EVE Search - Thanks for caving in CCP.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Thanks for caving in CCP.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:00:00 - [1] Quote: 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 So there you have it, empire space is about to become ten times more boring. I did hear the cries of the people complaining about certain aspects of suicide ganking. I would have been fine with this if you'd have said, well, they can have basic insurance covering the hull, but no Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum. But ZER0??????!!! You know all those ISK farmers we're supposed to petition that you never ban? They aren't going to suicide ganked either now, they must all be jumping for joy as the sound of this news. ...but I guess that was the point, look after the people with two dozen subscribed accounts. I've played this game for over 2 years on multiple chars and I've never been suicide ganked once, and I have moved expensive stuff around, I just know how to be sensible and I bet the same could be said for a lot of people. I can't think of anyone who deserves sympathy that's been suicide ganked. - The people carrying 100mill in the untanked t1 hauler? No. - The freighter carrying 99 gazzillion isk in capital ship bpo's? No. - Giant gangs of mining barges? Hell No. This update rewards. - Macro miners and macro mission runners. - AFK gameplay. - That if you whine on the forums long enough you'll get your way. So good luck on your continuing to quest Eve Empire into Warm Cuddly Town. So come flame me forum warriors! I don't care I'm mad enough about this change then anything I've ever heard come from them before, whatever you say to me it was worth it.
Almiel Gallente Blood Inquisition	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:02:00 - [2] Just self-destruct your pod. I am for removing issurance all together, or bring it back to no default inssurance and 2 week duration.
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:02:00 - [3] We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
copasetic sideways	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:02:00 - [4] Originally by: 5pinDizzy whatever you say to me it was worth it. i say this to you: fokens!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:04:00 - [5] Flame flame flame. Also, /signed - DesuSigs
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:04:00 - [6] Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! RL comparrison = Failure and too much time in your mom's basement.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:05:00 - [7] pretty much bending over and giving in to all the loser pilots, i have this strange feeling the screen will just be bright pink pretty soon
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:06:00 - [8] Edited by: Slanty McGarglefist on 06/08/2008 14:06:00 Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! RL comparrison = Failure and too much time in your mom's basement. Say that to those who support no insurance for suicide gankers . And this RL comparison however moot in the whole swing of things is completely true. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Bager Gray Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:09:00 - [9] If they are going to increase concord effectivness, why not decrease the amount of high sec space.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:09:00 - [10] Completely agree with OP... Another sad day for EvE.

Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:10:00 - [11] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Completely agree with OP... Another sad day for EvE. Yeah, I think i feel a tear forming.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:11:00 - [12] Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! Isn't that the same mentality the other way around? They can't accept the fact that an aggressive attack on another person in high-sec should warrant a very hard and tough punishment. If you purposefully killed someone in front of CONCORD, knowing that you yourself would die ... shouldn't that carry a hefty punishment? It seems more than 'fair', to use the term, that if you commit the crime, you don't get insurance payouts, AND you get enough of a sec hit that you can't enter high-sec. The lack of accepting 'responsibility' goes both ways. "The greatest offense is no defense."
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:16:00 - [13] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! Isn't that the same mentality the other way around? They can't accept the fact that an aggressive attack on another person in high-sec should warrant a very hard and tough punishment. If you purposefully killed someone in front of CONCORD, knowing that you yourself would die ... shouldn't that carry a hefty punishment? It seems more than 'fair', to use the term, that if you commit the crime, you don't get insurance payouts, AND you get enough of a sec hit that you can't enter high-sec. The lack of accepting 'responsibility' goes both ways. But of course good sir, just don't go around crying when you made yourself a juciy target since you were flying an untanked hauler with millions in loots. That's the only point I was chiming in on. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Privateer Stern Minmatar Stern Brothers Ltd.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:17:00 - [14] Edited by: Privateer Stern on 06/08/2008 14:18:11 Well, I agree to a point with CCP. It's high security space, and people in it should be more protected. If you want to fight, go to low security space, there's lots of it. Sorry, but I am one that wanted a BIT more toward this end, so I'm with CCP. I don't agree that it will help people with complete AFK playing, but the aspect of HIGH security space means more of what it is now. ----------------------------------------------- I work alone, solo, because I do NOT trust people easily. My path lies in a different direction and is NOT going to change.
Janu Hull Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:19:00 - [15] Edited by: Janu Hull on 06/08/2008 14:19:45 If you suicide gank any ship that isn't worth more than the ship you're about to lose, you're essentially a barking moron deserving of a painful reminder to play intelligently. Stop being sloppy and target the good stuff. This isn't the death of suicide ganking, its just a reminder to gankers that this game isn't meant to be easy on the predator any more than the prey. In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
Steve Hawkings	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:23:00 - [16] The thing is the only people that cried are the stupid ones that lost millions in a gank.
Privateer Stern Minmatar Stern Brothers Ltd.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:24:00 - [17] Missed the point altogether. It's high security space and should be treated as such to those with low security rating attacking others. End of point. ----------------------------------------------- I work alone, solo, because I do NOT trust people easily. My path lies in a different direction and is NOT going to change.
Craleo Caldari Brotherhood Cartel	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:26:00 - [18] Just leave empire and stop whining. People that whine about this change are grievers anyway. Learn to play the game and come to 0.0!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:27:00 - [19] Originally by: Craleo Just leave empire and stop whining. People that whine about this change are grievers anyway. Learn to play the game and come to 0.0! It's not gr... oh, wait, grievers, ok. - DesuSigs
Quelque Chose New Eden Roller Disco Supply	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:28:00 - [20] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I can't think of anyone who deserves sympathy that's been suicide ganked. - The people carrying 100mill in the untanked t1 hauler? No. - The freighter carrying 99 gazzillion isk in capital ship bpo's? No. - Giant gangs of mining barges? Hell No. OTOH, how much sympathy do you reckon suicide gankers are worthy of? They're just bellying up to the high sec trough same as anybody else described above, with the exception that most of them also have access to profitable ratting in nullsec. I'm not really interested in seeing high sec become a padded room either, but that's for balance reasons. If we're going to base this on who deserves "sympathy" and who doesn't I'm afraid nobody really comes out looking good. ___________________________________________

Akkarin Pagan Minmatar Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:31:00 - [21] It's a fair call. Your car insurance company will not pay out under certain circumstances (in fact they try to avoid paying out in any circumstances, but that's a rant for another time). Pend now won't pay out if Concord is involved, so you better make sure that the target you hit will net you enough isk to cover your loss. Personally I have never been suicided, or had anyone attempt it (unless you count people who attacked me who I then killed (there's about 3 of them out there )). Basically this mechanic change just means that your untanked hauler with millions in the hold is somewhat safer, while that afk ferighter with untold billions in the cargo is in fact at greater risk due to the fact that there will be fewer targets. Akkarin I don't mean to sound bitter and twisted, but I am, so that's how it comes out. <3 - Immy
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:32:00 - [22] There are some other changes I'd like to see, though. I'd like to see security grow weaker and weaker, and I think small ships should be able to attack in higher security without in ones and twos, without fear of CONCORD. If a player knows that he can get a one on one or a one on two fight in a .7 system, as long as he's in a T1 frigate, then he's more likely to get involved. Still a sec hit, still considering piracy, but as long as only frigates are involved, CONCORDOKKEN isn't alerted. Progressive security, that is. And progressive PvP in the process. This crap about going from noob-land high sec and getting hit by three BS's at your first .4 gatecamp isn't very conducive and doesn't make a lot of sense. Those factions have lots of assets in low-sec, too. I also think it should be harder and more expensive to make and maintain a corporation. I'm in a solo corporation, and I know how easy it is to stay invulnerable from wardecs with it. Finally, NPC corporations should be holding points only. There needs to be some method ... I did like the taxes idea ... of pushing players out. To counter that, though, and the imbalance created from making corps harder to make, war decs need to be a two-way agreement. Whatever. The current system works, albeit it doesn't make sense to me. "The greatest offense is no defense."
Napro Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:32:00 - [23] Why wouldn't you gank a Freighter with 99 gazillion isk worth of bpos? Because ud lose out on the few hundred million of insurance money? rly?
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:32:00 - [24] I agree with the no insurance for concord deaths. I agree with higher security hits in high sec. I think there should be no low-sec security hits. Create L6 missions, these are level 1 variants with much higher payouts. Something you can do in a frigate ship with a PvP setup, it should pay around L3 type of rewards. Create L7 missions, these are level 2 variants with much higher payouts. Something you can do in a cruiser with a PvP setup, it should pay around L4 type of rewards. Create L8 missions, these are Level 4 variants with significantly higher payouts. These should be paying 3x - 5x the reward of L4s and designed for a group of people to do them. Missions take longer, you need a strong tank to do the missions and will likely need to do it with friends but the rewards is there to justify the risk. The mission location is always in the same system as the agent reducing the risk of running into gate camps but it would breed life into low-sec for those not afraid of the risk.
Mjeh STRONG POLITIK	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:33:00 - [25] I don't think people fully realize what's at stake here... As the OP title hinted at, this is CCP caving in and going back on one of their core principles, in what seems a desperate measure to keep disgruntled players who were too lazy to play on any other mode than AFK-mode. What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere. I hear a lot of people crying and whining that suicide ganking held no risk and was too easy, but every single one of them failed to even mention that with some very basic measures you can make yourself practically immune to high sec suicide gankage. I won't even begin on some of the other common misconceptions about the ease and profitability of suicide ganking, because I think this point is strong enough in it's own right. If you play smart, you're immune. But people don't want to play smart, they want to play AFK. And CCP now confirmed that their right to play like this weighs more heavily than the integrity of the game, so long as the whiners constitute a bigger mass of paying customers than the ones who prey upon them do. Or maybe just because they whine louder, I can't tell which anymore. Anyway, this is going to fade into the shroud of unrememberance as just another disgruntled whine in just another disgruntled thread, so instead of writing further I'm going to cast my vote the only way it will matter somewhat. My 3 accounts will not be renewed during the next billing period. Enjoy your bearfest, it was fun while it lasted :)
Craleo Caldari Brotherhood Cartel	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:35:00 - [26] Originally by: Quelque Chose I'm not really interested in seeing high sec become a padded room either, but that's for balance reasons. If we're going to base this on who deserves "sympathy" and who doesn't I'm afraid nobody really comes out looking good. THIS! And ofc, if there is several 100m in a hauler, then it's still worth it. It will just reduce the amount of random griefing ganks. And we are talking high sec here. Get your griefing ass out of there and stop playing Eve in easy mode.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:36:00 - [27] Originally by: Craleo griefing - DesuSigs
Gridwalker Amarr	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:41:00 - [28] Originally by: 5pinDizzy So good luck on your continuing to quest Eve Empire into Warm Cuddly Town. This makes no sense. Insurance payouts for ships are the pinnacle of "warm cuddly town". Are you just complaining that things will no longer be "warm cuddly town" for YOU? You know, if you feel EVE is getting too hard for you, there are other games which may be more appropriate... -Grid
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:41:00 - [29] Stock Response: Sec Status Hit: Only occurs to one person even if a dozen are involved in the gank. Increasing this by a maximum* of 10% (+5 sec stat vs. -5 set stat) will affect solo gankers a little, but not very much. Improved CONCORD response time: Will force players, in some instances, to upgrade to a larger ship, bring a friend, or fit a few T2 modules (cheaper than going from BC to BS) Sec Status Hit Based on System Security: Ganking becomes easier to sustain in lower sec systems and harder in higher-sec systems. *No Insurance payout: Using a BC to suicide gank someone will now cost you $20 million ISK, not $5 million ISK. This will hurt your ability to profit from low-value targets, and such as someone who carries 50 million ISK of goods in a T1 hauler. It will also raise the bar for the minimum value of freighters to about 1.8 billion ISK (guessing) to be worthy of a suicide gank. However, it won't affect those who do things like carry blueprints in shuttles or officer modules in...well, anything. Profit will still be huge even after insurance payouts. This will also have no effect on suicide ganking mission runners as those worth ganking (officer/deadspace/faction fit) will still be very profitable.
Cornelius Murphy Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:42:00 - [30] Originally by: Mjeh What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere. CCP had integrity? Blimey, you live and learn!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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