EVE Search - Why not end the pretence and make highsec a safezone?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why not end the pretence and make highsec a safezone?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:27:00 - [1] Yes. Yes it does. Most of the "hatred" and bile that is seen spouting on these forums comes from a differing perception of what the game should be. CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. They havent come right out with it and said "safe zone" and they still pay some lip service to the "cold hard universe" but the recent nerfs leave nobody in any doubt whats really going on. Its a slow process of nerfing, but with insurance from concorded ships next , and wardecs firmly in the firing line - I would agree its time to drop the presence and make this game "Two Zone" It will also end these farcical situations CCP allow (multi alt corp wardeccing of your own corp to prevent it being wardecced, circular corp jumping to avoid wars etc). These sorts of things make CCP look like idiots and the game as a whole look cheap. It will save a lot of arguing, and a LOT of bad feeling as people see the drip drip dilution of the original devs vision for the game. Once its done, peeps can feck off and leave if they don't like it - many will but I doubt it will be to many as CCP have a monopoly on this sort of game, and dont they know it. Any future subscribers who join wont know anything different. In terms of balance, perhaps the rewards of high sec can be gimped (as has been suggested in another thread). The PVE should be made a lot harder, or the no risk easy isk earners (lv4s etc) moved out of the area. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:46:00 - [2] Originally by: Armoured C banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire IS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually have to use brains um... Youve missed the last 18 months of the forum havent you SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:57:00 - [3] Originally by: Ruze By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection. Some balancing would most defiantly be in order - but that could be discussed at leisure and without the ranting that has characterized the forums of late. Perhaps not allowing POS in high sec? The "concord tax" discussed in another post. The removal of lv 4s. Whatever - there are many many options which would begin with CCP stopping ****ing around and cutting though the propoganda. There is no way to have "sensible" wardec system in high sec. Its a bloody ludicrous idea in the first place - but its saving grace was its a lot of fun. Not one person has come up with any workable idea for them - as they were nonsense in the first place. Lets bin them. Toss em out the window. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:01:00 - [4] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:01:37 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Ruze By all means, allow it to be safe. And then tax 10-15% of all earnings and transactions, from bounties to mission rewards to market use and office rental. At least provide some encumbrance for those wanting to rely on the protection of NPC's, instead of relying on teamwork and the actions of other players to provide that protection. Why bother? Remove PvP from hi-sec, and then "non PvPers" will only be competing against each other. PVP IS being remove from high sec. As soon as insurance is removed from suicide ganks, that it out the window. The harcore will remain in alt thrashers ganking shuttles perhaps. Wardecs have been called by a CCP bod "a pay to grief system". And are "high priority". They are next. The OP is saying - drop the bullshit CCP - get your thinking caps on and rebrand the game. Then let people choose if they want to play it. STOP LYING STOP THE CONS STOP THE DRIP DRIP PROPOGANDA TAP and please.. make your minds up. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Valan Originally by: Le Skunk CCP have indicated VERY clearly that they want pvp out of high sec and into low sec areas. SKUNK No they haven't they've stated clearly millions of times nowhere is safe. I can search out the posts from the Devs and put them up there for you to see its even in the player guides and FAQ. Can you? no because they don't exsist. If they wanted it out they would've eliminated with the latest patch. I don't mind people putting across a point of view that differs from mine. But thats just telling porky pies now isn't it? This is why i said "indicated". You are obviously paying no attention to the way the wind is blowing, and the many many recent and furute planned "balances" to remove pvp from higsec. Your a 0.0 player. And like them, you pay scant regard to whats happening in low/high sec - but cling to some weird fantasy of what eve was like 2 years ago. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:24:00 - [6] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:24:17 Originally by: Havohej Originally by: Malcanis The noob in question is a CCP dev. Wait, what? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE Quote: Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. Valentijn (CSM Dierdra Vaal) commented that under the current system, the defender has no control over the war and the attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as they keep paying the bills. He also observed that there currently is no determined end goal to the war itself.]
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:38:00 - [7] Originally by: Valan Oh and while I'm at it. As far as I'm concerned all this lobbying for 100% safe high sec is a campaign so isk sellers can turn profit with macros and not watch the screen. I see no other reason for it, it is that easy to counteract the only reason you don't is because you're afk while the macro works. In the pathc tommorow 1) Concord response times have been significantly improved and the ships themselves improved 2) Sec drops have been trebled (base) and will increase the higher sec you go. So to kill a mission whoring isk farmer in a mission hub... you will now need to organise around 10 or 12 torp ravens. Ans then rat for the equivalnet of 200 hours in 0.0 to get yoru sec back. Next on the line - insurance is being removed So youll need all the above AND be willing to drop 1.3 billion isk into thin air. So.. how many isk farming ravens do you think will be free to "turn a profit and not watch the screen" as of tommorow. ALL OF THEM The point the op is making is high sec is heading down a one way street of no pvp ALREADY so lets drop the pretence and move forward. ITS ALREADY HAPPENING!!! Skunk
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:39:00 - [8] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn Originally by: Malcanis yes we know. Skunk and I are merely pointing out that wardecs are next in the firing line. Wait, so they're going to do away with Wardecs in Highsec? Wow, I'm going to be a rich man. If I can just walk up and salvage any Mission Runner without the threat of reprisal, that sounds good to me! YOU ALREADY CAN Simply hide in a noob corp... undeccable. As i have said before... PVP FREE HIGH SEC IS NEARLY HERE ALREADY Skunk
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:44:00 - [9] Originally by: Wendat Huron Could I interest you in some camembert? Whines are yesterdays news. Forum games are over .. and the bearminded players have won - simple as that. The OP is looking forward, and suggesting a better route for the game given CCPs indications of what it should be. Saying CUT THE CRAP CCP is not whining. ITs asking them to be honest for once. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn Originally by: Le Skunk Simply hide in a noob corp... undeccable. Come on, Skunk... You've forgotten us already? You court wardecs for your own entertainment purposes. The point that you do not actually ever need to be wardecced stands. No individual, corp, or alliance ever has to be wardecced if they dont want to. and heres a handy guide INDIVIDUAL: I dont want to be wardecced so i will drop into a NPC corp. CORP: We dont want to be wardecced so we will creater 5 alt corps , and jump immediately into the next corp when we are wardecced. ALLIANCE: We will create 20 alt corps, and wardec ourselves. This drives the price up to unattainable prices for anyone else to dec us. So following these CCP endorsed tactics - you never have to be wardecced. This is the state of play NOW.. not after some distant patch. SKUNK

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:54:00 - [11] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:55:06 Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... Yes - I will get 12 people organised and working together in torp ravens, burn 1.2 billion isk (when the no insurance hits), and we will all spend 200 hours ratting in 0.0 (as sec hits have been BASE trebbled) So we can kill your t2 fitted, fully insured raven.... Yes, as that would really be worth it wouldnt it. That would really teach you wouldnt it. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:56:00 - [12] Originally by: Mika Meroko Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... So if, for example, mission payouts were reduced by, oh let's say 90%, would you say to the missioners "You do know that you can STILL mission right?..... it just gets less profitable... that is all...." yes, XD but this change ****es off alot less people XD.... sorry, but you are in the minority XD CCP is a company remember? This is taken as fact by all sides. Nobody is disuprting this. You seem to think we are arguing for a reversal of the nerfs. This is not the case. The argument is for high sec to go fully the way it is headed and become pvp free. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:01:00 - [13] Originally by: Mika Meroko Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 00:55:06 Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... Yes - I will get 12 people organised and working together in torp ravens, burn 1.2 billion isk (when the no insurance hits), and we will all spend 200 hours ratting in 0.0 (as sec hits have been BASE trebbled) So we can kill your t2 fitted, fully insured raven.... Yes, as that would really be worth it wouldnt it. That would really teach you wouldnt it. SKUNK well.... in a way, you are right, CCP is turning highsec into a safe(er) zone... but yeah... I would feel more sympathetic if low sec and 0.0 doesnt exsist... but yeah... it seems CCP is telling us to go out to low and 0.0 for the pvp.... So as you now agree... after the insurance removal - you WONT be ganked in high sec. If I was to arange the ganking - I would be losing MORE THEN YOU. So there would be no point. Your point about where CCP want the game to go - is correct IMO. This thread is about CCP being honest about it - getting hig sec PVP free, balancing the rewards of high sec to reflect this, and devoting some resources to low sec and 0.0. This seems to be self evidently common sense. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:12:00 - [14] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 01:12:40 Originally by: Mika Meroko as for the point.... well, I have to say, yeah, some people hate others so much that they are happy to lose something just to see the other get "it".. so I wouldnt say theres no point... just... for different reasons.. to gank... So ok then, im running my mission in my t2 fit raven. You have organised 12 dudes in torp ravens to gank me, and are prepared to rat for 200 hours to conter the sec hit. Assuming you succede. Youve lost 1.2 bill, have to rat for 200 hours, and had to organise 12 dood to come hunt me out, on my time, if I didnt notice you and escape. I lose 18 million isk insurance and have to go get my backup raven out of the same station i am in. So, I will be laughing at you. As your desire to kill me.... has COST YOU a fortune, and I am not even slighlty effected. Ill be out running another LV4 immediatly, and trying to bait you into attacking me again so you lose more isk. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky Everytime I go to empire (rarely) I am appalled by the number of AFK hauler/freightering, afk mission running and a whole lot of other stuff. This is a pvp game. If you want safe-zones, go to some other mmo. Hmmm, theres a mechanic for killing AFK dudes, skulking in hig sec. SUICIDE GANKING - nerfed tommorow, and nerfed totally in the future when CCP remove insurance WAR DECS - avoidable for individuals, corps and alliances (see my earlier post). Described as "pay to grief" by CCP official and "high priority" for a nerfing. So.... what about CCPS recent decisions makes you think they dont want high sec to be pvp free? You are typical of the 0.0 player who has sat doing hi s "endgame" shit out in 0.0 - and has been idly twiddling his thumbs as highsec is turned into a pvp free zone(it already is to all intents and purposes) yet trots out the old "get back to wow""cold hard universe" utter drivel. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:20:00 - [16] Originally by: Mika Meroko hmmm, salvaging and stealing all their cans might just bait ppl XD see, highsec is still fun XD Again - the mission runner, if he choses not to engage in consensual pvp (ie shoot at you) is unable to be killed. Can baiting and flipping is just a bizarre and farcical PVP FLAG, which serves only to con noobs - and make CCP look stupid. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:36:00 - [17] Originally by: 5pinDizzy As people have said, if we're going to have a highsec safezone, I'd like just to have it now, rather then several groans of further patch notes later down the line please. Indeed it will Stop the divisive and ugly Bear/PVP division Bring relations with CCP (who quite frankly are detested by a large percentage of their own player base)back to a decent level. Stop EVE looking like a exploit ridden total freak show to ouside viewers Put the bleeding screaming duck out of its misery. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:38:00 - [18] Originally by: Wendat Huron Like I said, all I see still are some PvP hacks whining that their easy thrills just got a little harder. Nope - quite the opposite. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:44:00 - [19] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 01:44:09 Originally by: Xtreem Originally by: Jones Bones I always love seeing the words "suicide ganking" metioned with "pvp". Call it want you want; easy money, "mining" haulers, etc. But to call it pvp is laughable. pvp - player vs player pve - player vs enviroment if its a player ganking a player hauler it IS pvp it being a valid tactic is debatable but it is PVP that CCP have forced into PVE player attacks player hauler - pvp, ccp add concord pwn = pve ass ouch for the ganker = no high sec pvp other than can flipping and war decs, and we all know the war decs will leave soon at least in the way they are now. And anyone in their right mind will denounce can flipping as perhaps the more farcical way to get a fight in this game. Its a total nonsense akin to me walking up to you in the street and putting my finger in your bagel with a big grin on my face and waiting for you to hit me before running back home, getting a slegehammer, and running back hoping I can **** you before an arbitrary police time limit runs out. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 09:36:00 - [20] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 09:38:48 Originally by: Squably Originally by: 5pinDizzy DAMN BIG WALL OF TEXT Does this not make sense? No it doesnt, go play WOW Why would this have anything to do with WOW. The argument is 1) High sec ALREADY IS nearly a PVP flag zone. War decs are avoidable. Suicide ganking is nerfed in a few hours, and the removal of insurance (in an upcoming patch) will pretty much kill it off. War decs have been described by ccp as "pay to grief" and are "high priority" for a FIX. PVP in highsec is already a farce. Its Paper shuffling wardec dodgees, dudes dropping cans saying "free loot" outside stations, 50 mill skill point - three year old guys skulking in untouchable npc 'noob' corps, and dudes in destroyers trying to annoy their way into a fight by nicking peeps loot in mission. 2) Therefore, why dont CCP stop *****ing about, and instead of this drip drip nerfing, which serves simply to infuriate the players who used to pvp in high sec. Why dont they go the whole hog and : ban PVP in high sec lower the rewards you get for being in high sec. (many suggestions have been mooted for this) spend some resources on low sec and 0.0 Basicaly - cut the crap CCP - and start thinking outside the box. In regards to WOW - no nobody wants respawing, no death penalty etc. Life in lowsec and 0.0 will be improved or remain the same, SKUNK

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:45:00 - [21] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 11:44:57 Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo I see the usual 'weekend warriors' with the poorest PvP stats are worried about Eve again. Tip: Spend more time pressing F1-F8 instead of F5. Wow your a rhetard SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:05:00 - [22] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 14:05:33 Originally by: van Uber [, but that is not an excuse to take things out of context. I agree that "Pay to greif" was a bad choice of words, especially since a lot of people seem to miss what followed after that, the will to change and add depth to the current **poor war mechanics. Why is it taken out of context? The full quote you mention is actualy WORSE then the selective one. It continues Quote: "Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. Matt (CCP) stated that wardecs are necessary so corporations can attack each otherÆs logistic chains in Empire, but that there are often wars started without reason, simply to get random victims to gank and grief**. The system should be balanced so that the first aspect is not hindered while the second aspect is deterred. " Thats TWO developers using the term grief in conjunction with wardecs. This is/was supposed to be a pvp sandbox game. The DEVs clearly show that they consider being forced to fight when you dont want to be akin to "griefing". They are desperate to bring in some form of "victory conditions " which will NEVER work. If I wardec a corp because I suspect it is harboring the main of an alt who loot thiefed a wreck of a ship I killed 6 months ago... how are you going to quantify that? Its impossible. The wardec systyem is absurd, but its saving grace was that its a lot of fun. Attempts to link it with griefing by CCP devs, upcoming and past nerfs, and utter apathy when it comes war avoiders making CCP look like clowns (corp hopping, alt wardeccing main corps etc), CLEARLY INDICATE (despite the lip service paid to cold hard universe) what the devs think of decs. SKUNK SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:47:00 - [23] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 17:49:52 Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 17:48:38 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed, it's a definitive example - and I don't see how it has any place in this game. And no, the phrase "cold uncaring universe" is not shorthand for "griefer's paradise", as the latter would contain far too many elements of pure farce to qualify as the kind of serious setting that I believe was the original intent behind the phrase. Well firstly may I offer severe kudos for coming out from behind the CCP wall of silence and actually confirming what had been obvious to those who have been watching, and indeed lobbying against, in regards to the pacification of high sec. Your comments on wardecs are...... shockingly brutal in their honesty. And I see them as a beacon for people to refer to in any future discussion about high sec security. It appears Might is not Right in present day EVE. Combat hardened veterans should be unable to exercise their training, their skills, their ships - in case they are deemed naughty bullies. "Pick on someone your own size" is the cry... but what is our own size? How can you compare two corps with different people, different sp, different numbers, different ISK in the wallent, different industrial base. How can CCP decide what is a "fair fight"? THEY CANT And if they cant - how can they use "its not fair" as a justification for letting "corp hopping" and other war bodges go on. If BOB wardec any corp in high sec. They have far more resources, far more "combat hardened veterans" far more isk. How can a corp fight that??? So according to your "grief" scenario - it shouldnt be allowed? Then whats the point in strining to be powerful? If DEVS swoop in to level the playingfield. Just stop the wars fullstop. End the farce. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:10:00 - [24] Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu Edited by: Tatsujin Koufu on 02/09/2008 18:06:46 All greyscale has said is that their should be some element of motivation for a wardec, that is all. Without knowing the specifics I would suggest one of these might be 1) Corp A declares war on corp B, corp A wants corp B to butt out of their market in sheep in a particular system 2) Corp B decides that on balance, the risk of losing ships in large market is worth it 3) Sometime later, one of them wins 4) The game engine enforces a penalty of some description that must be adhered to, failure to do so will result in instant warfare again. Thats just an example, im sure you can come up with many scenarios to suit your bidding. Assuming its going to be a failure, while knowing nothing about it implies a closed mind, and that is bad for gaming for a whole bundle of reasons. Make some suggestions, argue your points with clarity when you have all the facts, rather than clutching at dreamt up ideas about how terrible its going to be. Yes, its going to be terrible if all you like doing is picking on weak people for no other reason than the fact you can, that much is clear. How about you find something more challenging to do huh? or do you like playing all games on easymode? 3) sometimes later one of them "wins" Wins what? Whos decides who wins? The marquess of queensbury? SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:41:00 - [25] Originally by: Kwedaras Originally by: CCP Greyscale Allowing a player corp full of hardened combat veterans to pay a relatively small amount of money and be able to freely and without penalty attack a small group of players with whom they have absolutely no past relationship and who represent neither any kind of threat nor any kind of challenge and whose death will generate no rewards is absolutely a pay-to-grief system - indeed. Oh, i see that with wardec rebalancing we will say another goodbye to another great profession : mercenaries. What you have described is technically what mercs do. Yup. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:47:00 - [26] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 19:48:39 Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Roy Batty68 Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay But you agree with the part where he said your kind lacks skill correct? No, but I would agree that the game that CCP are turning this into requires no skill. what part of shooting an unarmed hauler that is afk requires skill exactly? What part of actually flying that hauler that is so hard that it requires game changes to rectify it? AFK or not, it can still be destroyed easily once it jumps a gate. In practice, properly fit, piloted haulers are only ever killed outside stations. Properly fit transports, are un killable whilst traveling in high sec baring someones dog jumping on their keyboard. So yes you just have to stay at your keyboard and click buttons and you dont get ganked. Its not really rocket science and it always amazed me why people didn't do it. Freighters are a different matter - the only way they can be protected is to take multiple trips. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:51:00 - [27] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay AFK or not, it can still be destroyed easily once it jumps a gate. Spoken as someone who has no frigging idea what she's talking about. Tell me: have you ever tried to suicide gank anyone at all? No but I do know that you can easily catch someone on the other side of a gate. {especially something as slow and aligns like a hauler} and destroy it easily. This can happen whether the hauler pilot is afk or not. Which part of this am I wrong about? Use a transport ship... you know.. the ones designed to TRANSPORT high value goods. You cant be killed. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:00:00 - [28] Originally by: Kelli Flay Edited by: Kelli Flay on 02/09/2008 19:56:32 Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay AFK or not, it can still be destroyed easily once it jumps a gate. Spoken as someone who has no frigging idea what she's talking about. Tell me: have you ever tried to suicide gank anyone at all? No but I do know that you can easily catch someone on the other side of a gate. {especially something as slow and aligns like a hauler} and destroy it easily. This can happen whether the hauler pilot is afk or not. Which part of this am I wrong about? Use a transport ship... you know.. the ones designed to TRANSPORT high value goods. You cant be killed. SKUNK So in order to haul anything in high sec, noobs are expected to drop what they are training to train up Transports? {which are like a 2 month train} edit: i meant high sec, not low....corrected. Well if your asking me do i think should there be some benefit to training skill points to make your chose profession easier... THATS ONE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE GAME You train skills, you become better, you get access to better equipment, you become more efficent. PVPm, mining, trading, mission running, and indeed hauling all follow this model. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:02:00 - [29] Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay So in order to haul anything in high sec, noobs are expected to drop what they are training to train up Transports? {which are like a 2 month train} edit: i meant high sec, not low....corrected. Who on earth wants to suicide gank a noob? Indeed though there is an outside possibility he would have lucked out on something worthwhile. Basicaly fit a tank, fit agility mods and stabs, fit a cloak but most importantly DONT AUTOPILOT TAKE MULTIPLE TRIPS FOR LARGE HAULS And don't dawdle - straight to the gate, spam jump. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:04:00 - [30] Edited by: Le Skunk on 02/09/2008 20:05:49 Originally by: Lucyfear Edited by: Lucyfear on 02/09/2008 20:01:57 Don't mind getting killed if I do something but I am not sure that minning should be such a crime against the game. Ever noticed that the only way to mine these days is with a Badger because so many people re-can your can to try and gank you. As a starter it forces you to go somewhere you can use a lockable can, all great. Are the gankers running out of us newbies to gank/rob and so the few joining are feeling hard done by and quiting?# Making this game like WOW would be a mistake but keeping it so hard on new player will cause economic issues for all? Yes - and its a damming indictment of CCP that PVP in high sec now consists of "FREE LOOT""CHRIBBAS LOVE CAN" -And other such can baits outside stations. Dudes nicking handfulls of ore from miners cans Dudes invading missions and trying to annoy a mark into shooting them. Wardecs with multiple get out clauses, all endorsed by ccp This is why there is a call to kill off the last pathetic above vestiges of the old eve, and move forward. ITs what this thread is about. Cold hard universe.........? SKUNK

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:09:00 - [31] Originally by: c4 t wow after reading what grey said about war deccing being pay to greif and then reading somebody say that what he described was exactly what mercs do i was deeply saddened. **** i hope they dont ruin this game. Well people are waking up, thats for sure Its been staring many of us in the face, as pvp in high sec its been drip dripp diluted. I give a lot of credit to greyscale for actualy coming out with it - even though what he typed was utterly dismaying. Its why after a full 16 months of trying to lobby against it - Im calling for the full pacification of high sec, and the balancing of resources. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:11:00 - [32] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay So in order to haul anything in high sec, noobs are expected to drop what they are training to train up Transports? {which are like a 2 month train} edit: i meant high sec, not low....corrected. Who on earth wants to suicide gank a noob? " "noob" was wording it badly. Another way to put it is in order to move things around in high sec, everyone should have Transports trained? I don't think that was the dev's intentions. Small items can be moved totally safely in frigates. Larger items can be hauled safely taking multiple trips. Fit correctly, choose the right ship, dont go afk.... all the things you would expect to be common sense to a pilot. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:12:00 - [33] Originally by: Kelli Flay BTW: You guys sound just like the nano whiners. It is funny how you are so willing to give "easy," "common sense" solutions to the problem after you are in danger of being nerfed. In this case, the nerf is a done deal...but still funny. The way to safely transport good has been discussed only around 200 times in multiple threads. Every suicide gank thread has detailed it. Your jaw dropping ignorance shows you lacked the intelligence to read any of them. In your case.. the prior assessment of your as a noob was accurate. In fact "stinking nubbit" would be more accurate. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 00:56:00 - [34] Originally by: Setarcos Nous Originally by: Cpt Branko You're joking, right? A freighter would have to be carrying at least 3 billion to get to the break-even point with the new Concord response times (which will mean you'll need 15 close to max skilled torp ravens to pull off a gank in 0.5) and insurance removal and if you want to make a, say, 100M profit per pilot, you're looking at targets carrying upwards of 6 billion ISK. If 3B is the break even point, then hmm, lemme see, 6B would be 3B above that, divide by 15, that looks like a 200M profit/pilot to me. As someone with less that a 100M total, I can't say that sounds too horrible to me. The Maths as worked out earlier in regards to why freihgters will not be ganked post proposed changes Assuming no insurance payout for concorded ships. It took around 15 torp ravens to pop a freighter in a 0.5 (obelisk highest hit points, slave set, in gang, 5% hull mod, assuming 3 volleys of torps get off). That most pilots wernt flying around in slave sets was offset by the fact that not all ravens managed to get off a third volley. Lag, slow warp ins, slow pilots etc offset this. Now concord have been buffed so your looking at (depending on the sec status of the system) anywhere between 25 and 45 torp ravens. (working on the principle you are gogin to get max 2 and possibly only 1 volley off) So the cost (at 120million per raven (t2 bcus, arbelest sieges, t1 midslots) leaves costs for ganking a freighter at somewhere between 3 - 5 billion isk. Ok, now from experience, you are looking at perhaps 35% of the loot surviving. So to cover the costs, a hit would have to be carrying maybe 13 billion isk of cargo. Thats to break even Trust me - its incredibly rare to see that amount of isk in a freighter. From experience you would be scanning for... maybe 30 hours to see one. Rather then risk hauling that much, most pilots with a brain would purchase a 2nd or 3rd freighter pilot (you can get in a freighter very quickly) and AFK three accounts on autopilot. So thats 25+ guys hanging around for 30 hours. A good 750 man hours. To break even. Small corps dont have a chance to organise that amount of people, and risk that amount of isk. So CCPs mythical "logistic terrorism" belongs (like more and more of this game) simply to the big alliances. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 16:27:00 - [35] Edited by: Le Skunk on 04/09/2008 16:28:56 Originally by: JamnOne But now you are talking about using actual strategy to weaking a corp or an alliance. Earlier in this post CCP Greyscale actually mentioned that was ok. It was when it turned into Suicide Gank just to do it that the problem came about. Who is going to be able to judge which is which. And how can a small corp run a strategy to defeat a bigger corp, say if a small corp started suiciding bob freighters in high sec.. if the cost to the suiciders is so immense, they bankrupt themselves. CCPS planned removal of insurance puts more power into the hands of the big alliances, who drop their alliance tickers and run in NPC corps (who CCP make undeccable)a trend which has been going on for some time. Greyscales "logistical terrorism war decs" ideal is utterly hollow - as by removing a way to force a small corp to fight, and endorsing bureaucratic bodgexploits to escape a war dec - it is also impossible to bring the Massice alliances to task as well. SKUNK SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:24:00 - [36] Originally by: Malcanis The freighter pilot weighs the risks of not using scouts, webbers, etc vs the rewards of being able to do something else while his freighter AFKs and not having to share his profits. Freighter pilot safety was all tied into taking multiple trips. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 00:15:00 - [37] Originally by: Matthew It isn't about making isk, it's about denying it to your opposition. After all, isn't the fundamental point of shooting something to try and prevent the other person from having it anymore? Providing that you destroy more value than you lose, the gank will be a strategically sound action in the context of a wider conflict. A logistical campaign following the figures you suggest would be akin to trying to ruin your enemys place of business by smashing your head through each of his plate glass windows. Sure it would mess his shop up - but your head would be a bloody pulp long before he had to call the glazier out. Its a well written post, but it ignores in its figures 2 vital factors. Man hours and sec drops. * SEC DROPS - With the introduction of treble sec drops (or more) , for each freighter ganked - you have 25 pilots who take a large sec drop. After several ganks, they are unable to operate effectively in high sec as freighter gankers. So, yes you might be able to cause equal isk loss to the enemy as you lose from your own wallet - but you put 25 pilots out of operation until they have undergone lengthy ratting periods in 0.0. The enemy takes no sec drop, and can continue operating straight away. * MAN HOURS: The ganking of an enemy freighter takes 25 guys 10 hours of preparation each. Thats 250 man hours used up to add to the equation. This can be looked at in two ways: 1) They will need a fair isk/hour rate factored into your break even figures. or if we wish to stick to the "damage your enemy more then you are damaged" 2) During this time, the enemy has 24 pilots engaged in profit making pursuits. Working on a the mythical 40/million isk per hour (lv4 missioning 0.0 mining) they have churned out 10 billion isk - in the time your 25 pilots have completed one gank. Which is why I say ccps 'logistical terrorism' is hollow, and nobody in their right mind will engage in it. Even if you work on an "not for profit" basis, in the time it takes you to set up and achieve the gank, your enemy has utilized the same amount of pilots and flooded his coffers by 10 billion The attacker has to organize 25 pilots, 25 ships, 25 sets of fittings, and (more importantly) 25 treble strength sec drops with the associated ratting grind in 0.0 (assuming you have access to the space) SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 00:31:00 - [38] Edited by: Le Skunk on 05/09/2008 00:36:34 Edited by: Le Skunk on 05/09/2008 00:35:07 Originally by: Matthew Incidentally, does anyone have a costing on ganking other potential logistical targets - transport ships, industrials, barges etc? Would be interesting to see how those costings work out in terms of strategic asset denial. The problem with this question is that it shows an ignorance of the fact that an active piloted, properly fit blockade runner is un killable outside of 0.0. "Strategic asset denial" is therefore impossible to achieve in high sec - baring the killing of freighters (who cannot escape if targeted) which ,as discussed above, it is evident that the destruction of all but the most insanely laden freighters, is not cost effective both in terms of isk, and man hours. However - in answer to the question :Other industrial targets are difficult to gank assuming the pilot is active and knows how to fly his ship. And so are generally not targets (unless your carrying insane amounts of loot and are up against a pro squad). They are killable outside stations as they align to warp - something I felt was pretty ropey and CCP should have had a look at. Of course (as always) the pilot could spend a fe mins and protect himself by making an undock insta warp - and perhaps taking a couple of trips to a station that wasnt camped. (ofc the bear dosent want to do this, instead he like to whine on forums) Assuming the pilot is AFK, then you need 1 or 2 siege ravens to guarantee the kill on most haulers. I have seen uber tanked transports surviving 3 ravens before but these are rare. So 120 - 240 million isk cost (plus man hours and sec drops as discussed above)for afk targets. Barges I had no interest in as the were not profitable. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:07:00 - [39] Edited by: Le Skunk on 05/09/2008 13:09:15 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Malcanis High sec piracy for profit (which is what the suicide ganking you are talking about really is) was never supposed to be a profession in the first place. Really? Says who? Have you read this? That KB article says that it is possible for it to happen, which is still the case. It does not say that you are supposed to be able to make a viable or competitive profession out of doing it. It says that it is, and I quote: *"The biggest threat to the average player in Empire space is the risk of ôkamikazeö attacks when carrying a cargo of noteworthy value."* Sounds to me like CCP (once upon a time) intended that suicide ganking be both fairly frequent and profitable. Also interesting in that article is that a) It describes pretty much everything you need to do to not get ganked b) It descibes the value of loot needed to make you a target as "noteworthy". Not "insanely high" or "carrying your alliances entire warchest".. just noteworthy. IE the suggestion is it was intended (before the new breed of carebear devs flew to Iceland on a giant helium balloon pulled by cardigan clad puffins) that medium sized cargo's were intended to be worth ganking by the kamakazi profession In lowsec, a kill that drops 50 mill or more could be classed as noteworthy. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Karii Ildarian In order for a mission runner to maximize his earning potential, the mission runner must do what? Interesting question. Well its either a)Hit his scan button occasionally and actually watch his screen while running missions : and so not get ganked mid mission? OR b) Whine on the forums and get the kamakizi profession nerfed. SKUNK

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.06 18:38:00 - [41] Edited by: Le Skunk on 06/09/2008 18:40:47 Originally by: Roshan longshot PvE market is huge compared to PvP. CCP wants more of that action...if you dont like it...click on 'my account' and leave CCP's game. Unfortunatly, unlike the fickle PVE crowd currenlty catered for under CCPs masterplan, some people have a strange feeling of loyalty to the game. These people are playing the game DESPITE it filling ccps wallets. Not because of it. The comparison I like to draw, is that we are hard put upon football fans, who despise the chairman and his board. Are constantly let down and amased by the crappy player purchases, the shitty state of the football ground,the money men, the price hikes and the corruption Yet we still turn up every saturday, and spend our hard earned money, due to a sense of loyalty and love of the game, And probably out of habit, and enjoying a chat with the others who also turn up glum faced every sat. SKUNK EDIT: That said, I do have a great deal of respect for those quitting the game with the reasoning they do not want to fund CCP any further. These people should be praised for leaving for a reason, not because they want to go play AOC or whater crappy game is out next.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.07 13:46:00 - [42] Edited by: Le Skunk on 07/09/2008 13:49:46 Originally by: DiamondEdges but war decs are there for a good reason. high sec should NOT stop people from going after their war targets, if it did, it would effect every major 0.0 war in eve, and not in a good way. bad idea. If war decs are there for a good reason, why do ccp allow * MULTI ALT WARDECCING ON YOUR OWN CORP - to push the price to unafordable levels for alliance decs * NPC CORP INVULNERABLILTY - As soon as an alliance is wardecced logistic corps drop out of of the alliance, and if the corp is subsequently wardecced they drop into untouchable npc corps. * RING ALT CORP AVOIDAL - Wherby you simply set up 5 or 6 corps with an alt ceo. As soon as you are wardeced, your membership jumps into the next corp in the ring - escaping the wardec. The simple face is nobody in high sec has to be at war if they dont want to. And this is endorsed by CCP. The question is then, what is the point of the wardec. Seen them three year old freighters flying round in npc corps? They are not still in the NPC corp because they like the corp chat. They are there to haul corp and 0.0 alliance logistics around empire without fear of a wardec. I should like to see an answer from CCP over how the above underlined situation is acceptable given their stated aim of wardecs as being possible to disrupt logistics of the 0.0 alliance in highsec? Anyone? Their only concern is a suicide gank - which is very easy to avoid for the non lazy pilot. CCP have recently made suicide ganking harder and will soon make practicaly impossible with the insurance nerf. TLDR: Nobody in eve who is at war needs to be. There is no reason for wardecs in empire. OP is asking for CCP to stop with the pretense in high sec "oh noes this game is so dangerous" and simply formalise what the situation is now. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.07 16:36:00 - [43] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker i knew i had the term wrong. =( compare EVE to the big city, High sec is Midtown Manhattan its safe but you can still get mugged. See in a real world analogy Malcanis and Le Skunk are upset because they can't drive through Midtown, pull up to a delivery van, empty their shotguns into it. Then the cops show up and carefully blow up their 78 dodge K car without touching them, plus tell Allstate to make sure they get 100% of the insurance on it while ignoring thier buddy walking up and checking the back to see if anything is there. Note that they didn't even check to see if the delivery driver was returning to shop or not, and they shot it up right as it was sitting trying to get into traffic; it didn't even have its cruise control set. And that is how the game worked until CCP determined something was wrong. Ignore their whining. Dont make me link the other post you did today where you complain about people making real world comparisions. And oh yeah, in a real world the corps wouldnt turn up after 10 seconds, the cops dont have a 100% detection rate, you would be able to evade the corps etcetcetc so lets ignore your crap comparisons SKUNK

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.

The comparison I like to draw, is that we are hard put upon football fans, who despise the chairman and his board. Are constantly let down and amased by the crappy player purchases, the shitty state of the football ground,the money men, the price hikes and the corruption