a whole) and god forbid a Boost patch for all farmers and macros hideing in a npc corp. And it will only serv as a safe haven for game breakers (aka isk farmers)...
And it leads me to 1 question (that i know will not be answered anyways): Why are CCP turning EvE into a "Hello Kitty Online In Space" hybrid game?
------------------
|
|
R0ot
Eternity INC. Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 05:25:00 -
[421]
Great Ideas, however it still won't stop people killing frigate class ships carrying bpos (which they really shouldn't be anyway) from getting insta-popped by stealth bombers. Best option I can see to eliminate high sec ganking is as soon as you gain a global criminal countdown in high security space any/all of your ammo fired do 0 damage to anything it comes in contact with.
|
Ged Gollas
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 05:38:00 -
[422]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
This brainstorm, 'fix', or whatever you wanna call it, STILL fails to solve the problem. Sounds to me like some people who were asked to address an issue got distracted with something they thought was cool.
I'm not a ganker nor have I ever been ganked, but I can clearly see that your main goal is the eventual and complete protection of your main source of income in this game, and that's the macro-miners and multi-account industrialists that keep the economy inside EVE going full-steam-ahead. This so-called solution of yours is just another nail in the coffin, it is a complete failure to solve whatever problem it is that you claim exists... Suicide gankers, who honestly gives a flying f---? You listen to a tiny minority that's really vocal about something and you're FAILING to listen to the rest of us and OUR concerns.
Next, you're gonna release a capital-ship sized exhumer (Orca?) and make the game REAL easy for these macroers, and why the hell do I wanna play a game that favors tedium? Screw this. I'm not paying money for this. CSM meetings? Reading these forums? I'm getting the impression you're not paying attention at all!
Seriously.
|
Ancy Denaries
Caldari Under Heavy Fire
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 06:14:00 -
[423]
Originally by: R0ot Great Ideas, however it still won't stop people killing frigate class ships carrying bpos (which they really shouldn't be anyway) from getting insta-popped by stealth bombers. Best option I can see to eliminate high sec ganking is as soon as you gain a global criminal countdown in high security space any/all of your ammo fired do 0 damage to anything it comes in contact with.
You completely missed the point. These changes are NOT to remove high sec ganking. If CCP did that, I'd probably be heading for the door already, because that would the dumbest change ever. These changes are to increase the cost and "easiness" involved with high sec ganking. You won't be getting insurance, you will be taking a higher sec standings hit, and you will have to plan it a bit more carefully (and on top of that, will be lagging less since Concord numbers were reduced).
Stopping suicide ganking is giving high sec a WAY too high security and would kill the harsch world that EVE is.
My sig is not mine. |
Rjevski
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 06:23:00 -
[424]
I could not care less about sec gain/loss in relation to system. But the no insurance due to concord actions is brought to us by the letter ôFö for ôFU**EDö. More power to the macro!! We will see all high sec belts stripped of ore, but probably trit will get cheaper.
|
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 06:47:00 -
[425]
Originally by: CCP Taera CCP Fear joins us again for a look at some security standing and suicide ganking issues. Check out his new blog Serious Security for information on upcoming CONCORD and security standing changes!
Good devblog!
Keep up the good work!
Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL |
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 08:51:00 -
[426]
Originally by: Ancy Denaries
You completely missed the point. These changes are NOT to remove high sec ganking. If CCP did that, I'd probably be heading for the door already, because that would the dumbest change ever. These changes are to increase the cost and "easiness" involved with high sec ganking. You won't be getting insurance, you will be taking a higher sec standings hit, and you will have to plan it a bit more carefully (and on top of that, will be lagging less since Concord numbers were reduced).
Stopping suicide ganking is giving high sec a WAY too high security and would kill the harsch world that EVE is.
They are not? Whew... to me it pretty much looked like they are..
Seriously. Did you ever do any suicide ganking at all? Nope.. i seriously doubt it.
I dont say that no changes should be made. Hell i would be happy to have some changes, as right now every frekin noob ganks in high sec.. the problem is that their pity thefts make it virtually impossible for me to do my big scale ops. They scare customers away..
So yea, lets do something about it. BUT NOT THIS FFS.
** No insurance - Lots of the gankers themselves (incl. me) say this for years. It is simply stupid. At first CCP said that they dont want to remove insurance to protect the noobs who accidentally make a mistake and lose their ship.. it seems they changed their minds.
This alone would get rid of about 75% of high sec gankers. Those low profile petty criminals that would pop a ship for just the modules it has fitted.
** Bigger sec status loss - The currently planned implementation is plain stupid. Sec status loss based on system security.. maybe okay, but based on relative sec status difference between characters? WTF.. Just because someone grinds NPCs all day long, that someone is more valuable than the guy who lives in 0.0 (or in empire) but does things that do not involve NPCing?
Still.. this change i could leave with as well, as it makes high sec ganking more tactical..
** Slower sec status regaining? WTF.. i pretty much thought its slow enough already.
** Faster response from concord, more helpful concord - Now this is where it gets extremely ugly and waaay overboard. Its not like the concord isnt fast enough already. some 12-15 seconds tops before concord resposne, which i wouldnt exactly call a lot of time to do your job.
If CCP does not want people in high sec to gank, then they should freakin say so.. I just dont think they have the balls to admit, that their beloved PVP in space game is turning into a lag in space, stay docked online tycoon game.
Why dont we see REAL incentives that should move people into low sec and 0.0? The rewards there should be high enough to make it worth risk your stuff.. which might make them seem unbalanced at first, but you have to take losses into account. Just as you have to take the waiting time into account with high sec ganking. Those who think its so profitable right now forget the long hours you spend sitting at a gate scanning ships before something worth your time pops up.. Now would you spend that time with a decent lvl4 agent, you would make similar amounts of ISK.
So i really dont see where high sec ganks are that much imbalanced. They might **** the odd victim off.. but face it.. most of the victims lose stuff because of their own failure in this game. People just refuse to accept that the bad thing happening to them is their own fault. Its easier to blame the system, to blame others.
And CCP, the good wh*re it is, bends over for them.
I can just hope that they do something about it, because lately this game is getting less and less attractive. 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 >>----> |
Kano Sekor
Amarr The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 08:53:00 -
[427]
I dont suicide gank or do anything of it but this rebalancing is quite unbalancing actually as it is now veldspar is one of the more valuable minerals out there and as has been stated earlier in the thread this further unbalances the risk vs. reward balance.
I can basically sit in high sec with no risk getting huge rewards and making Eve a more boring game. I should be forced to take some kind of risk to make isk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Izo Azlion
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 09:33:00 -
[428]
Thats it, I'm through.
Crap changes, and you're changing so much at once that we cant fathom how to argue against it unless we spend as much time trying to fix the game as you guys do breaking it.
Sorry CCP but I've lost faith. Izo Azlion.
---
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:11:00 -
[429]
Originally by: namesarehard
I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.
I'm just gonna come out and say what's on everyone else's mind here. It's alot of fun to see you show how ignorant you are. Let's say you succeed, and get everyone who doesn't want to be shot at to quit. Then you'll be left with people who do want to be shot at. Good plan there chief. It's like you wanna say you're an awesome pvper, and have mad skills... but your only skill is taking candy from babies?
Or, from another point of view... Most people could care less what an ass hole who only wants to ruin the game for others wants in the game. If your only desire is to get people to quit, then your opinion is worth less than the cost of a cheep asian hooker. It's kinda like how if you value human life so little that you decide to take one, and become a felon, nobody really cares about your choice for president, you aren't allowed to vote.
Way to be, you've chosen the life of the loser that nobody cares about. Well... the in-game life anyway. Who knows, maybe you're ghandi's long lost nephew in real life, but you sure as hell don't act like it in eve. good game
Hoc filum tradit - This thread delivers.
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:21:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Moraguth
Originally by: namesarehard
I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.
I'm just gonna come out and say what's on everyone else's mind here. It's alot of fun to see you show how ignorant you are. Let's say you succeed, and get everyone who doesn't want to be shot at to quit. Then you'll be left with people who do want to be shot at. Good plan there chief. It's like you wanna say you're an awesome pvper, and have mad skills... but your only skill is taking candy from babies?
Or, from another point of view... Most people could care less what an ass hole who only wants to ruin the game for others wants in the game. If your only desire is to get people to quit, then your opinion is worth less than the cost of a cheep asian hooker. It's kinda like how if you value human life so little that you decide to take one, and become a felon, nobody really cares about your choice for president, you aren't allowed to vote.
Way to be, you've chosen the life of the loser that nobody cares about. Well... the in-game life anyway. Who knows, maybe you're ghandi's long lost nephew in real life, but you sure as hell don't act like it in eve.
When exactly did Morsus Mihi turn into a carebear alliance?
Oh wait, its Shiva.. never mind me asking then.
If someone who is playing eve does not want to be shot at, then i dare to say that someone did pick the wrong game. Being shot at, or more precisely: "THE POSSIBILITY TO BE SHOT" is what makes this game so great.
The danger thats there wherever you go, the adrenaline whenever you see a battleship next to a stargate.. It is what made me play eve for 6 years and not hello kitty online in space.
You can kill the PvP in eve, but you kill the essence of EVE with it. Go ahead and try. 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 >>----> |
|
Finedele
Marquie-X Corp Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:41:00 -
[431]
so, shooting a hauler is pvp? oh my ****in god, seriously, THIS is not pvp. that is taking a babies lolly away.
|
Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:44:00 -
[432]
CCP, what is your plan to remove macrominers? I petitioned many of them. And since they are still active, i dont get the feeling, petitioning them is as effective as it should be. Do we have to tolerate them in the future among us in the belts? do we have to tolerate, that they ruin the market, and feeding those who ilegaly gain advantage to those who play in the way the game was supposed to be played?
CCP, what is your plan to remove macrominers? After this changes, our hands are bounded.
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:45:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Kurann Edited by: Kurann on 07/08/2008 18:39:26 and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
My solution (compiled from other posts and my own thoughts): Since CCP likes doing the extreme, move all level 4's level 3's to low sec, have say a 30% chance of level 2's take you to low sec (and you can decline the mission if you want to stay in pink fuzzy high sec with concord giving you a reach around anytime you want), move all hidden belts to low sec, spawn some good roids in low sec, spawn faction ships in low sec, and forget the sec changes. I don't want to work harder to get to -10, that would be silly. The reason i pirate is for the -10, and cause i like pew pewing anything i see.
you want to populate low sec? there ya go. you can't solo mine, or you will get ganked. you can't solo mission, cause you will get ganked. both forces "players" into player corps, because noob corps are just that, full of noobs. and please, bring your shiny faction gear too, i has to feeds my pirate babiez.
k thnx bai
=O
You mean to tell me.... there are OTHER PIRATES there. in YOUR space? omg. wtf mate. THEY must be stealing all of YOUR targets!!!!!!!! Go shoot them if you have to shoot someone.
Tard good game
Hoc filum tradit - This thread delivers.
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 10:55:00 -
[434]
Originally by: csebal When exactly did Morsus Mihi turn into a carebear alliance?
Oh wait, its Shiva.. never mind me asking then.
If someone who is playing eve does not want to be shot at, then i dare to say that someone did pick the wrong game. Being shot at, or more precisely: "THE POSSIBILITY TO BE SHOT" is what makes this game so great.
The danger thats there wherever you go, the adrenaline whenever you see a battleship next to a stargate.. It is what made me play eve for 6 years and not hello kitty online in space.
You can kill the PvP in eve, but you kill the essence of EVE with it. Go ahead and try.[/quote
I really don't care if people suicide gank, i just think there should be some risk involved with it. There was before, but it was very easy to mitigate. Now they still can, it's just harder to mitigate. If you really feel the urge to shoot anyone and everyone, then the character you're choosing to play is more or less a sociopath, and will be treated as such. If that's what you like, more power to ya. I'm not going to stop you, I'm just going to point and laugh when you cry about having to grind up your sec status (and your money if you were dumb and picked the wrong target or were just unlucky).
It's kinda a yin/yang thing goin on.
for the carebear, all of their risk comes from actual players. Either from the market and undercutting their profit margins, or the pirates who will just steal it.
now, for the gankbear, all of their risk comes from the computer. Either in the form of no good drops (undercutting their profit margins) or the security status penalty that makes it so they can be ganked by anyone and everyone so they lose everything too.
In the end, it all ballances out and I'm happy. :) good game
Hoc filum tradit - This thread delivers.
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:13:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Finedele so, shooting a hauler is pvp? oh my ****in god, seriously, THIS is not pvp. that is taking a babies lolly away.
Actually.. yes.. shooting a hauler is PvP. Just as much as undercutting someone on the market, thats PvP as well. + A million other things where one player is in confrontation with the other.
PvP does not need to be consentual, neither does it need to be fair to stay PvP. So please stop throwing in the baby + candy analogies as they really start to make me puke.
Fact: with a litte care you can travel around high sec space without trouble. Yea, you cant autopilot unless your ship is empty or carries very little, but that really should not be a problem.
So what exactly is the problem?
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 >>----> |
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 12:35:00 -
[436]
Edited by: Kurann on 08/08/2008 12:43:53
Originally by: Moraguth
Originally by: Kurann Edited by: Kurann on 07/08/2008 18:39:26 and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
My solution (compiled from other posts and my own thoughts): Since CCP likes doing the extreme, move all level 4's level 3's to low sec, have say a 30% chance of level 2's take you to low sec (and you can decline the mission if you want to stay in pink fuzzy high sec with concord giving you a reach around anytime you want), move all hidden belts to low sec, spawn some good roids in low sec, spawn faction ships in low sec, and forget the sec changes. I don't want to work harder to get to -10, that would be silly. The reason i pirate is for the -10, and cause i like pew pewing anything i see.
you want to populate low sec? there ya go. you can't solo mine, or you will get ganked. you can't solo mission, cause you will get ganked. both forces "players" into player corps, because noob corps are just that, full of noobs. and please, bring your shiny faction gear too, i has to feeds my pirate babiez.
k thnx bai
=O
You mean to tell me.... there are OTHER PIRATES there. in YOUR space? omg. wtf mate. THEY must be stealing all of YOUR targets!!!!!!!! Go shoot them if you have to shoot someone.
Tard
my point is that however long ago, CCP said they wanted to populate low sec, i never said i don't shoot at pirates, my solution populates low sec. not to mention the fact that most of the people in local when i roam ARE ****ING DOCKED, and that i don't own space, nor did i ever claim to, especially all of low sec, since i used it as a generalization. i have no interest in owning space, my interest lies in killing people, having fun to me is roaming low sec preying on innocent travelers/miners/npcers/missioners in whatever system i find myself in.
read before speaking and having diarrhea of the mouth now, go back to your mm carebear blob world and die
or maybe you will come find me, jump a titan in, and dd me. why? cause youre mm and have to flex your titan e-peen rather then find a fight that *gasp* you might lose...nooo, my kb stats...noooo!
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 13:35:00 -
[437]
Originally by: Ancy Denaries
Originally by: R0ot Great Ideas, however it still won't stop people killing frigate class ships carrying bpos (which they really shouldn't be anyway) from getting insta-popped by stealth bombers. Best option I can see to eliminate high sec ganking is as soon as you gain a global criminal countdown in high security space any/all of your ammo fired do 0 damage to anything it comes in contact with.
You completely missed the point. These changes are NOT to remove high sec ganking. If CCP did that, I'd probably be heading for the door already, because that would the dumbest change ever. These changes are to increase the cost and "easiness" involved with high sec ganking. You won't be getting insurance, you will be taking a higher sec standings hit, and you will have to plan it a bit more carefully (and on top of that, will be lagging less since Concord numbers were reduced).
Stopping suicide ganking is giving high sec a WAY too high security and would kill the harsch world that EVE is.
Realistically when you consider the costs of suicide ganking now the targets are so few its simply not worth the time looking for them. It might even be fewer targets than i think depending on how much faster concord will appear as stated in the dev blog. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Tamon Edom
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 15:41:00 -
[438]
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Piracy is already an endangered profession, and the changes as suggested would be very harsh on eve's PVP base within low security space. With the reduction in the value of Tech II loot, it is much more difficult to make money through piracy today than it was prior to invention. Casual pirates will take a significant hit with these changes; as such, I suggest that the penalties from security status difference be reduced to half the proposed amount.
I have never seen many pirates...
What I've seen are a bunch of pathetic ******s who randomly flail away at anything that moves. No stlye, no finesse or cunning. No money demands, no picking out valuable targets that are worth the risk.
What I'd like to see out of this is that most of the current batch of so called "pirates" shoves off to find something else to do, and people who have the chops for REAL priacy move in.
Pirates who hunt worthy prey, that has some real value, instead of trying to kill anything that moves.
I've seen some real pirates. People who watch traffic, and only take ships that are worth the time, because they know if you jump everthing that moves what you most accomplish is to up the body count in that sysem so that people (namely the ships WORTH taking) avoid it.
They also ought to outlaw macro-mining. Have CONCORD patrols move through asteroid belts to challenge miners. If they don't respond, CONCORD blows them apart. And since it's a CONCORD related incident, I guess they won't get insurance off it ------------------------------------------------
Sometimes you must embrace the Darkness before you see the light.
|
wettestwillie
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:11:00 -
[439]
I like the idea of security status loss being different depending on the security status of the system a crime is commited. Hopefully this means alot less security loss for pirates in lowsec. I don't really care about suicide ganking.
|
Boohoomoar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:44:00 -
[440]
Lots of good stuff in this blog.
I suppose it was inevitable that some of the freedoms that CCP had given to the players would be restricted a bit.
Too many players chose to abuse that freedom and sand box elements and now the rest must pay.
I feel sorry for the anti macro people.
|
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:53:00 -
[441]
Originally by: csebal ** Bigger sec status loss - The currently planned implementation is plain stupid. Sec status loss based on system security.. maybe okay, but based on relative sec status difference between characters? WTF.. Just because someone grinds NPCs all day long, that someone is more valuable than the guy who lives in 0.0 (or in empire) but does things that do not involve NPCing?
actually this makes perfect sense. you look at any human grouping and you will find the law prejudiced toward the local over the stranger. in this case we have an upstanding member of the community vs some scruffy thug from out in the badlands. just how do you think that's gonna work out for the scruffy thug when the judge rules?
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:54:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Kano Sekor
I can basically sit in high sec with no risk getting huge rewards and making Eve a more boring game. I should be forced to take some kind of risk to make isk.
and here i thought there was substantial risk of brain rot from mining
|
Arric Rohr
Gallente Intergalactic Science LLC
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:18:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Trotula Edited by: Trotula on 06/08/2008 23:55:20 Eve is about to get some serious competition in the sci-fi spaceship MMORPG genre within the next couple years. I expect that these recent changes are needed to keep the more casual players from jumping ship, which has already been shown to make up the majority of Eve's player base.
I'm sure CCP has done surveys and one of the common player concerns is non-consensual PvP (or ganking to use a term more recognisable). To attract and keep the carebear players, Eve needs to be less harsh, I don't see how it can continue to grow if it doesn't. The number of gamers wanting a harsh free for all PvP environment doesn't compare to the number of casual gamers, and CCP's ability to grow, to add to Eve and develop other MMORPG projects depends on bringing in those casual gamers.
To sum it up:
Dear Devs, It Is Safe To Ignore The Vocal Minority Crying In This Thread
Bingo
*Where do I get one of those cool signatures?* |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:29:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Garat Mant CCP Taera, a lot of people here make a valid point: You're removing our last weapon against macro miners.
Please change the rules in this way: NPC corps' members can not fly Barges or Hulks. These complex and large mining ships can only be supported by true player corporations.
That way the Macros have to form a corp to mine their ice, and thus can be wardec'd.
battleships too, have you been to a mission hub recently?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 22:33:00 -
[445]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Garat Mant CCP Taera, a lot of people here make a valid point: You're removing our last weapon against macro miners.
Please change the rules in this way: NPC corps' members can not fly Barges or Hulks. These complex and large mining ships can only be supported by true player corporations.
That way the Macros have to form a corp to mine their ice, and thus can be wardec'd.
battleships too, have you been to a mission hub recently?
We can dream on. Eve has the most broken risk vs reward in history of mmo's. I do wonder how much isk farmers have paid off ccp to make this change. Really. Sure ccp needs money to put food on the table, but lets face it; They would get enough money even if they did go up against isk farmers and high sec money making. What ccp is doing now is simple greed, piling a big stack of gold. Choke on it. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Liz Laser
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 22:50:00 -
[446]
So people are upset that battling macroers is less PROFITABLE?
Basically, macro exploiting is bad because it upsets the economy, but the ore and modules from those exploits becomes magically good once it reaches the cargohold of suicide gankers?
Got it.
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 23:18:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Liz Laser So people are upset that battling macroers is less PROFITABLE?
Basically, macro exploiting is bad because it upsets the economy, but the ore and modules from those exploits becomes magically good once it reaches the cargohold of suicide gankers?
Got it.
Get hit with a clue-by-four. No one ever made money killing macroers. It was never, ever profitable. Poeple who kill macros spend their time and money to do it as a service to the community. This just made the loss for killing macroers greater, this macrominers are now safer.
Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 23:38:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Synapse Archae ...No one ever made money killing macroers. It was never, ever profitable....
Actually, this is not entirely true....
Back before invention, when T2 was modules were expensive, killing macrominers was quite profitable
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Cadde
Gallente Dragonian Freelancers Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 00:21:00 -
[449]
Edited by: Cadde on 09/08/2008 00:26:34 EEK, post flood!
Nerf hi sec ganks, it's all good actually. Just as long as you nerf hi-sec profits. Also rid of the .5 barrier for concord, make them respond in all empire space but only really fast and hard in .6 and above. Alongside that change, make profits match the risks there as well.
Finally, EXPAND 0.0 space. Actually, remove some highsec/lowsec empire and turn it into less secure space. And make small islands of high sec surrounded by lowsec, all in line with the turmoil caused by the faction wars.
That way, you are making hi-sec more secure but less profitable and still pleasing the proper gamers of EvE, all at the same time. After all, who the &ñ%% said EvE was supposed to be fluffybunny online?
And that just spawned as i typed! What did it take you guys??? Five years?
EDIT: Oh, and thank you CCP. Every move you take brings me closer to making my own game where i can compete you out of business. --------------- Opinions? Yes they belong to me, not my corp! |
Sethose Olderon
Deepcor
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 02:46:00 -
[450]
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 09/08/2008 02:53:02
---
I think I would take this a bit further, and add isk fees for criminal activity.
Almost all instances in real world scenarios, involving criminal activity incur monetary penalties, and Eve should as well.
In addition to increased security hits based on each player's security standings respectively, and the security of the system in which the offense occurred, an isk penalty should be included as well based upon the same criteria.
However, I am willing to concede the security hits based on each player's own security standing with Empires, if isk penalties are added.
Also, these changes are not intended to eliminate suicide ganking, or macro-miners (There is no way to totally eliminate macro-mining without in turn, hurting the real miners in the process), but to eliminate players who use PVP mechanics to grief.
I believe PVP actions, in which the aggressor earns some kind of profit is acceptable, however simply using the mechanics to reduce the enjoyment of the game, and (or) cause them to quit, by definition is griefing, and shouldn't be allowed.
Empire space is not totally secure, but it should be much more secure than low-sec or 0.0 space, if not, what is the point of Empire space, and CONCORD for that matter.
These additions and changes are both warranted and necessary for the enjoyment of the game by all "fair-minded" individuals.
There is no glory in attacking someone who is less defensible than yourself, it is cowardly.
For those of you who disagree with my opinions, that is fine, but there are many games that you can play. I challenge and advice you to find another game that suits your style of gameplay. Corporate Owned Stargates
|
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 05:00:00 -
[451]
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but really, who cares if people can be 100% safe in empire?
I've been playing the game for years, and I've experienced the whole spectrum of gameplay...from highsec mining and missions, to lowsec gank squads, to 0.0 pet alliances, to major 0.0 players fielding a hundred ships in fleet on a bad day.
What's my point? I've seen all aspects of the game. I've seen it from the carebear's standpoint and the PvPer's standpoint. I feel qualified to speak on this matter from a neutral position.
Basically, EVE is big enough for all playstyles. If you want PvP, go to lowsec or 0.0. If you want to carebear, stay in empire. Carebearing in empire will not have a major effect on the availability of PvP in 0.0. You can bring up arguments about mineral and module prices...but think about it for a minute. More carebear miners / mission runners = more cheap mods / minerals available for sale. This means the 0.0 PvPers can resupply for less. That's a good thing. Killing empire-dwellers will, if anything, raise prices.
Another argument I've heard is that it's hard to find targets in lowsec / 0.0. I dunno what planet you live on, but I guarantee you'll find targets if you really want to. Just visit any of the lovely NPC 0.0 regions such as Syndicate and Curse. No shortage of carnage there. There's no need to gank carebears. Is suicide ganking a Hulk or a hauler really more satisfying than engaging a pilot who can actually defend himself? Sadly, there are some who would say yes. I guess those people will need to learn how to engage in REAL PvP now...
While I understand that there are valid reasons for suicide ganking (such as economic warfare), most of the posts I see above are from people who simply feel that they have the "right" to gank whomever they want whenever they want. They feel that nobody should be 100% safe. But as I asked earlier, why does it matter? If they want blood, they have plenty of places to look without griefing a harmless miner or ratter.
Live and let live, that's what I say. PvPers really shouldn't try to dictate how carebears can play the game, and vice versa. The game doesn't belong to anybody. It belongs to all, and it should be enjoyed by all. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 05:05:00 -
[452]
Originally by: Synapse Archae No one ever made money killing macroers. It was never, ever profitable. .... This just made the loss for killing macroers greater, this macrominers are now safer.
I have never seen someone be so wrong, and then turn around and be so right in such a short space of type.
I used to make money ganking macroers all the time. Hadn't done it in a while (read: over a year). Read your post. Thought to myself: "Hey self, we haven't gone macro ganking in a while, wanna fire up le-olde cheap ganking ships and go out to the belts and see if we still have the stuff?"
So, I did.
A little over four hours later, I was a lot happier for the good time I had, and was 150m isk richer (after all the expenses were tallied and paid). So, I don't know what macros YOU have been hunting, but obviously the wrong ones. I will give you this one point: Finding macroers that were WORTH poping was more difficult that I remembered it being. I had to pass up 9-12 macroers each time before I would find one with enough stuff on him to make it worth it.
Now that we are done with the part you were wrong about, I will give you that this is going to make macroers safer. CCP does need to deal with this ASAP. Take a look around at all the belts in High-Sec CCP. You think HONEST players are doing all of that?
Now, having said THAT, I think the change is overall a good one. BECAUSE, I think a lot of this high-sec ganking is being done by isk sellers and other game leeches; not REAL Eve players. Just my opinion, but it is a firm one.
Bottom line: High-Sec ganking is good fun; but it has gotten way out of hand and overly used. Making the penalties go up for doing it is a good first step. However, CCP really needs to do something about the macroers that this rule change is going to help. They were already out of control BEFORE this change. This is just going to be a giant green light to fire up more macro combines than can be counted!
My two isk. *
* |
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 05:13:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Borgholio COOL THOUGHTS.
Wow. There really are sane and rational people left in Eve. From someone who is *ALMOST* as well traveled (i.e. part of the "been-there-done-that" brigade) in Eve as you: Good on ya mate. Awesome thoughts all.
Cheers. *
* |
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 05:18:00 -
[454]
Edited by: Kurann on 09/08/2008 05:23:59
Originally by: Tamon Edom
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Piracy is already an endangered profession, and the changes as suggested would be very harsh on eve's PVP base within low security space. With the reduction in the value of Tech II loot, it is much more difficult to make money through piracy today than it was prior to invention. Casual pirates will take a significant hit with these changes; as such, I suggest that the penalties from security status difference be reduced to half the proposed amount.
I have never seen many pirates...
What I've seen are a bunch of pathetic ******s who randomly flail away at anything that moves. No stlye, no finesse or cunning. No money demands, no picking out valuable targets that are worth the risk.
What I'd like to see out of this is that most of the current batch of so called "pirates" shoves off to find something else to do, and people who have the chops for REAL priacy move in.
Pirates who hunt worthy prey, that has some real value, instead of trying to kill anything that moves.
I've seen some real pirates. People who watch traffic, and only take ships that are worth the time, because they know if you jump everthing that moves what you most accomplish is to up the body count in that sysem so that people (namely the ships WORTH taking) avoid it.
that would be fine and dandy if there were actually enough of those worthy targets. The problem still remains that these "pathetic ******s" do what they do because there is nothing better to do. i.e. why do you see more low sec blobs then small gangs or solo pirates? not enough targets, those that find something to shoot at usual says "theres a (insert whatever ship here) in (insert whatever system here), who wants to get on the killmail?" and you get a blob. when people get bored, they all want to do something, get itchy trigger fingers and blob up for something trivial, like a t1 noob cruiser. hence you get the wild flailing that you mention.
and i personally rarely fly into 0.0, not to mention not being near curse, nor syndicate and having no desire to pack up everything and go across the galaxy
|
R3DSKULL
Amarr CCCP INC
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 06:26:00 -
[455]
Edited by: R3DSKULL on 09/08/2008 06:27:00 CCP im amazed. When did this great game and its great designers lose the plot?? WHy do you always overcomplicate fixs? PLease, explain this. I see a problem but again your solution is to over the top. you always take this extreme route. As if some DEv is trying to impress his boss.
Now Rather than make this a rant at your foolish over the top fixs. Like that terrible speed nerf. Which after 139 pages you get the clue. Now starting with first fixs. Concorde. Wont making concorde faster just eat up more system juice? I suggest you think simple. Dont go saying we have to do this sweeping security bs. But fix the problem. Which is what? suicide gankers!!! thats it. My suggestion is the same as smart bombs. When you fixed smarties suddenly they did not work near stations and star gates. Within range but.... Just make it so you cannot shoot people. A simple message.
Concorde Has jammed your locking computer as you do not meet the yulai conventions reasons for firing on this ship.
something along those lines. Problem solved, they cant suicide gank because unless they are triggerd by a war, or the eye for an eye factor. I,e cans being stolen from or wrecks being looted they cant attack in empire. If you want make system wide jammer mods to the Star gates say its a new technology.... IT so simple.
Because the dilemma i have with security is simple. It doesnt determine who is the good guy or bad guy.
A. pirate comes into system to gank, he agresses takes sec hit. or B.Antipirate engages pirate as he enters system before he can pirate. He takes sec hit. ??? Now what i want to know is if one is doing good and the other is not, there is no way to determine this and it can be abused. So your catering to one side with these changes. You should Consider both sides and your fixs dont answer both sides. So now the amount of Sec determines. Ive been an antipie my whole eve life. ANd ive never had posative sec. I already have to waste time to get my sec back up. i cant imagine some por sod who is down near -7 or lower haveing to get it up with these changes.
For years its simple the saying if it aint broke dont fix it. Sec system is fine for low sec. I would love if sentries realise im shooting bad guys. But thats unfair to the pirates. SO its fine. THe high sec ganking does not warrent this change to ever aspect. you guys Please listen to your players and stop swinging this nerf bat around so wrecklessly. EVe has reached a point where little movments effect vast numbers. Im pleading at this point dont kill our beloved EVE........
|
csebal
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 10:40:00 -
[456]
Originally by: Cadde
Finally, EXPAND 0.0 space. Actually, remove some highsec/lowsec empire and turn it into less secure space. And make small islands of high sec surrounded by lowsec, all in line with the turmoil caused by the faction wars.
Welcome to 2003.
The game was just like that.. Wide area of low sec bordering the high sec cores of the empires.
I did like it that way a lot more. Add the lack of highway jumps to that and you really had an amazin and really large universe.
What we have now is merely a watered down mockery of the once great eve universe.
I would choose bringing that universe back any time of the day.
It would help to estabilish localized market, as travelling between empires wouold once again be long and more dangerous.
What's lacking from this game right now is the sense of achievement. No matter how many billions i make, i just cant really enjoy the game anymore, as there is no sense of achievement in it..
Its completely easy mode. You can macro most money making activities in EVE right now if you really want to FFS, and the ones you cant macro.. well for those there are comple step by step walkthroughs on how do do solo with 99.9% safety.
Eve became waay too static, safe and predictible. 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 >>----> |
Zooooooom
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 11:58:00 -
[457]
Wow...this is just...wow...
Great job for kissing carebear ass, CCP!
It's already a pain to work sec status back up from a suicide gank. But this is ridiculous.
I declare a suicide gank day. Everyone suicides the carebears in all the major mission running systems. Give concord a run for their money.
Oh btw, what happened to the 'no nerf' statement that CCP recently made? Oh wait, that's right..this is just a 'balance.' The sugar-coated alt word for 'nerf.' Gotcha. |
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 12:50:00 -
[458]
Well I'm late to the thread, but the crybaby masses win again.
The sec system is still a joke. 0.5 - 1.0 is now effectively a "no kill" zone. There is pretty much no reason for a carebear to worry about anything in high-sec, which is just wrong, IMO. Especially, as others have mentioned, you've just created macro-miner heaven -- Which I suppose is good to some of CCPs biggest paying customers.
If high-sec is being made even safer, why not throw the pirates a bone and make low-sec more dangerous? - Remove gate guns or reduce their damage, decreasing with system sec status? What about removing WTZ in low-sec? My favorite would be to completely surround Jita by low-sec systems
Bah.. Why do I even bother posting? CCP just caters to the vocal minority of the financial majority. I guess that makes for good business, but an increasingly dull game.
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Doc Imp
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 14:01:00 -
[459]
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 10:27:02
Originally by: Esmenet EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.
It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp. Did these new devs get recruited at blizzcon?
CCP Fear? More like CCP FuzzyBunny.
As a paying customer I have to demand that fear put the above line in his sig! To add I think the insurance fix makes sense, the rest I'm not certain of.
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 15:15:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Sirius Problem
The sec system is still a joke. 0.5 - 1.0 is now effectively a "no kill" zone. There is pretty much no reason for a carebear to worry about anything in high-sec, which is just wrong, IMO. Especially, as others have mentioned, you've just created macro-miner heaven -- Which I suppose is good to some of CCPs biggest paying customers.
If high-sec is being made even safer, why not throw the pirates a bone and make low-sec more dangerous? - Remove gate guns or reduce their damage, decreasing with system sec status? What about removing WTZ in low-sec? My favorite would be to completely surround Jita by low-sec systems
How exactly is HighSec turned into a no kill zone? Unless CCP really overdoes the CONCORD apearance speed and damage (And that WOULD be bad for game) nothing changes except that you lose more sec status and recieve no money from CONCORD kills.
If you gank a unescorted freighter with x billion in hold, and do that using a dozen Domis, how high is your profit exactly? If you gank someone if a officer fit faction ship running missions, how much do you gain exactly?
Suiciding T1 transports with less than 100 mill in cargo and still earning ISK could become a thing of the past, but come on! I remember the achievments first high sec freighter suicide kills were 2 years ago, with them taking planing and patience. Now its more like "gank everything that is untanked and on autopilot, salvage and scoop, earn cash"
|
|
sg1jack
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:39:00 -
[461]
man the rubbish spouted in some of these replies just gets worse the further you go through the pages.
The game is here to cater for all people if they want to pvp they can if they want to carebear they can. Why does a large part of the pvp community want to pvp everywhere make isk where ever they want but limit everyone who is not a pvp'er.
Granted macro mining is a plauge on eve but this change was never meant to fight against them is was meant to go against the greifers the "Dude i totaly insta popped that noob on the gate lol"
It is said so many time through this thread YOU CAN STILL SUI GANK!!!!!!!!
Just be smart about it
I am not a carebear nor do I or I have sui ganked but I dont see the point of ganking someone unless there is a good profit in it
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:48:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Dzajic nothing changes except that you lose more sec status and recieve no money from CONCORD kills.
Wrong. Read it again.
Hint - See section marked CONCORD
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 21:04:00 -
[463]
Originally by: sg1jack The game is here to cater for all people if they want to pvp they can if they want to carebear they can
True, but the changes that CCP continue to make push the opportunity for interaction between these two player groups further apart, which bears love and pirates don't.
Eve is (was?) a harsh game, but it seems to become less so with each patch. The only 100% safe place should be in a station. Empire is now so safe it's a joke. Really, does anyone even give the slightest though to system security status if it's 0.5 or above? THAT's what's wrong with the game. There are 3 zones. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0. The way things are now, they might as well just have 0, 1 ,2.
Quote: Why does a large part of the pvp community want to pvp everywhere make isk where ever they want but limit everyone who is not a pvp'er
Why do non PvP'rs want a 100% free ride? What sense of accomplishment is there playing a futuristic, deep space MMO if there is no challenge/risk? (Especially considering the backstory and entire premise of the game)
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Corduroy Rab
Xenocidal Uprising
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 22:26:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Garat Mant CCP Taera, a lot of people here make a valid point: You're removing our last weapon against macro miners.
Please change the rules in this way: NPC corps' members can not fly Barges or Hulks. These complex and large mining ships can only be supported by true player corporations.
That way the Macros have to form a corp to mine their ice, and thus can be wardec'd.
battleships too, have you been to a mission hub recently?
This would be nice.
Also I'd add, remove the high-sec routes between empires, making sure to avoid creating singular chokepoints, and expand null-sec. Bit of a step back in time, but I'd welcome it.
|
Val Sharen
Caldari Heretic Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 00:19:00 -
[465]
I think removing the insurance payout would have been enough for now. See if it cut it down to serious piracy who planned and did their homework. If not then tweak some more.
Now the alternate problem so many pointed out is the buggy interface which still gives out surprises even after I thought I had it all figured out long ago. Someone can still get concorded because of your interface, whose settings I have found get wiped if you clear your cache.
I think the low sec people do raise valid points, however I promote a maxim to my folks always, Do not undock at all if you are not willing to risk your ship and kit.
I venture into lowsec and into 0.0 and have met my fate a few times, other times the adrenalin, at least in my eyes, has kept me out of trouble.
Yet there is not much to go to low sec for except to do a bit of piracy, fight others you know are there or as they say about suicide ganking, for the hell of it.
There have been a lot of valid ideas put forth and hopefully you, CCP, will eye some of them.
1- Macrominers. You say it is hard to find them and if it is valid. Well ask Turbine Entertainment what happened to their games saying the same thing for three years and the players took things into their own hands and finally it got fixed. If players can spot the macro miners and deal with them in the only way they have, WHY can not you do it? Or is it the active account paying excuse? Only goes so far with the playerbase, you know, again ask Turbine.
2- Ideas to make low sec more inviting. Sorry to say it unless I want to go to low sec the idea of forcing me to go out for level 4 missions to help give people in low sec more targets is well, counter productive. Like someone pointed out earlier people will stick wih positive rated level 3s. You have to entice people out there with the allure and need of something there not found elsewhere, that is worth the risk of low sec. Enticement not forcing is the way to get people to low sec.
3- AFK Haulers and Miners, not much really to do with them they take the risk of doing things afk. Belt rats spawn a decent fitted afk miner can survive 98 percent of high sec rat spawns. Make the rat spawns progressive frigates, cruisers etc etc. If they want to mine in belts where there are rats make it costly to go afk. Or make the belts hard to find, use the scanners. Corps and people that can find mining belts then have the advantage over those too lazy to learn or do more then click to fly to belt.
I say again read and see some of the ideas out there CCP the playerbase has them, look into them. They also have valid complaints against you and your PERCIEVED lack of interest in enforcing your own rules and EULA and have begun to take matters into their hands. That is a symptom of a problem.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] Applebabe |
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 00:29:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Sirius Problem
Why do non PvP'rs want a 100% free ride? What sense of accomplishment is there playing a futuristic, deep space MMO if there is no challenge/risk? (Especially considering the backstory and entire premise of the game)
Why does it matter to you? A sense of accomplishment isn't universal. It's relative. Some might feel accomplished if they strip mine all the veld out of a .7 system. Others might feel accomplished if they board a mothership for the first time. Why is it an issue if someone else might enjoy playing the game differently than you do? ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 03:32:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Borgholio Why is it an issue if someone else might enjoy playing the game differently than you do?
That's a rather ironic statement considering that this whole patch is about one group of people not liking how another group of people enjoy playing the game. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 05:45:00 -
[468]
Holy crap! I had to read it twice and check the calendar to make sure it wasn't some kind of joke!
Great news! Thanks a TON CCP! ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 05:47:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Sirius Problem
Originally by: Borgholio Why is it an issue if someone else might enjoy playing the game differently than you do?
That's a rather ironic statement considering that this whole patch is about one group of people not liking how another group of people enjoy playing the game.
Your enjoyment should never step on my enjoyment (that equals lost revenue for CCP duh). Other than that play as you see fit. ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 06:17:00 -
[470]
Originally by: Par'Gellen
Originally by: Sirius Problem
Originally by: Borgholio Why is it an issue if someone else might enjoy playing the game differently than you do?
That's a rather ironic statement considering that this whole patch is about one group of people not liking how another group of people enjoy playing the game.
Your enjoyment should never step on my enjoyment (that equals lost revenue for CCP duh). Other than that play as you see fit.
im curious then, what about pirates, piracy is a plausible profession here, wouldn't that step on your enjoyment, because you don't want to get shot at? but then restricting my piracy steps on my enjoyment as well... so your logic is very flawed.
Originally by: csebal
Originally by: Cadde
Finally, EXPAND 0.0 space. Actually, remove some highsec/lowsec empire and turn it into less secure space. And make small islands of high sec surrounded by lowsec, all in line with the turmoil caused by the faction wars.
Welcome to 2003.
The game was just like that.. Wide area of low sec bordering the high sec cores of the empires.
I did like it that way a lot more. Add the lack of highway jumps to that and you really had an amazin and really large universe.
What we have now is merely a watered down mockery of the once great eve universe.
I would choose bringing that universe back any time of the day.
THIS is Eve, or the Eve i started in in 2004 as a carebear, harsh, unforgiving, players helping or hurting (as i did get pirated a few times) each other as they saw fit. Now, im wondering why im wasting my time for the warm fuzzy space of this new Eve.
and the idea of moving level 4's and 3's into low sec is extreme i know, but that seems to be what CCP is all about recently...
and as to macroers, how about this, CCP: Create a player based macro hunter, a closely monitored player base mind you, whose specific goal in the game is to hunt, challenge and report/destroy macroers. now you might be asking, how would you know the difference between a macroer and afker? well, it can't be an instant decision by this "macroer hunter," say there are ranks in the hunters, and starting with a free gm or two, they have to be called in to view the logs/follow them, and make a final decision. then over time, as player hunters prove themselves, they move up into the ranks, but always must call in another party, in sort of a checks and balances system so no one can become too power hungry, and destroy/report anyone they don't like. Also setup a new petition system specifically for a suspected macroer spotting so these macro hunters can come and investigate. Since you "can't" find them, let players who time and time again have, find them for you.
|
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 07:04:00 -
[471]
Edited by: Par''Gellen on 10/08/2008 07:04:56
Originally by: Kurann im curious then, what about pirates, piracy is a plausible profession here, wouldn't that step on your enjoyment, because you don't want to get shot at? but then restricting my piracy steps on my enjoyment as well... so your logic is very flawed.
That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen in print...
If I wanted to mix it up with pirates then I'd go to low sec. Hence the blog about the whole issue. ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Boohoomoar
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 10:53:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Sirius Problem Well I'm late to the thread, but the crybaby masses win again.
The sec system is still a joke. 0.5 - 1.0 is now effectively a "no kill" zone. There is pretty much no reason for a carebear to worry about anything in high-sec, which is just wrong, IMO. Especially, as others have mentioned, you've just created macro-miner heaven -- Which I suppose is good to some of CCPs biggest paying customers.
100 % wrong. You can still suicide gank people. Which means it's not macrominer heaven. If people only suicide ganked macro miners there wouldn't be a problem because macro miners don't cancel accounts or post on the forums.
Originally by: Sirius Problem
If high-sec is being made even safer, why not throw the pirates a bone and make low-sec more dangerous? - Remove gate guns or reduce their damage, decreasing with system sec status? What about removing WTZ in low-sec? My favorite would be to completely surround Jita by low-sec systems
Did you even read the blog? Pirates get less of a sec hit in the lower sec systems.
Originally by: Sirius Problem Bah.. Why do I even bother posting? CCP just caters to the vocal minority of the financial majority. I guess that makes for good business, but an increasingly dull game.
Dull? Because CCP nerfed suicide ganking?
|
Tobbie T
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 14:18:00 -
[473]
Nerfing turns good games into WoW , The less the better , If someone makes a move and wins on making you unhappy you got to outsmart them , And if you belive in WoW being a great game after all the nerfs ... go play that and leave Eve to people who can handle a down
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 14:34:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Par'Gellen That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen in print...
If I wanted to mix it up with pirates then I'd go to low sec. Hence the blog about the whole issue.
Edit: In summary - Pirates, just like carebears, have their place. They should stay there.
Oh my. You are playing the wrong game. Need I say it? WOW -->> That way.
PS. I think you just won the "dumbest thing in print" contest. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 14:44:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Boohoomoar 100 % wrong. You can still suicide gank people.
If you are lucky. CONCORD response times are reduced.
Quote: Did you even read the blog? Pirates get less of a sec hit in the lower sec systems.
Pfft. Grab a brain for a moment. What pirate gives a shit about their sec status? That is just another carebear/anti-pie buff to make it less detrimental for them to be involved in non-war dec altercations.
Quote: Dull? Because CCP nerfed suicide ganking?
Clearly, you're a carebear alt or a noob. Either way, you just don't get it. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 17:44:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Boohoomoar
100 % wrong. You can still suicide gank people. Which means it's not macrominer heaven. If people only suicide ganked macro miners there wouldn't be a problem because macro miners don't cancel accounts or post on the forums.
Suiciding a macrominer comes with such a large cost it will in reality not happen. And macrominers/isk sellers do post on the forums.
Quote:
Did you even read the blog? Pirates get less of a sec hit in the lower sec systems.
Thats not a buff for pirates, its a buff for anyone hunting pirates. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Abrynn
Minmatar CCCP INC
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 18:52:00 -
[477]
Are you all ******s or just miners not all ppl that fight in low sec are pirates ..... My corp are anti pirates we keep out low sec home safe for all the noobs that come in ( well as safe as we can things happen) if they do this stupid nerf we will lose sec so fast it will be even harder to protect the little guy .... why dont u guys go play WOW if your gonna be so dumb
|
Abrynn
Minmatar CCCP INC
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 19:20:00 -
[478]
I hate to say it but i agree with the pirates here if you get rid of them whats my job :)
Seriously though this is ******ed high sec yeah make the penatly very harsh or just unable to lock... leave low sec alone killing the bad guy already has a steep penalty for us anti pirates..
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 21:27:00 -
[479]
Edited by: Par''Gellen on 10/08/2008 21:30:18 Nevermind lol... It's like talking to crazy people... or the wall... ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 23:19:00 -
[480]
Edited by: Davina Braben on 10/08/2008 23:20:12 The security hit adjustments scaling by system sec and comparative security of the involved parties are generally good changes I think. Makes low sec PVP less of a specialised pastime, helps anti-pirates etc. etc.
Not sure what to make of the new CONCORD spawns or any of the rest of it.
|
|
Anig Browl
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 07:09:00 -
[481]
"Waaaaaaaahh!!!!!one!!"
Reading these forums, you can see Bartle's Law in action - pirates complain just as much as carebears, only about different things. I suppose I'm a carebear, as I prefer PvE and tend to stay out of LowSec; I simply don't care to blow up passers-by and ratting is less profitable than missioning (if you're a semi-casual player like me that can't afford to put in lots of grind time). On the other hand, I'm the kind of carebear that plays reasonably smart, doesn't aFK and doesn't petition. think what you like.
One good thing about these changes which I think a lot of people have overlooked is that it creates more reasons to go to 0.0. It's a truism that there are more pirate sin 0.4 than 0.0; I've only been ganked in 0.0 a few times and didn't take it personally, because I knew I had made myself a target by loading up on NPC loot. On the other times, I got to hate flying through 0.4 on the way to 0.0 because it was full of semi-skilled jerks who knew how to blob and little else (I prefer a solo playstyle). When you get an EMPTY Badger blown up by gate campers it's not piracy, it's just vandalism.
Think about it: 1.0 should be about as safe as it gets, 0.5 or so should be pretty safe as long you know your way around the game, 0.0 should be horribly paranoid. I'd actually like more NPC danger in 0.0...eg random warp bubble attacks from NPCs, better-than-BS opponents, and so on. Anyone who was into playing Elite will remember a fairly linear correlation between high and low sec. What we've got in Eve are 'no sec' areas that are not actually so bad for an experienced pilot (as it should be) but a lot of senseless violence in middle-class suburbs (0.4).
I think most of the changes outlined by CCP fear are not meant to nerf pirates so much as to drive general lawlessness more towards 0.0 while leaving plenty of options open for thoughtful criminality, where the penalties are a realistic 'cost of doing business'.
Some I'm not sure about. Penalising people for shooting high standing players seems a little unfair but clearly CCP hope to promote more vigilantism among pirate hunters.
One thing I was hoping for but haven't seen is a bit more flexibility for attacking NPC haulers. Without wanting to introduce lag, there should be a lot more NPC commercial traffic for 'baby' pirates to take on. Right now Concord is invulnerable and NPC pirates are always against players (regardless of player security levels). There should be some equivalent of pirate missions so that if you have low security standing you can do missions for Sansha's nation and fight against Empire ships etc.
As a PvE player who currently solos and mostly plays missions (some of my friends have left Eve and I don't play enough to have a lot of relationships) I'm personally OK with getting my kicks by running missions for the Amarr empire. But I feel bad for wannabe space tyrants who have no way to become honorary Guristas or suchlike.
|
Anig Browl
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 07:20:00 -
[482]
Originally by: doesn't matter who
Clearly, you're a carebear alt or a noob. Either way, you just don't get it.
Pirates always think they have a superior role in MMO ecology. They don't; it's just another option. Haulers and various other carebears are just in pursuit of a different kind of game experience. Combat is one kind of exciting gameplay, but people often confuse their personal playstyle with 'what the game is about'. In a complex environment like Eve (which has one of the more robust and sophisticated MMO economies) it the game isn't 'about' anything; it just is what it is.
To the extent that different classes are jealous of each others advantages and are all complaining about each other, CCP is doing its job by making sure that no one playstyle predominates. As I said above, pirates can be just as whiny and childish as anyone else; in fact there seems to be a widespread opinion that the game was made just for them.
|
Kakita J
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 09:14:00 -
[483]
Edited by: Kakita J on 11/08/2008 09:19:16 Great changes all in all, been campaigning for years to see them implemented.
Modifying security penalties by 1% for full points of standing difference is a bit low imho, seeing that then the maximum attainable (from a positive sec viewpoint) is +5 vs -4.9 = 9% (since if the victim is -5 or lower, you don't get security hits anyway). And a -10 vs +5 could care less if he gets a 15% increased sec hit, to be honest. Maybe 2% per standing diff?
edit:
Oh, and ffs: I know exactly why I don't read the forums anymore. Everybody just comes here to ***** and moan at the most recent changes, because they WILL KILL EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT MY GAME!!!11 Every party in a verbal fight will add some obnoxious WoW references and feel it makes them elite players way above the other plebs that obviously don't have a clue about what is fun.
-------------------------------------- "They better fix the *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* jump *bleep* gates before I *bleep**bleep**bleep* and then some."
|
Blancanieves
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 10:29:00 -
[484]
I think that CCP makes a big mistake by lowering the probability of getting suicide ganked in Highsec. And here is why:
People will just feel safer in Highsec after all. That is bad because many won't even think of the possibility of getting shot in Highsec. There won't be any tips from mission runner to mission runner to be careful. People won't be prepared. As a consequence, they will be utterly ****ed if they someday get all their expensive stuff blown up.
The situation now:
Suicide ganking is not very hard and it's not very costly. It is profitable to gank people with not so expensive fittings. Thus people are not losing much if getting ganked. Ganking is relatively frequent. Many people know about the possibility of getting ganked, and they spread their knowledge. Avoiding getting ganked is very easy, and who was ganked once and has done a little bit of research will not be ganked anymore anytime soon. Getting ganked does not equal having to quit the game.
The situation if ganking will be made harder:
Only a few people will get ganked, those with expensive fitting that makes the ganking profitable. Most people will feel absolutely safe in Highsec. No one knows how to avoid getting ganked, because it seems unnecessary. People get careless, put on their most expensive fitting and don't use scouts. Eventually someone will get ganked and loose all his wealth in a few seconds. He didn't even know that this was possible. He of course will rage quit the game.
I saw it happen. I knew someone who felt totally safe in Highsec and got all his faction stuff blown up. It was the Lofty-scam with helping someone missioning, and he didn't even think of the possibility that someone that wanted help actually just wanted his stuff. He not only left the game but reprocessed his character the same day.
I ask you: Which of the two situations described above is better? -
|
Karma
Eve University
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 11:35:00 -
[485]
to me it just looks like a matter of supply and demand.
there's a demand for pilots with X* amount of isk in their cargohold to gank... right now, X doesn't need to be all that much, which means supply is high. demand is high, supply is high... making it a very easy profession to make money from. but life in EVE is supposed to be hard, isn't it?
altering how much money a cargohold needs to carry for it to be profitable to gank is the same as thinning out the supply. the competition for the juicy targets will be more fierce, which is good all around.
on the other hand: once this change is enabled, a lot of haulers will think they're all safe and sound now; that no-one will ever gank them again... so in the first few weeks there could be an even higher supply of high-value targets to choose from ;)
* X being more than what ganker's ship cost.
|
The Mach
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 12:25:00 -
[486]
Nice. Glad to see they might have thier heads on stright for this one.
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 12:38:00 -
[487]
Originally by: Anig Browl Pirates always think they have a superior role in MMO ecology. They don't; it's just another option. Haulers and various other carebears are just in pursuit of a different kind of game experience. Combat is one kind of exciting gameplay, but people often confuse their personal playstyle with 'what the game is about'. In a complex environment like Eve (which has one of the more robust and sophisticated MMO economies) it the game isn't 'about' anything; it just is what it is.
To the extent that different classes are jealous of each others advantages and are all complaining about each other, CCP is doing its job by making sure that no one playstyle predominates. As I said above, pirates can be just as whiny and childish as anyone else; in fact there seems to be a widespread opinion that the game was made just for them.
Could not have said it better myself!
Personally I don't care if the "killer elite" (as they seem to think) shoot each other up all day long, even right next to me. Actually that would be sweet to watch. I do love watching the tournies after all. I wish they were more frequent.... but I digress.
Just because I have no desire to grab my guns and start shooting some miner or mission runner that's doing nothing more than going about his day doesn't make me "less" of a player.
Now with all that being said, if there were actual effective means by which to defend myself I might be willing to dabble in combat PvP a bit more. As it stands now though the aggressor has all the advantages and I'm glad CCP is addressing this in high sec. Though I still see it as a bandaid solution to the biggest problem in the entire game. Namely, there is no effective way to defend yourself against determined aggressors.
Bring friends? Yeah been there done that. This only guarantees that when the gankageddon warps in to his scout buddy/alt at optimal from your exhumer you have a nice audience to watch your die in less time than they can lock him. What a waste of time and isk...
Why would anyone want to play a game where their only "role" was to log in and be beaten to death? That's like playing Lions vs. Lambs. OH OH Sign me up! ...No ..... Not really...
Thank you CCP for the long needed improvements! ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Jaabaa Prime
Minmatar Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:02:00 -
[488]
Will this mean that I get to a true -10.0 quicker --
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:29:00 -
[489]
Quote: Just because I have no desire to grab my guns and start shooting some miner or mission runner that's doing nothing more than going about his day doesn't make me "less" of a player.
I don't think I ever said you were.
Quote: if there were actual effective means by which to defend myself
What is it that is special about you that prevents you from being able to defend yourself? Many others seem to be able to do this. I think what you are looking for is risk-free PvP. Sorry, that's not Eve.... yet.
Quote: the biggest problem in the entire game. Namely, there is no effective way to defend yourself against determined aggressors.
What a complete crock of BS. Again, you're looking for easy mode, and CCP has now made it even easier for you to be safe. This is why you are happy with the patch.
Contrary to what Anig Browl wrote, for me, it's not about some "elite" PvP attitude. Clearly, the game is dominated by hi-sec dwellers, of whom most are industry based. That is quite fine with me - I even have a hi-sec "good guy" character as well.
What disappoints me is seeing the constant erosion of the low-sec, solo/small gang, pirate play-style. And it's mostly because hi-sec dwellers complain loud and long that it's just not fair they get shot at once in a while. Everyone says "adapt", yet it's pirates that have often had to adapt the most, while the bears merrily continue to chew rocks.
In many ways, the bears are their own worst enemy. Many of the changes they have whined for have had negative results for them. One of my favs is aggro on jetcan ore theft.
There was a time when there was no aggro for ore theft, but the bears cried. So CCP gave them and their entire corp the right to kill someone who stole from them. And what happend? Bears started dying in droves because the evil ore thieves actually shot back.
It will actually be funny if the current band of whiners complaining about "salvage rights" get what the miners wanted with ore theft. They'll get more than they bargained for.
Quote: Why would anyone want to play a game where their only "role" was to log in and be beaten to death?
Some would learn to fight back or how to avoid such encounters. But why should you, right? You just want to play the game your way and mine in peace. Hypocrisy at its best. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Greenbolt
Minmatar Minmatar Ship Construction Services
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:58:00 -
[490]
I dont fly anything valuable enough to suicide gank and i spend most my flight time in low or 0.0...
These seem to be alot of changes at once.
I agree with the faster concord times and the insurance nerf.. suicide ganks have there place..just right now they are way too cheap to do.
The change in sec loss based on security status of system doesnt make as much sense and seems to go a bit over the top in making 0.5s for example more dangerous to mission with your super expensive ship in than say 0.9s which doesnt really jive in my mind. --------------------------------------------------- Scordite -Who was it that said that flying minmatar is kinda like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an uzi? |
|
Saleene Yersa
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 01:18:00 -
[491]
"In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future."
Does that include null insurance if you take a loss in low-sec through piracy and Sentries are on the loss-mail? Or don't sentries count as "CONCORD" ?
|
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 05:20:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Par'Gellen Edited by: Par''Gellen on 10/08/2008 21:30:18 Nevermind lol... It's like talking to crazy people... or the wall...
this is how i feel about you right now...
you're telling me not to step on your playstyle...heres the problem with that: 1) list me 5 GOOD reasons you will ever need to go into low sec, where pirates live 2) What is a pirate? Heres how Dictionary.com defines "Pirate" noun 1.a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea. 2.a ship used by such persons. 3.any plunderer, predator, etc.: confidence men, slumlords, and other pirates. 4.a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization. 5.Also called pirate stream. Geology. a stream that diverts into its own flow the headwaters of another stream, river, etc. ûverb (used with object) 6.to commit piracy upon; plunder; rob. 7.to take by piracy: to pirate gold. 8.to use or reproduce (a book, an invention, etc.) without authorization or legal right: to pirate hit records. 9.to take or entice away for one's own use: Our competitor is trying to pirate our best salesman. ûverb (used without object) 10.to commit or practice piracy.
Now, what does a pirate do? attacks other people with no regard for law or consequences to take what he/she wants. Short of anti-pies, who wants that? The reason i became a pirate was to take what i wanted (or dropped in EvE's case) from whomever i wanted. But now you want me to stay in low sec, so you can hump rocks all day, because that is your playstyle? And not bother you? Seriously? Are you ******ed? Do you ride the short bus and have all the pads on your elbows and knees? Cause if you don't, this patch will help you out with that.
Don't tell me to play the game my way and leave you to play the game your way, because the game my way IS TO KILL YOU.
And no, I'm not an elitist, nor do i think im better then you, but you want to play the game so you have fun, and so do I, this patch doesn't let me have my fun, but you can. Fair? No. Will it happen, yes. Why? cause you and your rock humping buddies cry all day about us big bad "jarheads" coming in a "ruining" your "fun."
|
Keiko Saito
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 07:50:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Saleene Yersa "In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future."
Does that include null insurance if you take a loss in low-sec through piracy and Sentries are on the loss-mail? Or don't sentries count as "CONCORD" ?
Last time I checked the Sentry guns belonged to the faction with Sov so in low sec empire you should avoid that particular penalty to your criminal activities.
|
Keiko Saito
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 08:15:00 -
[494]
Originally by: Kurann
Now, what does a pirate do? attacks other people with no regard for law or consequences to take what he/she wants. Short of anti-pies, who wants that? The reason i became a pirate was to take what i wanted (or dropped in EvE's case) from whomever i wanted. But now you want me to stay in low sec, so you can hump rocks all day, because that is your playstyle? And not bother you? Seriously? Are you ******ed? Do you ride the short bus and have all the pads on your elbows and knees? Cause if you don't, this patch will help you out with that.
Don't tell me to play the game my way and leave you to play the game your way, because the game my way IS TO KILL YOU.
And no, I'm not an elitist, nor do i think im better then you, but you want to play the game so you have fun, and so do I, this patch doesn't let me have my fun, but you can. Fair? No. Will it happen, yes. Why? cause you and your rock humping buddies cry all day about us big bad "jarheads" coming in a "ruining" your "fun."
Last time I read the dev blog it was pretty simply stated that CCP don't want to stop people commiting piracy but currently they believe that it's too easy in High Sec and rewards outweigh the risks by a significant amount. That's all, it's CCP say sorry we got the balance wrong and it was never intended to work this way and we are finally going to try to fix it.
I know people say that this is a result of all the whines but seriously when was the last time you saw someone make a post to say "Dear CCP I love being a pirate but you made it too easy." ?
|
Borgholio
Minmatar Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 08:21:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Kurann
1) list me 5 GOOD reasons you will ever need to go into low sec, where pirates live 2) What is a pirate?
Well currently there is no reason to go into lowsec. That does need to be changed to make lowsec the way it should be. Busy and bloody. Increase rewards for missions in lowsec and put ore that's actually valuable. That will increase the number of targets there.
As for piracy, it's true that the very act of piracy infringes on someone else's gameplay. That's why, despite what some people may think, having consensual PvP is a good idea. Leave highsec safe for the carebears, make lowsec the perfect place for pirates by giving them the targets they desire.
I think this change to suicide ganking is a good thing, but CCP shouldn't stop there. ----------------------------------- You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Bob Killan
Caldari Dzark Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 09:37:00 -
[496]
People who fly high value ships have spent alot of time and effort getting them, Concorde maintains the peace in High Sec and Theft and murder are crimal acts, and so should be punished, killing a mission runner of billions in ships and cargo is a crime the mission runner took a risk (what should be a small risk as any act to take there stuff is illegal). Currently even taking loot out of the equation pirates can end up in front after a gank due to insurance. and all they get is a small sec hit, if you ask me any illegal act in High sec should make someone an instant out law and subject to the punishment of every + sec player being able to KOS in high sec with no penalty to purge high sec of these outlaws, push them back to there low/0.0 homes they choose when entering into criminal activities. Eve should be a cold hard place for pirates too.
Im sure if any of these gank types went to a large alliances space they are red with they would get hounded by the local authorites and they cannot kill a few NPC's to gain the alliances trust so why should they get that benefit against Eve main empires policed by concorde?
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 10:18:00 -
[497]
In the past, a CCP devs would read the last two posts, have a good laugh and then smack the living daylight out of each of those carebears. With the current CCP devs, these are the kinds of players that are catered to. It's sad.
|
Rosenkranz
Caldari The Aussie Connection Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 11:49:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16 CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!
I like the changes. I see it as making pirating more of a challange. Right now any dweeb can put together a gank squad with little consequence.
The sad thing is that I so understood the above quote :) UO turned to crap when they introduced Trammel. ----------------- "Its never just a game when you're winning." - George Carlin |
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 14:18:00 -
[499]
Originally by: Rosenkranz
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16 CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!
I like the changes. I see it as making pirating more of a challange. Right now any dweeb can put together a gank squad with little consequence.
The sad thing is that I so understood the above quote :) UO turned to crap when they introduced Trammel.
I felt bad... I had to look Trammel up...
My first Graphical MUD (MMORPG?) was a game called Meridian59, it predated UO... servers started to lag when you got over 100 people playing... there were 10 or 11 shards, servers... 100 to 109 allowed PvP, 200 did not... at the end, odds were you would not see any PvP on any server, 100 to 109 were lucky to have 2 people on, 200 still had double digits (low, but double digits).
Trammel (no PVP shard) from the UOGuide, became a popular server for those that enjoy role-play, PvM... The builders... builders tend to be more willing to take the time to create items, to do boring things (like mine) in pursuit of their goals... I will admit, the introduction of Trammel may have made it harder for those that enjoy the killing of weak and unarmed (or at least not well armed) to have fun, it would make their lives miserable having to fight those that can fight back effectively...
I just hope the use of the System (posted) Security Level to adjust security changes (higher in high sec, lower, even minimal in low sec, none at all in 0.0) would in fact make Low Sec ôTHE PLACEö to recover your security level if you wish to fly into High sec space ôunmolestedöà but as with Trammel it will make the pirates lives miserable, their only targets may be able and willing to shoot backà
Low sec needs more reasons for people to enter it, better mission rewards, better rats, better asteroids, better what everà
--------*****--------
"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 15:47:00 -
[500]
Originally by: Sirius Problem Some would learn to fight back or how to avoid such encounters. But why should you, right? You just want to play the game your way and mine in peace. Hypocrisy at its best.
since we bears can have unwanted pvp forced on us at any time by the "leet pirate types" how bout in the interest of fairness we bears have the ability to force out preferred playstyle on the "leet pirate types". say a module that can limit a pirate to only targeting npc's for a time or only being able to activate mining lasers on his ships. not to be mean about it say that time was his 2 or 3 hours of playtime. that can be a lot less time than a bear has to labour to replace what he lost to "your" playstyle.
|
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 16:38:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Ehranavaar
since we bears can have unwanted pvp forced on us at any time by the "leet pirate types" how bout in the interest of fairness we bears have the ability to force out preferred playstyle on the "leet pirate types". say a module that can limit a pirate to only targeting npc's for a time or only being able to activate mining lasers on his ships. not to be mean about it say that time was his 2 or 3 hours of playtime. that can be a lot less time than a bear has to labour to replace what he lost to "your" playstyle.
It's already like that. Piracy can't sustain most pirates, so they are forced to mission run in high sec or rat in 0.0 for isk. There are the lucky few who manage to find enough targets to keep the wallet in the green, but those are very rare.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 19:18:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Ehranavaar since we bears can have unwanted pvp forced on us at any time by the "leet pirate types" how bout in the interest of fairness...
The problem many of you seem to have is that you think you should have the option to be 100% free from the risk of PvP. Sorry, this is Eve. A basic foundation of the game is that there is no such thing as 100% risk-free space. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Tamon Edom
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 21:20:00 -
[503]
Originally by: Chappers2
take a real life example, how ever many police men in the world and all the cctv and other security stuff people still get murdered, you can't just take the fear away of being ganked or everybody will be AFK mining.
Well sure people get murdered. And when they get caught, they frequently get executed (especially in Texas), or spend the rest of their life in a small concrete box.
Well, since there isn't any means to execute someone who's effectively immortal, and no prisons, there isn't ANY possible repercussion to criminal activity short of the fantastic coordination of the DED. And even that's never been enough to STOP it.
But even when there are police crackdowns, you don't hear proffesional assasins, extortionists, muggers or thieves getting up on a soap box complaining because they cops are making it more difficult to commit crimes. They hide out, wait till the heat is off, and look for new and more inventive ways to circumvent the law.
There are plenty of ways to FORCE combat on people. All you have to do is be willing to pay the price.
And if you don't have the stones to handle that, you shouldn't be pretending you are a hard core PvPer.
In short: people should Quit whining, and deal with it like a real criminal. ------------------------------------------------
Sometimes you must embrace the Darkness before you see the light.
|
Ein Spiegel
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 23:24:00 -
[504]
Like the changes. Although the sec standing moderating the sec hit makes no sense to me, nor the modified sec hit depending on security space.
A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter who does it. Differentiating based on the sec status of the criminal is akin to saying that some people can be "above" the law because of their sterling reputation. Likewise, if a law obtains in a jurisdiction, it applies equally in all areas of that jurisdiction. This change also implies that a murder at the country club is far more horrendous than a murder in the bar by the docks. While this may seem more realistic to the cynical among us, I don't see why we should make Eden as inherently unjust as reality.
On the topic of Concord... this has nothing to do with game balance. Concord, from its inception, is unbalanced. It is the force that cannot be stopped (except for plot/world story events); their ships should be able to instantly nuke any ship a capsuleer can field. To avoid Concord's ordained destruction of your ship was deemed an exploit; why should you cry that now they do their job faster? You're going to be destroyed. CCP is just correcting Concord's capabilities to match what the mission profile Concord has always had.
Insurance changes make sense to me, too... if you are shot by a police officer while committing a crime, you can bet your insurance adjuster will deny the claim for your life insurance. It's a standard clause.
Also, if you want to point the finger... I'm guessing that Jihadswarm's campaign brought this on. They illustrated, through their operations, a flaw in the security paradigm CCP had set up. Way to go for Goonfleet, making CCP make the game better. (Or at least changed in ways that could be better.)
I'm still conflicted... I both mine and engage in piracy. I don't know if it's good or bad.
|
Angry Cheeto
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 00:54:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Sirius Problem The problem many of you seem to have is that you think you should have the option to be 100% free from the risk of PvP. Sorry, this is Eve. A basic foundation of the game is that there is no such thing as 100% risk-free space.
And the devs wrote the game just for you eh? BWAHAHA! I feel sorry for you. I really do. It must be hard on you being wrong in almost every thing you say. The problem is that you think you have the right to force your play style on others. WRONG! So incredibly wrong it boggles the mind. Now don't get me wrong. I like a good fight as much as the next guy but I'd never go after some empire noob. That's not only stupid it's lame and boring. Fighting opponents that fight back now that's where the game is! Strap on a pair and head to low/null sec and leave the empire guys to run their missions. The real men don't care what's happening in empire anyway. If anything CCP is trying to get you noob ganking ****s to stop acting like asshats and ruining thier income. GOOD FOR THEM! I haven't been to empire in years so this patch means squat to me but I applaud CCP for the changes. You want to shoot people? Bring your yapping piwate crap out here and get a taste. |
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 02:09:00 -
[506]
Originally by: Angry Cheeto
Originally by: Sirius Problem The problem many of you seem to have is that you think you should have the option to be 100% free from the risk of PvP. Sorry, this is Eve. A basic foundation of the game is that there is no such thing as 100% risk-free space.
And the devs wrote the game just for you eh? BWAHAHA! I feel sorry for you. I really do. It must be hard on you being wrong in almost every thing you say. The problem is that you think you have the right to force your play style on others. WRONG! So incredibly wrong it boggles the mind. Now don't get me wrong. I like a good fight as much as the next guy but I'd never go after some empire noob. That's not only stupid it's lame and boring. Fighting opponents that fight back now that's where the game is! Strap on a pair and head to low/null sec and leave the empire guys to run their missions. The real men don't care what's happening in empire anyway. If anything CCP is trying to get you noob ganking ****s to stop acting like asshats and ruining thier income. GOOD FOR THEM! I haven't been to empire in years so this patch means squat to me but I applaud CCP for the changes. You want to shoot people? Bring your yapping piwate crap out here and get a taste.
this coming from a 2 day old alt? show your face, or you will be ignored... You haven't been to empire in years, great, i havn't been to empire in about a year and a half, short of shuttle/pod flying during a move. If I try, i get pew pew'd by the police. I don't high sec gank, but with the lack of targets in low sec, i don't see and alternative, high sec suicide ganks will lessen when people can actually pirate in low sec. If CCP gives bears incentives to come to low sec, I, along with many others, will have no problem with it, and i doubt you will hear a single pirate whine when that patch comes. Of course, every bear and bear alt will scream to high heaven, but y'know what? too f'n bad. It's not written for me (or pvpers), but it shouldn't be written specifically for you (or bears) too.
EvE should be a harsh would, but if CCP keeps releasing hello kitty online patches, they have lost my $30 a month, and probably a lot more, too. -------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCP,
REPOPULATE LOW SEC
Thanks, Your Paying Pirate Customers (PPC) |
Dronnis
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:52:00 -
[507]
CCP, your whole game is a ganking fest. You invent it, dream it and encourge it. The name of this game should be called jerks and fools who put up with it. |
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 05:17:00 -
[508]
Originally by: CCP Fear .. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
You created game that attracts these lunatics,mentally unstable, griefers,s****of the internets etc. people and then you wonder why "for giggles" killing happens? Don't expect us to just be happy about this after you lured us to this game via promises of carebear tears.
"The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of goldcrap"
|
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 05:37:00 -
[509]
Originally by: Kuolematon
Originally by: CCP Fear .. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
You created game that attracts these lunatics,mentally unstable, griefers,s****of the internets etc. people and then you wonder why "for giggles" killing happens? Don't expect us to just be happy about this after you lured us to this game via promises of carebear tears.
/signed -------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCP,
REPOPULATE LOW SEC
Thanks, Your Paying Pirate Customers (PPC) |
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 06:09:00 -
[510]
Completely Remove The Insurance System From Eve, And Cancel The Other Changes. Everybody Wins!
|
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 12:53:00 -
[511]
Originally by: Angry Cheeto And the devs wrote the game just for you eh? BWAHAHA!
No, the devs wrote a game with certain concepts as the foundation. 100% risk-free space is not part of that foundation. That is what attracted me to the game.
Quote: I feel sorry for you. I really do.
Such a humanitarian. Too bad you're also a coward, too afraid to post with a main. Perhaps I killed you in low-sec? If so, it was not personal. I'm just playing a game.
Quote: The problem is that you think you have the right to force your play style on others. WRONG! So incredibly wrong it boggles the mind.
I guess a simple mind is easily confused. What's wrong is that you and others believe that you should be immune to aspects of game mechanics that you just don't happen to like. Boo Hoo. You could "adapt", but you would rather wine. And why not? It seems to get the dev's attention. Not to worry. The bears will still die as pirates adapt, again.
Quote: Strap on a pair and head to low/null sec
Ah, the classic carebear line. Strap on a pair and post with your main. I've been in low-sec for a long time. Currently at -9.8, it's not easy to get out.
Quote: I haven't been to empire in years
Ahh.. I see now. So you're a 0.0 alliance muppet that thinks skill is flying around in 100+ ship blobs.
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 12:54:00 -
[512]
Originally by: Shinigami Completely Remove The Insurance System From Eve
I have no problem with that idea. ---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Angry Cheeto
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 14:27:00 -
[513]
Edited by: Angry Cheeto on 13/08/2008 14:28:59 A mean ol' piwate called me a bear now I can die lol'ing. Yeah I posted with an alt. It was actually an accident but does it bother you? I'm so terribly sorry I forgot to care... In fact I'm so terribly sorry that I'm gonna do it again
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 18:06:00 -
[514]
Originally by: Angry Cheeto Edited by: Angry Cheeto on 13/08/2008 14:28:59 A mean ol' piwate called me a bear now I can die lol'ing. Yeah I posted with an alt. It was actually an accident but does it bother you? I'm so terribly sorry I forgot to care... In fact I'm so terribly sorry that I'm gonna do it again
Wit makes its own welcome, and levels all distinctions. No dignity, no learning, no force of character, can make any stand against good wit. -- RWE
I stand defeated.
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Miyagi Sensei
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 02:17:00 -
[515]
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
|
Galvatr0n
Gallente LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 02:22:00 -
[516]
CCP, when will the full 2nd Life mods be intergrated into EVE? WE ARE LEGI0N. WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. EXPECT US. |
Galvatr0n
Gallente LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 03:59:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
/signed, sorry for the double post. WE ARE LEGI0N. WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. EXPECT US. |
Bob Killan
Caldari Dzark Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 09:43:00 -
[518]
Originally by: Sirius Problem Edited by: Sirius Problem on 13/08/2008 12:55:39
Originally by: Angry Cheeto And the devs wrote the game just for you eh? BWAHAHA!
No, the devs wrote a game with certain concepts as the foundation. 100% risk-free space is not part of that foundation. That is what attracted me to the game.
Quote: I feel sorry for you. I really do.
Such a humanitarian. Too bad you're also a coward, too afraid to post with a main. Perhaps I killed you in low-sec? If so, it was not personal. I'm just playing a game.
Quote: The problem is that you think you have the right to force your play style on others. WRONG! So incredibly wrong it boggles the mind.
I guess a simple mind is easily confused. What's wrong is that you and others believe that you should be immune to aspects of game mechanics that you just don't happen to like. Boo Hoo. You could "adapt", but you would rather wine. And why not? It seems to get the dev's attention. Not to worry. The bears will still die as pirates adapt, again.
Quote: Strap on a pair and head to low/null sec
Ahh, the classic carebear line. Strap on a pair and post with your main. I've been in low-sec for a long time. Currently at -9.8, it's not easy to get out.
Quote: I haven't been to empire in years
Oh.. I see now. So you're a 0.0 alliance muppet that thinks skill is flying around in 100+ ship blobs.
Takes just slightly more skill to kill someone with hundered mates than it does to pick off an undefended empire noob, at least the guy against the blob knows how too pvp which wont save him.
All you pirates that want to prey on defenceless easy target should buy a copy of WOW go on a PvP server and Gank, WOW will love you for it and Eve will love you for it.
There are 1000 people whining all the time that there is no one to fight in low sec, well if all you lame pirates moved there and left high sec i'm sure there would be, but oh wait what happens when yo do go to Low sec for a fight that hard man pirate warp/cloaks/logs/docks or a combination of all. Get some balls yourself there are lots of target in low sec/0.0 unfortunately they wont be a sitting duck so you might actually have to risk some isk and show a bit of skill to have any chance
|
Bob Killan
Caldari Dzark Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 10:00:00 -
[519]
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
There is already a very powerful tool, its called "report", in fact its much better than Ganking after a gank the farm just needs to buy a new ship out of there massive isk pile, not much trouble, if you actually report them CCP will close the account if it is a macro/RMT.
|
Sahara Eternity
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 11:44:00 -
[520]
Originally by: Kurann and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
I LOOOL'ed. This are the true words of a PIRATE self intitulated PVP'er ... (this is only a simple example of ppl whining in here).
Shoot each other m8, at least ull get the taste of a REAL engagement, not sit 20 pll camping a gate hoping for a "noob" to enter "u're territory". Shooting helpless hulks or haulers isnt much of an achievement (in PVP) u know... Theyr only deffence is ... what ?
If pirating isn't such profitable then u guys shold look for a new carrer, don't u think ? EVEry thype of player has the right to have fun.
Cheers.
|
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 12:27:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Sahara Eternity Edited by: Sahara Eternity on 14/08/2008 11:52:04
Originally by: Kurann and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
I LOOOL'ed. This are the true words of a PIRATE self intitulated PVP'er ... (this is only a simple example of ppl whining in here).
Shoot each other m8, at least ull get the taste of a REAL engagement, not sit 20 pll camping a gate hoping for a "noob" to enter "u're territory". Shooting helpless hulks or haulers isnt much of an achievement (in PVP) u know... Theyr only deffence is ... what ?
If pirating isn't such profitable then u guys shold look for a new carrer, don't u think ? EVEry type of player has the right to have fun.
Cheers.
EDIT: And for thowse who say "we, pirates, are doing CCP work, getting read of macro miners" ... I also LOOOOOL'ed ! Nop, you are doing that becouse u like seeing defensless ships go boom. If u were doing CCP job of getting rid of macro miners then u shold get fired, u haven't done such a good job didn't ya ?
100% spot on! Pirates complaining about lack of targets should shoot each other. Problem solved.
Oh wait... that means someone might shoot back.
I've done the "pirate hunter" thing back when I was a younger more naive version of myself. It never ceased to amaze me how fast the pirate elite would dock when someone showed up in something with guns. To bad you can't bribe Scotty to jettison them ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Sahara Eternity
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 12:29:00 -
[522]
Originally by: Reikku How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
List of things afk-miners had to fear up until now:
1) suicide-gankers
List of things afk-miners will have to fear after this patch:
-
What is the difference between a RL person mining and an "AFK-miner"? HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE? Do you speak with him in local/private of HOW can you tell who is AFK and who is not?
If you know the answers to theese questions perhaps CCP will find them useful. Untill then there is NO GUARANTEED way to diferenceiate a AFK to a non-AFK miner.
The hole ideea behind this is that bouth AFK and non AFK miners are affected by pirating. There is NO excuse for pirating (spaire me with "we are doing the community a favor", you are doing ureself a favor in ISK or fun seeing others in tears - oh to the Goon guy that likes teers: if u like tears so much then take a hammer and hit ure hand or something, ull se a lot of tears )
|
Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 14:01:00 -
[523]
Edited by: Nautsyn Thome on 14/08/2008 14:02:44
Originally by: Sahara Eternity
Originally by: Reikku How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
List of things afk-miners had to fear up until now:
1) suicide-gankers
List of things afk-miners will have to fear after this patch:
-
What is the difference between a RL person mining and an "AFK-miner"? HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE? Do you speak with him in local/private of HOW can you tell who is AFK and who is not?
If you know the answers to theese questions perhaps CCP will find them useful. Untill then there is NO GUARANTEED way to diferenceiate a AFK to a non-AFK miner.
The hole ideea behind this is that bouth AFK and non AFK miners are affected by pirating. There is NO excuse for pirating (spaire me with "we are doing the community a favor", you are doing ureself a favor in ISK or fun seeing others in tears - oh to the Goon guy that likes teers: if u like tears so much then take a hammer and hit ure hand or something, ull se a lot of tears )
this counts for makro's:
-all in NPC Corp -cluster formation -all pilots same age -all pilots reject convo and auto block -all pilots are 23h a day online -all pilots go on and off at the same time -very often in ice belts -senseless names
I dont want you to reply me now, that this is no proof. I dont need a proof. My ballz are telling me its right what im doing!
Oh and here is some calculation:
single kill fitting: Typhoon: 58 Mio Fitting: 1 Mio Insurance: 22,5 Mio Payout: 75 Mio Difference: -6,5 Mio
~ sec hit: -0.3
Loot from one Mackinaw: 1-2 Ice Harvester: ~6 Mio
wow, i think im getting rich...
Sure, you can do it in a smartbomb phoon, and take out 6 in one run. but you aint doing it long if you hit the pods too...then you have to live in low sec for some time.
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 15:13:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Bob Killan There are 1000 people whining all the time that there is no one to fight in low sec, well if all you lame pirates moved there and left high sec
Newsflash -- Pirates (-5 and lower) don't live in hi-sec.
Quote: oh wait what happens when yo do go to Low sec for a fight that hard man pirate warp/cloaks/logs/docks or a combination of all
mmm yeah. Those are carebear tactics.
Quote: Get some balls yourself there are lots of target in low sec unfortunately they wont be a sitting duck so you might actually have to risk some isk and show a bit of skill to have any chance
Spoken like the hi-sec mission running bear that you are. Clueless and quite possibly illiterate. Hint: Once you hit -5 you can't be in hi-sec. So guess where I live?
---- Train more. Whine less.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:08:00 -
[525]
Oh the emo high sec gank tears in here taste sooooo good. Please, whine some more.
|
Miyagi Sensei
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:19:00 -
[526]
Originally by: Bob Killan
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
There is already a very powerful tool, its called "report", in fact its much better than Ganking after a gank the farm just needs to buy a new ship out of there massive isk pile, not much trouble, if you actually report them CCP will close the account if it is a macro/RMT.
I hope you're not serious when you say this.... CCP does absolutely nothing about report of macros.. How do I know this you might want to ask. The answer is simple. I have been reporting macros for some time now and it's about as valuable as reporting isk spammers in NPC corp chat. They do not respond. They do not cancel the accounts and the same macro miners I reported months and weeks ago are still mining 23/7. Macro's have been a problem since I started playing this game but when discussing solutions, let's at least try to keep it real. Filing reports is kind of like trying to teach a pig to sing...
Killing a macro once may not make a difference but killing them day in and day out will remove the profit. It won't rid eve of them but it might cut down a bit on the macros in my system.
|
Surrah
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 02:58:00 -
[527]
I can't see anything wrong with these changes. I've been on both sides of the gank. In a group of 5 destroyers I've killed hulks, making 10's of millions in profits even without insurance payouts. Then we waited 20 minutes and did it again. Worse than that we did it because we were bored, not for the money. I've been ganked as well for what I'm assuming is similar reasons. No hard feelings, it was just part of the game.
It does make since though that as you get into space with a higher sec status that the penalties and responses get stiffer. And the insurance not paying out for CONCORD action, well that makes since too. Why would an insurance agency want to pay for acts of war or illegal activity. None do.
What I would like to see however, is a combatable CONCORD. I don't see why they have to be invincible. I'd like to see a system where in a system of a certain sec status, a limited amount of CONCORD ships were available to respond to ALL incidents in the system (like a real police force). Each system would have a cap on how many ships can be available, and as they are destroyed the get replenished over time, or through player taxes and donations, or both.
You could take that thought and then use it to change any given system's sec rating. If say a 0.5 is held down to ship level standing of 0.4 for 5 days in a row, it would become a 0.4 and cap out there. To counter that, if a neighboring system has extra reinforcements the can count toward replenishing this system and after 5 days raising its sec status up to its original level, or even higher.
Lets stretch this a little further, and add a CONCORD upgrade to any given alliance's outpost. The alliance pays money to get a CONCORD office, and the sec status of that system is now 0.1. Lets say they dontate millions of isk, enough so that CONCORD can install gate turrets... boom 0.2. Then lets say they allocate some of their station taxes to the CONCORD office, and continue donating millions or even Billions of isk; eventually they will get 0.3 and 0.4, and before long CONCORD can start deploying some ships and responding to incidents and boom, 0.5 and its a player owned hi sec. Keep on funding and you could have a player owned 1.0!
Well there is a win button... Not really. You can still declare war and CONCORD won't interfere. Just change it so that the empires keep Cyno Jammers instead of having a high sec lockout on Cynos. That will allow player highsec to be functional in accordance to the wishes of the owners while mirroring the function of empire high sec.
This whole system will allow a feasible functional system allowing players to really run the sandbox. If you don't like Caldari, invade and spend and invade until you take it down to a 0.4. Then the market crashes. If you DO like Caldari, DEFEND Caldari space when it is being attacked. If someone is attacking CONCORD, or Caldari Navy they will be flagged and attackable. It makes perfect since.
You can expound upon this by adding control points like in, OMG, factional warfare! Why have limits really? Alliance owned Jita anyone? Sure, there would need to be some safety measures built in, but that shouldn't be too hard. Can you imagine the CONCORD/Navy resources in Jita with all those taxes, or station rents!!! You can add in a level difference cap as well, say no neighboring systems can be more than 0.3 apart. That would eliminate the ability to attack and control a single system (Like Jita) with unlimited reign as you'd have to take all of its neighbors down with it. That would broaden the front making attacking and defending harder.
You want grit, danger to AFK playing? Here it is! You're AFK mining in a 0.5. Due to the penalties Ganking is rare and unlikely in your turd of a ship. But while you aren't paying attention a band of pirates come in and kill all 20 stationed CONCORD ships, and there is no one to save your inattentive ass! 10 minutes later reinforcements arrive and its CONCORDONKKEN for the pirates
|
Freighter Meh
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 04:36:00 -
[528]
meh
|
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 09:11:00 -
[529]
Edited by: Kurann on 15/08/2008 09:14:55
Originally by: Sahara Eternity Edited by: Sahara Eternity on 14/08/2008 11:52:04
Originally by: Kurann and what exactly are we supposed to shoot in low sec? have you been there recently? there is no one but bored pirates there. Once in a while you will get some random noob, but thats about it.
As a career pirate (posting with my main...OMG?!?!?!?) i am spending most of my time sitting around waiting for that 1 in a million chance a noob will enter low sec.
I LOOOL'ed. This are the true words of a PIRATE self intitulated PVP'er ... (this is only a simple example of ppl whining in here).
Shoot each other m8, at least ull get the taste of a REAL engagement, not sit 20 pll camping a gate hoping for a "noob" to enter "u're territory". Shooting helpless hulks or haulers isnt much of an achievement (in PVP) u know... Theyr only deffence is ... what ?
If pirating isn't such profitable then u guys shold look for a new carrer, don't u think ? EVEry type of player has the right to have fun.
Cheers.
EDIT: And for thowse who say "we, pirates, are doing CCP work, getting read of macro miners" ... I also LOOOOOL'ed ! Nop, you are doing that becouse u like seeing defensless ships go boom. If u were doing CCP job of getting rid of macro miners then u shold get fired, u haven't done such a good job didn't ya ?
alrighty then, so youre once again telling me to play my game, and leave you to yours...i went over this already
1) Pirates kill other pirates, i have been on both ends of this 2) Risk vs. Reward, answer me this: What incentives do you have to come to low sec, where any >=-5 pirate lives? The risk is obvious, pirates like myself. Have you read a dev blog about repopulating low sec, giving you more rewards for coming down to my home? Or are you too young?
Pirate vs. Pirate Risk vs. Reward: 1) the possibility of your ship blowing up, but having an awesome fight 2) not many pirates have pricey faction mods for me to resell, for two reasons a) when i go out, i expect to be anti-pied and get blobed and blown up, that is part of my life, and therefore don't fit expensive mods b) having a low target environment means even if i am successful, theres not much of a payout from dropped mods, due to a, which means not having the iskes to purchase said faction mods
NPCer Risk vs. Reward: 1) faction mods to resell for iskes (hopefully) 2) npcers are usually tanked for that rat = resistance hole somewhere = dead npcer, fast = high isk payout for time in combat/risk 3) possibility of npcer calling corpmates/anti-pies when pirates show up, but there are usually far enough away that a victory is a high possibility 4) carebear tears & rage quits
now which one would you be more likely to hunt? pirates, or npcers?
exactly
i don't know how many times i have to say it, but the way i play the game is to kill npcers. that is my goal, not cause its my territory, as i don't claim any, not cause i fear a real fight, in fact i welcome it, but because the risk to reward for killing npcers, just for the tears, is worth any sec hit i take.
you don't like it? too bad, that is the way i play eve. and stop telling me to grow some balls, you are the ones hiding behind concord in high sec, and that i should kill other pirates, the tears just aren't there when you kill another pirate, and, in the end, THAT is what I'm hunting for.
and one more thing, i don't gatecamp, i have an empty corp that i am the only active person in, i have no friends in the system my stuff is in, i roam solo. gatecamp are too easy, i want a fight to collect your tears and frozen corpse. Also, high sec gankers also don't have the power to ban accounts, like CCP does, so what do they do to macro miners/haulers? create a sink for the money they are making, against the EULA, in ships and mods to make it less profitable, you are correct, they are still there, but at least they are doing something, not forum warrioring -------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCP,
REPOPULATE LOW SEC
Thanks, Your Paying Pirate Customers (PPC) |
Sethose Olderon
Deepcor
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 11:55:00 -
[530]
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 15/08/2008 11:58:58 A lot of good points have been made in this thread for the benefit of the Industrialists, (Don't call me a carebear, and I won't call you a Jarhead)however one good point hasn't.
One thing you Pirates should remember, if it weren't for the Industrialists, there wouldn't be any minerals, there wouldn't be any manufacturing, and you wouldn't have anything to fight with. You might take a moment to contemplate this, because it has serious repercussions if left to it's end. As it currently exists, it is much easier for Pirates to recover their losses than it is for Industrialists. Because of this, it makes it more difficult for Industrialists to turn a profit and stay in business, because they have to charge more for their products to cover their losses, and in turn that expense gets passed on to you, the PVPer who buys those products.
Eventually, either prices will become astronomical which most won't be able to afford, or the majority of the Industrialists will leave the game, and then you really won't have anyone left to shoot at. The game will turn into a PVP Arena with an NCP market. Fuh huh?
The possibility of loss, and some eventual PVP is fine, and its what makes Eve what it is. However, I think some Pirates are taking the concept to the extreme, and in the process, ruining the game for many people, and that shouldn't be allowed.
Moreover, those who wish to remove ALL PVP, well... thats just silly. I'm an Industrialist, and even I might quit at that point, because it would completely change the game. Part of the excitement is that you might acutally get caught in a "situation", its the suspense.
All in all, however, CPP has this right. Too many people are taking advantage of less defended and experienced player simply for "giggles" as they put it, and I am all for the change.
For those who have a problem with it, quit. I will be clapping as you leave.
Originally by: Kurann 4) carebear tears & rage quits
This proves my point... By definition, thats griefing. Corporate Owned Stargates
|
|
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 12:20:00 -
[531]
Edited by: Par''Gellen on 15/08/2008 12:20:25
Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Originally by: Kurann 4) carebear tears & rage quits
This proves my point... By definition, thats griefing.
I was just about to say exactly the same thing. And he wonders why they want to put CONCORD on his arse...
*sigh* Some people's kids... ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Par'Gellen
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 12:23:00 -
[532]
Originally by: Surrah More stuff than the forum would let me quote. Scroll up it's good stuff!
Now THAT would be awesome! ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 13:01:00 -
[533]
Edited by: Zachstar on 15/08/2008 13:01:29 Looking forward to seeing the cloakers react the same way when CCP puts an AFK timer in the game...
CCP thank you for these changes! The insurance change was spot on! And the standings changes are quite nice as well!
Thank you!
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 13:07:00 -
[534]
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..
LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:08:00 -
[535]
Originally by: Sethose Olderon Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 15/08/2008 11:58:58 A lot of good points have been made in this thread for the benefit of the Industrialists, (Don't call me a carebear, and I won't call you a Jarhead)however one good point hasn't. ...
As a Retired US Marine, feel free to call me "Jarhead" any time... I take it as a compliment... I can also be called "Carebear" as I avoid PvP combat whenever I can...
I am not sure when or how "Jarhead" became a bad name, but in a game where a POS is a good thing, I guess anything is possible.
--------*****--------
"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
Imrys
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 20:00:00 -
[536]
Many delicious ganker tears in this thread. Now that the tables are turning a bit in the favor of the non combatant players all I can say is "Please please cry more as I find it very entertaining."
|
Aknot Wat
Gallente Carbide Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:05:00 -
[537]
None of this means anything because of ALTs.
Until CCP makes a single accounts ALTs all suffer the same penalties it is meaningless. The ALTs a player account is allowed need to be treated like a player owned "gang". They all suffer the security hit and standing hit.
The only way a player should be able to be "two faced" is to PAY for it. PAYING for a second account. So that they can have their carebear and their bear killer players. A real-life adjustment to help balance the game.
If it's truly CCPs intent to provide consequence, this is the only true way. Anything else is a waste of programming time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please let us chose the old ship voice as an option. |
Haji Moto
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:58:00 -
[538]
I like what CCP Fear has proposed here, with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.
Example: Person kills a homeless man; Sentence: 25years to life imprisonment
Second Example: Person kills a father with 3 children and a wife; Sentence: Death Penalty.
Killing is killing, and ganking is ganking. Keep it even.
-Haji Moto
|
Setarcos Nous
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 23:49:00 -
[539]
Originally by: Haji Moto I like what CCP Fear has proposed here, with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.
Example: Person kills a homeless man; Sentence: 25years to life imprisonment
Second Example: Person kills a father with 3 children and a wife; Sentence: Death Penalty.
Killing is killing, and ganking is ganking. Keep it even.
-Haji Moto
Eh, I look at it more as "productive member of the community kills a known felon with a long criminal history to protect a stranger from possible harm" vs "known felon kills a cop (or ally of the cops)".
|
Kurann
Amarr Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 02:05:00 -
[540]
le sigh...
im done trying to prove my point of how hypocritical some of you are being. Some of you have good ideas and good points, for that i thank you. my reasons for doing things my way are sound, and i odn't need to hear anymore of it. I'll adapt, and continue on roaming alone, just to give myself something to do.
P.S. I rage quit myself once, yes, i was a carebear, and yes i was pirated, but im back, because the smell of pvp was in the air, and im hungry.
P.P.S. None of you answered my questions which further prooves my point that you have no incentive to come to low sec. -------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCP,
REPOPULATE LOW SEC
Thanks, Your Paying Pirate Customers (PPC) |
|
Aemun Anarch
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 12:27:00 -
[541]
People do get punished according to who they committed it against. The man who killed John Lennon did not get parole and likely will not. Someone who killed a homeless man might. The men who killed the president get more of a punishment than the men who kill some druggy in a crack deal.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:46:00 -
[542]
Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..
LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..
farmer alt spotted...
|
Startling Revelation
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:00:00 -
[543]
Originally by: Haji Moto ...with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.
No, it's to encourage vigilantism, which is fine by me, and by most people.
One other possibility, rather than having all record of criminal activity subsumed in a single, erasable security standing, would be to flag repeated suicide gankers, in a similar way to players with a bounty on them. If a character who's been involved in a certain number of suicide ganks within a certain period were excluded from Empire space irrespective of sec standing, it would be a little more meaningful.
Fact is, these changes aren't going to make a huge difference because it's easy enough to make disposable suicide gank characters - what do you need, about 1.5m SPs? In the absence of detection and punishment of white collar crimes, money laundering, handling stolen goods etc, nothing is going to be done to stop crime paying, any more than you can stop unsuccessful pirates replacing their losses with funds from carebear alts. |
Assimil8r
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 15:09:00 -
[544]
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do? Ever considered that launching personal atacks on a dev, becausde you don't like what he/she blogs about, is about as mature as oh, say, stealing a 12-year-old's bicycle? But then, you're pirates... that's the kind of thing you get a kick out of.
For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.
If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.
Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved... |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 08:19:00 -
[545]
Originally by: Assimil8r Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?
Yeah....., right...., zulupark and the overkill speednerf really support your argument...
Quote:
Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...
Which is what most people complain about --> insurance removal is nonsense, as long as there is nothing viable against noobcorp-hugging-farmers |
MongWen
Farmer Killers United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:13:00 -
[546]
Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..
LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..
right... the get removed form game... then tell me why i see "players" that mine 23x7 not missing a cycle for months after they are "reported" still in game ?
And still no human will sit up and active for that time not missing a cycle... |
Patrika Deane
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:42:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Dev blog
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
Do NOT put this in. This is a hugely terrible change. If you want to modify insurance, then MODIFY INSURANCE.
Explain to my why suiciding ganks get no insurance, but SUICIDING into 0.0 or SUICIDING your own ship via self-destruct gets you insurance.
Explain to me why Pend Insurance Inc. would insure any ship that is to be flown by a player in a 0.0 alliance or a -10.0 pirate or someone who loses 10 ships a day or someone shooting Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar/Caldari ships in a mission. No, if insurance doesn't make sense for suicide ganking then you have to modify it for ALL types of SUICIDING and RISKY behavior.
This is a bad move CCP. If you do this, there needs to be *balance*, a way for pirates to increase security standings or at least get SOMETHING cool out of it. The pirates/suicide gankers and such are the people providing non-NPC content, nerfing them is penalizing players for interacting with each other in a god damn mf'ing MMORPG.
The rest of the changes I don't care about, but FFS no insurance on suiciding ships is flat-out caving to the whiners, you have ZERO basis or reasoning on this change and I'm calling you out right now. Nerfing level 4 missions is a "highly requested feature" so where is that?
Actually, this is a VERY valid point. The concept of insurance is that of a risk pool. Thos who are in a hihg risk pool pay more for insruance than those ina low risk pool.
A CareBare running missions with a High Sec rating should have a lower insurance premium than a outlaw with a -10 rating. Similarly ... A hi sec rated pilot who loses ships to misisons every week should have a higher premium than a veteran outlaw who loses 1 ship every 6 months.
HOWEVER! Most insurance payments are null and void when the payouts are made as a result of a commission of a felony. So this removal of insurance payouts for CONCORD responses has a contractual and legal basis. |
Ira Black
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:14:00 -
[548]
I haven't fully read the topic responses since I'm not really impressed with the response so far. Lot of low-class moaning and childish reactions aimed at persons (instead of opinions).
I have read a few comments that did have a point, so here goes: I don't really mind gankers. I've been ganked a few times (not afk or transporting valuables) and one of the advantages the current system has is stress. The rage I felt at being ganked is actually what interests me in EVE. A different point of view would be high-sec as farmground and low-sec or 0.0 being PvP areas. That would alter the concept of EVE as it is tho.
As it is, I will enjoy EVE. Whether they make this change or not. |
Gaufres
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 03:41:00 -
[549]
While they are at it, deny travel thru High Sec even to Pods for people who can not fly a ship thru the same area without getting Concorded
|
Ahsekuaw
Brother Theo's Monastery
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:37:00 -
[550]
The whole point of the revision of the security system is to move the ganking out to low sec where it belongs. Nobody is stopping you from ganking. Just do it somewhere else.
I for one halfway applaude the change. I say halfway as I don't think it goes far enough in a .9 and 1.0 system. Gankers in those systems should be penalized monitarily in addition to quick death and bigger security hit. Those monitary hits should double after each gank. New players need a place to learn. That's what the .9 and 1.0 systems are for. Pilots that think it's fun to gank a newb in a rookie ship undocking from a station in a 1.0 system are pathetic. They need to be dealt with swiftly.
I'm not giving CCP a free pass on this. It is their responsibility to ensure the macro pilots are dealt with too. The macro pilots are wrecking the economics of the game. What about Concord and security penalities for them too?
Ahs
|
|
Semkhet
Spartan Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 17:44:00 -
[551]
Originally by: Assimil8r Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?
For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.
If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.
Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...
Here we have The Big Guy with his harsh words, but still afraid to post under his main. Brilliant (because a 3 months old char is an alt, yeah yeah I know, you have other accounts and your big brother plays also).
First postulate: the devs that make the game are the ones to know how to balance the game. If his brain is slightly bigger than the average guinea pig dodoo, might the Genius tell us where all these mods, rigs, skills and implants that are cyclically either taken away or nerfed come from to start with ?
Second postulate, implying that rectums are something bad. I don't know about you, but my beloved wife has quite a nice butt, and she uses it admirably at my highest entertainment & satisfaction.
Third postulate, that a game world should be "believable". So suddenly the Genius is the self-appointed reference in what makes or not this game believable ? I'll tell you what makes a game believable: IMMERSION. And in the kind of game where EVE pretends to hold a niche, IMMERSION comes from RISK. If you don't like RISK, there are plenty of other games out there that have been specifically designed for all these "mature" players who are even afraid to loose pixels...
Fourth postulate: a law agency is able to protect. But dude, if this doesn't even happen in RL where the stakes are magnitudes higher than in a game ? The only place where you are protected by a law enforcement agency is when living just in front of the precint. Short of that, over 80% of the events only see law enforcement elements intervene when the offense has ALREADY been committed. Sorry, maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, we ain't living in a perfect world and neither should EvE be the exception.
Fifth postulate: A pirate has the same chances to get popped in low-sec as his victim. Cough cough... Did you ever go in low-sec except for an agonizing transit between high sec systems ? Guess not. I won't loose time to explain you why you are spitting nonsense, you'll have to wait that some compassionate sole does it
Sixth postulate: Micro-miners are bad. I don't know if they are good or bad and frankly I don't care. But most of the peeps who hate macro-miners are... miners. So what do we have here ? The Uber Miner happy that soon EVE will turn into a spreadsheet laid in space ?
On the other hand, it's people like you that makes people like me happy to suicide a ship even if the result is an isk loss, just for the exquisite pleasure of watching your resulting mood in local
|
ouranei
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 18:21:00 -
[552]
Most crazy situation is leaving station in Jita with a full cargo with a value of more than 400MIsk and discover after the lag in Jita the ship destroyed and the cargo already looted by a suicide gang....easy they have no risk except probably their frigate and they pick cargo and in same time enter in station....no risk for them....no chance for me even to play...
That case is really against game spirit and pleasure to build business in game.....
(sorry for my poor english :p)
Ouranei
|
Heliosium
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 10:10:00 -
[553]
These measures are definitely a step in the right direction, but I have to admit that the whole perfect -10.0 status thing actually forcing players to attack more people than rats is an interesting unforseen consequence.
May I suggest extending the security status to below -10.0, BUT hiding that excess below -10.0? This will give the pirates a bit of cushion so that killing rats doesn't affect their precious -10.0 as much.
|
Smokin' Dragon
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:03:00 -
[554]
Edited by: Smokin'' Dragon on 25/08/2008 22:04:59 Having just been a victim in a suicide gank let me tell you what happened ....
Me and my corp (of ten) were out minig ore to build new PVP ship with, so we can join in all the fun and enter CONSENSUAL PvP combat in LO-SEC.
Then along pops a raven and smartbombs the entire operation.
Net result -
Having just spent 6 hours bonding with my corp, having fun, and building ourselves a better future in EVE, some 16 yr old idiot (probable) spoils our entire day, and leaves 1/3 of my corp debating whether to keep playing this game.
Put simply, suicide ganking like this (unprovoked, practically worthless cargo) is pointless and will result in the loss of (a rough guess) 30% of your potential player base who actually want to spend there RL time (you have 70 years approx) BUILDING something. (in this case it amounts to about 50 gbp per month, so its only 1000 GBP, nothing to cry over im sure.... (now scale that up by a factor of 3000) )
To rub salt in the wound, the guy then petitioned me when i told him what i thought of his pointless attack
If all you Yaaaaaar pirates truly believe this is justified, effective and above all NOT POINTLESS AND IRRITATING behaviour, feel free to comment.
Truly ,the point is, if i wanted to pvp a battleship in my barge, i'd be in lo-sec where the minerals might actually be worth the loss of a ship.
If CCP cannot realistically control, minimize or downright prevent this kind of behaviour, what is the point of playing? the only income left is missions, and this becomes a space conquest game.
Personally I prefer counterstrike, there is less lag involved
|
Tehopenee
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:47:00 -
[555]
I have played eve now for a couple of years and have noticed the many changes---all aimed at more conflict and less chances for survival for new players. Eve is good if you are a ganker, pirate, high sec thief, and general scammer. I use to like to do missions with different ships and try new things--but why bother? There will only be some jerk comeing in to steal your salvage and you can't shoot back. Well, maybe I will give up on the missions and try mining---wow--can flippers all over the place--I know I will try trade and contracts---whoa scammers all over the place---if you ask about it ccp says no big deal---it is ok for you to be cheated if you dont read carefully. What war dec a can flipper or ore thief--oh no---ccp has decided they can hide in npc corps so you can not war dec them. Now they are worried about gankers. I think some of the ideas are good--but why cant we have a level playing field. I dont mind the thieves--just give me a chance to shoot them. I think things you work for should be yours---or at least give you a chance to fight for it. I know the only comments this will gt is the usual from the gankers about whinning and ccp will totally ignore this. :)
|
Aakaa
Amarr Murderous Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 01:35:00 -
[556]
NoooooO...
This will mean less explosions in Empire dang it. Muderous Inc steam rolling the gank machine till Security changes hit...
|
WA Dragon
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:19:00 -
[557]
WELDONE CCP you just handed all the games macro miners a get out of jail for ever card you bloody fools
To be or not to be......sorry can you repeat the question? |
WA Dragon
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:50:00 -
[558]
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome CCP you took my only weapon against Makrominers away!
Please do not let them destroy our game. If you take suicide ganking away, PLEASE remove THEM first!
CCP take no action when Macro miners are petitoned and now it looks as if they are even going as far as to fully protect them. This game is losing its flavor rappidly
To be or not to be......sorry can you repeat the question? |
CMHQ Morswin
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 19:12:00 -
[559]
This makes no sense, how will i be able to gank macro miners now ? People suicide gank becouse t1 ships are cheap, with insurence it cost 20-30M to lose bs in high sec, while a freghter can drops few billions... Macro miners are the ones who spoil this game the most, cheap minerals make ganking possible and affordable. If you apply these changes be able to kill any macro miner any more, mineral prices will fall down even lower than they are now (sucide ganking acctualy keep them up) making mining a total lose of time. As the resoult, small miners will loose isk, and maybe get concorded by an accident, pvp players will have nothing to do in the empire and freighters from bob and ra will fly with billions of isk onboard, and macros will never be interupted again. I dont even want to talk abaout carebears who put milions of isk on tiny industrials and blame the game for losing it :/
Get rid of lag and macro first
|
Tempo Paradiso
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 21:22:00 -
[560]
I am a Carebear , and I like being a Carebear missionrunner since I only play for about 1-2 hours.
It doesnÆt prevent me from understanding the frustration of the players who make a living being a pirate, preying on the innocent, defenceless and uncareful.
In the end it just forces Carebears, miners, traders and other players who are not into PvP, to think twice before entering lower security space. And if they are flying in valuable goldbirds or moving vast fortunes from point A to B, then they need to operate in groups, posibly with escort ships and good recon. Knowledge is power, and the key to power is good intelligence. So make use of it all. Send out reconships, use spies etc. Think of the convoys during WWII, the key to their survival was recon planes and picket ships. Its all a case of the chicken outsmarting the fox. If the chicken is to well guarded, the fox will look elsewhere for food.
In order for the Carebear community to fight the dark side of EVE, we need to think like a pirate and operate accordingly. In the end, these adjustments to Concord wont make suicide gangkers go away or impossible, it will just make it harder and more dangerous.
I do agree with most of the gankers and miners in the fact that macro-miners are a big problem, but in the end that is problem CCP must resolve, not the players. Its only CCP that is able to install software that can monitor the systems for macro miners. And CCP apparently thinks it is ok.
|
|
Nick Domani
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 04:33:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Khanto Thor
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
Hmm...maybe hot-locking targets via a pre-activated weapon isn't such a good idea. Turn off the 'easy mode' of your guns and this won't happen.
|
Uni Zueto
Amarr Nakama
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 22:31:00 -
[562]
Any insurance company that doesn't try to weasel out of a payout just isn't a proper Insurance Company.
Thankyou CCP for putting the cut throat attitude back into the SCC. Let's see those SCC fiscal reports now...
'May all your ventures be profitable' - Caldari Farewell |
Santana Laurence
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 12:30:00 -
[563]
Edited by: Santana Laurence on 31/08/2008 12:31:37 "Risk" vs. Reward: If you're blathering about "risk vs. reward" as one of the people who were abusing the insurance bug, and turning a profit by killing ships containing loot with less value than the ship you're flying...you're a useless tool pretending to be a real PvPer. You had less "risk" than your victims, and you're just bandwagoning the whine to muddy the waters. Yeah, carebears should have some risk involved if they carry more than what your ship is worth. And you shouldn't have much of a reward if you shoot at something with less net worth...because if that's the case, you aren't risking enough for the reward you're claiming you deserve for farming your intellectual inferiors.
You are not a ballsy pirate who is doing something clever here. You are a bottomfeeding insurance fraudster; get over it. You ran the point that insurance was broken into the ground and made the game less fun for people who were doing something useful, like popping macro miners. At least they were serving the community!
Gankers == Carebear Education: You aren't really teaching a carebear a "lesson" about reality when you're abusing the insurance bug; you're just teaching them that you'll blow them up whenever you feel like it as long as the bug still works. While that's the current reality of things because of the broken mechanic...that doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is broken. You'll have to, gasp, move on to only educating carebears who are carrying more than what your ship is worth!
Macro Vigilantes: You've got a much more reasonable platform to complain about these changes on. I wish it were possible to let you keep doing what you're doing without allowing the "Risk vs. Reward" pretenders force the matter on CCP. I'm all for them coming up with some mechanic that flags anyone who does nothing but go to belts and a station for 24 hours, though. Anything that empowers you guys without enabling folks to turn a profit off of blowing up ships with less net worth than their ship and fitted modules would be nice. It's hard to prevent one without the other though.
Standing Shifts: Probably weren't needed. The insurance bug should have come first. While I agree that there needs to be more of a "role" for 0.1-0.4, you need to add non-PvPer incentive for them being used as trade routes. Going out on a limb here, this is probably where the much-needed contraband "market" needs to be pushed...make it profitable to run contraband through these areas and the carebears with teeth will come. Pilots with low to mid range experience would run in small teams, with their opposition being the full-PvPer teams who have no cargo assets to defend on the route. That would be a situation with a fun measure of risk and reward on both sides. (yes, I know there are some logic holes with this, but try to build on the idea or suggest a new one instead of taking a cheap shot - remember that both carebears and PvPers will need a sizable margin of profit to make 0.1-0.4 work)
|
Mithrandir TFC
Gallente Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 16:37:00 -
[564]
Another step closer to `Hello Kitty` online.
|
Tehopenee
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 22:57:00 -
[565]
I think some of the problems or complaints by some here is caused by their thinking. They must think ccp will actually be reading their whines and do something about it . I havent made up my mind if they do read all the blogs but I dont think they are really interested in making everyone happy---mostly the pirates and thieves and scammers it seems. I could be wrong---but I have never heard of anyone actually getting a ntoe form anyone on their blogs. :)
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 12:46:00 -
[566]
Meh.
All the ISK making opportunities in high-sec (except trading/industry which are PvP activities themselves) need a good hit with the nerf-stick, together with NPC corps.
In a competitive game, if you want safety you need to make some serious trade-offs.
|
Innominate
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 21:06:00 -
[567]
How do we get from "Concord provides consequences, not safety." to "CONCORD has some issues, mostly that pilots are killed long before CONCORD arrives." |
Fox Walken
Delucian Defence Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:44:00 -
[568]
Few issues with this.
1. -10 standing was never easy, but true -9.999 was, and this just made it easier - as a pirate I find that annoying.
2. Protecting carebears... wish CCP would stop doing this - it is in their nature to whine, so let them, don't feed them, part of EVE's success is that it remains viable for non-consentual PKing, every other game that nerfs this and gives into the bears loses players to EVE. Until EVE gives in too..........
3. Macrominers boost - why? this will benefit macro miner isk sellers way more than the bears.
4. The law of unintended consiquence - there has long been an issue with war-targets in high-sec leaving corps to get enemies concorded, now they can do it to even more effect with the insurance nerf.
The best thing about EVE is that no-one is safe, even in high-sec. Do not feed the bears anymore concessions |
Edric Jin
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 01:00:00 -
[569]
Edited by: Edric Jin on 02/09/2008 01:00:54 About the whole insurance fuss. Insurance is an aspect of the game completely unregulated by player activity. It doesn't fluctuate or alter depending on how many ships you lose, or acts in any way like a dynamic market. Because of this fact alone, taking advantage of one of the few financially static areas of EVE to go suicide ganking is abusing an exploit. Even CONCORDS original design philosophy of consequences > protection wasn't being upheld. It's a blip caused by two different models conflicting, nothing more.
Also, this game has never been about an entirely lawless area of space, and for the most part I don't see the problem in making zones that are meant to be heavily policed a greater detterent to piracy.
|
Peregrine
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:18:00 -
[570]
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: Plave Okice Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?
Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?
Originally by: CCP Fear Be safe out there!
Hopefully this answers to your question of where CCP is steering this game.
Theyre trying to compete with HELLO KITTY online!
Infact, I heard theyve attempted recruiting CCP Fear for their new "OMG I can cuddle it" program.
|
|
raWill
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:16:00 -
[571]
Fantastic changes. Now just remove cargo scanners from the game and remove the ability to receive insurance payout for any ganking. |
Dr Octavius
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:17:00 -
[572]
I am pleased that CCP have realised that the reality of a pirates life was high risk with great reward but very often short lived, I know this wont end high sec ganks but I can see the pirate attacks being more accurate with their victims. I also notice those who speak against this have a negative standing and those for this have a positive...just a thought |
Deija Vu
Minmatar TalCorp Enterprises Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:27:00 -
[573]
Im very happy to see this change to suicide ganking.
|
Varies
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:27:00 -
[574]
Edited by: Varies on 02/09/2008 14:31:08 I guess I would consider myself an empire carebear, but I am a little wary of these broad reaching changes. As I believe other posters have pointed out, when some factor of gameplay becomes an issue, you (CCP), go at it with a sledge hammer instead of delicate tools. Changing many facets of what you are trying to balance, with what seems a dis-regard to what else it impacts.
I am concerned that the ramifications of what you are proposing will force pvp pirates into old tried and true aspects of their "trade", and that is low sec gate camping. Which I view as exceedingly boring for them, increasingly annoying to me, and while may result in a reduction in the number of pirates, also reduces a playstyle's viability. I am concerned with a phrase, "be careful of what you wish for".
If the primary concern is with suicide ganking in empire high sec systems, I agree with the an increased in standings reduction but what does it do really? A large percentage of the ganking is done with alts that are in npc corps, somewhat disposable characters, easily replaced with a new one when sec status gets too low. So does this really do anything at all?
Dropping insurance payout on concorded ships. Perhaps. But unlikely to do much, if anything to disuade gankers, the targets they hit are low defense, high value targets like an industrial hauling a full load of morphite, or several high value BPOs (yes many haul this way, I do not), the risk/reward is too great for them to pass it up, even if they lose 5-10 cruiser/BS attacking the industrial/transport, if it drops even half the load of morphite for example, they are way ahead.
It seems to me, that this is once again a case of leave the nerf bat in the closet, and find a better solution by affecting that which is affected. Namely the person who got GANKED!
My solution: Provide cargo insurance, adjustable based on cargo value, with some percentage forfeited based on a successful transport. Those that want to protect their cargo, can do so, those that want to risk it, can, and pirate gankers (while i hate them), continue to thrive as a playstyle.
I should add, that cargo insurance, should only be an option for starting high sec to ending high sec transport.
|
X24c
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:22:00 -
[575]
this is a great idea. Now here it comes, There are so many can fliping jerks in Hisec. why dont you pod them as soon as they flip the can. Also Mission running is hard enough when you are a new player. why do you let other players scan out your missions and salvage them or take the item that you were after?
|
machstem
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:12:00 -
[576]
congrats new changes sound great cant wait to see the difference
|
machstem
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:31:00 -
[577]
Finally CCP is doing something about the pirates! Its about time, if they are to coward to go to lowspace and gank gates this will force them were they belong! Im tired of hearing the same Ol' Pirates cowards laughing at scoring someone elses loot, but whinning about Concord and the change in rules! IM LAUGHING NOW! Go be a pirate where you can.
|
Daneau
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:04:00 -
[578]
All in all i kind of like griefers getting the short end of the stick, but i do agree that low-sec needs to be a lot more useful to provide an arena for those who wish to hunt people trying to explore the riches. What i do not agree with is the people that say we must increase the rewards of low-sec, inflation is bad enough as it is atm. The way to make low-sec better is to _decrease_ the profitability of high-sec without touching 0.0 and with making low only slightly better than it is today. High should be relatively safe but low profit while low should be high reward and the risk to go with it, not the other way around as it is today. tpb Daneau
|
Vendetta X
Torchwood 1 PROBABLE CAUSE
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 20:32:00 -
[579]
anything that makes Pirates whinge makes me laugh, lots and lots. Thanks for putting s smile on my face.
|
Mystral Seraphita
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:39:00 -
[580]
Edited by: Mystral Seraphita on 02/09/2008 21:39:58 Edited by: Mystral Seraphita on 02/09/2008 21:39:49 wow - this is getting explosive. i would like to wade in here with my two cents:
i am a firefighter. i know all about insurance fraud.
collecting insurance money on an item that is destroyed with deliberate intent by the owner, or if action is taken by the owner that will result in the known destruction of said item, it is insurance fraud. i'm pretty sure it is as illegal in every other country as it is in the US.
think about that before ****ing and moaning about how the "carebears" forced CCP to make these changes.
that being said, this insurance issue should be resolved before needing a CONCORD buff - if "suicide" gankers realize that they are going to lose money on their ships, risk vs reward comes into play. if suicide ganking is still profitable due to insurance fraud (please read above for any confusion about this), then think about a CONCORD buff.
as to the security hits... who cares? pirates will be pirates . if they are forced to move to low sec space, so be it. if they can't find any "easy" or "carebear" targets out there, tough - last i checked, the pirates of the high seas were run out of business as more and more armed ships representing legitimate governments move into the area and forced them out. piracy still exists today, but where is it? in the middle of nowhere, on the fringes of civilization and government control.
and if you still can't deal with the logic of this reasoning, well, i guess you take this game way too seriously. get out of mom's basement and discover real life. |
|
Vargrh
Gallente Medo.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:55:00 -
[581]
Edited by: Vargrh on 02/09/2008 21:57:29 so basically CCP are giving a BOOST to empire isk farming multi barge 'player spawns', by detering players from ganking them...
And allowing the level 4 mission running cochroaches to isk farm all day in empire without consequence...
Eve used to be rich with player led content, it is now becoming an isk farming and 'fleet lag pvp' experience. |
Brenten007IND
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 22:44:00 -
[582]
Originally by: Fox Walken Few issues with this.
2. Protecting carebears... wish CCP would stop doing this - it is in their nature to whine, so let them, don't feed them, part of EVE's success is that it remains viable for non-consentual PKing, every other game that nerfs this and gives into the bears loses players to EVE. Until EVE gives in too..........
3. Macrominers boost - why? this will benefit macro miner isk sellers way more than the bears.
4. The law of unintended consiquence - there has long been an issue with war-targets in high-sec leaving corps to get enemies concorded, now they can do it to even more effect with the insurance nerf.
The best thing about EVE is that no-one is safe, even in high-sec. Do not feed the bears anymore concessions
And you wonder why theres no new player accounts being created in the millions like World of Warcraft (11 million). This is the exact reason why. Personally I perfer a pvp server where theres a no hold bars and you can do whatever the heck you want. Of course, PVE server will have full restrictions of non pvp action unless flagged. CCP will never gather enough clients if a newb's keeps getting killed during their trial accounts in 1.0 - .5 space. Many will just get mad and quit the game all together and will never come back. In addition, for every newb killed within the first month there is a high chance that they will never play again. Which I know that a lot of the pirate don't care. However, it hits CCP bottom line. It's 14.95 a month lost per account. If you multiply it by a 1000 new accounts being created per day and for 30 days. That is an extra $448,500.00 per month lost in extra revenue. So tell me CCP are you really going to support pirates or carebares. Or create a seperate servers for pvp.
One last thing, in history, Pirates has always destroyed towns, villages, cities, and many other civilization in the past. (A good example is Ghost towns that was once run by outlaws.) The question is, will it destroy this game. Will subscription start dropping until there no one is left on the server but pirates. Check those active accounts. Will you even be able to rival WOW 11 million active accounts across the world.
Only Time will tell...
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 16:15:00 -
[583]
If someone tested it? How much faster does CONCORD arrive and how much faster do they kill?
Insurance removal was all that was needed to nerf suicide ganking, and that was alone maybe to heavy. Faster stronger CONCORD, and increase in sec loss is BAD, you hear CCP! I'm as carebear as they come (ok I do pvp occasionaly, a little, but still very bearish...) and I think that this nerf was overdoing it.
And CCP, please, dont nerf war decs. Yes, several new players starting a corp will be war decced to oblivion, and their only choice if they wish to play on corp level is to beg a 0.0 alliance to take them in... Still, dont kill war decs
|
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:18:00 -
[584]
About sec loss for podding, could criminal status of the poddee be taken into account?
I took -16.5% for podding a pie in a 0.4, because he wasn't an outlaw (yet). He attacked me, I popped his ship then his pod. Podding him was somehow legal as I didn't get crim flagged for it nor did he get killrights, because he was under criminal timer.
I don't favor completely free podding of people under GCC, but maybe halving the penalty, they have been bad after all...
|
su ling
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 00:05:00 -
[585]
I have been suicide ganked 2 since playing this game, it is no fun for the players who r not interested in pvp to spend time gaining skills to do things then have a bunch of wanna be pirates come in and waste there ships, if you wanna gank people go to low sec and only come to high sec to obtain the materials us care bears provide. This is the best fix i have heard of since starting this game, good job |
Prismariana
Amarr The Green Machine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 02:29:00 -
[586]
I think this nerf as many whiners complain is not even far enough really. Truely make high security space... high security like it should be.
Gank someone in high sec when not in a wardec with them or part of faction war and the ganker should be criminal flagged and their security status dropped to -5.0 at once. Forceing them to rethink the cost and value of ganking other players.
I think the concord buff is actually small really compared to what it should be. In a high security area of .8-1.0 concord should be able to respond almost immeadiately or within less then one minute. In 0.6-.7 maybe 2 minutes and so forth. Thus making ganking or pking even harder for those not in a wardec or part of a faction war.
Let the pirates whine about it, let the griefers cry about it. So what, make them go back to the area they should be playing in 0.5-0.0 space where such activities really belong, not in .8-1.0 space.
I think gankers or suicide players should loose all insurance money period. No payout for any reason. You destroy your own ship take the full loss of it and deal with it like an adult.
If a pirates ship is popped by concord for attacking in high security space, no insurance either, but in lower space it would be allowed because of the possibility of corrupt insurance agents.
Make players start to think again and actually have to deal with loss and consequences of their actions.
As towards macro miners... stop whining, macro mining has been part of every online game since they existed. Grow up, stop whining that someone can make more isk quicker then you. I dont macro mine, I play the game.
Flagging someone as a macro miner just because they make many or constant miner runs and back to station in any set period of time is a bad idea. I personaly when mining can mine constantly for 8 hours or more at one time or another and do nothing else. Plus there are mining bots out there that are smart now, that can be programmed to take a break every so often to make them look like a real player. |
Milamber Stone
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 05:52:00 -
[587]
Hear Hear, well said!
Play the game and stop whining about people whining!
Pirates are some of the biggest whiners in the game and that has become evident in this thread completely.
The changes represent a more balanced game that just makes pirates have to use even more skill to kill "carebear" targets.
|
Patriak Marlowe
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 01:52:00 -
[588]
These changes are drastic but acceptable, this is a great increase for the protection of the NPC corpmember. Add to this list that NPC corps take 20% tax and then more pilots will join Player corps. This tax could even be called WARTAX to finance the Faction War!?! Anyway, basically this tax would represent the cost of NPC corps in keeping security in highsec, ie. paying Concorde for protection etc. As it is all players are getting a free ride as long as they are in a NPC corp. Player corps => wardec from the pirates/gankers/griefers.
ONLY TWO THINGS IN LIFE ARE GUARENTEED, DEATH AND TAXES!
I would allso suggest best reactiontime in Hi sec and increasingly lower responsetime and having the worst responsetime in 0.5sec!
|
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 02:16:00 -
[589]
Originally by: Prismariana
I think the concord buff is actually small really compared to what it should be. In a high security area of .8-1.0 concord should be able to respond almost immeadiately or within less then one minute. In 0.6-.7 maybe 2 minutes and so forth. Thus making ganking or pking even harder for those not in a wardec or part of a faction war.
Hi! You are stupid. CONCORD is there within 20 sec in 0.5 and faster in higher sec. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/ |
Blackjack Turner
Caldari Inverted Awareness
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 10:56:00 -
[590]
Was the insurance "bug" fixed? I shot at a Gallente pilot last night as an experiment, and was in my pod very fast from the faction gate guns. I also got my insurance money. Granted, Concord did not appear to be involved. And while the patch notes point to the blog, which details taking away the insurance pay out when Concord is involved, it is not specifically addressed in the patch notes.
So, is it only when Concord pops your ship? Or was it never implemented?
|
|
Valkerias
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 00:45:00 -
[591]
A.) Has not yet been implemented.
B.) Only when your ship popped by CONCORD.
|
Raven x1
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 06:05:00 -
[592]
It all because they dont wont to WORK like a miner for the ISK they got to steel it the little pantie wastes.
|
LordSax7648
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 18:12:00 -
[593]
While this might not put a stop to suicide gankings, it will certaintly put a more deserving consequence to it. I know I'm tired of the countless ships sitting in .6 and .5 space trying to score a quick kill on unsuspecting players, trying to hit that one in a million lottery "kill". With a little ambition these folks could be making isk the old fasion way...."EARNING IT!"
LS
|
Tac Ginaz
The Righteous Few
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 18:57:00 -
[594]
I do not see how any of this helps suicide ganking.
Its all about economics. If I see a freighter hauling billions of isk worth of stuff and I really wanted to grief the poor SOB, I know I could easily find a small squad quite willing to sacrifice a 200-300 mill worth in battleships to terminate the freighter and then pick up some loot. Faction loss standing?
Isk > Faction.
The only true way to stop suicide ganking therefore, is to go after the offender's ISK.
Take the value of the ship lost. Multiply it by the number of items that were destroyed or dropped by the ship's explosion (including # of modules and each individual cargo item). Charge that as a penalty to EACH player involved in the gank. modify the above by space sec rating.
If the character that is fined does not have enough isk in their wallets they have 10 days to pay the fine otherwise account is suspended. Accounts with fines cannot be sold to other players.
Victim receives the ISK from the fines from 2 players max. Meaning the victim in this case, recoups a lot of his lost items.
|
LordSax7648
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 19:03:00 -
[595]
Also for you whinners.....
Eve is a great game because it provides opportunities for all type of players (not just pvp and pirate scum). CCP hasn't stopped the suicide gankers, but just added some teeth to the consequences of these actions. So go ahead..nail the poor bastard and take his stuff...but enjoy the next few days building your standing up before you can do it again, if nothing else there will be one less pirate s****at the gate for a while. This isn't pvp or pirates roaming low sec belts for their prey. There is no glory here on the kill...attacking a defenseless industrial ship...give me a break. Call a spade a spade, these folks are simply out trying to get easy isk, how is this any different than what the countless macrominers are doing every day?
Up to now these scumbags have had all the cards. So they lose a fully insured ship with low cost mods. The victim meanwhile has lost costly cargo and can't get but a small percentage back on their ship, as most have the costly cargo rigs. Spare me the shouldn't use those rigs as the owners don't intend these ships for combat and in fact will go out of their way to keep it that way. You want to talk about risk to reward? Yeah as long as it's stacked in your favor...Please.
So cheers to CCP for evening the playing field a bit and I look forward to the insurance deployment!!!
LS
|
Dr Chicago
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 19:59:00 -
[596]
Newb observation
I only have a couple of weeks in EVE and I don't know all the Eve vernacular yet but as a recent outsider to the community, and after reading what appears to be 22 pages of two sides of the sandbox story. Let me see if I get this straight?
Side 1: Dudes in mining barges "Carebears?" who use possibly macro's to mine 24/7 and make loads of ISK are getting pirated by player characters who make more ISK from the loot then the ship costs +insurance payoff.. These Side 1 dudes loose the minerals and the cost of the uninsured portion of the ship possibly... They complain alot?!
Side 2, Dudes who figured out how to game the game by whacking and taking minersls, salvage, and insurance profits from "Carebears" whom game the game expecting no risk by being in high sectors and whine to CCP cause they have to macro longer and harder for a couple of days.
Did I comprehend all that right from all 22 pages?
Both sides sound like genuine entrepreneurs, and with being an entrepreneur comes risks along with the rewards.. I say why fix whats not broken <Opinion>
I entered the Eve universe realizing that every sector had danger and a potential for my virtual ship loss and possibly character death, it actually for me adds to the game experience. I get amped up on every jump, will I be targeted and or jumped in the next system? Without that the game is actually endless training clicks at times...
If your in a "carebear" mode of entrepreneurship, and banking huge ISK then the fix would be hire a security firm to protect your assets...Thats real life drama in a game environment, suck it up and deal with it..
OK I get yelled at alot for thinking to far out of the box but with that risk comes rewards sometimes as well.. and often I am way out of line..
All Best!
Dr. Chicago
|
Akira117
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 14:27:00 -
[597]
Good job bending over for the whiners, what made this game unique you are destroying.
999.times {print " The Cake is a lie."} |
Yawgmoth
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 23:40:00 -
[598]
Originally by: Shinigami Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 10:27:02
Originally by: Esmenet EVE looking less and less unique and interesting every dev blog these days.
It's only a matter of time before they introduce "podbound" items/ships, and make it possible to opt-out of pvp. Did these new devs get recruited at blizzcon?
CCP Fear? More like CCP FuzzyBunny.
We already do have podbound items... Implants! As to the changes I don't really see any problem. All it will do is stop people from suicide ganking empty shuttles and any ship that will drop less loot than their ship costs. "So how did you survive this long in 0.0 with no MWD?" 'I didn't. I died. Alot' |
Jstar999
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 12:32:00 -
[599]
Hello,
As a novice player I have no problem with the way sec status is lowered, but i do have an issue with the fact that once your sec status get low it is almost impossible to get it back up again, this is a great bother for me because yes i got a bad standing (warpscrammed a pod while someone else shot it to pieces)and it's almost impossible to get it up again. CCP might think of something to get up your staning faster (maybe followed by a cool down period of a certain time) to enable players to get back into Hi sec after they did something stupid (possibly unintended or unaware of the consequences)
Regards
Jstar999
|
Shaylar
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 15:15:00 -
[600]
Funny how this reminds me of soooo many other games like Ultima Online.... People start to die they complain and soon after that the world is made ultra care bear safe and guess what, within 1-2 years the game dies off to everyone over the age of 25
They quit and everything goes down hill.... Who cares if someone macroing dies, its a weak way to play the game anyways, if you are too lazy to actually play the game then go do something else!
cowards lol |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |