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)
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:33:00 - [1] Originally by: wah bok let me get this clear. CCP make it so suicide ganking has actual consequences and therefore they kill pvp ? What a F... up way at looking at things Second. they say the want to change the wardecking system so there will be some goals to it instead of it being just a way so it can be used to grief other players. wow how dare they. This... It's amusing to see how some individuals criticize the Wardec system and at the same time manage to cringe at any change that CCP mentions. I guess that is what happens when someone draws a conclusion from the first meaning in an entire paragraph. If one bothers to read further they state: Quote: ...and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars. Depth and goals... How dare they?!
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:51:00 - [2] Originally by: Malcanis maybe it's beause we've lost hope that they will actually improve the wardec system rather than just make it even more meaningless. "Pay to grief" - Sorry but the only way to interpret that is that they're going to make it harder to shoot people. I'm sorry for your lost hope, 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. Now I don't see the obvious connection between depth + goals and an increased difficulty to shoot people, so what did I miss?
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:24:00 - [3] Originally by: Malcanis Well I'm interested to hear your theories. What changes do you think they will make? I reserve my judgment until I read a detailed dev blog on the issue. In the meantime I will point fingers at those who claim the sky is falling based on out of context quotes.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:38:00 - [4] Originally by: Le Skunk Why is it taken out of context? The full quote you mention is actualy WORSE then the selective one. It continues You think it's bad. I say victory conditions is good. To have a clear end goal with a conflict with a winner and a loser is not bad. To have objectives that has to be met in order to achieve victory is even better. I might disagree with the implementation, but we don't have one yet. So yes, the current thoughts about how wardecs would/could change has my support. Quote: 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? What, you tried to implement it and failed? Who cares about the true meaning behind a wardec. If the above reason is your main motive behind a wardec, then go for it. The victory conditions would not have to have anything to do with real reasons. If, for instance one possible victory condition is to inflict x% net value dmg to the other corp, then ulterior motives would not affect wars in empire. Quote: Its impossible. The wardec system is absurd, but its saving grace was that its a lot of fun. Well, I disagree. I think wars in empire is boring and dull, mostly because of the current mechanics. If wars could not be avoided like they are today and if there are clear cut conditions to every war, it would be a lot more fun. Will that be the case? I don't know, but I welcome any change from the current state.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:48:00 - [5] Originally by: Malcanis I'm sorry, but when 2 devs call war-decs "griefing", it's hardly "out of context" for me to infer that they intend to make it harder to apply them. You can't get away from that no matter how hard you try. Actually they didn't. So that is once again out of context. One states that the the current system amounts to a "Pay to grief" and the other states that some wars lack reason and they in turn aim to "gank and grief". To me this is not equal to call war-decs "griefing". This, to me, means that war-decs do not work as CCP has intended and that they want to change the mechanics. This also means they DO want wars in empire to stay. Quote: Can you think of 1 single change in favour of hi-sec PvP in the last 18 months? I can point to many changes against it. That is the context. This would be an issue when you no longer can declare war or suicide gank anyone in Empire, at all. And then I would agree with you. CCP is in the middle of fiddling with the mechanics and they have yet to come to the war-decs. Again, when they have released details of this I might be with you.. or not.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:09:00 - [6] Originally by: Aodha Khan url to any CCP employee stating this? There isn't one, if you mean Le Skunks statement about PVP being removed from high sec. However, if you want to deliberately misinterpret a text that is a summary (and not a quote), this is probably what is being reffered to: 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." This has been further explained by devs in this thread. So no, PvP is not leaving high sec, it will just go through changes.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 - [7] Originally by: Shadowsword CCP buff concord and sec penalties. So? Does any of you even know how much of a buff it is? What if Concord is only 10% faster? IIRC the aim was to make the ships from Concord tougher but they will also arrive in lesser force than before (fewer ships). I was under the impression that this was in order to reduce the strain on the nodes Concord potentially creates and that the responses in themselves would be basically the same net strength as before. Convenient to leave that second part out if someone want to whine.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.03 07:23:00 - [8] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 03/09/2008 00:33:40 You know, I just can't believe the length and depth of these whines about suicide ganking. It used to be very uncommon. Very. I guess most of you don't remember, but freighters didn't used to drop anything when you killed them. Up until a couple of years ago, it made no sense to gank a freighter in high-sec at all, except as revenge. We used to talk about how all hell would break loose if they ever fixed freighters so that they dropped loot. Well, guess what? They did, and it did. Suicide ganking became the FOTM, largely because of the Goons getting bored after failing to kill off BoB. It got too common, and a LOT more common than it used to be, so it got whacked. That happens, and has always happened in this game, since day one. The FOTM usually gets whacked. Get over it. This isn't the game getting more carebearish. At all. Those who think so either have a bad memory, or haven't been playing that long. This seems to sum up a lot in this thread. Suicide ganking is being brought back in line to how it was in the "good old days". Same thing with the current war-dec mechanichs, they're broken. Not only will the inexperienced players be forced to log or dock, the experienced players can avoid wars in silly ways. That need to change. I'm all for a total revamp of the current war-dec system. But to be fair, the NPC-corps need to be included in that revamp.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:40:00 - [9] Edited by: van Uber on 03/09/2008 16:42:08 Originally by: Xeronn you don`t get it do you? EvE is (was?) about players seting there own goals and finding ways to achieve them and NOT about NPC-directed goals, quests, whatever . Why a mechanic forcing "goals" on wardecs? A war ends when one side is dead or the Aggressor stops the Aggression. No way around it . Who ever said that goals in a future war declaring mechanic had to be static? You know, it could be stated/created/chosen by the aggressor. But that is speculation of something that is not even on the horizon yet (as in details of a future war-dec mechanic). Are you seriously telling me that every single war ever fought has ended with total annihilation? Not really, since you mention an alternative, the aggression stops. Now, I'm curious, why would the Aggressor stop the Aggression? Could it be that he has fulfilled all his objectives?

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.