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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:16:00 - [1] Barring wardecs I mean, make it so you can't even target someone elses ship or activate a smartbomb unless in a wardec with them. I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine, but doesn't it make sense? Let's see: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. 5. Don't frustrate wannabe suicide gankers with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the older PVP crowd with and old and long undermined ideal of making eve cold and harsh where nowhere is safe. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in lowsec or nullsec. 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. Does this not make sense?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:18:00 - [2] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine Good call.
Fados Radically Awesome People Eaters	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:19:00 - [3] you actually might be on to something there...
Letias Caldari Poofdinkles	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:21:00 - [4] No, cause like you said then you have to make it idiot proof which this game should never be, if you miss click you pay, ask any long time trader.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:22:00 - [5] Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:24:00 - [6] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Barring wardecs I mean, make it so you can't even target someone elses ship or activate a smartbomb unless in a wardec with them. I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine, but doesn't it make sense? Let's see: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. 5. Don't frustrate wannabe suicide gankers with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the older PVP crowd with and old and long undermined ideal of making eve cold and harsh where nowhere is safe. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in lowsec or nullsec. 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. Does this not make sense? Your suggestion has if nothing else the merit of honesty. It's where things are going anyway, so why not cut to the chase and stop pretending? Of course if this does come to pass, then I will start seriously pushing for the "promised lands" idea mooted in my other thread.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:25:00 - [7] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:26:00 - [8] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 01/09/2008 23:27:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it. Let's at least wait until the suicide gank change takes place in Tranq before we judge. And then after that let's wait to see what they do with Empire war decs.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:27:00 - [9] 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
Brother Nightfall Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:28:00 - [10] I'm fine with banning shooting in high-sec, just as long as they don't ban looting. YOINK!

Armoured C Gallente The Aztecs Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:43:00 - [11] banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire IS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually have to use brains
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:45:00 - [12] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 01/09/2008 23:27:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it. Let's at least wait until the suicide gank change takes place in Tranq before we judge. And then after that let's wait to see what they do with Empire war decs. Yes, let's see how they fix the "pay to grief" system, shall we?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:45:00 - [13] Originally by: Armoured C banning shooting in high sec is stupid empire WAS SAFER NOT SAFE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this game you actually HAD to use brains Corrected your grammar.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:46:00 - [14] 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
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Le Skunk 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. Except poor Zulupark. I guess he doesn't get to log on much. or maybe he doesn't think wardecs are "real" PvP...
Armoured C Gallente The Aztecs Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:48:00 - [16] yes =''''( havent been on since i stopped factional warfare reports ( i was working at my new 0.0 space =) )
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:53:00 - [17] 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.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:54:00 - [18] 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.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:57:00 - [19] 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
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.09.01 23:59:00 - [20] I gonna be a Minmatar night elf mage!

Clinically Gallente ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:00:00 - [21] Still voting for the remove high-sec all together and make it just low-sec and 0.0 option.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:01:00 - [22] 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
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:04:00 - [23] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:04:54 Originally by: Le Skunk 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. But is this REALLY what CCP is doing? Yes they are making High Sec safer by making suicide ganking less profitable and changing the mechanics of war decs. But that's a lot different from turning High Sec into a PvP-free area. I think it's the wrong approach to operate under the assumption that it's CCP's intent to actually remove PvP from those areas, and asking them to just go ahead and do it is shooting our collective selves in the foot (or at least those of us who don't want High Sec PvP removed.)
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:14:00 - [24] Edited by: Malcanis on 02/09/2008 00:17:01 Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:05:55 Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 02/09/2008 00:04:54 Originally by: Le Skunk 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. But is this REALLY what CCP is doing? Yes they are making High Sec safer by making suicide ganking less profitable and changing the mechanics of war decs. But that's a lot different from turning High Sec into a PvP-free area. I think it's the wrong approach to operate under the assumption that it's CCP's intent to actually remove PvP from those areas, and asking them to just go ahead and do it is shooting our collective selves in the foot (or at least those of us who don't want High Sec PvP removed, even if we do want some changes made.) What options exactly do you think will remain for PvP in hisec once the "high priority" changes to war decs have been made given that it's already officially an exploit to change corps to enforce a wardec, but perfectly legitimate to cycle corps to evade one? I'll tell you: Wardecs will essentially become a limited consensual PvP flag. And that will be it as far as hi-sec goes. Yes, it's a terrible shame that corps like yours will basically lose their professions. But bear in mind that the OP isn't arguing that these changes should take place. He's just asking CCP to admit that they have decided that they will take place and to just get it over with and implement them.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:16:00 - [25] 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? On the one hand, what CCP say On the other hand, what they're doing. See any contrast?
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:17:00 - [26] Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. This is where I stopped. Another noob who doesn't know what griefing is. When I suicide pod some noob thirty times straight in 1.0 space every time he undocks, that's griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's hauler full of dysprosium and T2 salvage, that's not griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's Hulk with the 30M mining upgrades and deadspace shield booster fitted, that's not griefing. If I wardec your corp to get a shot at your CNRs (unless you pay me to drop the wardec), that's not griefing. Griefing? This... is... EVE
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:17:00 - [27] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. This is where I stopped. Another noob who doesn't know what griefing is. When I suicide pod some noob thirty times straight in 1.0 space every time he undocks, that's griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's hauler full of dysprosium and T2 salvage, that's not griefing. If I suicide gank somebody's Hulk with the 30M mining upgrades and deadspace shield booster fitted, that's not griefing. If I wardec your corp to get a shot at your CNRs (unless you pay me to drop the wardec), that's not griefing. Griefing? This... is... EVE The noob in question is a CCP dev.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:20:00 - [28] 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
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:21:00 - [29] Edited by: Valan on 02/09/2008 00:23:25 Originally by: Malcanis 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? On the one hand, what CCP say On the other hand, what they're doing. See any contrast? There was an epidemic of high sec ganking hence the need for a balance, to be honest rightly so it was far too easy. However, people need to take note. After the patch you can STILL GANK it'll take more effort and the target will have to be more profitable. It's been balanced not irradicated if you wander out in a T1 hauler with billions after the patch thinking you're safe you're not. Granted it looks like a tone down but this is a less severe patch than the one to counteract the zombie incident YEARS ago and the high sec gank is still here. EDIT: It had to be balanced because the nature of the game has changed the player base is a lot dumber than before.
Glengrant TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:21:00 - [30] No to arbitrary limitations like that. And no - I'm not a pirate and I'm more likely to be a victim in high sec than an attacker. But the small (tiny actually) risk of something bad happening keeps things interesting. Re suicide ganks: My fav solution is to not pay insurance to the aggressor in high sec (unless war dec). Works and even makes sense. It's stupid that the insurance company pays after a ship has been destroyed by CONCORD for an illegal act.

Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:22:00 - [31] Originally by: Malcanis The noob in question is a CCP dev. Wait, what?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:24:00 - [32] 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.]
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:26:00 - [33] Originally by: Le Skunk WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE THE OP IS ABOUT SUICIDE GANKING, NOT WARDECS (caps = cruise control, amirite?)
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:26:00 - [34] 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.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: Le Skunk WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE THE OP IS ABOUT SUICIDE GANKING, NOT WARDECS (caps = cruise control, amirite?) yes we know. Skunk and I are merely pointing out that wardecs are next in the firing line. And of course, behind them, all those "underused" lo-sec systems full of "griefers"....
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:30:00 - [36] 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. You know. I know it. So what? The battle is lost.
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:30:00 - [37] Originally by: Malcanis yes we know. Skunk and I are merely pointing out that wardecs are next in the firing line. And of course, behind them, all those "underused" lo-sec systems full of "griefers".... Ah, I see. My bad, Skunk. tbh, I've been wondering this last week, what if 'the other side' whined as long and as hard as the carebears do... what would happen then?
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:32:00 - [38] 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! /sarcasm - not directed to your post, but the whole underlying idea
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:33:00 - [39] Edited by: Vikarion on 02/09/2008 00:33:55 Originally by: Havohej tbh, I've been wondering this last week, what if 'the other side' whined as long and as hard as the carebears do... what would happen then? CCP would tell us to go screw ourselves. They have before when we've whined. Trying to get them to address "our" concerns is like pulling rebar out of concrete with your fingernails.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: Malcanis yes we know. Skunk and I are merely pointing out that wardecs are next in the firing line. And of course, behind them, all those "underused" lo-sec systems full of "griefers".... Ah, I see. My bad, Skunk. tbh, I've been wondering this last week, what if 'the other side' whined as long and as hard as the carebears do... what would happen then? Tried it. Got dev response form Zulupark flatly denying that hi-sec PvP had been nerfed in any way. Since they're willing to blatantly deny the obvious reality that it has - ask Skunk about alliance P - I'm no longer bothering to waste my time on salvaging hi-sec. It's a write-off as far as actually playing EvE is concerned. That's why I made the suggestion of a lot of new 0.0 space a huge distance from empire in the first place.

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:38:00 - [41] Originally by: Vikarion Edited by: Vikarion on 02/09/2008 00:33:55 Originally by: Havohej tbh, I've been wondering this last week, what if 'the other side' whined as long and as hard as the carebears do... what would happen then? CCP would tell us to go screw ourselves. They have before when we've whined. Trying to get them to address "our" concerns is like pulling rebar out of concrete with your fingernails. Carebears subs are worth more than PvPer subs. End of story.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:38:00 - [42] 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 - [43] 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
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:40:00 - [44] Could I interest you in some camembert?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:41:00 - [45] Originally by: Wendat Huron Could I interest you in some camembert? Could I interest you in a glass of denying the published facts?
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:42:00 - [46] could someone buy me a drink period? I'm thirsty over here
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:44:00 - [47] 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
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:44:00 - [48] Originally by: Le Skunk Simply hide in a noob corp... undeccable. Come on, Skunk... You've forgotten us already?
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:45:00 - [49] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Wendat Huron Could I interest you in some camembert? Could I interest you in a glass of denying the published facts? What are those facts? All I see is some gankers whining their asses off that their shits and giggles just got a little harder to accomplish.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:52:00 - [50] 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

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:52:00 - [51] 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...."
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:54:00 - [52] 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?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:54:00 - [53] 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 - [54] 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
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:57:00 - [55] Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... Uh-huh. So now, instead of ratting/missioning for 1-3 days to make enough money to suicide a group of macro mackinaws, Now I get to do it for 6-14 days. This is why I stopped griefing/war-deccing/suiciding in Empire. After a certain point, it costs you so much that it's just not worth it anymore. I haven't played Eve in about a week. Just can't seem to get any motivation to log on, because everything I enjoyed keeps getting nerfed. If I DO decide to do something, I think I'm gonna start making as much money as possible, and then start going after every carebear whiner I see post on these forums. Make them bleeeeed.
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:58:00 - [56] 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....
Vladimir Griftin	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:59:00 - [57] It is turning into less of a cold harsh world, more of a warm fuzzy one. The next logical step in the right direction would be to nerf newbie corps, the only thing you can do while in a newbie corp is mine Veldspar and run level 1 missions. And i dont even care, I live in 0.0 99% of the time, but empire is turning into pure suck, thats for sure, I really feel quite sorry for you pirate corps :(
Lillian D'Florite	Posted - 2008.09.02 00:59:00 - [58] Originally by: Vikarion Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... Uh-huh. So now, instead of ratting/missioning for 1-3 days to make enough money to suicide a group of macro mackinaws, Now I get to do it for 6-14 days. This is why I stopped griefing/war-deccing/suiciding in Empire. After a certain point, it costs you so much that it's just not worth it anymore. petition the farmers.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:00:00 - [59] Originally by: Mika Meroko Edited by: Mika Meroko on 02/09/2008 00:55:55 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? **ing off a selected few to applease an overwhelming majority... thats.... pretty... reasonable... but yeah, really... if you want someone dead for the hell of it.. you gotta pay... yeah yeah we know. We're just asking for them to come out and say so.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:01:00 - [60] Maybe CCP could just completely separate hi-sec from low-sec/0.0. You know, once you leave hi-sec, you can never go back. I'd love that.

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:01:00 - [61] 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
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:01:00 - [62] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mika Meroko Edited by: Mika Meroko on 02/09/2008 00:55:55 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? **ing off a selected few to applease an overwhelming majority... thats.... pretty... reasonable... but yeah, really... if you want someone dead for the hell of it.. you gotta pay... yeah yeah we know. We're just asking for them to come out and say so. yeah.... come out to 0.0 and just dont look back.... less stressful than complaining to a company who... yeah...
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:01:00 - [63] 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.... Exactly. So what the Op is asking for is for CCP to just get it over with. Then we can stop arguing and hoping and remembering.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:04:00 - [64] Originally by: Lillian D'Florite Originally by: Vikarion Originally by: Mika Meroko you do know that you can STILL gank people right?... it just gets more expensive... that is all.... Uh-huh. So now, instead of ratting/missioning for 1-3 days to make enough money to suicide a group of macro mackinaws, Now I get to do it for 6-14 days. This is why I stopped griefing/war-deccing/suiciding in Empire. After a certain point, it costs you so much that it's just not worth it anymore. petition the farmers. Ahahahaha hahhaha.... good one... ...oh wait, you were serious?
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:05:00 - [65] Edited by: Mika Meroko on 02/09/2008 01:06:24 Originally by: Le Skunk 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 been here too long, but yeah... CCP wont say it, they wont admit T20 (remember him?)'s violation...(well, rather, they dont do anything about it...) is a waste of time tbh... venting.. sure.. but ... haha, I seen enough people getting angrier and angrier for nothing... high blood pressure is bad for you, you know ? XD and CCP's common sense is different than ours... they uses one where their wallet is #1... so yeah, I wouldnt bet any changes that would make the game "hardcore" any time soon... edit: 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...
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:10:00 - [66] 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... Don't worry. I'm rapidly getting to that point )in-game, of course. Everything in game.)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:12:00 - [67] 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
Felix Dzerzhinsky Caldari Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:13:00 - [68] No. There is one 'safe zone' in the game, and thats docked in the station. As long as you are in space, you should be a legitimate target. 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.
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:13:00 - [69] Originally by: Vikarion 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... Don't worry. I'm rapidly getting to that point )in-game, of course. Everything in game.) hehehe, but yeah, hmmm fanfest is when again?... tell someone whos going to ask CCP op's question... XD
Hotice	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:15:00 - [70] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 That is risk vs. reward. You want that juicy faction module or phat loot? Well, you got to take the risk to lose near same amount for nothing. Same goes for people who spent billions on their mission ships. They want to be the quickest mission runner, make the most isk? They better be ready to get suicide ganked and lose billions. The current way of suicide ganking is just too much profit with next to little risk. Same goes for war dec. It is basicly broiled down to be pay to grief. So since it is exploit to change corps to avoid war dec. Corps simply just start a new corp when war dec'ed. Consider that as pay not to be grief'ed. hehe Remember, every tactic to make the kill will most likely to have to deal with a solution to be avoided. We are dealing with real human players here. We all have a magical button to press which will make ccp very unhappy to see. Guess what that is? It is the Cancel Account button. PvP is nice but when it start to hurting real life wallet, it became rather simply for ccp to make their decision. hmmm.... Let people to be ganked and cancel account or a new car/dinner/vacation/pretty GFs? Let people to be grief'ed and make them cancel account or more money in bank? What do you think they will do? action that makes you happy often means somebody will not be. This is often the result of greifing. Action that make both sides involved happy and looking for more. That is the result a real meaningful pvp. Getting ganked is never fun but getting ganked repeatly without learning how to avoide that is just pure stupid. Not sure why people don't understand this. Why so many people people don't like pvp in Eve? Because often than not it is just pure griefing! To those who got killed in pointless war dec/suicide ganking, it provided them no fun at all. Why should they like that? No, they don't have to, they can quit the game! Adopt or Die! Sounds easy for us, but ccp have bills to pay. Let's all be realistic here.

Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:15:00 - [71] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 hmmm, salvaging and stealing all their cans might just bait ppl XD see, highsec is still fun XD
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:17:00 - [72] 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 - [73] 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
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:20:00 - [74] Yes I agree that suiciding ganking is a cheap tactic, but it's the only real tactic available when so many people are able to become untouchable when it suits them. Yes suicide ganking should be difficult. Yes it should cost considerable isk. I actually wanted a suicide ganking nerf myself, losing only 4 million or so on platinum insurance for a battleship is pretty silly gamewide, letalone for suicide ganking. CCP have never clarified further then the reading of that single blog what it is exactly they plan to do with insurance, or the explanation is in a very obscure place. I can fully support the reducing concord spawns to being smaller with more damage while wondering why the hell it was never done sooner. We could easily do without the spam. I can only hope that when they said no insurance, they meant no station bought insurance and pilots will still receive their 50% payout, think of it as a sort of manufacturers warranty if you will. They still lose a lot of isk, it still raises the bar on suicide ganking back up where it needs to be, and CCP get their graphs reduced significantly on their server for suicide numbers. This would be a lot more acceptable as a suicide gank balance change I feel because I feel there's a difference between a rich player and a good player. I've said it before and I'll say it again, stop rewarding the big wealthy nullsec alliances and nerfing the smaller time player. Smaller time players have no choice but to use fewer expensive ships, alliances are the ones that can easily afford to use dozens of cheap ships instead. Nullsec alliances can easily rake their sec status up again in massive amounts in the full safety of their nullsec homes ratting battleships. Smaller time players are more likely to take all kinds of risks doing this in lowsec. It doesn't even make sense why killing rats in nullsec increases your security status with concord, criminal activity in nullsec doesn't make it go down again. To this day and to all the days in the future most likely, I'll never know what possessed them to significantly reduce concord respose times and increase sec status hits except what it looks like, and what it looks like was mainly my motivation for making this thread. 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.
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:21:00 - [75] Make high sec so paper thin ships with maybe 5 million in cargo are completely safe from being PROFITABLY ganked? Sure Make high sec so a average Transport with 100mil cargo value is completely safe from being PROFITABLY ganked? Sure Make High sec so a well tanked Transport with up to 200mil cargo is completely safe from be PROFITABLY ganked? Sure, I'm all for it. Make High sec so an average frieghter with up to 10 billion cargo value is completely safe from being PROFITABLY ganked? yep, 100% for it. Make high sec so there is no option to gank? Knuckle dragging stupid idea.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:21:00 - [76] Originally by: Hotice That is risk vs. reward. You want that juicy faction module or phat loot? Well, you got to take the risk to lose near same amount for nothing. Same goes for people who spent billions on their mission ships. They want to be the quickest mission runner, make the most isk? They better be ready to get suicide ganked and lose billions. The current way of suicide ganking is just too much profit with next to little risk. That is not risk vs. reward, because there is NO REWARD! No matter what, the suicide gankers will ALWAYS have lost more money than they could possibly gain, unless someone was to outfit their ship completely with Estamel's mods. (YEAH, RIGHT.)
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:25:00 - [77] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky No. There is one 'safe zone' in the game, and thats docked in the station. As long as you are in space, you should be a legitimate target. 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. Wrong. It's a shame and I don't like it, but you're wrong.
Bodhisattvas mUfFiN fAcToRy	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:25:00 - [78] Introduce a new skill 'Bribery' the higher the level the less you pay concord aka the pigs, so you can run rampage in hi-sec. Also introduce a new profession of solicitor in game. When ambulation comes along and a few rodney kings sessions later concord get sued by said new profession of solicitors thereby rendering concord bankrupt and lawless fun-ness would ensue. The above would solve a lot of in game problems and increase my own personal enjoyment of the game immensely.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:33:00 - [79] Originally by: Hotice Originally by: Le Skunk 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 That is risk vs. reward. You want that juicy faction module or phat loot? Well, you got to take the risk to lose near same amount for nothing. Same goes for people who spent billions on their mission ships. They want to be the quickest mission runner, make the most isk? They better be ready to get suicide ganked and lose billions. The current way of suicide ganking is just too much profit with next to little risk. Same goes for war dec. It is basicly broiled down to be pay to grief. So since it is exploit to change corps to avoid war dec. Corps simply just start a new corp when war dec'ed. Consider that as pay not to be grief'ed. hehe Remember, every tactic to make the kill will most likely to have to deal with a solution to be avoided. We are dealing with real human players here. We all have a magical button to press which will make ccp very unhappy to see. Guess what that is? It is the Cancel Account button. PvP is nice but when it start to hurting real life wallet, it became rather simply for ccp to make their decision. hmmm.... Let people to be ganked and cancel account or a new car/dinner/vacation/pretty GFs? Let people to be grief'ed and make them cancel account or more money in bank? What do you think they will do? action that makes you happy often means somebody will not be. This is often the result of greifing. Action that make both sides involved happy and looking for more. That is the result a real meaningful pvp. Getting ganked is never fun but getting ganked repeatly without learning how to avoide that is just pure stupid. Not sure why people don't understand this. Why so many people people don't like pvp in Eve? Because often than not it is just pure griefing! To those who got killed in pointless war dec/suicide ganking, it provided them no fun at all. Why should they like that? No, they don't have to, they can quit the game! Adopt or Die! Sounds easy for us, but ccp have bills to pay. Let's all be realistic here. Well some of us have given CCP lots of money on the premise that this game includes non-consensual PvP. "non-consensual" means that one side didn't want to fight but had to anyway, by the way. it was pretty much a core concept when this game started. CCP have bills to pay, but somehow they've always managed to pay them without making these changes before. In fact the game has continuously grown - despite the wails of SUICIDE GANKING IS KILLING EVE (where were you with your "Adopt or Die!" slogan in those threads, by the way?) Still, it's CCP's game to direct as they please. We're not even arguing against the changes - we know it's a done deal, the decision has been made. All we're asking is for them to just goddamb tell the truth about it. PS "Adopt or Die!" you say. Hmm. Was that a typo or an insightful pun?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:36:00 - [80] 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 - [81] 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
Xtreem Gallente Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:40:00 - [82] 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.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:44:00 - [83] 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
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:45:00 - [84] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 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 If you put your finger in my "bagel" you better hope** there's a policeman close by...
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.09.02 01:47:00 - [85] 4 more days before my account runs out, in a few months I'll have a look at the game, find my whine post and reply with "I told you so".
Ravennaa Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution	Posted - 2008.09.02 02:17:00 - [86] It's completely unrealistic to label an area as "safe", and not allow targeting and/or shooting and smartbombing. Granted, there is a lot of stuff in EVE that is rather unrealistic, but in most cases, it was done as graphic or audio enhancements and only violates science, not as much common sense, as adding a "safe zone" would. I'm ALL for increasing penalties and CONCORD response, and even to the point of adding CONCORD (1 BS, 1 frigate) to every station and gate that is used frequently (ie, gate fires more than 100 times an hour, CONCORD is perminantely there). Make it VIRTUALLY impossible to gank someone in those situations, and made high-traffic areas safer. To be completely honest, I suicide gank people myself. I do it for the money. I can use a 20m ship plus another 15m in fittings, and make 27m from insurance (soon to be 0, but no problem really), plus usually another 300-500m from the hauler or whatever I ganked. I even ganked one guy who was carrying over 1.2bil in faction loot in a frigate, but sadly the loot blew up and what was left over was stolen by someone else. Even if I had to start using a battleship (see: gankageddon), I would still probably clear 200+million, if not more if I've chosen my target well and gotten lucky. The fact of the matter is that thievery and piracy are part of the game. It's dirty and can be cruel, but the bottom line is that if you fly safe and smart, you ALMOST NEVER have to worry about it. If you're going to autopilot with hundreds of millions or (god help you) billions in loot, you're GOING to get ganked eventually, regardless of the penalties involved.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 02:52:00 - [87] Originally by: Ravennaa It's completely unrealistic to label an area as "safe", and not allow targeting and/or shooting and smartbombing. Realism has nothing to do with Eve. It's a game. All the OP is asking is for CCP to stop billing Eve as a game with non-consensual PvP and start billing it as what it is. Eve was a game with non-consensual PvP. Now it's going to be a game with limited consensual PvP, and virtually no non-consensual PvP.
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.09.02 04:07:00 - [88] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 01/09/2008 23:27:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. The battle is already lost, the real question is how long the smoke will take to clear. Deal with it. Let's at least wait until the suicide gank change takes place in Tranq before we judge. And then after that let's wait to see what they do with Empire war decs. QFLogic
Pilot Abilene Caldari Serpentine Dream Theory	Posted - 2008.09.02 05:19:00 - [89] can I get an EVE is dying? Seriously stop being drama queens lol. I really don't understand this infatuation with carebears and high sec. There is still so much to do PvP wise in the game it's not funny...high sec hardly deserves a mention in this regard.
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood	Posted - 2008.09.02 05:26:00 - [90] Originally by: Le Skunk with a big grin on my face Just wanted to say, best edit ever.

Cambarus The Baros Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.02 05:56:00 - [91] Originally by: 5pinDizzy 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? I find this style of argument interesting. You're posting as someone arguing for safe highsec, against someone arguing for safe highsec. OBVIOUSLY someone who doesn't ever suicide gank is going to side with you, those aren't the people you need to convince. The guys you need to convince are the ones like me, who think that there should be some semblance of risk vs reward in eve. For those who want safety, WoW is thataway --> Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. Sonofa... you did it again. Your post makes no sense whatsoever. You're arguing with the people who DON'T think it's considered grief play, not the ones who do Originally by: 5pinDizzy 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. And that right there is you /thread Saying that you want eve to be like wow is like saying you want a 5 star restorant to be more like McDonalds. It's really, really hard to take anyone who says eve needs to be more like wow, obvious troll is obvious, but I'll keep smackin ya anyway. Originally by: 5pinDizzy 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. A thorax with tech II guns can easily solo kill a hulk, or 2 macks, in a .5 system. Just because you posted that I'm going to drop half a billion isk on thoraxs/fittings, and see how much isk damage I can cause after the suicide nerf, it should be in and around 8bil in damages if my estimate's not off. Perceived danger in highsec is very much real, because there are people, such as myself, who will go off and suicide gank someone out of boredom. Half of the time I blow up the guys wreck rather then bothering to loot it. Eve was DESIGNED to be played this way. Griefing is not only allowed but profitable (it only becomes a problem when one person is the repeated target of griefers) Originally by: 5pinDizzy 5. Don't frustrate wannabe wowtards with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the carebears with a false sense of security wherein they'll believe that just because it's no longer as profitable to gank them means it won't happen. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in WoW or Runescape. Fixed. Originally by: 5pinDizzy 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. This I can't wait for Ohhhh how the carebears will whine once they realized that gankers aren't the only ones to get boned by the change Originally by: 5pinDizzy So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. It IS idiot proof. That whole harsh, cruel universe thing? It acts like a barrier, keeping the idiots out (mostly). How bout we just leave it as it is and let eve's darwinism (a fool and his isk/ships soon part ways) take its course.
Misanth Viziam	Posted - 2008.09.02 06:09:00 - [92] Less bottlenecks, in all sec levels, more entry routes and pipes. That should give more mobile and opportunistic pvp, less blobbage, and make low sec more appealing even for carebears. While at the same time it should give pirates alot more targets, just that they'd have to work a bit for their show. Would love to live in low sec (again, I started out there), but right now it's either totally deserted or totally camped. For a lone/small scale guy like me it's not very appealing, thus ending up in either Empire, or nullsec. Give incentitives for small scale pvp again, please, remove the damn blobs. High sec don't need to be safe, it's working good as it does today. I fail to see suiciding as an issue as well tbh, it's the tools for retaliation that is too weak, not the defence mechanisms.
goodby4u Valor Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.02 06:28:00 - [93] Sheesh, ok"grief"gameplay falls under the catagory of ummm... Everything an eve pod pilot does, that no griefing rule isnt enforced by my experience. If they made it impossible to kill people in high sec without being at war it would hurt the game badly, and basically make it wow in space.... And if I wanted to play wow I would be playing wow right now, not that cold dark place where you need to have a brain or friends to survive type of gameplay eve is based around.
Kaivos	Posted - 2008.09.02 06:41:00 - [94] 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 Wait what? You think mission runners are running t2 fits in their ravens/cnrs/golems. You must be kidding. My cnr costs above 1 billion with its modules. And if you can can gank it with unorganized fashion with no risk involved. **** it. I welcome this change open arms.
Volarius D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.02 07:13:00 - [95] Originally by: 5pinDizzy It's considered grief play You made me watch the eve teamspeak movie again ^_^
Niccolado Starwalker Shadow Templars	Posted - 2008.09.02 07:20:00 - [96] Originally by: 5pinDizzy [...] Does this not make sense? Not at all. It does not make sense in killing the game. Because that is what you propose. To kill EVE online.
DB Tank StoneFist Pilots	Posted - 2008.09.02 07:42:00 - [97] I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong.. I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me.. So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me.. EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way..
Kleus Flek Hard Corp Carbide and Diamonds Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 07:56:00 - [98] Originally by: Le Skunk 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" This and this. CCP is such a tease. Eve isn't a "harsh universe" in Safesec and shouldn't be billed that way. Split the universe into Invinciblesec and losec/zero sec and advertise it that way.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 08:31:00 - [99] Edited by: Vikarion on 02/09/2008 08:31:35 Originally by: DB Tank I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong.. I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me.. So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me.. EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way.. The analogy fails because, in your example, the police do not instantly know where the offender is at, and are not able to instantly show up and pop him before exiling him from the country and fining him a huge amount of ISK. If that were the case, no one would ever commit any crime in real life, save for the insane. And that's what this patch does. Everyone who thinks that Suiganking is still possible - well, yes, it is, mechanically. Monetarily, it is ludicrous to even think about it. Popping a mission runner could well take 30+ battleships, with the new and improved Concord times. And no mission runner will ever drop 3 billion in loot. Consider also the fact that 50% of the loot is lost on average. Frieghters? You'd have to be holding a significant fraction of a trillion ISK for someone to consider going through all the work. But don't worry - no one will bother scanning you, because there will be maybe one freighter hauling such a load about every three months. Not worth the hassle. Suicide ganking for any other reason than harassment is dead. And (repeated) suicide ganking for reasons of harassment is bannable. Add to that the fact that no one is going to help someone do a major suicide gank for harassment...well, suicide ganking is not going to happen. Wardecs, already stupidly easy to avoid, are going to be removed/majorly nerfed, according to CCP. They don't want carebears getting killed by them. Hi-sec is already going to be no-PvP in fact. Why not make it so in name as well? CCP should stop lying to its subscribers. Make hi-sec no-PvP.
Commander Randall	Posted - 2008.09.02 08:34:00 - [100] I'm sorry I have to say it as i've read so many threads with the opposite stated "Ahh the taste of PVP tears". On the subject I'm afraid it's a case of it's their train set and they can break it if they damn well please. If they want to keep the illusion of ALL space being dangerous they will. All the Forum threads in the world wont change a thing. If you want to do something meaningful then you have to cancel your sub and hope enough of your fellow PVP'ers do the same to make a dent. As to the OP I know this thread wasn't started as a Whine about nerfing PVP but as a request for some clarity but it seems your compatriots have hijacked it. Personally I've never been suicide ganked or even PK'ed in Empire so I wasnt aware there was a problem but obviously CCP deemed that there was

Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 08:39:00 - [101] Originally by: Commander Randall I'm sorry I have to say it as i've read so many threads with the opposite stated "Ahh the taste of PVP tears". On the subject I'm afraid it's a case of it's their train set and they can break it if they damn well please. If they want to keep the illusion of ALL space being dangerous they will. All the Forum threads in the world wont change a thing. If you want to do something meaningful then you have to cancel your sub and hope enough of your fellow PVP'ers do the same to make a dent. As to the OP I know this thread wasn't started as a Whine about nerfing PVP but as a request for some clarity but it seems your compatriots have hijacked it. Personally I've never been suicide ganked or even PK'ed in Empire so I wasnt aware there was a problem but obviously CCP deemed that there was I just want them to tell the truth. And no, the best way for me to hurt CCP would not be for me to quit, but for me to try to get as many others to quit as possible. I'm not doing that, I'm just saying. What I want is for CCP to be honest with its subscribers. Tell the truth: that they couldn't care less about Eve actually being cold and harsh, and are just trying to bring it mainstream.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 08:58:00 - [102] Oh, and note that most of the PvPers in the thread are arguing for this - not because we want hi-sec to be risk free, but because now it is. We just want CCP to stop lying to us and new suscribers about what the game is.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 09:00:00 - [103] Originally by: DB Tank I really do love the newer people comming to eve trying to change it in ways like this.. Sorry but the poster is wrong.. I live in a nice area in England.. and its safe.. police "roam" it but you never know.. i could get a "thug/pirate" come up to me and punch me.. So.. i expect to see that in empire . In RP term's why would empire be 100% safe? And why would you want it to be? ewww.. I have a alt char who runs freighter's/transport ships and i beg CCP to please NOT make it easy on me.. EVE is dangerous..its a style only EVE has .. and it should stay that way.. Um, your post is confusing? Are you in favour of making these changes or not? By the way, I live in England as well, and there are plenty of people who get robbed every day, and the police never even have an idea of who did it, let alone how to catch them.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 09:06:00 - [104] I'm certainly not new to Eve. The new ones are usually carebears. And they ARE changing Eve.
Squably Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.09.02 09:20:00 - [105] Originally by: 5pinDizzy DAMN BIG WALL OF TEXT Does this not make sense? No it doesnt, go play WOW
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 09:36:00 - [106] 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
Bayushi Aramoro	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:02:00 - [107] Cba going through this thread so don't know if this has come up, but I sure as hell hope that TomB, MrRed and all those guys remember just what happened when their game got trammelized like is being suggested by the OP.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:06:00 - [108] In during falling skies.
Doonoo Boonoo	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:21:00 - [109] 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.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:45:00 - [110] 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

MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.09.02 11:59:00 - [111] Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/09/2008 12:00:41 Quote: pay to grief it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG. Darkfall is following in eves footsteps for gods sake, lets not step backwards, being able to kill people anywhere just because you should be able to and then pay the price of getting killed back is how life works. you pay to be killed but take someone out with you. if your goal is to be banned from every city.system in space then GO RIGHT aheadm it's a goal and the more goals a game has the more it becomes a real sandbox.
wah bok Caldari Copperhead Arsenal	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:04:00 - [112] 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.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:14:00 - [113] Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: pay to grief it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG. Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually — scarily — a CCP quote.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:23:00 - [114] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2008 12:23:57 Make highsec safe, remove everything except L1/L2 missions from high-sec, remove ice and everything except veldspar, and remove high-sec POS-es, cut the number of research and production slots in half. Then it's all fairly balanced and you have a noob starter zone which is safe.
wah bok Caldari Copperhead Arsenal	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:26:00 - [115] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: pay to grief it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG. Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually ù scarily ù a CCP quote. Did you even bother to read all the dev said or just skimmed the first line.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:31:00 - [116] Originally by: wah bok Originally by: Tippia Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: pay to grief it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG. Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually ù scarily ù a CCP quote. Did you even bother to read all the dev said or just skimmed the first line. yeah I read right through to the second sentence.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:33:00 - [117] 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?!
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:35:00 - [118] Haven't read anything but OP and I'd just like to say: NO EFFING WAY. Jeez, these people, you give them a finger, they take the whole hand.
Krecian Gallente Mnemonic Enterprises New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:44:00 - [119] Can't help but think to myself... How many high-end ships are blown up by NPC's? How many of same said ships are blown up by PvP? Easy answer... can you guess where I'm going with this? Yup, who's gonna buy ships and fittings when they aren't getting blown up anymore? I don't have the data to see where the ships are dying, but you have to admit that the amount of ships destroyed in high sec PvP should be fairly sigficant. Makes me wonder how much of an impact losing high sec PvP would have on the market. To balance it out, something will have to happen... ships will have to die. Since the only other option is ship loss from PvE, we may see missions get harder to compensate. Just a few random thoughts. Personally, I don't think it'll come to that soon. Eve players have an amazing ability to adapt, we may be suprised to find in the end that suicide ganking will just get more creative, and not be stopped at all. shrugs

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:45:00 - [120] (Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry) The simple answer to the question in the thread title is "because we don't want to". A slightly more complex answer is "because the general design opinion is that implementing a hard limit on non-consensual hi-sec PvP is neither desirable nor necessary right now; we reserve the right to change our opinions in future etc no matter how unlikely or remote the possibility seems to us right now, because I just know this is going to get quoted in the eventuality that all the stars align backwards and the devourer emerges from the bowels of the earth and so on and so forth and we do for some reason I can't possibly fathom right now decide to change our minds, and hell I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort". In this specific case, there's a two-pronged argument for stopping more or less where we have with the latest blogs on the subject. Firstly, there's a compelling reason why you should, at a high level, be able interfere with any and all activities of other players with a sufficient amount of effort, which is that true invulnerability leads to all kinds of quirky issues with invulnerable supply lines and so on, which are undesirable. By ensuring that for example all freighter movements, everywhere, have at least some in-principle form of risk, we go some way towards mitigating those concerns. There are other considerations coming into play of course, such as the fact that by denying blanket immunity (and assuming we're communicating this effectively) we attach some perceived risk to all activities, which gets players familiarized with the idea of risk early on in the game, which lowers the hurdle in front of the option to shoulder greater risks later on in their career. This is a benefit, but not in my personal opinion as solid a reason as the previously stated objective. When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. Which runs on into the second part of the argument, which is that as Zulupark mentioned earlier in the week, the goal isn't to try and step away from the original vision - it's to try and bring things back in line with that vision, as we understand it. A couple of years ago suicide-ganking was, as far as I could tell, a near-total non-issue, occurring in a few sporadic cases where someone really wanted to achieve something but otherwise didn't seem to be happening a whole lot. Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. Again, this isn't a case of us wanting to alter the original paradigm, it's an attempt to return to the actual balance of play we had before.


Jastra Gallente Black Thorne Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:49:00 - [121] great post greyscale, sanity reigns...
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.09.02 12:52:00 - [122] Edited by: MotherMoon on 02/09/2008 12:55:30 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: MotherMoon Quote: pay to grief it's not griefing if it's a supported part of the game OMG. Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually ù scarily ù a CCP quote. I don't see how making a way to win would stop the pay to grief thing :P and I was more thinking suicide attacks\ Quote: By ensuring that for example all freighter movements, everywhere, have at least some in-principle form of risk
Pax Ratlin Gallente Woodland Larch	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:01:00 - [123] Originally by: CCP Greyscale "we reserve the right to change our opinions in future etc no matter how unlikely or remote the possibility seems to us right now, because I just know this is going to get quoted in the eventuality that all the stars align backwards and the devourer emerges from the bowels of the earth and so on and so forth and we do for some reason I can't possibly fathom right now decide to change our minds, and hell I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort". And they say the Dev's are out of touch with the player base .... this quote shows that far from being out of touch they do in fact know there players better than anything
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:02:00 - [124] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Tippia Don't blame him (entirely). It's actually — scarily — a CCP quote. I don't see how making a way to win would stop the pay to grief thing :P and I was more thinking suicide attacks Me neither. I'm just pointing out that ever since that unfortunate quote leaked out, the discussion over wardecs and other forms of high-sec combat took a nasty turn. The whole "pay to grief" comment, and the fact that it came from CCP, can be misconstrued in so many ways, and since it was mentioned specifically in context of changing existing mechanics now makes it a lot easier to make the argument that the current mechanics are, for some obscure reason, not a properly "supported part of the game." Originally by: wah bok Did you even bother to read all the dev said or just skimmed the first line. Do you understand the concept of "context"? Read what I replied to again, and try to think about what I meant this time.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:11:00 - [125] The comment by Greyscale above is heartening. I'll take it at face value, true, but it their real intent is not to provide immunity in hisec, but to try and bring the rate of suicide ganks back down to the level it was two years ago, I'm all for it. War Decs ... being the kind of player who had been on the receiving end of one of those 'pay to griefs', I came to dislike them pretty early on. If they make them deeper, more encompassing (as you might expect from a legal, CONCORD-allowed contract allowing two major corporations to actually destroy one another), I'm for it. We'll have to see. But safe zone? For all that is holy, don't.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:13:00 - [126] Originally by: van Uber 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?! 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.
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:17:00 - [127] Originally by: CCP Greyscale (Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry) [/qoute]
Ashlee Darksky Minmatar Forum Insurgency	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:18:00 - [128] High sec, by it's name is high security. What is it not is "Total Security". The day high sec becomes a place where; You cannot target another ship You cannot fire a weapon You cannot take an agressive action You cannot cause a problem You cannot think outside the box and get one up on another ... will be a very sad day for EVE. I hope this will never ever happen, because high security is safe enough as it is already. We don't need the nanny state police watching over us and saying "Are you sure?". If you perform a moronic action in EVE you will pay the price for it - very simple. Not even a moronic action, sometimes even a careless action will cost you big. Like hauling all your stuff in one indy. Rather than end up destroying high sec, if there really is that big a call for a total security nanny state baby sitter then make a few regions of "Total Sec" and see what happens. I'd rather this didn't happen at all, but it's a preference to dumbing down high sec totally. If people want a game without consequences then EVE is not for them! Next thing will be a "graveyard" so when your ship gets popped you wait 2 minutes then automatically re-spawn! I mean really, when is it going to end. What I dislike is all the wooly fluffy "wow style" players (and similar) that come to EVE, whine like hell and then CCP bend to their will. I understand it makes good commerical sense, but you're pssing off the loyal customer base. Do a study - long time standing players VS new signups. How many actually stay, and why? I would think there is a very high turn over of "wow style" players, compared to the hardcore, loyal and long time EVE players. A number of ways forward as I see it are; 1. Do nothing, let them whine and say "Sorry, thats the way it is" 2. Bend to their will, dumb everything down, make it all fluffy and safe - in doing so, pss off your loyal long term customers. 3. Make "Total Sec" zones so they can cower behind a roid there. 4. Make a "Safe Server" login so you can have a total fluffy carebear version of EVE The reason I play EVE is because it's "dangerous", because there are consequences, because you have to think before you act and because it's not a friggin theme park. Stick to your original game plan and mechanics CCP, and the players too!
Je'Nann freelancers inc Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:22:00 - [129] surely the easiest way to get rid of this problem is too just get rid of high sec.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:22:00 - [130] Originally by: CCP Greyscale long and detailed reply A welcome response. Unfortunately your actions seem at variance with the goals you have just stated. You mention freighter ganks. The gank you referred to took place under the condition of insurable ships - and before 2 CONCORD buffs. A smaller number of players were required to sacrifice their time and a relatively low amount of ISK. Now more ships will be required, requiring more players to spend their time and very much more ISK. Not making a profit is one thing. A BASE expenditure of 2-3 billion ISK for even making the attempt is quite another. As I stated above, the only viable forms of suicide ganking will soon be either grudge-hits where ISK is not the issue, or using disposable trial alts to destroyer-gank noobs. Meanwhile, rich, multi-account players and of course macroers will receive a significant boost. You have correctly touched on the real reason for the increase in suicide ganking: cheap minerals leading to cheap ships (virtually free after insurance). Wouldn't it make rather more sense to rebalance the causes than the paint over the symptoms...?

Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:28:00 - [131] I will give you my perspective on suicide ganking. Yes, I am against it, but out of the reason that few want to consider. - am against suicide ganking at a regular basis because it takes the metagaming a bit too far. Yes, we all play internet spaceships games, but at least the game should reflect how spaceships were in the movies and not be about: What flaw in the game-mechanic we are exploiting now. That being said, suicide ganking should be really rare, when someone holds a personal grudge for example and is willing to take the severe consequences when attacking a target in highsec. Right now this is not the case, because of other game-mechanics (Insurance, Mineral-Market) and stupid Producers, the consequences are not as severe as they should be. Ok, I will probably going to get flamed for this, but I still gave you my perspective on this. Yes EVE should be a dark and harsh world, but the effects of metagaming features, like the above one should be lessened.
Maria Kalista	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:32:00 - [132] Originally by: Je'Nann surely the easiest way to get rid of this problem is too just get rid of high sec. How many times did they drop you on your head right after birth? Originally by: CCP Mitnal You put a bear in your tea???
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:33:00 - [133] Originally by: Deviana Sevidon I will give you my perspective on suicide ganking. Yes, I am against it, but out of the reason that few want to consider. - am against suicide ganking at a regular basis because it takes the metagaming a bit too far. Yes, we all play internet spaceships games, but at least the game should reflect how spaceships were in the movies and not be about: What flaw in the game-mechanic we are exploiting now. That being said, suicide ganking should be really rare, when someone holds a personal grudge for example and is willing to take the severe consequences when attacking a target in highsec. Right now this is not the case, because of other game-mechanics (Insurance, Mineral-Market) and stupid Producers, the consequences are not as severe as they should be. Ok, I will probably going to get flamed for this, but I still gave you my perspective on this. Yes EVE should be a dark and harsh world, but the effects of metagaming features, like the above one should be lessened. Suicide ganking is metagamey, but it's caused in the first place by the implacable nature of CONCORD. If instead of being buffed, CONCORD was made escapable (not easily or simply, but at least possibly), players engaging in ganking might be inclined to use ships that would potentially survive. Imagine a high speed chase with the loot to the nearest lo-sec system with CONCORD in hot pursuit: that would have to be well planned, and take lots of player skill. It would in fact be awesome. Lots of excitement, lots of risk, lots of fun. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:45:00 - [134] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2008 13:46:05 Originally by: CCP Greyscale When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. Well, it makes it seem you're unclear what you really want to achieve. Buffing concord reaction speed and so on makes it considerably harder to do that. It makes it mechanically harder to suicide gank. If you want to make suicide ganking for profit extremely difficult/impossible (which the changes to concord reaction speed + insurance do, but insurance would really suffice), then can you just say so clearly? Also, that is solved preety much by insurance nerf alone. Buffing concord yet again (!) makes it mechanically harder to suicide gank for non-profit reasons. If you need a entire BS fleet to gank (read: two-volley) that enemy freighter, what's the point? Unless he's carrying insane amounts of stuff, you've caused more losses to yourself then to him. The fact that suicide ganking is the only way to reach people in NPC corporations is even crazier. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ashlee Darksky Minmatar Forum Insurgency	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:51:00 - [135] Did Blizzard buy CCP and no one told us about it? --- > I see fail everywhere, and it's like they don't even know they're failing > Bring me the heads of 10 carebears, 5 bottles of BBQ sauce, firewood and a box of matches!
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:51:00 - [136] 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?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 13:59:00 - [137] Originally by: van Uber 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? Well I'm interested to hear your theories. What changes do you* think they will make? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:00:00 - [138] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Good post about ideals While i agree completely with your post i dont see those ideas reflected in the current and future implementation of high sec according to the plans announced by ccp. If you really wish to have the actual game reflect those ideas you should look at things like: The limitless protection for no cost offered by npc corps. The extreme cost of suicide ganking with complete loss of insurance in addition to other penalties. The ease of avoiding wardecs. The statement claiming wardecs is a "pay to grief" system. The broken risk/reward ratio in high sec. So if your vision for the game is changing i hope ccp will have the guts to say it right out instead of claiming to hold to old ideas while at the same time adapting the game to a new and different vision. Vote against the nano nerf!
Sarin Adler Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:03:00 - [139] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2008 13:46:05 Originally by: CCP Greyscale When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. Well, it makes it seem you're unclear what you really want to achieve. Buffing concord reaction speed and so on makes it considerably harder to do that. It makes it mechanically harder to suicide gank. If you want to make suicide ganking for profit extremely difficult/impossible (which the changes to concord reaction speed + insurance do, but insurance would really suffice), then can you just say so clearly? Also, that is solved preety much by insurance nerf alone. Buffing concord yet again (!) makes it mechanically harder to suicide gank for non-profit reasons. If you need a entire BS fleet to gank (read: two-volley) that enemy freighter, what's the point? Unless he's carrying insane amounts of stuff, you've caused more losses to yourself then to him. The fact that suicide ganking is the only way to reach people in NPC corporations is even crazier. Not only this, but how are you supposed to target enemy logistic lines, hidding in a pletora on alts & behind NPC corps. Half-fixes & implementations don't work well. Nerf alts + npc corps, or make it easier to target enemy logistics. Rework war-dec mechanism so the make sense and are not pay-to-grief, but pay-to-disrupt-enemy- ops. 'We are working on it' sure, maybe in 2 years... --- Alts, the root of all the problems.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:05:00 - [140] 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

Ashlee Darksky Minmatar Forum Insurgency	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:05:00 - [141] Originally by: CCP Greyscale ... lots of stuff... Ugh, I hate it when devs make a well written, well presented argument Seriously though, you state the idea is to return to the original state of game play that occured before. Thats fair enough and reasonable. But I cannot help thinking of it as taking a step backwards. People have evolved their game play and tactics to find new ways of doing things (within reason, and without exploits). Taking things "backwards" or at least "rebalancing" is halting that progression of play, and of EVE by keeping things in a static nature, and nothing is static. The only thing constant is change! I would rather see a re-balance occur by addressing the underlying problems leading to people being more tempted to suicide gank. Rather than introducing new mechanics to combat this. It's a superficial fix, and reinventing the wheel. --- > I see fail everywhere, and it's like they don't even know they're failing > Bring me the heads of 10 carebears, 5 bottles of BBQ sauce, firewood and a box of matches! > If EVE is a sandb
Drunk Driver Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:21:00 - [142] I want a wardec system that will let me shoot players I want to shoot no matter where they go or who they join. .
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:24:00 - [143] 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.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:24:00 - [144] Originally by: Ashlee Darksky Originally by: CCP Greyscale ... lots of stuff... Ugh, I hate it when devs make a well written, well presented argument Seriously though, you state the idea is to return to the original state of game play that occured before. Thats fair enough and reasonable. But I cannot help thinking of it as taking a step backwards. People have evolved their game play and tactics to find new ways of doing things (within reason, and without exploits). Taking things "backwards" or at least "rebalancing" is halting that progression of play, and of EVE by keeping things in a static nature, and nothing is static. The only thing constant is change! I would rather see a re-balance occur by addressing the underlying problems leading to people being more tempted to suicide gank. Rather than introducing new mechanics to combat this. It's a superficial fix, and reinventing the wheel. While I see what your leading to, lets also remember that no change can be made without being instantly perceived as a setback to someone. Whatever a development team 'buffs' and 'adds', nerfs something else. Look at the LP Store. While I wholeheartedly feel it's a buff to mission rewards, many who monopolized the faction-module industry in the past see it as nothing more than a nerf. It added new ways to use an old feature, and took nothing from the game by design. And yet it can still be considered by many players as a nerf to their playstyle and way of life. As another example, let's take NPC corps. If CCP buffed war decs to allow them to target ALL corporations, including NPC corps ... it would nerf those using the NPC corp for it's immunity, no? If they change anything, it will negatively effect someone. So the decision is to either not change anything, or decide who your going to p*ss off this change. And we players, despite all of our good intentions, rarely suggest a change or fix that will significantly hurt US. But we're always willing to nerf the other guys playstyle. It comes down to 'its okay to take away from him, but not okay to take away from me.' I feel that way whenever they talk about taking away more of the sandbox in the name of mainstream subscriptions. I don't want to play a dumber game that appeals and coddles more idiots. If that was the case, I'd play Jumpgate or the infamous WoW. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Seeing EyeDog	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:26:00 - [145] Originally by: Fados you actually might be on to something there... correction...CCP is already onto something here. This game has become WoW in space. Wait til ambulation when you can equip your +5 robe of wizardry... Such a shame CCP, this game used to be original, now your money hungry ways and carebear customer base has destroyed what was once a unique, sandbox. _____________________ Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:28:00 - [146] Originally by: van Uber 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. 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. 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. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:38:00 - [147] 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.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:40:00 - [148] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: van Uber 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. 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. 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. Maybe not 'out of context', no, but it sure as heck is making a lot of assumptions off of a single word used twice. It's almost like inferring some politician is a racist because they say the word 'minority' in their speech. Usage aside, maybe they were paraphrasing, or talking about a popular opinion, etc, etc. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Nathan Serpico	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:45:00 - [149] All those neverending arguments would be solved with alternate rules servers. Choose your server, choose your playstyle. Everyone happy. (a lot less lag as well, but that's another story)
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:48:00 - [150] 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.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 14:52:00 - [151] Originally by: Nathan Serpico All those neverending arguments would be solved with alternate rules servers. Choose your server, choose your playstyle. Everyone happy. (a lot less lag as well, but that's another story) Would also ruin the game. What new players in their right mind would join the old server with the 'cold and harsh' universe, when they could join the new server and live it up? So the old server dies, the 30+ players who have been playing for two years or more are alienated, they are replaced over a sixth month period with many newer players who are migrating from other similar games, and a year after the split the numbers start to decrease, spiraling into the game dying within a few years. New games coming out will do what EvE cannot ... provide a safe environment for those who are to naive and who must be coddled by the development staff and protected from violence and 'evil pirates.' And if EvE tried to do that, not only would they shoot their longstanding playerbase in the foot, but they would also have a crappy product that simply couldn't compete with those games designed around the issue from the start. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
E'Pock	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:03:00 - [152] ok, I might be a noob here but my question to all of you that are complaining about PvP in high sectors is this. 1) Why do you care if someone is just mining and making billions of isk? 2) if somone is just running missions then why do you need to PvP them? Honestly, grow up. This game is here for one reason and one reason only....to be played...and anyway people see fit. If you don't like the fact that high sectors are becoming more "safe" and less profitable for you then click your lil button that says "cancel account". I personally dont care if you come after me or not. This is after all "just a game" and I can find something else to do with my time if it gets "boring" To me so far in this post it seems like a bunch of PvP people whining that they cant do anything in high sector space anymore has totally destroyed the game for them. Is there not enough players out in 0.0 space to fight? Do you feel some justification in beating up on someone that all they want to do in this game is mine? What's it to you? My apologies to everyone that this doesnt apply to and also if i am wrong then i also apologize for that as well. Just giving my 2cents on this issue. =)
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:08:00 - [153] Originally by: CCP Greyscale ... The reason you are gonna get quoted is because in the past the answer would have been "No.". Plain and simple. Now its "oh hey the chance is really really remote". And whats there to take/quote out of context? Changing hisec to a pvp free zone is a possibility. (yeah remote and stuff but possible thats what counts imo) I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. Generally speaking the wind has changed its direction and people can feel that. Its your game and no one questions that. But certainly the "cold harsh world" thing will be increasingly hard to justify given these and possible future changes(->wardecs are on the nerf list). Anyway thanks for a look into how you see things. I think many players have waited for this though some (like me) might not really like the answer. It was honest so kudos for that...
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:09:00 - [154] Edited by: Myra2007 on 02/09/2008 15:10:32 dbl post. Im a forum noob...
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:10:00 - [155] Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:10:00 - [156] Originally by: E'Pock ok, I might be a noob here but my question to all of you that are complaining about PvP in high sectors is this. 1) Why do you care if someone is just mining and making billions of isk? 2) if somone is just running missions then why do you need to PvP them? Honestly, grow up. This game is here for one reason and one reason only....to be played...and anyway people see fit. If you don't like the fact that high sectors are becoming more "safe" and less profitable for you then click your lil button that says "cancel account". I personally dont care if you come after me or not. This is after all "just a game" and I can find something else to do with my time if it gets "boring" To me so far in this post it seems like a bunch of PvP people whining that they cant do anything in high sector space anymore has totally destroyed the game for them. Is there not enough players out in 0.0 space to fight? Do you feel some justification in beating up on someone that all they want to do in this game is mine? What's it to you? My apologies to everyone that this doesnt apply to and also if i am wrong then i also apologize for that as well. Just giving my 2cents on this issue. =) How many people play a game with the intent of remaining mediocre or poor? I don't know about you, but I do know that I don't have the highest competitive drive in the world, but even I strive to be better than the next guy, at least a little. There are many games which put no real value on characters. In EvE, though, competition and 'winning' is entirely possible. EvE makes a p*ss-poor casual game, I hate to say. Most of the things you can do take immense amounts of time. Nearly everything requires an investment of some sort, and you can lose out. It is 'just a game.' But as much as I might play a game of Risk for the fun, I'm also playing it to win. And playing in a game world like EvE, where every single player affects every single other player, it's kind of hard to ignore what one guy is doing. In the same line, it's just a game, who cares if you are overcrowding server nodes, ruining the player-run economy with an overproduction of isk, destroying the game experiences of industrialists by flooding the market with cheap modules that devalue the efforts of miners and producers, hurt the LP market by flooding the market with faction items, and generally kill trading by lowering profit margins. Who cares, right? Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:12:00 - [157] Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. You people? As in what? I haven't suicide ganked anyone ever. As a matter of fact i've never done any kind of agression in hisec so spare me that crap.
Xevan Templar 7th Batavian Squadron	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:14:00 - [158] Originally by: CCP Greyscale If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. To me that sounds like cool, well thought of gameplay. And as I see it it's the direction CCP is thinking. good post.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:14:00 - [159] Originally by: Myra2007 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. You people? As in what? I haven't suicide ganked anyone ever. As a matter of fact i've never done any kind of agression in hisec so spare me that crap. Me neither, but anyone in support of the sandbox is obviously a griefer and a ganker. Hell, anyone in support of PvP in general is an evil individual who secretly a homicidal maniac, rapist and murderer, and should be branded with a scarlet letter in order to keep the masses safe. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:14:00 - [160] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 02/09/2008 15:15:12 Originally by: Myra2007 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. You people? As in what? I haven't suicide ganked anyone ever. As a matter of fact i've never done any kind of agression in hisec so spare me that crap. Whiners, idiots, and pubbies. You most definitely fall in all three categories. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:15:00 - [161] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for confirming what I've been saying all along. You have no idea. I was starting to think maybe I was a crazy person or something. But it begs a couple questions: 1) Why are you addressing the symptoms of the mineral market madness? Is there no intention to rectify that situation itself? 2) Why is it even possible for Insurance Payout versus Ship Cost to get so out of wack? Shouldn't there be a dynamic mechanism in place to guard against just such a thing? Seems to me that that would have lead to a finer balance than just wacking out insurance all together. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:15:00 - [162] Originally by: 5pinDizzy but doesn't it make sense? No.
Nahir	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:16:00 - [163] noooo dont ban wardecs! O.o i wana be able to kill *******s in highsec aswell!
Spenz Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:18:00 - [164] Edited by: Spenz on 02/09/2008 15:18:50 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. Ooooh burn. I agree 100%. Suicide-gankers are the carebears of pvp. They make no-risk isk, but unlike the pve carebear, they do it at the expense of others, and with metagaming tactics. They aren't whining because they feel that eve is losing some magic element that makes it "different" or whatever, they are whining because they are losing their isk-faucet. They can no longer make easy money ganking, and they are upset about that. Get over it you whiners. Congrats you have to make isk the hard way like everyone else who decided that they were above metagaming. If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Ironnight Caldari EBS9	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:21:00 - [165] Originally by: E'Pock ok, I might be a noob here but my question to all of you that are complaining about PvP in high sectors is this. 1) Why do you care if someone is just mining and making billions of isk? 2) if somone is just running missions then why do you need to PvP them? 1. Because it tends to ruin the marked. 2. Too stop them making a bil isk in total safety, flooding the marked with cheap faction mods, see #1. They're like 'oh shit son, its a trap ' Doomsday[/center]
Arkeladin	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:24:00 - [166] Originally by: Valan Edited by: Valan on 02/09/2008 00:23:25 Originally by: Malcanis 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? On the one hand, what CCP say On the other hand, what they're doing. See any contrast? There was an epidemic of high sec ganking hence the need for a balance, to be honest rightly so it was far too easy. However, people need to take note. After the patch you can STILL GANK it'll take more effort and the target will have to be more profitable. It's been balanced not irradicated if you wander out in a T1 hauler with billions after the patch thinking you're safe you're not. Granted it looks like a tone down but this is a less severe patch than the one to counteract the zombie incident YEARS ago and the high sec gank is still here. EDIT: It had to be balanced because the nature of the game has changed the player base is a lot dumber than before. Quoted for truth - it IS a tone-down. Be glad the devs didn't implement once change that was requested.... That CONCORD hang around and kill ANYONE save the owners that went for the leftover cans after a suicide gank. have 'em hang until the cans eiter were reclaimed by theiur original owners OR popped. That would have removed any profit from suicide ganks COMPLETELY, as the ganker couldn't get any loot. Or his buddies, or passers-by, etc. At least now, you just have to be a bit more careful in picking your targets to be profitable. It's hardly the death of highsec PvP, it's just the pirate now has to be a bit more intelligent. It should also have a weaning effect on those who gank for lulz - those types will get forced into wardecs/lowsec. And piracy will be the better for it
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:25:00 - [167] There is nothing wrong with making hisec safer. Suicides were out of control and it only makes sense to me to revoke their insurance if they are convicted of committing a heinous act of violence. It's not like they can't ever get insurance after that. War Dec's are poorly designed, in my opinion. Too much power in the aggressor, leaving far too many loopholes in what is a wholly legal action. I mean, this is sponsored by CONCORD and DED, right? What government in their right mind would allow two corporations to KILL each other, with nothing more than a couple mil in upfront payment? Now, if it was called a 'bribe' or 'lobbying', maybe. But if it's a legitimate government-sanctioned event, it needs to have all the red tape to go along with it. And lets look at the sec changes to CONCORD? Seems all fair and good to me. You do crime in higher sec, you take a higher hit. Anyone who would blantently attack someone in front of a police officer doesn't really have a defense when he gets painted a hardened, crazed criminal. And the buff to losec crime is pretty steep, too. This being said, where's the trade-off? Where do hisec occupants (such as myself) pay for this added protection? Do we get higher taxes? Or are we getting all the perks, and no downsides? That don't exactly seem fair to me. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:37:00 - [168] Originally by: Le Skunk I wish CCP Mat would respond to that - if only its to say "im sorry i said such a stupid thing - ill get back to fixing typos in ship descriptions Hi. Caveat: the entry you're quoting is, AFAIK, the CSM secretary's summary of the discussion, and is not a direct quote. (If it was, you'd likely see quotation marks around it.) I don't remember whether I actually used the word "grief" or not during the discussions. That said, I meant what I said then and I stand by it now. Hisec has existed as part of the game since the beginning. It has a specific purpose: to provide a geographic area which is comparatively safer than other areas of the game, to the extent that all other things being equal and in contrast with other areas, it's reasonable to expect that you won't be attacked by other players. That's a good and indeed highly desirable reason for a feature to exist in almost any MMO. War decs also serve a purpose, and create a specific scenario where all other things are not equal. From my point of view their gameplay purpose is to allow player corporations to target specific other player corporations who would otherwise be invulnerable in order to achieve specific strategic goals that couldn't be otherwise achieved. That's also a very good reason for a feature to exist in my opinion. As currently implemented, war decs also allow any arbitrary player corp to attack any member of any other arbitrary player corp within secure space with minimal warning and for basically any possible reason one cares to imagine, including "no reason at all" and "I just wanted to ruin other players' day". This is not, in my opinion, a good reason for a feature to exist - indeed, all other things being equal (there's that phrase again!) it's a good reason for a feature not to exist, and the fact that the wardec system does exist and that what's being discussed is a modification to remove just the undesirable side-effects and to try and avoid making substantive changes to the feature in the meantime I think speaks volumes about how serious we are about enabling the type of gameplay permitted by the wardec system as used according to its above-described purpose. All that said though, the ability to easily create conditions where a player corp can arbitrarily bypass the penalties for non-consensual combat in highsec space is unjustifiable as a design goal, and indeed flatly contradicts core design elements (the existance of highsec space) for no good reason. This applies doubly so while the mechanics necessarily compel players to leave social structures (corporations) in order to avoid becoming victim to such mechanics. If it can cleanly be removed, it should be. 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. tl;dr I have no intention of apologizing for the things I have said on this issue - I stand by them completely, and I fully support Hammer's position on the subject as well, both because I believe the position they represent is fully justified and because to support the contrary opinion (that it's OK for people to grief if they feel like it provided they jump through one small hoop first) would IMO lead the game down a path which would kill it stone dead, and I have no intention of letting that happen if I can possibly prevent it.

Death4free Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:43:00 - [169] is there anyone in ccp actually interested in preserving non consensual pvp since ur ideas suck tbh Eve information kiosk
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:45:00 - [170] Originally by: Death4free is there anyone in ccp actually interested in preserving non consensual pvp since ur ideas suck tbh Way to miss what he said. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr

midge Mo'yb Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:47:00 - [171] Greyscale while i agree with your comments partially, ccp are continually overdoing some things, suicide ganking worked because you lost nothing with current ship prices/insurance you just bought a new if you failed. but making concord pop up near enough instantly and instapop/instaneut you makes it nigh impossible to gank now, whereas the no insurance from ilegal actions would have made the gankers much more weary about what they were about to do other than oo juicy attack! :/ ccp throw too much at the "issues" nowadays instead of touching it up stepping back and tacking a look and ajusting it again if it didnt have the intended actions -----------------------------------------------
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:50:00 - [172] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Clarification Thank you for making your position clear: hi-sec PvP should really be either consensual and/or between "equals", (however that can be determined). There is to be no real scope for players to act as villains. Gotcha. That's pretty much what we'd inferred already, but it's considerate of you to confirm it. Now we can put the arguments about it to rest and move on to the next phase. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Navdaq Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:50:00 - [173] The direction Greyscale is trying to take the game will make it better. .
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.02 15:56:00 - [174] Originally by: Navdaq The direction Greyscale is trying to take the game will make it better. . Have to agree. Or well, he aint 'taking' it there, just making sure that 'stuff' is how it's supposed to be. However, current 'problem' (if you can say so) is that game is designed around single character but every account has 3 slots (allowing to large degree escape results of your actions) what in turn is even more magnified by the considerable portion of players with multiple accounts.
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:09:00 - [175] I disagree with the OP. I also disagree with the 'sky is falling WoW in space' types. What we are seeing is evolution. CCP hasn't changed their mind, they're fixing things that are busted (in their view). Are they right? Depends on your point of view. Will Wardecs go away from Highsec? No. They (hopefully) just won't be pointless ways to blackmail people who aren't ready (or aren't willing) to do the low/null sec thing or to generate easy ganks against folks entirely unsuited to fighting. That's pretty much the case now and some folks like it that way. Mostly not the people on the receiving end, although there are exceptions. I recall all too well my earlier days when I could only fly a cruiser and our smallish mission running corp was wardecced by some group we'd never heard of. They declared themselves 'pirates' and we were to pay them 100 million or they'd 'destroy us'. Uh huh. There were two of them. Two folks, one of whom had a fairly nice Raven. The other guy had something else, not so combat capable IIRC. Well, they picked on the wrong folks. Vixen told them to go bark at the moon and we all went looking for wartargets. In the end we pinned the guy in a high sec station in his Raven and he wouldn't come out to play aside from station jockeying, which he got the worst of every time while all of Local laughed at him for starting a war but not being willing to fight it. Poor kid wanted to play 'Mean Pirate' and make a lot of easy money. Wound up losing his prized ship and not being treated very well. Who did this system benefit? He didn't come out well, he bit off more than he could chew and got crushed. Our non combat players had their ops interrupted due to having to watch for war attacks and generally were annoyed. Our combat folks never got a stand up fight out of it, only annoying station jockeying. In short - no one won. The biggest reason no one won was the really important one for a game. No one had fun. So yeah - of course the wardec system needs work if this is what it generates. It doesn't serve the purpose a corporate war should - acquiring resources, markets or territories. It isn't fun (unless it's totally one sided in which case it might be fun for the sociopath gank types) and it isn't even terribly good roleplaying. It doesn't make EVE "Cold and Harsh" it makes it New Eden 90220. In short, it's juvenile. It's not serving its intended purpose. Before running around all doom and gloom, why not give CCP a chance to actually fix the issue and create something better? May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:10:00 - [176] Originally by: CCP Greyscale long post Much like Malcanis already said, thank you for explaining that the old days are gone. The dog-eat-dog world we grew to love is being replaced by a world where 'consentual' and 'fair' are the key words. That is very good to know, because it makes the decision of wether or not to continue playing the game much easier. Now, if you could have said this two years ago I needn't have bothered signing up in the first place. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Dionisius Gallente Vagabundos	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:11:00 - [177] Greyscale ftw, those were the best news i could have read so far today. _____________________________________
Siberys Gallente Nebula Sharks	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:13:00 - [178] How many drugs did you take, OP, before you made this thread?
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:13:00 - [179] Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 02/09/2008 16:14:34 Originally by: Ki An Much like Malcanis already said, thank you for explaining that the old days are gone. The dog-eat-dog world we grew to love is being replaced by a world where 'consentual' and 'fair' are the key words. That is very good to know, because it makes the decision of wether or not to continue playing the game much easier. Now, if you could have said this two years ago I needn't have bothered signing up in the first place. Can I have your stuff? (I've been wanting to say that forever....) added: Seriously though, I don't want anyone to leave over an clarification of a GAME. But CCP has been saying for the last year and a half players were taking things beyond game intentions. ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:21:00 - [180] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: CCP Greyscale long post Much like Malcanis already said, thank you for explaining that the old days are gone. The dog-eat-dog world we grew to love is being replaced by a world where 'consentual' and 'fair' are the key words. That is very good to know, because it makes the decision of wether or not to continue playing the game much easier. Now, if you could have said this two years ago I needn't have bothered signing up in the first place. I'm usually not one that likes to stoop to your level, but you'll find the response you gave me on another thread quite appropriate here. Originally by: Ki An I'm glad you've finally come to your senses, Exlegion. Have a nice life (in Empire) and stay away from these threads in the future. Just replace my name with your own. Karma's a biatch, ain't it? One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:24:00 - [181] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby added: Seriously though, I don't want anyone to leave over an clarification of a GAME. But CCP has been saying for the last year and a half players were taking things beyond game intentions. No, they haven't. They have continuously stated that risk vs reward should apply and that Eve should be a "cold and harsh" universe for everyone. Those are some of the justifications they used for the current high sec pvp nerf, and for the nano nerf. It becomes more and more clear that by saying that risk vs reward should apply for "all players" they really mean "all PvPers". High sec dwelling PvErs are to be excempt from this. Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Eaton d'Sorder	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:24:00 - [182] 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. it never ceases to amaze me how the pvp crowd whine about 'having' to rat for hours..... wow such punishment, you 'have' to do what all the carebears want to do.... they just want to do it without someone warping in and interrupting them.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:31:00 - [183] Originally by: Malcanis Suicide ganking is metagamey, but it's caused in the first place by the implacable nature of CONCORD. If instead of being buffed, CONCORD was made escapable (not easily or simply, but at least possibly), players engaging in ganking might be inclined to use ships that would potentially survive. Imagine a high speed chase with the loot to the nearest lo-sec system with CONCORD in hot pursuit: that would have to be well planned, and take lots of player skill. It would in fact be awesome. Lots of excitement, lots of risk, lots of fun. Ok, that would be indeed awesome. It might be an Idea to look at, after Speed of Cruiser sized ships has been nerfed and also the abuse of Insurance is gone. Maybe CCP could create a Smuggler Stargates of various Pirate Factions in Empire. The Gates are unguarded by Concord, Police or Sentries but only accessable if you have really good standings with the Pirate Faction which operates the Gate. Also it could be made so that Speed in which Concord responds to small ships is limited. So in the end we have a mechanic that allows, maybe a Gang of Interceptors to swarm a target like Piranhas, get their loot and escape while being chased by Police. But this is only a rough idea and would be very hard to implement, balance and then stop loopholes before they can be exploited in this.
Faife Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:32:00 - [184] ccp is griefing griefers - -
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:33:00 - [185] Originally by: Eaton d'Sorder So to kill a mission whoring isk farmer in a mission hub... Mission grinding isk farmer in mission hub is not a bad thing as long as it's not some isk seller. I would go as far as to guess that it is usually some alt trying to keep his main in combat ships to pewpew more.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:34:00 - [186] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Eaton d'Sorder So to kill a mission whoring isk farmer in a mission hub... Mission grinding isk farmer in mission hub is not a bad thing as long as it's not some isk seller. I would go as far as to guess that it is usually some alt trying to keep his main in combat ships to pewpew more. If that isn't a reason to kill them, I don't know what legitimate reason is. Killing a pewpew alt seems much more logical and 'legit' than going after an isk seller. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:35:00 - [187] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: CCP Greyscale long post Much like Malcanis already said, thank you for explaining that the old days are gone. The dog-eat-dog world we grew to love is being replaced by a world where 'consentual' and 'fair' are the key words. That is very good to know, because it makes the decision of wether or not to continue playing the game much easier. Now, if you could have said this two years ago I needn't have bothered signing up in the first place. Ah, well, don't try and say you haven't had some fun in the meanwhile Ki. Very well, so hi-sec is be be the safe happy playground. It's been confirmed pretty much explicitly. Well OK, we can work with that, as I've said before. Of course it makes it valueless for players like you and me, but those are the breaks. I'm going to step up the campaign for "the promised lands", I think. it's worth a try before I abandon the investment I've made. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:37:00 - [188] So how does that tie to the devs of old ganking people in their cruise kestrels?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:37:00 - [189] Originally by: Eaton d'Sorder 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. it never ceases to amaze me how the pvp crowd whine about 'having' to rat for hours..... wow such punishment, you 'have' to do what all the carebears want to do.... they just want to do it without someone warping in and interrupting them. Because ratting is boring. And people really can warp in and interrupt you while you're doing it as well. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:38:00 - [190] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada So how does that tie to the devs of old ganking people in their cruise kestrels? Those devs are gone. They were "killing the game". (Don't look at those subscription igures that managed to rise through the horrible times of possible ganking, hi-sec "griefing" etc ) CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Chiggie	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:38:00 - [191] I strongly agree with the idea of retribution. We should be able to do whatever you want in this game, but there will be consequences. So what are the solutions? Hard to say, I'm sure I do not have them all. But for one how about making the freighters and haulers a wee bit tougher. As seems pretty stupid to me that a a Minor Capital ship such as a freighter cannot mount a single modules. Give them defense capability and maybe drones or something like that. Being able to mount a DC II and shield or armor mods would make a freighter gank more survivable, for the freighter anyway. I like the concord response and Sec Level hit changes those makes sense to me. But really, having a billion ISK cap ship that takes a week and a have to align and warp, and not able to help itself is just stupid.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:38:00 - [192] Originally by: Malcanis Ah, well, don't try and say you haven't had some fun in the meanwhile Ki. Very well, so hi-sec is be be the safe happy playground. It's been confirmed pretty much explicitly. Well OK, we can work with that, as I've said before. Of course it makes it valueless for players like you and me, but those are the breaks. I'm going to step up the campaign for "the promised lands", I think. it's worth a try before I abandon the investment I've made. Yeah, there's been some good times. It's sad that a great game like Eve will go down the same drain as games like UO and SWG. I always had such high respect for the CCP devs, and I always figured that, even if I didn't understand a change, it was made to improve the game according to the original vision. Those days are gone. I suppose that battle ground PvP can be fun for a while. Gonna test it out. Otherwise I can always try out WoW. It's a much better PvE game than Eve. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:39:00 - [193] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada So how does that tie to the devs of old ganking people in their cruise kestrels? The devs of old are managers and big dogs now, and have more important things to take care of. Like managing the many underling developers working on EvE, WoD, and various other projects. Hell, I don't know. After five years of working on a game, I might be sick and tired of it. I know many of the devs used to be players, too, and such. I wouldn't be surprised if the newer guys still have an account or three, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the older crew gave EvE the Larry Bird and went about their merry way whistling Dixie. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:39:00 - [194] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Malcanis Ah, well, don't try and say you haven't had some fun in the meanwhile Ki. Very well, so hi-sec is be be the safe happy playground. It's been confirmed pretty much explicitly. Well OK, we can work with that, as I've said before. Of course it makes it valueless for players like you and me, but those are the breaks. I'm going to step up the campaign for "the promised lands", I think. it's worth a try before I abandon the investment I've made. Yeah, there's been some good times. It's sad that a great game like Eve will go down the same drain as games like UO and SWG. I always had such high respect for the CCP devs, and I always figured that, even if I didn't understand a change, it was made to improve the game according to the original vision. Those days are gone. I suppose that battle ground PvP can be fun for a while. Gonna test it out. Otherwise I can always try out WoW. It's a much better PvE game than Eve. You mean FW? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:43:00 - [195] Originally by: Malcanis You mean FW? Well, FW or all low sec PvP. Most of 0.0 too. Don't you know: If you want PvP, go to low sec or 0.0. That's what it's there for. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Holy Lowlander Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:44:00 - [196] the day you can't shoot someone in highsec without a wardec .. is the day when eve becomes WoW in space .... Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:47:00 - [197] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Cygnus Zhada So how does that tie to the devs of old ganking people in their cruise kestrels? The devs of old are managers and big dogs now, and have more important things to take care of. Like managing the many underling developers working on EvE, WoD, and various other projects. Hell, I don't know. After five years of working on a game, I might be sick and tired of it. I know many of the devs used to be players, too, and such. I wouldn't be surprised if the newer guys still have an account or three, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the older crew gave EvE the Larry Bird and went about their merry way whistling Dixie. Reading the blogs, it's hard to escape the niggling suspicion that a certain dev is ****ed off after getting suicide-ganked. I doubt it's that blatent. It seems more probable that the newer dev crew is actually younger, and is more familiar with games like EQII and DAoC, and less familiar with old UO, or old SWG, etc. The sandbox style has shown that it markets to far fewer players than the linear 'open ended' system, and it's discomforting to those individuals who were raised to think that someone will always be there to protect them. If you were raised to believe that the world is rough and people are mean, to protect yourself and take responsibility for your actions and choices ... EvE seems to appeal to you. Whereas games where some NPC protects you from the grievances of others is slightly disturbing. I don't play games for utopia. I prefer a little more realism than the mass markets have. I don't like playing a game like WoW, where the developers impose their morals and values, and lower the level of interaction between players to the lowest level possible, and punish and ban anyone for committing scams and whatnot. Course, I'm also not the type of person who expects God to punish the evil people in the world and leave the innocents alone. You have to be pretty dense to not see the facts that lots of evil people grow to ripe old ages, and lots of innocent people die young or are put in jail for a crime they didn't commit. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:49:00 - [198] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Malcanis You mean FW? Well, FW or all low sec PvP. Most of 0.0 too. Don't you know: If you want PvP, go to low sec or 0.0. That's what it's there for. Indeed. BTW not all 0.0 fighting is dull-as-ditchwater POS shooting or ultra-blobbing. In fact I've joined my current corp precisely because I like roams. Don't join a naplander alliance - hook up with someone like Outbreak or Tri if you go to 0.0. Can I count on your support for an expansion of 0.0 space as prototyped in my "Let's work this out" thread? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Jei Li	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:49:00 - [199] Edited by: Jei Li on 02/09/2008 16:52:02 new people dont have the knowledge or experience of most of you. there many that go to hi sec to mess with new people just because they can i pay for my game, and if i wished to be attacked or messed with i'd go to lower sec areas. Point is that hi sec is for learning i believe is it not? Seems that many of you like toying with new people so why not pay for our game then you can do as you wish. you all were new were you not? so leave us new people alone in 1.0 sec or buy my eve
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:49:00 - [200] Well that (Greyscale's Comments) pretty much clear things up.. Killing for "lulz" is not where CCP Wants(wanted) to go..neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here). Unfortuanltely they have not been able to (as of yet) come up with a system that get rid of both. So the situation we have now today is the result. Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...) in any event we now have a good idea of what is "Not" a good reason so the Sandbox psychos will be very unhappy. Psychopaths (in-game not RL though some is going to misconstue my context) are going to get dealt with harshly (cold harsh world indeed but it usually is for crazy people). So those who like to kill "because they can" can contract me their stuff on their way out the door that leads to Counter Strike... (LoL) Those who wanted clarification on What CCP's goal is, well now you got it.. Time to put your money where your virtual mouths are. (in my wallet preferably).. ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod

Tia Tzu Caldari G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:50:00 - [201] I agree CCP have been beating around the bush a bit on this but I still have little sympathy for your viewpoint. It takes zero skill to sit on a gate and gank afk noobs autopiloting through empire. High sec ganking only reached its current level after CCP introduced warp to zero a while back. So the difference is the people who used to sit on low sec gates ganking players who didnt have bookmark sets for every region in the game, now sit in high sec doing exactly the same thing. Don't get me wrong i agree that eve is a sandbox and we should be free to play however we like. but stop pretending it takes any more skill to do what you do than it does to mine veldspar in 1.0 space.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:52:00 - [202] Originally by: Threv Echandari neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here). Where does he state this? I think it would be quite obvious by now that exploiting mechanics to avoid combat (loggoffski, corp hopping etc...) is a-ok, but exploiting mechanics to initiate combat is not. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
E'Pock	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:52:00 - [203] So basically, and let em see if i can sum this up right. PvPs want the same "rights" as "carebears". PvPs are pretty much "Pirates" PvPs dont want to have any "Penelties" for acting like "Pirates" PvPs pretty much think by breaking the law they shouldnt loose something in return. If PvPs were in real life, instead of cyberspace, doing the same things they are doing in EVE would they be allowed to get insurance?....would they not be subject to the law?....if they want to be PvPers then I think its all fair for it to be harder on them and they need to stop whining about it. Look at the Pirates of old...were they not hunted down for crimes...were they not allowed into certain ports becasue of unlawful acts....get a grip people. You do the crime, and in this case being a pirate(PvPer) is a crime, you have to do the time. I keep hearing "i have to do this and i have to do that because i wanted to kill someone or steal something"....well even tho its a game there still has to be "rules"...get use to it....its called life and in here you chose to be a PvPer...no one made you do it...no one forced you to become one..so in essance the only person you can blame is yourself...not the makers of the game.
Gevic	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:54:00 - [204] Edited by: Gevic on 02/09/2008 16:56:35 Why are they changing the wardec system in favour of the defenders, when the defenders can already constantly corp hop, turning the system into a eve version of whack a mole in the first place? Or simply hop to an NPC corp and set up a private channel amongst themselves, avoiding the wardec system altogether? And why say they are interested in shifting the current mechanics of non-consentual pvp in hisec purely towards logistics in the age of jump freighters, cyno alts and jump bridges? These things already allow logistics to be near impossible to disrupt in 0.0, and now they want to make it more difficult in high sec as well? It's already hard enough to snag any of those ships, since more often than not, they are flown by competent pilots surrounded by other competent pilots with various tools at their disposal that make the prospect of taking them out prohibitively expensive if not impossible. Greyscale states that making supply lines via blanket immunity is undesirable (and is one of the reasons why he isn't in favour of it), well isn't it (in hi sec) nearly invulnerable already? Really, often only through the use of the current wardec mechanic (which has been deemed pay-to-grief and thus undesirable) and hisec ganking mechanics, are they taken out. Well that and other metagaming tactics such as spies, are you going to find a way to fix that too ? He also states that by attaching a percieved risk, it (and I'm paraphrasing) allows newer players to acclimate to activities with greater risk later on. Yeah ok. Which is evident in the HORDES of people in lowsec and nullsec right? The people already willing to take the risk are already out there, while the those who aren't willing to take risks are going to be in high sec. And its going to stay that way, short of you implementing something that bypasses the current pvp mechanics altogether like a pvp flag. So really, how isn't all these changes (and the future changes that we can infer from this) pushing hisec towards blanket immunity from pvp anyway?
Fados Radically Awesome People Eaters	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:55:00 - [205] I can't wait to see what kind of ship Arthas will be flying
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:55:00 - [206] Originally by: E'Pock So basically, and let em see if i can sum this up right. PvPs want the same "rights" as "carebears". PvPs are pretty much "Pirates" PvPs dont want to have any "Penelties" for acting like "Pirates" PvPs pretty much think by breaking the law they shouldnt loose something in return. If PvPs were in real life, instead of cyberspace, doing the same things they are doing in EVE would they be allowed to get insurance?....would they not be subject to the law?....if they want to be PvPers then I think its all fair for it to be harder on them and they need to stop whining about it. Look at the Pirates of old...were they not hunted down for crimes...were they not allowed into certain ports becasue of unlawful acts....get a grip people. You do the crime, and in this case being a pirate(PvPer) is a crime, you have to do the time. I keep hearing "i have to do this and i have to do that because i wanted to kill someone or steal something"....well even tho its a game there still has to be "rules"...get use to it....its called life and in here you chose to be a PvPer...no one made you do it...no one forced you to become one..so in essance the only person you can blame is yourself...not the makers of the game. Do you need a clue? I'll contract it for you in Dodixie. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.02 16:57:00 - [207] Originally by: Ki An Yeah, there's been some good times. It's sad that a great game like Eve will go down the same drain as games like UO and SWG. Ohh ohhh. Cool. I was already withing for that cruncing my popcorn. Well that or that 'wow in space' sentiment. In more serious note there is always doomprohpets out there telling us how EVE will die of this or that. Aint dead yet and will not be even after few people emoragequit over this or that. Be it then 'damn carebears' fretting about 'griefing' or 'hardcore pewpew guys' playing the 'wow in space' card.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:00:00 - [208] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Threv Echandari neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here). Where does he state this? I think it would be quite obvious by now that exploiting mechanics to avoid combat (loggoffski, corp hopping etc...) is a-ok, but exploiting mechanics to initiate combat is not. Actually, using in-game mechanics to avoid combat IS wrong. Check out the first MWD nerf, the first nano nerf, the first stab nerf, the new nano nerf ... the primary reason for these nerfs (besides the latest 'it's hurting the server') is because they don't want people to escape from combat. Well, it's wrong until you get into noob corps and hisec. Then avoiding combat is a-ok. And using cloaks and loggoffski's ... Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Aodha Khan Minmatar The Paratwa FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:00:00 - [209] Edited by: Aodha Khan on 02/09/2008 17:01:47 Originally by: Le Skunk PVP IS being remove from high sec. Wardecs have been called by a CCP bod "a pay to grief system". And are "high priority". They are next. url to any CCP employee stating this? If so, looks like another Ultima Online Trammel... NO, you cant have my stuff......yet. Paratwa Recruitment
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:03:00 - [210] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Threv Echandari neither is players abusing system mechanics so they can hide from those who kill for "Lulz" (Psycopaths is the word I'm thinking here). Where does he state this? I think it would be quite obvious by now that exploiting mechanics to avoid combat (loggoffski, corp hopping etc...) is a-ok, but exploiting mechanics to initiate combat is not. I'm Refering to this... Originally by: CCP Greyscale ....the fact that the wardec system does exist and that what's being discussed is a modification to remove just the undesirable side-effects and to try and avoid making substantive changes to the feature in the meantime I think speaks volumes about how serious we are about enabling the type of gameplay permitted by the wardec system as used according to its above-described purpose. All that said though, the ability to easily create conditions where a player corp can arbitrarily bypass the penalties for non-consensual combat in highsec space is unjustifiable as a design goal (My Intepretation..Refers to Suicide Ganking), and indeed flatly contradicts core design elements (the existance of highsec space) for no good reason. This applies doubly so while the mechanics necessarily compel players to leave social structures (corporations) in order to avoid becoming victim to such mechanics. (My Intepretation..Refers to corp hopping) ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod

Fyrkraag Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:06:00 - [211] I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being able to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality. It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships. Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:08:00 - [212] Originally by: Gevic Edited by: Gevic on 02/09/2008 16:56:35 Why are they changing the wardec system in favour of the defenders, when the defenders can already constantly corp hop, turning the system into a eve version of whack a mole in the first place? Or simply hop to an NPC corp and set up a private channel amongst themselves, avoiding the wardec system altogether? /---snip----/ So really, how isn't all these changes (and the future changes that we can infer from this) pushing hisec towards blanket immunity from pvp anyway? Yes, these (also brought up by Ki Ann, Malacanis and others) are legitimate points. However, think about it like this: Until they provide a legitimate method of a defending corp to deal with its problems other than just fighting, how can they "force" players to stay in that corp? Right now the attacker has all the advantages, with none of the disadvantages. They chose the target (hence knowing the danger), they control when and where the fight occours, they are under NO pretense to fight if they feel threatened, etc. The defender has only two real choices if the attacker did their job right; dock or corp hop. Hiring mercs isn't a "choise" simply because the cost of such endeavours. The deccing corp pays as little as 2m for a week of decs, Mercs average some 250m for the same week. Bit of a difference.... After the wardec changes go through, the defending corp may have options to use ITS strengths (faction standings, etc) to get out of the dec. In this case it is more player-friendly for CCP to put restrictions on jumping/shifting corps like they used to. ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:09:00 - [213] 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.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:10:00 - [214] Originally by: Fyrkraag I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being able to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality. It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships. Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing. Immersion is a big one for me, but many players seem to hate it. For example, I would prefer that CONCORD warp scrams and tows you back to a local outpost, to be held for a specific period of time, especially for minor crimes like theft and whatnot. But if you kill a pod, they should not only pop your ship, but pop your pod, too. But 'immersion' is a hate word. Players don't want immersion. Heck, at a certain point, you can have too much immersion. I don't want to work in game, know what I mean? Or be forced to eat every few hours, that kind of thing. Maybe if my character took care of some of those things himself, especially when I wasn't online, then sure. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:11:00 - [215] Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:12:00 - [216] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Holy Lowlander Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:13:00 - [217] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: E'Pock So basically, and let em see if i can sum this up right. PvPs want the same "rights" as "carebears". PvPs are pretty much "Pirates" PvPs dont want to have any "Penelties" for acting like "Pirates" PvPs pretty much think by breaking the law they shouldnt loose something in return. If PvPs were in real life, instead of cyberspace, doing the same things they are doing in EVE would they be allowed to get insurance?....would they not be subject to the law?....if they want to be PvPers then I think its all fair for it to be harder on them and they need to stop whining about it. Look at the Pirates of old...were they not hunted down for crimes...were they not allowed into certain ports becasue of unlawful acts....get a grip people. You do the crime, and in this case being a pirate(PvPer) is a crime, you have to do the time. I keep hearing "i have to do this and i have to do that because i wanted to kill someone or steal something"....well even tho its a game there still has to be "rules"...get use to it....its called life and in here you chose to be a PvPer...no one made you do it...no one forced you to become one..so in essance the only person you can blame is yourself...not the makers of the game. Do you need a clue? I'll contract it for you in Dodixie. The law part ... I have a lovely series of sybols for you . C O N C O R D ... Its cyberspace , CCP aint the law they are the gods that just make the game better or ruin it , concord is the police and they do their job better as the police irl ... Also all MMO's have a safe area or something .. Well not eve and that makes eve such an awsome game. Sure they should work a bit on suicide ganking etc. But don't remove non wardec pvp from highsec .... can flipping miners , killing people cause you can , can baiting outside station .. and more. ITS A PART OF THE GAME.....its always bin and it should always be. The problem with alot of people hiding in highsec is that they think its the end of the world when they get blown up . It isn't .... it really isn't .... And about saying eve should be like real life (sounds strange doesn't it)... Why play a game if it should be matching with real life ... =/ . the brilliant part about eve is that there are no safezones ... If someone really wants it and I mean really wants it he can just kill you. And that should not change .... Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:13:00 - [218] Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 02/09/2008 17:13:39 Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? He's Hydra, all you need to know.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:14:00 - [219] Originally by: Armoured C this game you actually have to use brains But only enough to know how to whine on the forums effectively. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:14:00 - [220] Originally by: Threv Echandari I'm Refering to this... Originally by: CCP Greyscale ....the fact that the wardec system does exist and that what's being discussed is a modification to remove just the undesirable side-effects and to try and avoid making substantive changes to the feature in the meantime I think speaks volumes about how serious we are about enabling the type of gameplay permitted by the wardec system as used according to its above-described purpose. All that said though, the ability to easily create conditions where a player corp can arbitrarily bypass the penalties for non-consensual combat in highsec space is unjustifiable as a design goal (My Intepretation..Refers to Suicide Ganking), and indeed flatly contradicts core design elements (the existance of highsec space) for no good reason. This applies doubly so while the mechanics necessarily compel players to leave social structures (corporations) in order to avoid becoming victim to such mechanics. (My Intepretation..Refers to corp hopping) Well, your interpretation is built on assumptions. My interpretation that what he means is what he says is built upon facts. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:16:00 - [221] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. When HYDRA gives up and goes back to Empire, I'm calling a Jihad on you. Should be in about a week. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:16:00 - [222] Edited by: Shadowsword on 02/09/2008 17:17:07 The amount of whining in this thread is pretty Epic. 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? Most people agree that regaining security statut was too easy. among other things, it rendered the statut of real pirate (-10.0) meaningless, by making it's consequences easy to bypass. Every wannabe gankbear could recover with just a few days of npcing. God forbid CCP should make it a bit harder! And you still don't know just how much harder it actually is... "ZOMG! CCP killed pvp! Canceling my 12 accounts!1!!1!" Guys, go buy yourselves a brain, seriously... Then, the insurance thingie. The ONLY thing it does is increase the profitability ceiling. Right now you can turn a profit if a freighter carry more than 500M of stuff. You do realise, I hope, that the cargo is only about 2/3 of the ship's value? Suicide ganking is meant to punish moronic behaviour, not normal ones, like the one who put 300M of cargo in a T1 hauler, but you don't need insurance for that. You're all overreacting so much it's damn fun to see you tear your hairs out of your skull. ------------------------------------------
Andreus Ixiris Gallente Mixed Metaphor	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:20:00 - [223] Edited by: Andreus Ixiris on 02/09/2008 17:21:00 Personally, I think (and understand that this is coming from a guy who makes his money running hi-sec level 4s, for reference) that you should still get at least minimal insurance from ships destroyed by CONCORD, and more importantly that they shouldn't warp-scramble you. I think CONCORD should be escapable (although successfully escaping should not neccessarily be EASY - it should be something you can brag about on the forums if you manage to pull it off) and if you do manage to escape them (i.e. reach low-sec with a GCF that was obtained in hi-sec) you should receive an additional security hit. Basically, I think CONCORD should be a deterrent to hi-sec crime and not an impassable wall. I support the current changes to their lethality - warping in two cruisers and a battleship that kill your cap in a manner of seconds and deal out a significant amount of pain is a good idea. Warpscramming the offender is not. I think an attack by CONCORD should present you with a choice - stay and accept inevitable ship destruction by the police, but possibly achieve your objective, or abandon your objective and flee, but possibly retreat with your ship intact. For suicide gankers, the violence with CONCORD can dish out should make it very clear that they will lose their ship if they stay, and may not get the full insurance - but they can achieve their objective. Or, they can abandon their objective, but have a chance to keep their ship alive. ----- CEO, Mixed Metaphor Dance Commander

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:21:00 - [224] Originally by: Threv Echandari Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...) The "who determines?" question is the big problem. This is what objectives for example might try to tackle (although not necessarily "solve") - conceptually, if you can find some way such that the players involved can agree on what would be a "reasonable" objective and then terminate the war once that objective is met, then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system. Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. To be honest, I've not seen anything (anywhere!) to suggest that it might be even conceptually possible to actually eliminate grief play mechanically in a multiplayer game, at least not until we have AI systems that can exercise reliable judgment at a similar level to humans (and at that point I'm not sure it counts as "mechanical" per se); the best that can be done is to state goals and then work towards them with the hope of mitigating the potential for undesired gameplay and trying to avoid wherever possible restricting legitimate activity in the pursuit of said goals. I'd love a wardec system which offered no additional avenues for griefers in hisec space. Do I think we'll ever get one? Right now I'm not massively confident. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Of course not. The reality is that we've got a highly desirable system that includes some undesirable side-effects, and it's unclear whether or not there's a completely successful way to excise the latter while maintaining the former. If we can find a modification which reduces the grief potential while not impacting the war system's primary goals, it'll probably get implemented. If not, for the time being we're holding the course, and the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further.

Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:22:00 - [225] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? Okay, since you didn't understand what I meant (or rather pretended not to), I'll spell it out. Let me know if I go too fast for ya: Since he's threatening CCP by griefing players out of game if they continue to protect players from grief itself I found it rather closely paralleling terrorism. Kind of like when someone says "He pulled a Kameekazee!". They're not implying he just crashed a plane into a ship. It means they did something crazy and suicidal, figuratively speaking. But I suspect you know exactly what I mean and are just trying to blow it out of proportion. Good luck with that, though :). One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:22:00 - [226] Originally by: Shadowsword The amount of whining in this thread is pretty Epic. CCP buff concord and sec penalties. So? Does any how you even know how much of a buff it is? What if Concord is only 10% faster? We do know how much of a buff it is. It's right there in the patch notes. Reports from SiSi reinforces this knowledge. CONCORD responsetime has been halved. Originally by: Shadowsword Most people agree that regaining security statut was too easy. among other things, it rendered the statut of real pirate (-10.0) meaningless, by making it's consequences easy to bypass. No, most people didn't agree with that. Some carebears thought that was a fact when it clearly wasn't. The ease of sec status regaining was only ever applicable to 0.0 alliances. Everyone else did not have anything remotely categorized as an easy time in regaining sec status. Originally by: Shadowsword Every wannabe gankbear could recover with just a few days of npcing. No, they couldn't. Please think before you post. Originally by: Shadowsword God forbid CCP should make it a bit harder! And you still don't know just how much harder it actually is... We know exactly how much harder it is. Don't you read dev blogs and patch notes? Originally by: Shadowsword "ZOMG! CCP killed pvp! Canceling my 12 accounts!1!!1!" Guys, go buy yourselves a brain, seriously... Fairly ironic, don't you think? Originally by: Shadowsword Then, the insurance thingie. The ONLY thing it does is increase the profitability ceiling. Right now you can turn a profit if a freighter carry more than 500M of stuff. You do realise, I hope, that the cargo is only about 2/3 of the ship's value? Suicide ganking is meant to punish moronic behaviour, not normal ones, like the one who put 300M of cargo in a T1 hauler, but you don't need insurance for that. Run the numbers (and for God's sake, look at the patch notes first) and you will see that the changes makes freighters in high sec 99.9% safe. The only possible way of losing a freighter is if you are IDed as running logistics for a 0.0 alliance, and that alliance's enemies figure it's worth putting around 4 billions on the line in order to harrass said logistics. Originally by: Shadowsword You're all overreacting so much it's damn fun to see you tear your hairs out of your skull. No, we're underreacting!!! How 'bout that? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Fyrkraag Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:25:00 - [227] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Fyrkraag I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being able to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality. It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships. Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing. Immersion is a big one for me, but many players seem to hate it. For example, I would prefer that CONCORD warp scrams and tows you back to a local outpost, to be held for a specific period of time, especially for minor crimes like theft and whatnot. But if you kill a pod, they should not only pop your ship, but pop your pod, too. But 'immersion' is a hate word. Players don't want immersion. Heck, at a certain point, you can have too much immersion. I don't want to work in game, know what I mean? Or be forced to eat every few hours, that kind of thing. Maybe if my character took care of some of those things himself, especially when I wasn't online, then sure. Obviously, there has to be balance. :)
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 - [228] 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.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 - [229] Originally by: CCP Greyscale I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort". And then you ignore them or tell them to STFU. Thanks for the reply it's always good to know the reasoning behind things like this whether individuals agree or not. Any chance of you nagging someone to make a statement on the level 4 situation in one of that subjects threads? It would be nice to know the Devs position on the issues presented, even if no action is currently planned, and would save a lot of useless bickering. You can't please everyone, but you can let everyone know whether your intentions for the game a going to please them or not.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 - [230] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear. Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest. Terrorism at its best. "Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more". Real mature. Just real mature. You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? Okay, since you didn't understand what I meant (or rather pretended not to), I'll spell it out. Let me know if I go too fast for ya: Since he's threatening CCP by griefing players out of game if they continue to protect players from grief itself I found it rather closely paralleling terrorism. Kind of like when someone says "He pulled a Kameekazee!". They're not implying he just crashed a plane into a ship. It means they did something crazy and suicidal, figuratively speaking. But I suspect you know exactly what I mean and are just trying to blow it out of proportion. Good luck with that, though :). I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'. It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:27:00 - [231] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Originally by: Threv Echandari Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...) The "who determines?" question is the big problem. This is what objectives for example might try to tackle (although not necessarily "solve") - conceptually, if you can find some way such that the players involved can agree on what would be a "reasonable" objective and then terminate the war once that objective is met, then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system. Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. To be honest, I've not seen anything (anywhere!) to suggest that it might be even conceptually possible to actually eliminate grief play mechanically in a multiplayer game, at least not until we have AI systems that can exercise reliable judgment at a similar level to humans (and at that point I'm not sure it counts as "mechanical" per se); the best that can be done is to state goals and then work towards them with the hope of mitigating the potential for undesired gameplay and trying to avoid wherever possible restricting legitimate activity in the pursuit of said goals. I'd love a wardec system which offered no additional avenues for griefers in hisec space. Do I think we'll ever get one? Right now I'm not massively confident. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Of course not. The reality is that we've got a highly desirable system that includes some undesirable side-effects, and it's unclear whether or not there's a completely successful way to excise the latter while maintaining the former. If we can find a modification which reduces the grief potential while not impacting the war system's primary goals, it'll probably get implemented. If not, for the time being we're holding the course, and the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further. I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:30:00 - [232] Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? He's not going to reply to that, Malcanis. Greyscale's posts have so far only served to further reinforce our view of what is going on with the game. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:30:00 - [233] Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? The first day of beta. ______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational"
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:32:00 - [234] Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? The instant Ki An and others state "If someone drops from the corp I hound them through all other corps they join, war deccing every one". By definition, even CCP's in the EULA, that is griefing. So now you can blame Ki An too ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
Duke Daniels Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 - [235] ahah look at all that backpedaling and damage control. someone spoke a little more than they should...
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 - [236] To all the whineage in this thread! If you don't like it QUIT! And contract your things to me, thank you. Otherwise just shut up, as you're not achieving anything but making asses of yourselves. Why do you miss suicide ganks so much in high sec anyway? Were you ENTIRELY reliant on them before the patch? was this your ONLY game play? As it has been pointed out on the forums for the 1111!!!11...th time.. EvE changes. Adapt or die.. goes for everyone in EvE. What bugs me most is that you haven't even been that much participating in Suicide ganking as your big mouths make it out to be.. so what is it then? A lot of spare time or just need to vent b/c of how hard your lives are? Keep at it, sorry to waste precious space on your way to the 11th + page of whines... now to teh cheese..
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 - [237] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby The instant Ki An and others state "If someone drops from the corp I hound them through all other corps they join, war deccing every one". By definition, even CCP's in the EULA, that is griefing. So now you can blame Ki An too Actually, according to (old) CCP, that isn't griefing. We have been told it's ok. Apparently these (new) devs are going to change that. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:35:00 - [238] Originally by: Ruze I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'. It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made. Pot and kettle come to mind. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:35:00 - [239] This guy actually gets it
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:36:00 - [240] Personally nothing has changed for me in EvE, and this change is a response to an overused and lame (don't know why you call it PvP in high sec) tactic. Here.. keep trolling and blah blah blabbing.. nao.. /Adjusts comfortably headphones and enjoys the rest of the cheese...

Leviathan9 Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:38:00 - [241] EVE is a sandbox game, meaning you can do what the ** you want, where and when as long as it doesn't break game mechanics. High-sec is a place where players can be safer** than those in low-sec or null-sec. If you want a game where you can be 100% safe in certain places, then WoW is just your game. ----------------------------
5pinDizzy Amarr Umpteenth Podding	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 - [242] Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 02/09/2008 17:47:56 After reading the dev responses carefully : If wardecs are meant to be used for strategic goals against players in cooperations but are being abused as pay to grief systems by more pvp savvy corps against industrialists and newbs, then you are of course going to try and create a balance somehow. Yet I've always read that the point of npc corps were a way to step back from the action, a choice to pull away from the pvp and risk, if things were getting too hot. I understand your example where people will dec a new corp and kill their players for no gain or profit, but just for the sake of killing them to feel clever and to ruin their day, I've seen it. But would you at least look at the npc corp system though if you effectively manage to stop wardecs being abused? As if people are much safer in a player made corp anyway, then to me the npc corp system in it's current form loses much of it's purpose in my eyes. I don't have the answers but I don't see why people should get as many benefits and choices in an npc corp. I believe somehow people need to be possibly chucked out an npc corp or put into something else, just please not the common "one giant wardeccable npc corp" idea for all the griefers to continue their operations this way in a more acute feeding frenzy, but possibly force players out on their own after a considerable amount of time, not to feed them to the lions, not in a corp exactly, but possibly in something sort of classed as a corp but of a new solo pilot created system. Where they can always go back to the npc "sanctuary" if you like for a week or so cool off before they are kicked from it again, incase things become too hot for them and they get too many enemies. Single pilot entities would be too far below the radar to be able to effectively picked on, but they'll still be responsible for their actions, eligable for revenge, and can still temporarily pull out into the "npc sancturary corp" thing. 1 week time limit in an npc corp santuary might be an adequare allowance before being made to leave again, 1 week usually more then enough to deter griefers as they'd have gotten bored but short enough that a real grievance you've caused to someone won't be forgotton or escaped. I am not totally anti carebear, For example I may think can flipping is ok, but I want it changed so that someone who gets themselves flagged by stealing ore for example, can't simply easily ride out the 15 minutes docked in station. High speed pursuits against your enemies across the galaxy are very exciting I'll have you know.
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 - [243] Originally by: CCP Greyscale ....then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system.... Thanks for clearing that up, It is a tall order, we'll just have to see where that road takes us, though it clearly will upset the apple-carts of those who would wish to be able to do what they will on people who can't do anything reasonable about it (except unreasonable actions themselves). Its typical how extreme action by some force extreme action by others, EG GoonSwarm with their Jihad, it forced CCP's hand.. thus ruining the party for everyone. Given an inch the players take several miles. That's the side effect of the sandbox, and once people have ****d the mechanic for all its worth (and CCP has the data to prove it) Down comes the nerf-bat. It's an inevitable action-reaction. (This for Ki An.. who doesn't think my understanding of what you said as valid) So would you consider Corp- Hopping and NPC Corp Hiding some of those undedesirable elements? ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
Vladimir Griftin	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:40:00 - [244] 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. This statement is completely contrary to the EVE we all know and love. Being ganked repeatedly is part of the game, it may not be everyones cup of tea, but without this, it will become stagnant. Everyone will just happily farm away at their missions amassing huge ammounts of wealth. Screwing up the already saturated empire market. Get bored in very short order and leave. If your little empire corp gets war decced by some PvPers, it may mean the end of it, but you will get angry about it. You will want some blood, maybe not today, but when your older, and stronger. This is the pull of ALL PvP games, this is what gets you hooked. The thought that one day, you can find that ganker that killed you as a newbie and kick his freaki'n ass. By removing any way of introducing newer players to this early on your removing a big chunk of what makes EVE what it is. Its a bit cheesey but to quote something from Babylon 5: "Growth through pain and struggle; conflict and war! Your race came out of the last war stronger, better -- how much better? How much stronger will they be after this war? You will rise from the ashes with a strength and power beyond your imaganation."
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:41:00 - [245] Quote: the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further. Thanks for the list. Glad to see some glimmer of what's in the works/being looked at. Particularly for smuggling and bounty hunting.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:42:00 - [246] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? He's not going to reply to that, Malcanis. Greyscale's posts have so far only served to further reinforce our view of what is going on with the game. Well he's posted more than once in this thread. I'm not arguing the point with him, I'm just idly curious as to when this sea change took place. Personally I find the implicit assertion in his posts that the principle of non-consensual PvP can be preserved while simultaneously eliminating 'unfair' wars to be beyond laughable. He starts out by saying in his first post that non-con PvP will be preserved... but only amongst those who want it. It seems we apparently have different definitions of non-consensual. Now if non-con PvP is to be eliminated, well fair enough. it's their game. But why the denial. What tortured logic can possibly reconcile "fair fights" with "non-consensual PvP"? The very essence of EvE PvP is to induce your opponent to fight in the most unfair situation possible (while he should be attempting to do the same to you) - to maximise your opponent's losses while minimising your own. We've all heard the proverb "if you find yourself in a fair fight, then at least one of you did something wrong". But apparently this principle is not to apply to hi-sec PvP any more, by his own admission: no more "griefing". People will usually only willingly fight if they think they can win. Most players will not engage in "fair fights" because tactically they make poor sense. Ergo if the only fights available are "fair" there will be virtually no fights. I'll be absolutely fascinated to see what system they come up with to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. If CCP have got a way to pull it off, then I will apologise unreservedly, and they will have my uttermost respect for their genius as game designers. If they come even close, I'll be astounded and humbly respectful. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:42:00 - [247] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Ruze I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'. It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made. Pot and kettle come to mind. Yes, yes it did. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:47:00 - [248] 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
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:49:00 - [249] Originally by: Le Skunk 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. This. Apparently "Your stuffs: I want them " is now no longer a sufficient reason to be hostile to someone. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:51:00 - [250] Originally by: Vladimir Griftin This statement is completely contrary to the EVE we all know and love. Being ganked repeatedly is part of the game, it may not be everyones cup of tea, but without this, it will become stagnant. Everyone will just happily farm away at their missions amassing huge ammounts of wealth. Screwing up the already saturated empire market. Get bored in very short order and leave. I agree with this, safest or most lucrative area of empire space. But not both. But the dilemma is you add more reward to lo-sec and people become even wealthier and PvP becomes that much less meaningful, you take it away from hi-sec and there will be a lot of people having fits about not having that money to spend on... whatever it is such people spend their ISK on. I don't see any solution that isn't going to annoy one group or the other and I don't see one ever being thought up. Sometimes you just can't please everyone.

Takon Orlani Caldari Chaos Monkeys Monkey Religion	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:59:00 - [251] Idiots deserve what they bring unto themselves. Don't give them squat.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.02 17:59:00 - [252] Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? I too would like an answer to this. The nonconsensual nature of ≡v≡ combat was the main reason for my joining the game. I would really like my stay here to extend beyond the first year…
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:04:00 - [253] Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 02/09/2008 18:15:00 Maybe it would be a good idea to adapt to the fact that CCP does not like the current state of War-Declarations and Suicide Ganking. Maybe we can even help EVE to evolve, with some well thought arguments, instead of the usual whining and name-calling. I always thought, a group of Veterans, that War-Declares a group of 1 Month old Characters, is pretty lame and more about killboard-padding then anything else. Such new characters have no stuff that is really worth the time. This is also not the only low stuff that happened. There were also cases of pure ******s that constantly harassed corps that consisted of female players, to "force them back into the kitchen". EVE needs the PvPer/ Pirates /Gankers / Griefers but also the Producers /Traders / Miners / Bears and one style of playing this game, is not better then the other.
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:05:00 - [254] 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?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:07:00 - [255] Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu 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 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? Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge. You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to. but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:10:00 - [256] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu 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 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? Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge. You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to. but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who? Who...well CCP of course, you click yes to the EULA right ;) Seriously, im not going to moan about this till hit hits sisi and valid comment can be made. On the other hand if you dont like the general direction of the game, you can always vote with your wallet
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:10:00 - [257] 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
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:11:00 - [258] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 I would suggest that there is a surrender button somewhere involved here
Dire Radiant	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:19:00 - [259] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though Can I use that as my reason for a wardec?
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:31:00 - [260] Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?

Kwedaras Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:32:00 - [261] 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.
Karando Random Goods	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:33:00 - [262] Edited by: Karando on 02/09/2008 18:33:53 Originally by: Dire Radiant Originally by: CCP Zulupark Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though Can I use that as my reason for a wardec? No. Having fun is considered griefing now. Oh and of course.. Originally by: Roy Batty68 Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing? QFE
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:34:00 - [263] Edited by: Threv Echandari on 02/09/2008 18:35:11 Originally by: Malcanis This. Apparently "Your stuffs: I want them " is now no longer a sufficient reason to be hostile to someone. Thats actually a Reason! And would seem to be OK by CCP. It's the "I don't care if you have Stuffs..as a matter of fact I'll blow up your stuffs once I've podded you and your noob ship" Now this gave me an idea....concerning Wardecs and what not its "Reasonable Reasons" that CCP would prefer so people could go killing each other. "Your stuffs: I want them " is actually the most common reason people would kill others.. However in Eve no one really dies. They will just quit in frustration if they can't get anywhere. So how about an "Indentured Servitude" mechanic for Wardecs. Back of the napkin version.. Corp A says to Corp B "Your stuffs: I want them " Corp B says - FU Corp A Wardecs. insert some fighting Corp B loses X% of its player resources over the Week that the Wardec is active. Corp B cannot sustain these losses and Accepts "Defeat" Corp A may now institute a Tax on Corp B's Earnings until A. the cost of the Wardec(s) +75% is paid. (how ever long it takes). or B. Corp B. Wardec's Corp A (@50% reduction in Wardec Cost) to try an regain their "Freedom". (Note if Corp A Wins the War and extracts all the money it can out Corp B it may not Dec them again for a set period of Time.) Yes, there are alot of holes in this and it is a fairly rough sketch. For example if Corp B Hides in Stations and does not engage at all it automagically has "lost". Corps may not have members Quit(drop to NPC Corp) until their Debt is paid though they can add members to help pay off the debt faster. (all members share in the Corp War debt). If players dont login or play to avoid paying, after a period of time then Winning Corp then assumes total control of the Corp and may close it down. (though all members will STILL have to pay their share of their war debt.) Any way, since most everything revolves around ISK in this game, why not make wars revolve around isk and economic control? You could also make War Decs like contracts, instead of Payouts in Isk the loser may be required to produce/accquire Items like ships and modules... In this way there will always be a rationale for Deccing someone, the Winner will gain something tangible and the losers won't be forever under the boot of a deccing corp. POSt edit I see Someone else post altenative Wardec Scenario Wile I was typing....
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:37:00 - [264] 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. So, mercs fight not for money? I always thought they get paid to kill others, giving them a good reason to fight someone?
Death4free Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:38:00 - [265] 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? woah woah woah that sounds a lot like a...... BATTLEGROUND oh yes its all there side a wants side b to gtfo outa alterac valley side b says stfu and fights back some time later 1 side wins the losers only gain 1 badge rather than 3 why cant we keep war deccing as it is i dont wana justify having to blow stuff up to ccp
Nexus Kinnon A Few Good Men.	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:39:00 - [266] Not reading this thread but can anyone confirm/deny the following things have happened: A. Le Skunk whining about how people in highsec have it too easy because of his bitterness at CCP ignoring lowsec B. :walloftext: dev posts which don't actually progress the argument any further, instead they act as speed bumps because people have to pick apart every nuance of the post C. ******ed suggestions from people who have no idea what they're talking about but want to shout it from the roofs anyway Love & Kisses, Nexus
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:42:00 - [267] Originally by: Death4free 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? woah woah woah that sounds a lot like a...... BATTLEGROUND oh yes its all there side a wants side b to gtfo outa alterac valley side b says stfu and fights back some time later 1 side wins the losers only gain 1 badge rather than 3 why cant we keep war deccing as it is i dont wana justify having to blow stuff up to ccp Actually, FW is much more akin to battlegrounds than the above posters suggestion. Side A kicks side B's butt out of the valley (or system), and tomorrow they do it again, sometimes in reverse, but never with any real consequence.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:44:00 - [268] Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu 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 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? Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge. You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to. but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who? Who...well CCP of course, you click yes to the EULA right ;) Seriously, im not going to moan about this till hit hits sisi and valid comment can be made. On the other hand if you dont like the general direction of the game, you can always vote with your wallet So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:50:00 - [269] Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 02/09/2008 18:50:47 Originally by: Malcanis So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions? Less wardecs means less morons petitioning foul/griefing which means less cost.
c4 t	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:53:00 - [270] Originally by: CCP Greyscale (Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry) ill write this pretending my opinion is really awesome and that i know you will read it. firstly, i dislike the fact that you even have to cover your(and by your i dont mean you specifically) about making high-security space a safe zone. even the notion of making high sec 100% safe should be punishable by death as it would mean the death of what is the essence of eve. i will preface my next thought by saying i have never partaken in the act of suicide ganking nor have i been suicide ganked. at the end of your post you say that the cost of suicide ganking somebody was too low. so you take away insurance, this is logical. i dont however understand why ccp felt they needed to decrease response times by concord when they already nerfed the risk/reward ratio by taking away insurance? i really would like to hear somebody tell me that with 100% certainty the isk being lost out by the gankers due to no insurance was not enough. ____________________________________________________________________ mostly harmless

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 18:58:00 - [271] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 02/09/2008 18:50:47 Originally by: Malcanis So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions? Less wardecs means less morons petitioning foul/griefing which means less cost. Sad but probably true. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:01:00 - [272] Originally by: Spenz Edited by: Spenz on 02/09/2008 15:18:50 Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Myra2007 I remember a year or two ago wrangler answered a post about a similar issue (i think it even was about suicide ganking) like "Tough Luck! Deal with it. Eve isn't meant to be a cozy fluffy lala land.". That spirit seems to be all gone now. And it still isn't. Now it just isn't "cozy fluffy lala land" for you people either. Ooooh burn. I agree 100%. Suicide-gankers are the carebears of pvp. They make no-risk isk, but unlike the pve carebear, they do it at the expense of others, and with metagaming tactics. They aren't whining because they feel that eve is losing some magic element that makes it "different" or whatever, they are whining because they are losing their isk-faucet. They can no longer make easy money ganking, and they are upset about that. Get over it you whiners. Congrats you have to make isk the hard way like everyone else who decided that they were above metagaming. I agree that they are huge carebears in their own right. They figure because they actually shoot someone during this activity {suicide ganking} it allows them to hide behind "a badge of PvP" when they aren't taking any real risks at all. Now CCP wants to put some more risk into it and they are whining like a bunch of little girls. Pretty much the same 7-8 drama queens in this thread that you will see in any whine thread from over the past month on this forum. Pretty good entertainment tbh. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:05:00 - [273] Stay the Course, Man
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:06:00 - [274] Originally by: Death4free 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? woah woah woah that sounds a lot like a...... BATTLEGROUND oh yes its all there side a wants side b to gtfo outa alterac valley side b says stfu and fights back some time later 1 side wins the losers only gain 1 badge rather than 3 why cant we keep war deccing as it is i dont wana justify having to blow stuff up to ccp Er how is it like battlegrounds, unless you consider all of the eve universe one giant battleground? Your doing exactly what I would expect, failing to think. SOME of the ideas that come about from the changes MIGHT JUST BE FUN For example, how fun would it be to prevent someone from using teh market at Jita, or hell even going there
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:06:00 - [275] Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 02/09/2008 19:07:08 The Wardeclarations could be created as a kind of Freeform-Contract, where the attacking party has to state a goal in their War that they want to achieve and also pay an amount of money, that is calculated on the current wars the corporation has at the moment and what kind of Goal wants to be achieved. Corporation A: "We want to drive the B-Competition in Large Armor Repairer ll out of the Forge-Region and ask for a 1 Month WarContract." Concord processes (automatically) the War-Declaration and sets War-Tax of 66 Millions. Corporation B: "You will never stop us from undercutting you A-Bastards. To War!" The War starts, lots of ships explode on both sides, the usual stuff. For example B is going to be beaten badly and the CEO of B decides to surrender, before his Corporation collapses. As soon as he clicks on the Surrender Button, A will have achieved their goals. Concord will terminate the War after a 24h period and as a side effect, all buy and sell orders of LAR ll (the agreed target) will be locked for all members of Corp B in "The Forge". Another example would be, B is doing fine. Despite losses they do not give up. After the month of War ended, the CEO of A has to get a War-Extension Contract from Concord. CEO A can of course decide to do so, but the longer the War goes and the steeper will be the price. Also CEO A cannot order a new War Contract on B, after the first War has been officially ended, because a Grace Period will be put in place that might range from a Week to several Month, were no Wars against B can be initiated from A.
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:07:00 - [276] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu 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 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? Well call me Mr Cynical, but I'm sure dreaming up SOME motivation won't be much of a challenge. You could justify almosy any wardec if you wanted to. but as Greyscale himself quite rightly says - justify it to who? Who...well CCP of course, you click yes to the EULA right ;) Seriously, im not going to moan about this till hit hits sisi and valid comment can be made. On the other hand if you dont like the general direction of the game, you can always vote with your wallet So in essence, the viability of a wardec should be decided by petitions? Im pretty sure they are thinking about something a little more complex than this, but hey keep that closed mind running
Cody Quinn	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:10:00 - [277] so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp.
Shodowcrow	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:11:00 - [278] As a new starter I have found it impossible to play this game in any zone. I wanted to play and mine a bit for cash. Because you are not safe minning anywhere because there is no safezone. Everytime I get 6000m3 in a can along comes a gang takes it and says please shoot us so we can have your ship too. they dont even take it they just recan it so if I am moving it I became the the theif!?!?!? Any logic in the world says thats an exploit. There are so many people doing this the only way to mine is in a dam badger or as part of a gang. The gang idea is impossible because THERE ARE NO OTHER NEW PLAYERS because so many people are stealing. For this reason I agree 1.0- 0.5 should be kill free and steal free! Your selfish and lazy player base prey on your new starters making it impossible to grow or get any money. So they all leave. Check the average charater age? Mine is very old but my play time is low because every time I return I get robbed one too many times and leave the game. After doing the sums while it will take me 20 odd more days to get my battle ship skill to have fun in it will take over 120 days at 4 hours play a day to get the cash to buy it because of the game theifs. No one is going to play a game being in poverty sorry no fun at all. I started playing with 5 other friends and I am the last one in the game, the progression of this game is making it hard to get a foot hold and totaly combat based. Like the any economy this will lead to a fall in new players, a load of rich players killing the same shrinking population. If new player do not come in to replace leavers your universe is in danger not just your in game cash flow structure. And and if Eve is a sandbox someone has poo'ed in it cause from a new player perpective without the great people in my corp, I would have quit weeks ago. Outside zone 1.0 - 0.5 do as you want just please let someone else have a go.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:15:00 - [279] Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone?
Jaabaa Prime Minmatar Quam Singulari	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:17:00 - [280] Simple solution, restrict high sec to the starter systems. So thats 12(?) systems with 1.0 and all the rest 0.4 and below

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:17:00 - [281] Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Actually, the statistics show that 22% of the map is hisec, 12% is losec, and the rest is nulsec. CCP has also said that approximately 50% of the playerbase spends the majority of their time in hisec. Combine these two, and add the fact that for every single person who enters a system, the server load increases exponentially, so more players in a smaller area leads to more lag. Add the next fact in: multiple systems have to exist on the same node (not a huge lot of nodes there), with rare exceptions (Jita). So those 50% of the playerbase, living in 22% of the game world, are the most responsible for nearly all the lag that players experience (barring the odd BoB blob), which in turn is responsible for having FEWER accounts due to those who leave because of lag or who never join because of word-of-mouth complaints of others. Now you can draw the correlation between making hisec more secure, and drawing MORE of those who are unable to exist in a PvP environment, or giving those who already live in hisec LESS reason to leave. The result of all this supposition? Hisec is the root of all evils, and is leading to the direct demise of EvE.
c4 t	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:17:00 - [282] Originally by: Shodowcrow As a new starter I have found it impossible to play this game in any zone. I wanted to play and mine a bit for cash. Because you are not safe minning anywhere because there is no safezone. Everytime I get 6000m3 in a can along comes a gang takes it and says please shoot us so we can have your ship too. they dont even take it they just recan it so if I am moving it I became the the theif!?!?!? Any logic in the world says thats an exploit. There are so many people doing this the only way to mine is in a dam badger or as part of a gang. The gang idea is impossible because THERE ARE NO OTHER NEW PLAYERS because so many people are stealing. For this reason I agree 1.0- 0.5 should be kill free and steal free! Your selfish and lazy player base prey on your new starters making it impossible to grow or get any money. So they all leave. Check the average charater age? Mine is very old but my play time is low because every time I return I get robbed one too many times and leave the game. After doing the sums while it will take me 20 odd more days to get my battle ship skill to have fun in it will take over 120 days at 4 hours play a day to get the cash to buy it because of the game theifs. No one is going to play a game being in poverty sorry no fun at all. I started playing with 5 other friends and I am the last one in the game, the progression of this game is making it hard to get a foot hold and totaly combat based. Like the any economy this will lead to a fall in new players, a load of rich players killing the same shrinking population. If new player do not come in to replace leavers your universe is in danger not just your in game cash flow structure. And and if Eve is a sandbox someone has poo'ed in it cause from a new player perpective without the great people in my corp, I would have quit weeks ago. Outside zone 1.0 - 0.5 do as you want just please let someone else have a go. i stopped reading your post almost immediatly because it was horrible. i believe this link may be relevant to your interests. if you do something now you could even get a zebra ^_^ http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:18:00 - [283] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone? /hark and the sky fell in where there was once happiness can I have your stuff?
JamnOne Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:18:00 - [284] Originally by: CCP Greyscale and hell I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context You're right, someone is going to quote this partially and here it is... Originally by: CCP Greyscale a strategic game. This is the only reason why I joined Eve Online. It requires strategy. ________________ Poor is the nation that has no heroes. Shameful is the one that, having heroes - Forgets them! Author Unknown
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:18:00 - [285] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone? But you agree with the part where he said your kind lacks skill correct? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:21:00 - [286] 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. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Belmarduk Amarr M.A.R.S. Enterprises Majesta Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:23:00 - [287] Edited by: Belmarduk on 02/09/2008 19:26:48 quote=CCP Greyscale long and detailed reply Greyscale you are my hero 1. The day it becomes 100% safe ANYWHERE except docked in a Station is the day Eve dies.... 2. I am NO Pirate nor do I grief people (My alliance even forbids its members specifically) 3. I have never ganked anyone in Highsec (except a few macrominers) nor have I griefed or killed a newbie in Highsec. In low-sec only "outlaws" might get attacked by me. In 0.0 its another matter - NBSI ! 4. I and many people I know are Anti-pirates and have hunted pirates killing some and sometimes getting killed BUT its a playstyle 5. I see myself as 50% industrialist / 25% pvp / 25 carebear BUTI still STRONGLY believe the OP should either adapt or go and play WoW.... CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
Rafau Maco H-E-X Industries	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:24:00 - [288] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone? Any why would there be any changes like they are making in high-sec in 0.0? Read your posts when you write them. Or at least think them through. Its so simple it doesn't make sense why people cant figure it out. If you want to PvE go to high-sec, if you want to PvP go to lowsec or 0.0 and if you cant handle PvPing against players who can actually hurt you back then maybe you should re-think your EVE "profession"
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:24:00 - [289] 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. How so? The suicide ganking change will force the aggressors to think a bit more and pick better targets. It will also make it so they cannot repeatedly gank people without consequences. Sounds like risk/reward to me. Or do you think "risk versus reward" should only apply to carebears? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:26:00 - [290] Originally by: Rafau Maco Any why would there be any changes like they are making in high-sec in 0.0? Read your posts when you write them. Or at least think them through. Its so simple it doesn't make sense why people cant figure it out. If you want to PvE go to high-sec, if you want to PvP go to lowsec or 0.0 and if you cant handle PvPing against players who can actually hurt you back then maybe you should re-think your EVE "profession" As I said, little bear, CCP is on your side. The sharding of Eve has begun. High sec will be reserved for PvE and PvP will be regulated to low sec and 0.0. That is, until some of you bears decide that you would like to have a bit of the riches of 0.0. Then CCP will be forced to step in and reduce the risk from 'griefers' again. The result: Two servers. One for PvP and one for PvE. Sounds great on paper, doesn't it? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:28:00 - [291] Originally by: Kelli Flay How so? The suicide ganking change will force the aggressors to think a bit more and pick better targets. It will also make it so they cannot repeatedly gank people without consequences. Sounds like risk/reward to me. Risk/reward only applies to one side of the participants. It does not apply to the victim. He doesn't have to do anything to protect himself. Hence, less skill involved in the game. Originally by: Kelli Flay Or do you think "risk versus reward" should only apply to carebears? No, but I do think it should apply to carebears. With the planned changes, it won't. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Cody Quinn	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:29:00 - [292] Edited by: Cody Quinn on 02/09/2008 19:30:24 Originally by: Ki An As I said, little bear, CCP is on your side. The sharding of Eve has begun. High sec will be reserved for PvE and PvP will be regulated to low sec and 0.0. That is, until some of you bears decide that you would like to have a bit of the riches of 0.0. Then CCP will be forced to step in and reduce the risk from 'griefers' again. The result: Two servers. One for PvP and one for PvE. Sounds great on paper, doesn't it? What? I don't believe suicide ganking was a practiced "pvp" technigue on the drawing boards. And CCP wants everyone to be happy so they get the most money... duh which is the main reason nothing will change in 0.0 and lowsec. NOT TO MENTION I have been in 0.0 and I have been there done that, don't have time for it now so I chill in high-sec.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:32:00 - [293] Originally by: Rafau Maco Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone? Any why would there be any changes like they are making in high-sec in 0.0? Read your posts when you write them. Or at least think them through. Its so simple it doesn't make sense why people cant figure it out. If you want to PvE go to high-sec, if you want to PvP go to lowsec or 0.0 and if you cant handle PvPing against players who can actually hurt you back then maybe you should re-think your EVE "profession" The issue between your opinion and many others', is the part highlighted in your reply. I'm not happy to see another game take on this mantra of 'PvE land' and 'PvP battlegrounds'. The game doesn't matter when that happens. Know why I didn't mind leaving WoW? Because nothing in it mattered. In EvE, it has always been the fact that losing hurt, winning was something, surviving and living another day made you stronger and better. EvE sandbox assigned 'value' to digital pixles. Take away the sandbox, split and shard and zone the world to better suit the dumb masses, and feel free to complain about the game when it's changed so far that even you don't like it. Every game must evolve, but you kinda hope for a little bit of loyalty for all the accounts you own and years you've spent paying into it. You hope, just a little, that it'll be something you enjoy to play like you have for a long while. If the company screws over five years of playerbase, please don't fool yourself into thinking they won't do the same to you. Which, of course, you and others like you won't fool yourself. You'll see the others leave, and leave too, even though YOUR requests were what 'won the day.' Betrayal is a bitter thing. How many customers will SOE never, EVER get back, no matter how great an MMO they make, because of what they did with SWG? Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:35:00 - [294] 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?
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:36:00 - [295] EVE is like the "Fisherman's Friend" of MMOs. If it's too hard, you are too weak. I'm breaking out all the golden oldies to try and rekindle that old feel. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:39:00 - [296] 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?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:41:00 - [297] 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
Cody Quinn	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:42:00 - [298] Edited by: Cody Quinn on 02/09/2008 19:44:36 Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Rafau Maco Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Cody Quinn so if we think hard... 50% or about 50% of the map is low-sec or 0.0 and the rest is high-sec. So why can't these people who are "pvping" in highsec pvp in the other 50% of the map? Well maybe its because they cant.... hmmm PVP against people with guns who could possibly kill you ... or pvp against some people just trying to have fun who are defenseless. Well in other words people like no-skill pvp. Don't worry, little bear. CCP is on your side. Soon we won't be able to fire on each other in high sec. Next on the chopping block will be 0.0. CONCORD expanding anyone? Any why would there be any changes like they are making in high-sec in 0.0? Read your posts when you write them. Or at least think them through. Its so simple it doesn't make sense why people cant figure it out. If you want to PvE go to high-sec, if you want to PvP go to lowsec or 0.0 and if you cant handle PvPing against players who can actually hurt you back then maybe you should re-think your EVE "profession" The issue between your opinion and many others', is the part highlighted in your reply. I'm not happy to see another game take on this mantra of 'PvE land' and 'PvP battlegrounds'. The game doesn't matter when that happens. Know why I didn't mind leaving WoW? Because nothing in it mattered. In EvE, it has always been the fact that losing hurt, winning was something, surviving and living another day made you stronger and better. EvE sandbox assigned 'value' to digital pixles. Take away the sandbox, split and shard and zone the world to better suit the dumb masses, and feel free to complain about the game when it's changed so far that even you don't like it. Every game must evolve, but you kinda hope for a little bit of loyalty for all the accounts you own and years you've spent paying into it. You hope, just a little, that it'll be something you enjoy to play like you have for a long while. If the company screws over five years of playerbase, please don't fool yourself into thinking they won't do the same to you. Which, of course, you and others like you won't fool yourself. You'll see the others leave, and leave too, even though YOUR requests were what 'won the day.' Betrayal is a bitter thing. How many customers will SOE never, EVER get back, no matter how great an MMO they make, because of what they did with SWG? I'm all for wardecs or SOME way to involve people in pvp if there is a reason, or some sort of structure or SOMETHING. What i care about is the fact people can gank someone in high-sec for no reason and then get almost all their money back for their ship... that just isn't right. Everyone knows it too, maybe you won't admit its wrong but you know it is. Actually thats funny you mention SWG... I quit SWG when they ruined it and joined EVE. They were opposite though, they didn't listen to their majority of the customer base. Here they are listening to both sides... may not seem like it but by the changes they are making you can tell they arn't leaning too far to one side or the other. Again they just want to find EVE's equilibrium.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:43:00 - [299] 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.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:46:00 - [300] Originally by: Cody Quinn I'm all for wardecs or SOME way to involve people in pvp if there is a reason, or some sort of structure or SOMETHING. What i care about is the fact people can gank someone in high-sec for no reason and then get almost all their money back for their ship... that just isn't right. Everyone knows it too, maybe you won't admit its wrong but you know it is. Oh, I fully admit it's unbalanced. Same with undefined war'dec's (I think the wardec system needs to be replaced with a bribery system, but whatever). However, I think that, with an increase in hisec security, there should be an implemented tax that covers ALL hisec activity, so that those who are relying on NPC's for safety (instead of the safety garnered from their own actions or the actions of teamwork), are in some way paying for that security. I still think there's a status quo to maintain, as well as a level of immersion to maintain. The whole security system needs reworked, but I think that's a little too much to ask.

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:46:00 - [301] 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?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:47:00 - [302] 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
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:49:00 - [303] 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? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:51:00 - [304] 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
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:52:00 - [305] Originally by: Le Skunk In practice, properly fit, piloted haulers are only ever killed outside stations. SKUNK Explain why this is true then? You simply saying so doesn't convince me. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:52:00 - [306] 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? The part where a hauler can fit a cloak and an afterburner. Or a MWD if it's a DST. Warp to Hit MWD/Ab Hit cloak As soon as you're up to the normal warp speed, uncloak Instawarp Win. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:52:00 - [307] Originally by: Cody Quinn Actually thats funny you mention SWG... I quit SWG when they ruined it and joined EVE. They were opposite though, they didn't listen to their majority of the customer base. Here they are listening to both sides... may not seem like it but by the changes they are making you can tell they arn't leaning too far to one side or the other. Again they just want to find EVE's equilibrium. Actually, considering I played SWG from live and still do, off and on, let's be honest. SOE listened to it's playerbase when creating the NGE. Application failed, no doubt, and many were betrayed. But the forums were FULL of complaints about unbalanced combat mechanics, FOTM class combinations, etc, etc. The simple truth is, SOE tried to listen to everyone, and left their original concept behind. Will CCP do that? I don't think so, at least in such a broad and broken manner. I don't think we'll ever get levels and such here. But the more subliminal message about the SWG Pub9/CU/NGE/CH4 lessons is that when you betray your original game principles, you can't go back. No amount of fixes will draw those scorned back for more than a month. It was a sandbox there, and it has been a sandbox here. But listening to the larger playerbase, the majority, and dropping basic principles of the game ... You lose just 20k players (gaining 40k in return) through this sharding concept, and that's 20k players roaming other games and boards, telling how horrible EvE is, how bad it is. And another 10k still in game, complaining about the good old days and the CCP betrayal, steadily pushing new players away. Your game doesn't recover from that. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:52:00 - [308] 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? Pretty much all of it. But whatever. You are the new face of Eve. The "I Know It Alls Cause teh FOREMS told me so" crowd. The "I Knows Just what needs to be Nerfed!" Thanky CCP! Thanky for lookin out for my FAIR. Cause teh bad old gankers on the forums needed a spankin any old way. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:54:00 - [309] 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. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
RagnhildR tu	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:54:00 - [310] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Rafau Maco Any why would there be any changes like they are making in high-sec in 0.0? Read your posts when you write them. Or at least think them through. Its so simple it doesn't make sense why people cant figure it out. If you want to PvE go to high-sec, if you want to PvP go to lowsec or 0.0 and if you cant handle PvPing against players who can actually hurt you back then maybe you should re-think your EVE "profession" As I said, little bear, CCP is on your side. The sharding of Eve has begun. High sec will be reserved for PvE and PvP will be regulated to low sec and 0.0. That is, until some of you bears decide that you would like to have a bit of the riches of 0.0. Then CCP will be forced to step in and reduce the risk from 'griefers' again. The result: Two servers. One for PvP and one for PvE. Sounds great on paper, doesn't it? Ki An what is your problem?, what makes you so pivotal in the world of Eve, without players coming into Eve there would be no Eve. Players need to mine, mission or whatever to pay for the skills and improve their ships. If butt wipes keep on trashing strating out players there will be No New PLayersa, no new players= less cash for CCP, less cash for CCP, an in the end they call it a day, an go on to a new project. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO!

Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:55:00 - [311] Thanks for the clarification Greyscale. Its refreshing to see someone beeing so honest. Sadly the result is that my interest in EVE took another dive. And i used to have such faith in ccp devs. Vote against the nano nerf!
Karentaki Gallente Fighting While Intoxicated Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:55:00 - [312] Originally by: 5pinDizzy ... Stuff about how hard EVE is ... Does this not make sense? NO! Quote: EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
Navdaq Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:56:00 - [313] Originally by: Ruze However, I think that, with an increase in hisec security, there should be an implemented tax that covers ALL hisec activity, so that those who are relying on NPC's for safety (instead of the safety garnered from their own actions or the actions of teamwork), are in some way paying for that security. This is a good idea. Make empire safe but at a cost. I like it.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:57:00 - [314] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Le Skunk In practice, properly fit, piloted haulers are only ever killed outside stations. SKUNK Explain why this is true then? You simply saying so doesn't convince me. You cannot kill what you cannot see.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:59:00 - [315] 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?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:00:00 - [316] 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
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:00:00 - [317] 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? HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAH!! AHAHAHAHHH!!!! Heh ... heh ... HAHAHAHAHAHA snort HAHAHAHAH !!! You made it come out my nose!!!
Lucyfear	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:01:00 - [318] 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?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:02:00 - [319] 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
Kudon Astraisx Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:02:00 - [320] Originally by: Shodowcrow As a new starter I have found it impossible to play this game in any zone. I wanted to play and mine a bit for cash. Because you are not safe minning anywhere because there is no safezone. Everytime I get 6000m3 in a can along comes a gang takes it and says please shoot us so we can have your ship too. they dont even take it they just recan it so if I am moving it I became the the theif!?!?!? Any logic in the world says thats an exploit. There are so many people doing this the only way to mine is in a dam badger or as part of a gang. The gang idea is impossible because THERE ARE NO OTHER NEW PLAYERS because so many people are stealing. You might want to look into secure containers. Ore theft only works against folks not willing to spend the time and ISK to mine safely.

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:04:00 - [321] 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
c4 t	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:04:00 - [322] 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.
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:05:00 - [323] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Pretty much all of it. But whatever. You are the new face of Eve. The "I Know It Alls Cause teh FOREMS told me so" crowd. The "I Knows Just what needs to be Nerfed!" Thanky CCP! Thanky for lookin out for my FAIR. Cause teh bad old gankers on the forums needed a spankin any old way. I'm just curious, have you ever ganked someone? Because if you can't gank a hauler as it aligns to warp, you fail at eve. Thank you, good bye. Yes, I've ganked haulers, in highsec no less. A couple of caracals or a handful of Kessies will do it nicely. Upgrade as needed against harder targets. The fact of the matter is, I don't see a need for changes. If you want to protect a high value load of cargo, there are PLENTY of ways to do that. Logistics is an important part of eve, and breaking the ability to go after logistics targets (even in high sec) is contrary to EVE IMO. However, I don't think they've done that yet. Just made it harder, which is ok with me.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:07:00 - [324] 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.
Cody Quinn	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:07:00 - [325] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Cody Quinn Actually thats funny you mention SWG... I quit SWG when they ruined it and joined EVE. They were opposite though, they didn't listen to their majority of the customer base. Here they are listening to both sides... may not seem like it but by the changes they are making you can tell they arn't leaning too far to one side or the other. Again they just want to find EVE's equilibrium. Actually, considering I played SWG from live and still do, off and on, let's be honest. SOE listened to it's playerbase when creating the NGE. Application failed, no doubt, and many were betrayed. But the forums were FULL of complaints about unbalanced combat mechanics, FOTM class combinations, etc, etc. The simple truth is, SOE tried to listen to everyone, and left their original concept behind. Will CCP do that? I don't think so, at least in such a broad and broken manner. I don't think we'll ever get levels and such here. But the more subliminal message about the SWG Pub9/CU/NGE/CH4 lessons is that when you betray your original game principles, you can't go back. No amount of fixes will draw those scorned back for more than a month. It was a sandbox there, and it has been a sandbox here. But listening to the larger playerbase, the majority, and dropping basic principles of the game ... You lose just 20k players (gaining 40k in return) through this sharding concept, and that's 20k players roaming other games and boards, telling how horrible EvE is, how bad it is. And another 10k still in game, complaining about the good old days and the CCP betrayal, steadily pushing new players away. Your game doesn't recover from that. EVE Isn't re-doing combat and really isn't changing anything except keeping the game on-track with what they wanted originally. High-sec was never meant for mass PVP, sorry, just wasn't designed that way.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:09:00 - [326] 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. If you want to move low amounts of very high value goods, I think you'll find that's exactly what transports are for.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:09:00 - [327] 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
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:10:00 - [328] 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 National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:11:00 - [329] 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
Trebor Notlimah Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:12:00 - [330] Yea - lets implement this!! Afterwards, we can convert low sec into a 'PvP only if flagged' area~!!!!! YEAA!!!!! YEAAAAA!!!! <3 Trebor

Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:12:00 - [331] Originally by: Granmethedon III 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. If you want to move low amounts of very high value goods, I think you'll find that's exactly what transports are for. Well people can still use them. Nothing has changed there. You can still try to gank them as well. You can still gank lazy afk haulers as well. You just won't have an unlimited amount of ganks anymore. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:12:00 - [332] 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
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:14:00 - [333] Originally by: Locke DieDrake Originally by: Roy Batty68 Pretty much all of it. But whatever. You are the new face of Eve. The "I Know It Alls Cause teh FOREMS told me so" crowd. The "I Knows Just what needs to be Nerfed!" Thanky CCP! Thanky for lookin out for my FAIR. Cause teh bad old gankers on the forums needed a spankin any old way. I'm just curious, have you ever ganked someone? Because if you can't gank a hauler as it aligns to warp, you fail at eve. Thank you, good bye. Yes, I've ganked haulers, in highsec no less. A couple of caracals or a handful of Kessies will do it nicely. Upgrade as needed against harder targets. The fact of the matter is, I don't see a need for changes. If you want to protect a high value load of cargo, there are PLENTY of ways to do that. Logistics is an important part of eve, and breaking the ability to go after logistics targets (even in high sec) is contrary to EVE IMO. However, I don't think they've done that yet. Just made it harder, which is ok with me. Dude, you're preachin to the choir. Turn around. She's over that way. Yes, I've suicide ganked plenty. I've also hauled billions around hisec and right by known suicide gankers. And I've never been popped once. In fact the only times I've ever been popped by another player in Eve is when I went looking for it. I enjoy the challenges other players provide me. I'm downright silly about them. And I hate to see them slowly nerfed away by dimwitted can't be arsed to think or play types. Especially the ones that come to these forums screaming for nerfs when they don't have a clue what they're talking about, they're just all worked up because someone else complained about it... yep... on the forums. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:14:00 - [334] Originally by: Cody Quinn EVE Isn't re-doing combat and really isn't changing anything except keeping the game on-track with what they wanted originally. High-sec was never meant for mass PVP, sorry, just wasn't designed that way. For you, the change may seem like nothing. For many players, it effects their game immensely. We each have our biases and pass judgement on others, and some of us may decide that that players 'enjoyment' doesn't count. As far as it never being meant for mass PvP, I'm sorry, but I disagree. EvE was originally designed WITHOUT hisec at all. It was added after the fact. And then CONCORD was buffed until it was invulnerable. And then you couldn't escape. Over time, they have steadily made hisec FAR safer. It wasn't an original design concept at all. It was added after the fact. And yes, they can definitely take it too far. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:14:00 - [335] Choose juicier targets now. ....adapt. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:15:00 - [336] 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. Whilst I don't fly nano, I think they have a point. And with regard to being invulnerable in hi-sec, I believe I have a point. All of the recent changes to the game have removed the scope for options. There's a steadying decrease in value to 0.0 space, low sec is even more worthless than ever. For pvp you're down to one serious option - blob. Basically, they're gradually making the game completely shit.
RagnhildR tu	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:16:00 - [337] Edited by: RagnhildR tu on 02/09/2008 20:16:57 Attacking players in Kessies, Merlins or other Frigates is not going after logistic targets, it's just players being bloody minded, to do the same thing to the same player 3 times on the bounce is definateley greifing. Being in Cruisers and double teaming whilst doing so is what will drive players away to other games where ********s aren't so common.
Tristen Orde Friendly Neighbourhood Protection Racket	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:17:00 - [338] Edited by: Tristen Orde on 02/09/2008 20:18:23 Originally by: CCP Greyscale I don't remember whether I actually used the word "grief" or not during the discussions. Alberto Gonzales
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:17:00 - [339] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Originally by: Locke DieDrake Originally by: Roy Batty68 Pretty much all of it. But whatever. You are the new face of Eve. The "I Know It Alls Cause teh FOREMS told me so" crowd. The "I Knows Just what needs to be Nerfed!" Thanky CCP! Thanky for lookin out for my FAIR. Cause teh bad old gankers on the forums needed a spankin any old way. I'm just curious, have you ever ganked someone? Because if you can't gank a hauler as it aligns to warp, you fail at eve. Thank you, good bye. Yes, I've ganked haulers, in highsec no less. A couple of caracals or a handful of Kessies will do it nicely. Upgrade as needed against harder targets. The fact of the matter is, I don't see a need for changes. If you want to protect a high value load of cargo, there are PLENTY of ways to do that. Logistics is an important part of eve, and breaking the ability to go after logistics targets (even in high sec) is contrary to EVE IMO. However, I don't think they've done that yet. Just made it harder, which is ok with me. Dude, you're preachin to the choir. Turn around. She's over that way. Yes, I've suicide ganked plenty. I've also hauled billions around hisec and right by known suicide gankers. And I've never been popped once. In fact the only times I've ever been popped by another player in Eve is when I went looking for it. I enjoy the challenges other players provide me. I'm downright silly about them. And I hate to see them slowly nerfed away by dimwitted can't be arsed to think or play types. Especially the ones that come to these forums screaming for nerfs when they don't have a clue what they're talking about, they're just all worked up because someone else complained about it... yep... on the forums. Actually, you can probably thank Goons for this particular nerf. I bet you were on the sidelines cheering them on when they were ganking all those Hulks? Ever heard of karma? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:18:00 - [340] Originally by: Kelli Flay Choose juicier targets now. ....adapt. Ah its the good old "adapt" argument.

Jitabug Caldari Shaolin Legacy	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:21:00 - [341] The mechanic for legitimately avoiding war declarations exists. It's called an NPC corporation. Without them we'd see more high sec PVE alliances who pay PVPers to protect them from this kind of hassle. We'd see more interaction. We'd see more politics and intrigue. People would have external goals to devote their time towards beyond getting a pimp ship. If it were my sandbox I'd make NPC corps only available within "starter" constellations and wouldn't let players use the gates leading out of them until they'd either quit to play as a "sole trader" or joined a player run corp. That way you keep the newbies safe and enrich the world politically, whilst preventing people from abusing newbie corp mechanics to scout/pirate/gangk. Leave policing of behaviour to the players. Instead, by protecting small player corps, you're simply giving people other ways to abuse the mechanics for strategic purposes.
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:21:00 - [342] This is such a non-issue. As they say, adapt or die. You can still suicide gank targets... for a price. So you had better make sure it's worthwhile. What is the problem here? If the complaint is that you can no longer solo gank someone... well, that was always messed up. You shouldn't be able to solo gank anyone in highsec unless they are in a tiny no tank ship. (frig or shuttle or such) That is/was/always will be the point of concord. To make "breaking the rules" hard. (the rules being the sec status of a system) ______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational"
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:28:00 - [343] Originally by: RagnhildR tu Ki An what is your problem?, what makes you so pivotal in the world of Eve, without players coming into Eve there would be no Eve. Players need to mine, mission or whatever to pay for the skills and improve their ships. If butt wipes keep on trashing strating out players there will be No New PLayersa, no new players= less cash for CCP, less cash for CCP, an in the end they call it a day, an go on to a new project. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO! What's my problem? Well, that's easy enough to answer. You. You and your ilk who migrate here from other games, expecting everything to work the same way, and when it doesn't you hold your accounts for ransom until CCP fixes things for you. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:28:00 - [344] Edited by: Granmethedon III on 02/09/2008 20:29:07 Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III 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. If you want to move low amounts of very high value goods, I think you'll find that's exactly what transports are for. What about Jihadswarm? {or whatever that was called?} Should those miners been mining in a transport instead of their Hulks? No but you can't argue that they're making money off doing it either, so all arguments against suicide ganking for profit are blown out the water. If I had more wealth in game than I do, following this patch I'd be bank rolling people to kill every non combat ship I saw in hi-sec, regardless.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:31:00 - [345] Originally by: Locke DieDrake This is such a non-issue. As they say, adapt or die. You can still suicide gank targets... for a price. So you had better make sure it's worthwhile. What is the problem here? If the complaint is that you can no longer solo gank someone... well, that was always messed up. You shouldn't be able to solo gank anyone in highsec unless they are in a tiny no tank ship. (frig or shuttle or such) That is/was/always will be the point of concord. To make "breaking the rules" hard. (the rules being the sec status of a system) No worries. I know I'll adapt. *****in about the suicide gank nerf wasn't really the momentum that carried this thread on. That was just Kelli and a few others being stupid that side tracked it. It was Greyscale basically saying that the soul of the game has changed a bit. It's subtle. But it's there. The quest for "Fair" is a far more drastic nerf to Eve than any suicide gank or nano nerf. The game being hard is what makes it good. Alot of people just don't seem to get that anymore. Things change. /shrug Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
RagnhildR tu	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:33:00 - [346] Edited by: RagnhildR tu on 02/09/2008 20:35:34 Originally by: Ki An Originally by: RagnhildR tu Ki An what is your problem?, what makes you so pivotal in the world of Eve, without players coming into Eve there would be no Eve. Players need to mine, mission or whatever to pay for the skills and improve their ships. If butt wipes keep on trashing strating out players there will be No New PLayersa, no new players= less cash for CCP, less cash for CCP, an in the end they call it a day, an go on to a new project. What's my problem? Well, that's easy enough to answer. You. You and your ilk who migrate here from other games, expecting everything to work the same way, and when it doesn't you hold your accounts for ransom until CCP fixes things for you. Ki An I played Eve 2 years ago the only reason why I was away for so long was I had some shit to sort out, I very rarely come to the forums, because you get ******s who like to be a pain in them. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO!**
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:34:00 - [347] 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. Nice strawman. No-one's going to gank you for the sake of a hauler-load of veldspar. But if you're moving a couple of bill worth of t2 mods about then hell yes you should be using a Blockade Runner. That's exactly what I did - right through some obvious suicide gank camps, I might add. Viator: T2 Improved Cloak Y-T8 MWD, whatever, whatever 2x nanofibre II 1x Inertial Stabiliser II 2x Low Friction Nozzle Joints Not especially hard to skill for, and completely uncatchable in hi- or lo-sec, barring lag or cat vs keyboard scenarios. Incidentally, even nasty laggy stations like Jita 4-4 can be exited perfectly safely. here's the trick: (1) have a corpmate, friend or alt in a shuttle form gang with you in the hauler (2) As soon as said accomplice sees you exit the station, he gang-warps you to a point a few hundred km in front of the station - you undock at full speed so you will instawarp before you're even lockable - then again to a safe spot. You'll be safely 5 AU from any gankers before your blackscreen clears. If that all seems like too much trouble to take for your cargo, then you didn't value it that much anyway, so why cry about losing it? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:34:00 - [348] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: RagnhildR tu Ki An what is your problem?, what makes you so pivotal in the world of Eve, without players coming into Eve there would be no Eve. Players need to mine, mission or whatever to pay for the skills and improve their ships. If butt wipes keep on trashing strating out players there will be No New PLayersa, no new players= less cash for CCP, less cash for CCP, an in the end they call it a day, an go on to a new project. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO! What's my problem? Well, that's easy enough to answer. You. You and your ilk who migrate here from other games, expecting everything to work the same way, and when it doesn't you hold your accounts for ransom until CCP fixes things for you. Are you saying if you haven't been around since day one of EvE or played a previous game before EvE, that you are not allowed to have an opinion? Can you link me to the "accounts for ransom" as well? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:35:00 - [349] Originally by: Roy Batty68 The quest for "Fair" is a far more drastic nerf to Eve than any suicide gank or nano nerf. The game being hard is what makes it good. Alot of people just don't seem to get that anymore. Things change. /shrug This.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:37:00 - [350] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Ki An Originally by: RagnhildR tu Ki An what is your problem?, what makes you so pivotal in the world of Eve, without players coming into Eve there would be no Eve. Players need to mine, mission or whatever to pay for the skills and improve their ships. If butt wipes keep on trashing strating out players there will be No New PLayersa, no new players= less cash for CCP, less cash for CCP, an in the end they call it a day, an go on to a new project. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO! What's my problem? Well, that's easy enough to answer. You. You and your ilk who migrate here from other games, expecting everything to work the same way, and when it doesn't you hold your accounts for ransom until CCP fixes things for you. Are you saying if you haven't been around since day one of EvE or played a previous game before EvE, that you are not allowed to have an opinion? Can you link me to the "accounts for ransom" as well? No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy.

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:37:00 - [351] Originally by: Kelli Flay Are you saying if you haven't been around since day one of EvE or played a previous game before EvE, that you are not allowed to have an opinion? No, since I haven't been here since day 1 myself, I'm not saying that. However, it is clear that most of the whines about suicide ganks, nanos and other such things come from ex-whatever players. I bet you've got a level 70 Nightelf Rogue. Originally by: Kelli Flay Can you link me to the "accounts for ransom" as well? No need to link it. Just eve-search "ganking in empire" and you'll find hundreds of threads where the OP is threatening to quit if the game isn't changed. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:40:00 - [352] Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:41:00 - [353] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? Strawman. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:42:00 - [354] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay Are you saying if you haven't been around since day one of EvE or played a previous game before EvE, that you are not allowed to have an opinion? No, since I haven't been here since day 1 myself, I'm not saying that. However, it is clear that most of the whines about suicide ganks, nanos and other such things come from ex-whatever players. I bet you've got a level 70 Nightelf Rogue. Originally by: Kelli Flay Can you link me to the "accounts for ransom" as well? No need to link it. Just eve-search "ganking in empire" and you'll find hundreds of threads where the OP is threatening to quit if the game isn't changed. And yet strangely these people who make such an issue of the very fragility of their loyalty are the ones we're supposed to bend over backwards for. I say call their bluff. Will they really quit? Some might, and good riddance. But I bet 90% or more will stay. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:44:00 - [355] Originally by: Malcanis And yet strangely these people who make such an issue of the very fragility of their loyalty are the ones we're supposed to bend over backwards for. I say call their bluff. Will they really quit? Some might, and good riddance. But I bet 90% or more will stay. Strange, I was thinking the same thing but from the other side. And I see Ki An hasn't contracted me his stuff since he is leaving, even after I asked so nicely ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
Shagrath Neptune Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:44:00 - [356] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay I bet you've got a level 70 Nightelf Rogue. I bet you still live in mom and dad's basement? See, i can throw around unfounded stereotypes around as well.
Suboran Gallente Victory Not Vengeance SOLAR WING	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:44:00 - [357] High sec not total sec. Eve should never have a 100% safe area
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:45:00 - [358] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? Strawman. I get it now. Anything you cannot answer for = strawman "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:45:00 - [359] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? You're in one. You've said it yourself, implicitly. In case you're not sure what that word means, here's a handy link:- http://www.wordreference.com/definition/implicitly
NeoTheo Dark Materials	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:45:00 - [360] Edited by: NeoTheo on 02/09/2008 20:46:32 Originally by: Deviana Sevidon EVE needs the PvPer/ Pirates /Gankers / Griefers but also the Producers /Traders / Miners / Bears and one style of playing this game, is not better then the other. no its not better being one style or another, but it is a VERY difficult balance and one that hangs on a knife edge. mess with it to much and sooner or later a house of cards falls down. at the moment some people get burned, that sux. but thats is also what rules. Every time you sell something on the market you PvP. i dont see people getting punished for playing smart there; thats because "the market works like that". the truth is when you go outside station it works like this, sooner or later, one way or another... boom. see what i did there? managed a paragraph and said nothing. Dark Materials Linkage

Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:46:00 - [361] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Originally by: Malcanis And yet strangely these people who make such an issue of the very fragility of their loyalty are the ones we're supposed to bend over backwards for. I say call their bluff. Will they really quit? Some might, and good riddance. But I bet 90% or more will stay. Strange, I was thinking the same thing but from the other side. And I see Ki An hasn't contracted me his stuff since he is leaving, even after I asked so nicely It is still downtime, afterall.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:46:00 - [362] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Originally by: Malcanis And yet strangely these people who make such an issue of the very fragility of their loyalty are the ones we're supposed to bend over backwards for. I say call their bluff. Will they really quit? Some might, and good riddance. But I bet 90% or more will stay. Strange, I was thinking the same thing but from the other side. And I see Ki An hasn't contracted me his stuff since he is leaving, even after I asked so nicely So on the one hand we've got yo, who will thcweamn and thcweam if you don't get what you want. And on the other, Ki who will quit in disgust if you do. Interesting. Will entitlement or contempt win out? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Xavier Zedicus Priory of Zorrabed	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:46:00 - [363] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Barring wardecs I mean, make it so you can't even target someone elses ship or activate a smartbomb unless in a wardec with them. I know some of you might remember me talking about this subject before and think, oh god not another whine, but doesn't it make sense? Let's see: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. 3. Think of all the extra thousands of people you'll attract from similar clone mainstream MMORPG's like WoW where it's similar rules and layout but a different role/setting. 4. Oh but Eve is a sandbox you should be able to attack anyone anywhere - Give me a break, empire highsec is no more a pvp zone as a nursery is a jailhouse, with the current system being put in place, suicide ganks will drop to affect around 0.00000001% of the eve population in terms of victims and participants. You'll get the odd foolish multibillionaire freighter, most likely a GTC noob, nothing more. Nearly all perceived danger in highsec is an illusion. 5. Don't frustrate wannabe suicide gankers with the penalties shovelled onto them, like a carrot dangling off a fishing line that's too high to reach. Trying to satiate the older PVP crowd with and old and long undermined ideal of making eve cold and harsh where nowhere is safe. Relieve them of the burden of trying to make their chosen profession work so they can go play in lowsec or nullsec. 6. It's going to be talked about at some point soon. As although the carebear types will be squealing with delight at the current undergoing changes, we'll soon see the forum filled with whines again at some point on the ones PVE'ing and accidently targeting a neutral and getting themselves concorded with no insurance claim. So the next task after making it a safezone would be to work out how to make it idiotproof. Does this not make sense? Fail Troll is Fail.
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:46:00 - [364] Originally by: Roy Batty68 No worries. I know I'll adapt. *****in about the suicide gank nerf wasn't really the momentum that carried this thread on. That was just Kelli and a few others being stupid that side tracked it. It was Greyscale basically saying that the soul of the game has changed a bit. It's subtle. But it's there. The quest for "Fair" is a far more drastic nerf to Eve than any suicide gank or nano nerf. The game being hard is what makes it good. Alot of people just don't seem to get that anymore. Things change. /shrug I don't doubt you will. :D As for the change you speak of, I've seen some evidence of that shift myself, and I'm not too happy about it. Frankly, I think eve should be hard, and it should mean something when you lose a ship. That is what sets eve apart from every other MMO. I think though, that the carebears will get their way in the end because no one can look at WOW and not see dollar signs. Ultimately, that will be EVE's death, if it really happens. I'm hoping Helmar and the rest of the top level people are still hard core PVPers and pirates. ______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational"
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:48:00 - [365] Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? You're in one. You've said it yourself, implicitly. In case you're not sure what that word means, here's a handy link:- http://www.wordreference.com/definition/implicitly Yet the thread was created by someone whining about this issue, not the other way around. You should stop, you are making yourself look more like an idiot with every post.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:50:00 - [366] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? You're in one. You've said it yourself, implicitly. In case you're not sure what that word means, here's a handy link:- http://www.wordreference.com/definition/implicitly Yet the thread was created by someone whining about this issue, not the other way around. You should stop, you are making yourself look more like an idiot with every post. sigh I'd say you really are dumb, but it wouldn't really make any discernable difference.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:52:00 - [367] Hey, I enjoyed discussing this non issue with you drama queens. I have to take off for awhile but thanks for the entertainment. Enjoy your nerf and try to whine some more so I have something to read tonight. thanks.
Smacko Thug State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:52:00 - [368] Originally by: Kelli Flay " "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. In order to move billions or isk worth of equipment around high sec space,afk, without care or concern you should have transport ships trained. And Yes, I do think thats what the dev's intentions where. And unlike you, I was playing the game when Transport ships were introduced.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:53:00 - [369] Originally by: Malcanis So on the one hand we've got yo, who will thcweamn and thcweam if you don't get what you want. And on the other, Ki who will quit in disgust if you do. Interesting. Will entitlement or contempt win out? I'm arguing for what I view as an imbalance (just like Ki An, but from the other viewpoint) not due to any feeling of entitlement, and I have never threatened to quit or got ****y about "my eve" going the other direction. I'll adapt and find a path in game with any restrictions that might be put on or lifted. No emo-rage, just my beliefs on what I think are best for the game. I will argue the carebear side more often than not because my normal play style and those of my friends fall there. If/when I leave (everyone will eventually), it will be quiet and without any threats or whines Personally I think I have a lot left to experience, even your/Ki An's side of the coin. Hell there was someone flying by the other day with a ship named something that almost made me gank it just because of the name, I actually had it locked until I came to my senses....
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:54:00 - [370] Originally by: Kelli Flay Hey, I enjoyed discussing this non issue with you drama queens. I have to take off for awhile but thanks for the entertainment. Enjoy your nerf and try to whine some more so I have something to read tonight. thanks. Hmm, you seemed to spend a large amount of time getting worked up over your "non issue", to be honest.

Smacko Thug State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:54:00 - [371] Originally by: Kelli Flay Hey, I enjoyed discussing this non issue with you drama queens. I have to take off for awhile but thanks for the entertainment. Enjoy your nerf and try to whine some more so I have something to read tonight. thanks. Hello Kitty online servers back up?
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:55:00 - [372] Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III No, he's saying don't expect the game to be like all the others: ridiculously easy. I never once read a post on these boards of someone saying EvE should be just like any other game? Link? You're in one. You've said it yourself, implicitly. In case you're not sure what that word means, here's a handy link:- http://www.wordreference.com/definition/implicitly Yet the thread was created by someone whining about this issue, not the other way around. You should stop, you are making yourself look more like an idiot with every post. sigh I'd say you really are dumb, but it wouldn't really make any discernable difference. Yes maybe someday ill be as brilliant as you Granmethedon. It takes a lot of brain cells to spew half baked, self serving propaganda on a forum. You have my eternal admiration.
Smacko Thug State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:57:00 - [373] Originally by: Kelli Flay Yes maybe someday ill be as brilliant as you Granmethedon. It takes a lot of brain cells to spew half baked, self serving propaganda on a forum. You have my eternal admiration. You know someones lost the point theyre trying to argue when: A) They come back after saying they have to go. B) They resort the childish attempts at insults Grow up.
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 20:58:00 - [374] Originally by: Smacko Thug Originally by: Kelli Flay Yes maybe someday ill be as brilliant as you Granmethedon. It takes a lot of brain cells to spew half baked, self serving propaganda on a forum. You have my eternal admiration. You know someones lost the point theyre trying to argue when: A) They come back after saying they have to go. B) They resort the childish attempts at insults Grow up. And fail to use apostrophes. Just saying. I hate that.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:02:00 - [375] Originally by: Smacko Thug Originally by: Kelli Flay Hey, I enjoyed discussing this non issue with you drama queens. I have to take off for awhile but thanks for the entertainment. Enjoy your nerf and try to whine some more so I have something to read tonight. thanks. Hello Kitty online servers back up? Ironic you would ask me that when i am not the one who hasn't demonstrated an ability to adapt in this game. See any whine threads started by me?......nope. You fail.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:02:00 - [376] Originally by: Smacko Thug Originally by: Kelli Flay Hey, I enjoyed discussing this non issue with you drama queens. I have to take off for awhile but thanks for the entertainment. Enjoy your nerf and try to whine some more so I have something to read tonight. thanks. Hello Kitty online servers back up? Got a better one: Ultimate Game Even has PvP
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:04:00 - [377] Originally by: Kelli Flay Ironic you would ask me that when i am not the one who hasn't demonstrated an ability to adapt in this game. See any whine threads started by me?......nope. You fail. That's the thing though, isn't it? When have you ever had to adapt to anything. You've never been nerfed.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:04:00 - [378] Originally by: Smacko Thug Originally by: Kelli Flay Yes maybe someday ill be as brilliant as you Granmethedon. It takes a lot of brain cells to spew half baked, self serving propaganda on a forum. You have my eternal admiration. You know someones lost the point theyre trying to argue when: A) They come back after saying they have to go. B) They resort the childish attempts at insults Grow up. Yes because this is such a grown up thread. Take your own advice tbh.
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:05:00 - [379] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay Ironic you would ask me that when i am not the one who hasn't demonstrated an ability to adapt in this game. See any whine threads started by me?......nope. You fail. That's the thing though, isn't it? When have you ever had to adapt to anything. You've never been nerfed. How would you know? What is my playstyle in the game? What exactly do you think you know about me?
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:08:00 - [380] Keep trying, Kelli, keep trying. Anyway, thought you were off?

Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:12:00 - [381] Originally by: Granmethedon III Keep trying, Kelli, keep trying. Anyway, thought you were off? Trying what? I don't have an agenda. I don't NEED one. 1) Nerf in place.....check 2) Drama Queens all worked up....check. 3) Im fine with the situation....check
Granmethedon III RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:13:00 - [382] Originally by: Kelli Flay Originally by: Granmethedon III Keep trying, Kelli, keep trying. Anyway, thought you were off? Trying what? I don't have an agenda. I don't NEED one. 1) Nerf in place.....check 2) Drama Queens all worked up....check. 3) Im fine with the situation....check Yep, that's it, you're doing so well!
Saelie	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:31:00 - [383] I would like to point out, here around the 140th reply in this thread, that just now have the servers gone up so we can actually observe the impact of this change rather than just speculating. Unless, of course, all the suicide gankers are afraid to test it. Maybe now I'll be able to fly through Uedama and Niarja without lag-crashing from the 10,000 Concord almost permanently stationed on those gates.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:33:00 - [384] Originally by: Saelie Maybe now I'll be able to fly through Uedama and Niarja without lag-crashing from the 10,000 Concord almost permanently stationed on those gates. Good old Uedama. Didn't all those CONCORD make you feel safer though? Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
PeHD0M	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:37:00 - [385] When griefers whine about suicide-ganking nerf, lvl4, mining in highsec etc all they want to achive is to spoil someones gameplay. Do you realy want some more new players in lowsec to play with? - then stop killing their T1 cruisers only for lulz. Want players to get out of npc corp? - stop wardecing them every single time you see a CNR. Stop using stupid exploit with can flipping and then maybe someday you'll have more corpmates. Stop blobing and create lag-hell, stop using people as your slaves in 0.0, then you will have more bright and interesting warfare. The main problem with EVE is not in hisec, lowsec or 0.0.. the main problem is people wich don't know when to stop.
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:40:00 - [386] Originally by: Ruze You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? The word 'terrorist' is a noun in the English language with the following meaning according to Oxford: ter+ror+ist (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism It is not some 'bad' word - just a description of a person who commits certain kinds of acts. In this case exactly the kind of acts threatened. You may not like it, but it's correct use of the term. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:43:00 - [387] Edited by: Ruze on 02/09/2008 21:43:41 Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Ruze You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity? The word 'terrorist' is a noun in the English language with the following meaning according to Oxford: ter+ror+ist (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism It is not some 'bad' word - just a description of a person who commits certain kinds of acts. In this case exactly the kind of acts threatened. You may not like it, but it's correct use of the term. Correct usage is up to the individual. While calling a white man a 'racist' may seem like just using the word, it is as offensive and derivative as calling a Hispanic 'wtback' or an African American 'ngger'. So goes the term 'terrorist'. While it may be 'correct usage', it still does not alleviate the derogatory nature that it has developed over the last six years. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
NocturnalDeath Infinity Enterprises Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.02 21:45:00 - [388] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Why not end the protection of players too lazy to get better at eve by removing Hisec? FYP
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:00:00 - [389] I think it would be a good thing. Besides, anyone who has to spend time waiting to gank in hi-sec to earn a living, is capable of spending time actually playing the game in forms the devs designed for. I see no point either way to be honest, but I wouldn't be opposed to an all high sec safe zone where you can't lock other players, except for wars. Maybe that's because I play that way like every other player who has morals. It wouldn't impact me, it would only impact those that play to grief and really serve no purpose. On another note, it would also eliminate the impact neutrals now have in repping players at war. Which, I consider just another loophole being abused for more advantages. Personally, if you have to find loopholes to exploit to gain every little advantage, then (1)grow up, and (2)leave. For once, play the game.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:02:00 - [390] Originally by: Pithecanthropus I think it would be a good thing. Besides, anyone who has to spend time waiting to gank in hi-sec to earn a living, is capable of spending time actually playing the game in forms the devs designed for. I see no point either way to be honest, but I wouldn't be opposed to an all high sec safe zone where you can't lock other players, except for wars. Maybe that's because I play that way like every other player who has morals. It wouldn't impact me, it would only impact those that play to grief and really serve no purpose. On another note, it would also eliminate the impact neutrals now have in repping players at war. Which, I consider just another loophole being abused for more advantages. Personally, if you have to find loopholes to exploit to gain every little advantage, then (1)grow up, and (2)leave. For once, play the game. Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges.

Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:09:00 - [391] Originally by: Malcanis Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges. I like how you have this preconception of what EVE is... what exactly is Eve? it's a friggin game. There are hundreds of games that promote proper morals, Eve is no different. You have space to do all the immoral shit you want... why do you care what happens in a morally protected space? Is it you are too afraid to test your real morals in low sec? Or, perhaps 0.0 not your style? SO you rather impose YOUR style on others somewhere else? Case closed. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:15:00 - [392] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Malcanis Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges. I like how you have this preconception of what EVE is... what exactly is Eve? it's a friggin game. There are hundreds of games that promote proper morals, Eve is no different. You have space to do all the immoral shit you want... why do you care what happens in a morally protected space? Is it you are too afraid to test your real morals in low sec? Or, perhaps 0.0 not your style? SO you rather impose YOUR style on others somewhere else? Case closed. Why do perceive that anyone who wishes for more freedom in this GAME, instead of the imposed morality of REALITY, has to do so in another area? Fact is, EvE has a longstanding tradition (five years, in fact) of allowing players the ultimate freedom ... the freedom to choose to live how they will. This is as always regimented by the actions of others. Why do you keep trying to impose your value and belief system and make it hardcoded into the game itself? Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:16:00 - [393] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Malcanis Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges. I like how you have this preconception of what EVE is... what exactly is Eve? it's a friggin game. There are hundreds of games that promote proper morals, Eve is no different. You have space to do all the immoral shit you want... why do you care what happens in a morally protected space? Is it you are too afraid to test your real morals in low sec? Or, perhaps 0.0 not your style? SO you rather impose YOUR style on others somewhere else? Case closed. By the way, please inform me about what are 'proper' morals? Because last I checked, 'morality' was not a universal truth, but more a matter of interpretation to the individual and culture. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:22:00 - [394] Originally by: Ruze Fact is, EvE has a longstanding tradition (five years, in fact) of allowing players the ultimate freedom ... the freedom to choose to live how they will. This is as always regimented by the actions of others. Exactly! So why the heck are hundreds of people whining what some hi-sec mission grinder does? Play the game like you want. All I ever proposed is that a completly safe high sec zone would not impact me at all. Perhaps it wouldn't even impact 99% of the existing online players at all! So who really cares if having the thrill of a high sec gank is allowed or not. I can see how having the FEAR of it would bring more to the game, but then again, I'm against afk cloakers... if you can't ever be safe in high sec, wtf is up with afk cloakers being 100% safe in 0.0 AND providing that essential scare tactic. There are lots of give and takes in Eve. Deal with it. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
mduncan0341 Infusion.	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:22:00 - [395] non consensual pvp is what makes this game. Changes to the wardec system, and other changes that further take pvp out of highsec is going to be a game breaker. Grief play, and breaking peoples ships just because you can is what drives pvp everywhere.
Surreptitious State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:23:00 - [396] Originally by: Armoured C this game you actually have to use brains Unfortunately not really, not anymore at least. Flexibility of game play is the engine that drives complexity of game play and sadly CCP is ripping any and all flexibility out of the game. OK by me as I like WOW better now anyways, but still sucks to see a good PVP game take a turn like this. Syrup
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:28:00 - [397] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Ruze Fact is, EvE has a longstanding tradition (five years, in fact) of allowing players the ultimate freedom ... the freedom to choose to live how they will. This is as always regimented by the actions of others. Exactly! So why the heck are hundreds of people whining what some hi-sec mission grinder does? Play the game like you want. All I ever proposed is that a completly safe high sec zone would not impact me at all. Perhaps it wouldn't even impact 99% of the existing online players at all! So who really cares if having the thrill of a high sec gank is allowed or not. I can see how having the FEAR of it would bring more to the game, but then again, I'm against afk cloakers... if you can't ever be safe in high sec, wtf is up with afk cloakers being 100% safe in 0.0 AND providing that essential scare tactic. There are lots of give and takes in Eve. Deal with it. You always seem to approach this subject with the same mentality: coward pirate ganking griefers attempting to acquire more targets. I can't discuss it reasonably with you until you put that misconception out of your head. There are many levels of balance and imbalance. That is one of the primary subjects being discussed. It's like talking taxes with a democrat, and he keeps accusing you of trying to put money in the pocket of big business, no matter that you offered to tax them more, etc. Until he gets passed his preconceived notions of what he assumes are your motives, you can't possibly move forward. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Surreptitious State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:32:00 - [398] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Malcanis Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges. I like how you have this preconception of what EVE is... what exactly is Eve? it's a friggin game. There are hundreds of games that promote proper morals, Eve is no different. You have space to do all the immoral shit you want... why do you care what happens in a morally protected space? Is it you are too afraid to test your real morals in low sec? Or, perhaps 0.0 not your style? SO you rather impose YOUR style on others somewhere else? Case closed. Hey look everyone, its Pope Benedict. Lets be thankful he has come here and told us whats wrong with us and why we are bad people. Now lets all repent and say our ten dozen Hail Marys. You f'ing loser. Next time I see your wife im hittin that, and while shes under my desk im going to come gank your ship. People like you, people who act all holier than thou, disgust me to the point of violence. I guarantee while your spouting this garbage your wearing womens underwear and molesting your kids. Syrup
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:34:00 - [399] Edited by: Ruze on 02/09/2008 22:34:54 Originally by: Surreptitious Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Malcanis Morals should be chosen, not imposed. We're playing EvE, not Clockwork Oranges. I like how you have this preconception of what EVE is... what exactly is Eve? it's a friggin game. There are hundreds of games that promote proper morals, Eve is no different. You have space to do all the immoral shit you want... why do you care what happens in a morally protected space? Is it you are too afraid to test your real morals in low sec? Or, perhaps 0.0 not your style? SO you rather impose YOUR style on others somewhere else? Case closed. Hey look everyone, its Pope Benedict. Lets be thankful he has come here and told us whats wrong with us and why we are bad people. Now lets all repent and say our ten dozen Hail Marys. You f'ing loser. Next time I see your wife im hittin that, and while shes under my desk im going to come gank your ship. People like you, people who act all holier than thou, disgust me to the point of violence. I guarantee while your spouting this garbage your wearing womens underwear and molesting your kids. Syrup That's wrong on so many levels. And I'm serious. It's incredibly bad taste, and doesn't help the discussion in the slightest. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:35:00 - [400] Originally by: Ruze You always seem to approach this subject with the same mentality: coward pirate ganking griefers attempting to acquire more targets. I can't discuss it reasonably with you until you put that misconception out of your head. There are many levels of balance and imbalance. That is one of the primary subjects being discussed. Well, if it looks like a duck, quakes like a duck, chances are its a duck. We agree on one thing... there are MANY levels of balance and imbalance. Of course, players tend to lean towards the imbalance for the advantages, no? Those are what need fixings... oh, and until you lose the mentality that all high sec missioners are carebears not willing to pvp, then we'll never have a reasonable discussion. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:40:00 - [401] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Originally by: Ruze You always seem to approach this subject with the same mentality: coward pirate ganking griefers attempting to acquire more targets. I can't discuss it reasonably with you until you put that misconception out of your head. There are many levels of balance and imbalance. That is one of the primary subjects being discussed. Well, if it looks like a duck, quakes like a duck, chances are its a duck. We agree on one thing... there are MANY levels of balance and imbalance. Of course, players tend to lean towards the imbalance for the advantages, no? Those are what need fixings... oh, and until you lose the mentality that all high sec missioners are carebears not willing to pvp, then we'll never have a reasonable discussion. Um .. have you read anything I've written? At all? <- Carebear who PvP's. In fact, I personally believe that the number of individuals who purely mission run or PvE are actually minimal. I would think it a safe presumption to say that the vast majority of players do a little of everything. I know that you were just firing that back because of the line I called you out on. But while your trying to change the game to suit your playstyle, you still have the gumption to accuse others of not caring. Come the heck on. You want it your way, and you admit it. I'm a hisec level 4 mission runner (a little losec mission running at the moment on my main), who thinks is fricking unbalanced as hell. Doesn't matter, though. I mean, do you really care to contribute to these discussions, or is your intent less productive in nature?
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:47:00 - [402] Let's not put this further down the road of carebear online.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:48:00 - [403] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Does this not make sense? No, makes no sense, but if calling folks idiots, and carebears and throwing up the emo wow references ease the butt-hurt you're feeling, I'm glad you got this off your chest... again. Devs felt that suicide ganking didn't cost enough. Serious crime, not so serious consequences. They upped the consequences. Eve is all about actions and consequences. It doesn't make an awful lot of things impossible to do. There are fairly steep consequences for doing some things that are considered "criminal" in the game. That's the way this game works. If you want a game with few consequences, and that does restrict your actions a bit more, that game you mentioned by Blizzard is ==========> that way.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:50:00 - [404] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Originally by: 5pinDizzy Does this not make sense? No, makes no sense, but if calling folks idiots, and carebears and throwing up the emo wow references ease the butt-hurt you're feeling, I'm glad you got this off your chest... again. Devs felt that suicide ganking didn't cost enough. Serious crime, not so serious consequences. They upped the consequences. Eve is all about actions and consequences. It doesn't make an awful lot of things impossible to do. There are fairly steep consequences for doing some things that are considered "criminal" in the game. That's the way this game works. If you want a game with few consequences, and that does restrict your actions a bit more, that game you mentioned by Blizzard is ==========> that way. NO! That's not the way the game works. It's the way the game works FOR SOME PEOPLE, but not for others. Risk vs reward applies ONLY to PvPers. It does not apply to PvEers in high sec. They get high rewards for almost no risk. The little risk they had have just been made even smaller. Don't go throwing around "risk vs reward" when it doesn't apply to your play style.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:56:00 - [405] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 02/09/2008 22:57:00 Originally by: Ki An Don't go throwing around "risk vs reward" when it doesn't apply to your play style. I don't think that the words risk, or reward, appeared anywhere in my post. I said actions, and consequences. If you choose to restrict your play in this game to high-sec, that's an action. The consequence of that action is that there are many parts of the game that you'll never participate in. You won't ever fly a capital ship in combat. You won't ever be in a significant fleet battle. You won't ever be able to claim or defend territory. You'll never become an instant billionaire from an officer spawn, or by finding that killer exploration plex. Actions, and consequences. You can play this game a lot of different ways. Each has plusses and minuses of its own.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 22:59:00 - [406] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine I don't think that the words risk, or reward, appeared anywhere in my post. I said actions, and consequences. If you choose to restrict your play in this game to high-sec, that's an action. The consequence of that action is that there are many parts of the game that you'll never participate in. You won't ever fly a capital ship in combat. You won't ever be in a significant fleet battle. You won't ever be able to claim or defend territory. You'll never become an instant billionaire from an officer spawn, or by finding that killer exploration plex. Actions, and consequences. You can play this game a lot of different ways. Each has plusses and minuses of its own. That's a load of crap, and you know it. There's nothing restricting in high sec. Sure, you can't fly a capital, but you're free to pump out isk in imbalanced missions and mess up the economy for everyone else, all the while being completely immune to any form of unwanted player interaction due to the wonderfully overpowered NPC corps. Consequences applies to people with a PvP playstyle in a PvP game. Everyone else is free to stink up the place however they like. If someone looks at them funny, CCP just nerfs PvP some more.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:04:00 - [407] Originally by: Ruze Um .. have you read anything I've written? At all? <- Carebear who PvP's. In fact, I personally believe that the number of individuals who purely mission run or PvE are actually minimal. I would think it a safe presumption to say that the vast majority of players do a little of everything. I know that you were just firing that back because of the line I called you out on. But while your trying to change the game to suit your playstyle, you still have the gumption to accuse others of not caring. Come the heck on. You want it your way, and you admit it. I'm a hisec level 4 mission runner (a little losec mission running at the moment on my main), who thinks is fricking unbalanced as hell. Doesn't matter, though. I mean, do you really care to contribute to these discussions, or is your intent less productive in nature? I posted my beliefs on the topic of this thread, and I didn't read thru its entirety. I didn't feel the need. It was other's who responded to what I said. I have a play style, and its my play style. I never set out to push what I do onto others, and I've dealt with what others try to push onto me. But no matter how hard anyone can press, I'll always play my game... not theirs. I don't want to be 100% safe, but it would be nice if other's didn't abuse flaws to make them selves 100% un-counterable. I've done it all... even lvl 5's in low sec. High sec space is just that... safer. Being opposed to the immoral behavior is one thing, I'm not against it... but I can still deem it inappropriate in high-sec. It's simple grief. Call it what you want, but its a style that tries to undermine the war mechanic. Just cuz you can do it, doesn't make it right. But do what you want.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:14:00 - [408] Originally by: Ki An Consequences applies to people with a PvP playstyle in a PvP game. Everyone else is free to stink up the place however they like. If someone looks at them funny, CCP just nerfs PvP some more. What is it that you'd like to buy that costs significantly more than it did six months ago? How, specifically, is this "screwed up economy" effecting your game play? Consequences means you get something, and you give other things up, bud. If you want to be a high-sec carebear, you get low-risk, slow, steady progression. You give up a lot of the things that make the game exciting. I just named a few for you. If you want people to understand your concerns, and yet show no respect for the concerns of others, I'm afraid you're not going to get very far. Not here. Not anywhere. I understand that you want everyone in this game to be available to you for PvP, and for there to be little to no consequences for you if you decide to attack them, anywhere, any time. It's a valid desire, and I don't discount it one bit. I don't think it aligns with CCP's interests, and appearantly, neither do they. In every game I've ever played going back a long time, there is always the "hardcore" contingent. Game can never be "hardcore" enough for them. You should have to play 70 hours a week, in the snow, uphill, both ways, and even if you do, you shouldn't whine if you lose everything it took you six months to gain in 30 seconds. Suck it up. Unfortunatly, you can't run a game like that. There just aren't enough "hardcore" people out there. It's been proven over and over. Even when the devs cave in and give the "hard core" contingent their very own gladiator death-match server, it ends up deserted in six months. I've been playing this game for 5 years now. It's never been hard-core enough. Ever. There have been whines like this from day one. There always will be, and CCP will keep doing the best they can to make it a fun game to play. If it stops being fun for you, stop playing. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. If you find that it's becoming a source of stress in your life, seriously, take a break.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:24:00 - [409] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine What is it that you'd like to buy that costs significantly more than it did six months ago? How, specifically, is this "screwed up economy" effecting your game play? You got it all wrong. It's not that things are more expensive. It's that they are cheaper! Rediculously cheap. You know why? Over abundance of cheap ore on the market, over abundance of people in high sec, extremely low loss rate of ships and mods. T2 isn't worth shit anymore. Ships sell for mineral value. That's what's wrong with the economy, and it very much affects me. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Consequences means you get something, and you give other things up, bud. If you want to be a high-sec carebear, you get low-risk, slow, steady progression. You give up a lot of the things that make the game exciting. I just named a few for you. No, you don't give up much. You reap all the rewards and have no risk. You have fast progression, because as soon as you can run lvl 4 missions, you're set for life. The bears don't give up anything exciting either, because if anything excited them they'd crap all over themselves. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine If you want people to understand your concerns, and yet show no respect for the concerns of others, I'm afraid you're not going to get very far. Not here. Not anywhere. I think I've been more than accomodating these last few years. Time and again my play style has been nerfed. Time and again I see 4 month old newbies in their CNRs breezing through isk printing lvl 4 missions, all the while talking about how evil people are out in low sec and how they would never go there. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine I understand that you want everyone in this game to be available to you for PvP, and for there to be little to no consequences for you if you decide to attack them, anywhere, any time. It's a valid desire, and I don't discount it one bit. I don't think it aligns with CCP's interests, and appearantly, neither do they. You understand absolutely shit! No matter how many times I and others tell you why we want this nerf, you go back to the whole "u just want ezy targets lol". Get the frack over it! Originally by: Somealt Ofmine In every game I've ever played going back a long time, there is always the "hardcore" contingent. Game can never be "hardcore" enough for them. You should have to play 70 hours a week, in the snow, uphill, both ways, and even if you do, you shouldn't whine if you lose everything it took you six months to gain in 30 seconds. Suck it up. Believe me, I have. Again and again. You, however, never have to adapt. Never have to "suck it up". Everyone treats your kind as you're some kind of fracking gold calf. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Unfortunatly, you can't run a game like that. There just aren't enough "hardcore" people out there. It's been proven over and over. Even when the devs cave in and give the "hard core" contingent their very own gladiator death-match server, it ends up deserted in six months. They could for 5 years. Then you lot showed up and started demanding change. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine I've been playing this game for 5 years now. It's never been hard-core enough. Ever. There have been whines like this from day one. There always will be, and CCP will keep doing the best they can to make it a fun game to play. If it stops being fun for you, stop playing. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. If you find that it's becoming a source of stress in your life, seriously, take a break. I doubt you ever really played this game. I bet you've spent all your time in high sec running missions, patting yourself on the back every time your wallet goes up a number. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:35:00 - [410] Man, some of you guys may have good arguments, but you wrap them in insults and bullsh*t so deep it takes a whole lot of self control to get to the good stuff. That's aimed at all sides of the fence, by the way. Despite how good your point is, or how well aiming your opinion may be, the moment an insult pops up, you just invalidated everything you said. It's actually a really great, but underhanded, tactic if you ever want to make sure people disagree with you. Just post for the other team, but insult everyone who disagrees with you. The next thing you know, people agree with your 'opponents' simply because they don't like you! Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:37:00 - [411] Originally by: Ruze Man, some of you guys may have good arguments, but you wrap them in insults and bullsh*t so deep it takes a whole lot of self control to get to the good stuff. That's aimed at all sides of the fence, by the way. Despite how good your point is, or how well aiming your opinion may be, the moment an insult pops up, you just invalidated everything you said. It's actually a really great, but underhanded, tactic if you ever want to make sure people disagree with you. Just post for the other team, but insult everyone who disagrees with you. The next thing you know, people agree with your 'opponents' simply because they don't like you! I really don't care anymore, to be honest. CCP has made it clear that they are going to continue this crappy route of simplifying everything and catering to high sec wusses. I just want to get a rise out of these jerks now after they've successfully managed to destroy the game I loved. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:40:00 - [412] Edited by: Haakelen on 02/09/2008 23:40:36 Originally by: Ki An I really don't care anymore, to be honest. CCP has made it clear that they are going to continue this crappy route of simplifying everything and catering to high sec wusses. I just want to get a rise out of these jerks now after they've successfully managed to destroy the game I loved. +1. The game has been made so incredibly easy and simple already. Making money takes zero effort. Blobbing takes zero effort (And soon will always win). But they will never be happy, until CCP holds their hands through the entire process and makes everything instant and easy. It's unfortunate CCP doesn't realize that those people aren't a sustainable source of income. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:41:00 - [413] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Ruze Man, some of you guys may have good arguments, but you wrap them in insults and bullsh*t so deep it takes a whole lot of self control to get to the good stuff. That's aimed at all sides of the fence, by the way. Despite how good your point is, or how well aiming your opinion may be, the moment an insult pops up, you just invalidated everything you said. It's actually a really great, but underhanded, tactic if you ever want to make sure people disagree with you. Just post for the other team, but insult everyone who disagrees with you. The next thing you know, people agree with your 'opponents' simply because they don't like you! I really don't care anymore, to be honest. CCP has made it clear that they are going to continue this crappy route of simplifying everything and catering to high sec wusses. I just want to get a rise out of these jerks now after they've successfully managed to destroy the game I loved. Then do what I do. Find a new thread somewhere, and post for it. Not in a evil, reverse psychology way, but in a 'I wonder what the arguments are trying to show' way. It really is fun, for one, forcing your mind into a different rut. And two, it might just give you appreciation for a different way of thought. Or it just keeps you busy for an hour until you get bored. By the way, yes, I can play chess against myself, and surprise myself with a checkmate. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:45:00 - [414] Originally by: Ruze Then do what I do. Find a new thread somewhere, and post for it. Not in a evil, reverse psychology way, but in a 'I wonder what the arguments are trying to show' way. It really is fun, for one, forcing your mind into a different rut. And two, it might just give you appreciation for a different way of thought. Or it just keeps you busy for an hour until you get bored. By the way, yes, I can play chess against myself, and surprise myself with a checkmate. As much as I appreciate reading your posts, I just can't muster the energy for that anymore. I could as long as I thought the game was worth saving, and that saving it was possible. I see now that it's way beyond that. I'll settle for griefing as many people as I can in game and on the forums until the servers are pulled. Shouldn't be longer than a couple of months. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.02 23:56:00 - [415] Originally by: Ki An As much as I appreciate reading your posts, I just can't muster the energy for that anymore. I could as long as I thought the game was worth saving, and that saving it was possible. I see now that it's way beyond that. I'll settle for griefing as many people as I can in game and on the forums until the servers are pulled. Shouldn't be longer than a couple of months. You really think that because risk-free suicide ganking has been made more risky, that it will cause Eve to disappear in a couple of months? That's your main issue isn't it? You can't suicide gank for free any more? ...and that will be the death of Eve? I agree about the corp-hopping-to-avoid-wars issue. It would be nice if CCP did something about that, but come on! The suicide ganking adjustment isn't going to kill Eve. Even if they nerf high sec war decs (and I hope they don't - or if they do, that they have no high-sec NPC corps except Militia), but even if they did somehow nerf high sec wardecs in some way, it STILL wouldn't be the end of Eve. Would hardly put a dent in the subscriber-base. As long as High Sec wardecs were still possible, and as long as people couldn't easily corp-hop, a change to the wardec mechanics wouldn't be a big deal... ...unless of course, your entire gaming rationale is that of pure high sec griefing... in which case you're probably screwed. Nevermind
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:01:00 - [416] Originally by: Ki An You got it all wrong. It's not that things are more expensive. It's that they are cheaper! Rediculously cheap. You know why? Over abundance of cheap ore on the market, over abundance of people in high sec, extremely low loss rate of ships and mods. T2 isn't worth shit anymore. Ships sell for mineral value. That's what's wrong with the economy, and it very much affects me. OK, math lesson 101. I build stuff in the game bud, and what I see every day is people selling their wares at or below build cost. It doesn't matter how cheap materials get. Trit could be 1 isk, or 3, but smart builders should still be asking for a profit over what the material costs are. In many instances, they aren't. That can't be effected by level 4 mission runners. That is, in most cases, noobish manufacturers who probably aren't even sure what something cost them to build, so they just put it in the market at .01 lower than the current low price. A decline in real demand would eventually effect the entire value chain (mats would get cheaper too). The decline you're seeing in the T2 market is mostly due to the introduction of invention, and with it, lots of noobish builders who don't know how to price their stuff. No more, no less. I'm sure you understand PvP bud, but trust me, it's clear you don't understand this stuff. Quote: The bears don't give up anything exciting either, because if anything excited them they'd crap all over themselves. You aren't going to get many people to listen to you like that, except yes-men who already think like you do. Quote: I think I've been more than accomodating these last few years. Time and again my play style has been nerfed. Time and again I see 4 month old newbies in their CNRs breezing through isk printing lvl 4 missions, all the while talking about how evil people are out in low sec and how they would never go there. Um... so? Let them sit and grind in high-sec. They really and truly aren't effecting you bud, except that it sounds like you envy them their pimp BSes. not to worry, they'll never use them in PvP anyway. They'd crap themslves, remember? Quote: You understand absolutely shit! No matter how many times I and others tell you why we want this nerf, you go back to the whole "u just want ezy targets lol". Get the frack over it! It's probably because I've patiently explained this stuff to you several times now, and you just disregard it. The more you do that, the more it looks like a hidden agenda, and like all you really are interested in is MOAR TARGETZ11!!!11. Quote: I doubt you ever really played this game. I bet you've spent all your time in high sec running missions, patting yourself on the back every time your wallet goes up a number. If you want to be taken seriously, you're doing it wrong. I run missions occasionally. I mostly research/build/trade. I make many times doing those things what I make running missions. If you want to discuss these things, cool. If you just want to emorage, I have no time for you. What's it going to be?
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:02:00 - [417] Originally by: oilio Originally by: Ki An As much as I appreciate reading your posts, I just can't muster the energy for that anymore. I could as long as I thought the game was worth saving, and that saving it was possible. I see now that it's way beyond that. I'll settle for griefing as many people as I can in game and on the forums until the servers are pulled. Shouldn't be longer than a couple of months. You really think that because risk-free suicide ganking has been made more risky, that it will cause Eve to disappear in a couple of months? That's your main issue isn't it? You can't suicide gank for free any more? ...and that will be the death of Eve? I agree about the corp-hopping-to-avoid-wars issue. It would be nice if CCP did something about that, but come on! The suicide ganking adjustment isn't going to kill Eve. Even if they nerf high sec war decs (and I hope they don't - or if they do, that they have no high-sec NPC corps except Militia), but even if they did somehow nerf high sec wardecs in some way, it STILL wouldn't be the end of Eve. Would hardly put a dent in the subscriber-base. As long as High Sec wardecs were still possible, and as long as people couldn't easily corp-hop, a change to the wardec mechanics wouldn't be a big deal... ...unless of course, your entire gaming rationale is that of pure high sec griefing... in which case you're probably screwed. Nevermind I don't think it's a 'few months', myself. Two years, more likely. But the development team have finally shown that their view of the future of EvE is far different than the old crews. I liked the old crews. It's why I liked EvE. I'm not as fond of the new crews. And it's not wise to spend money on a game that requires a significant time investment, if your not going to be enjoying it a year down the road.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:08:00 - [418] Originally by: Ruze And it's not wise to spend money on a game that requires a significant time investment, if your not going to be enjoying it a year down the road. I know a number of people who aren't going to fanfest this year, or buying the ship models, and have let various alt subscriptions lapse because of the general mood of the new and awful devs. CCP is shooting itself in the foot.
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:12:00 - [419] Originally by: Ruze I don't think it's a 'few months', myself. Two years, more likely. But the development team have finally shown that their view of the future of EvE is far different than the old crews. I liked the old crews. It's why I liked EvE. I'm not as fond of the new crews. And it's not wise to spend money on a game that requires a significant time investment, if your not going to be enjoying it a year down the road. I dunno... I really get the feeling that they are trying to balance things out a bit, but of course different people have a different opinion of what they consider the right balance to be. I really can't see Eve getting into any trouble unless a competitor produces and even less "carebear friendly" MMORPG. Eve is the least friendly that I know of, and I have the feeling it will be so for a long time. Just my opinion of course. Maybe Eve will become too "soft". Hopefully not.
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:15:00 - [420] Originally by: Haakelen I know a number of people who aren't going to fanfest this year, or buying the ship models, and have let various alt subscriptions lapse because of the general mood of the new and awful devs. CCP is shooting itself in the foot. Yes, but "a number"??? Compared to how many new subscribers? I know a number of people who aren't going to the fanfest this year... one of them is me. I would never go to a fanfest, but that doesn't indicate that CCP are shooting themselves in the foot. I know of two people who aren't renewing their subscriptions. One just wants to take a break, and the other is short of money. That doesn't mean CCP has shot itself in the foot either. Very weak, unsubstantiated argument there Haakelen.

Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:31:00 - [421] 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.
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:33:00 - [422] While I STRONGLY favor: --efforts to make high completely free of "casual" ganking --efforts to increase the "operating cost" of high sec "for profit" ganking But efforts to make high sec a "gank free" zone are pure stupidity. If you load a billion isk of cargo into a shuttle and afk it, it is completely appropriate to pop and rob it. But if I take a 15000 shield Transport with 200mil in cargo on a high sec afk trip, popping it SHOULD be a major league money LOSER even if all the cargo survives.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:41:00 - [423] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine 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. 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. As many of those in the same boat I am have said, it's not the fix CCP has employed on suicide ganking. Not in the slightest. I think it was imbalanced as hell. Nor is it the upcoming 'look into war dec'. That's also a mechanic that has been used and abused for a long time. It IS, however, more the intent of the game, as spoken by the developer in this very post (if I'm in the right post, that is). The general tilt of the game has gone from a sandbox, to an 'open ended' gamestyle. The differences between the two are often minute, but the application is not. There's a reason I play EvE, and from my talks with others, I'm not alone. I don't appreciate someone imposing their morals and values on me through a video game. I love how EvE is a single universe, and PvE and PvP are so intimately intertwined. A player cannot get away from either, no matter what part of space their in. It's not 'PvP here, PvE over there'. It's 'live in this world'. But the old guard of developers have moved on to bigger and higher things. And with them, much of the wicked and free world of EvE has slowly diminished. It's not an SOE crapshoot of NGE. No, its very slow, very subtle, and very quite. One at a time. So, okay. Adapt or die, many will say. If you don't like it, leave, many others will say. It gets tossed around so much, it's practically everyone's signature. And the truth is, it's a bit of a letdown to watch something you like change. Like watching an innocent kid grow up and become something ... mean. Only, kinda in reverse. Whatever. Many will keep believing that these are revenge threads on suicide ganking, no matter what we profess. It's the way of things ... you see what you want to see.
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.03 00:49:00 - [424] Originally by: Ruze As many of those in the same boat I am have said, it's not the fix CCP has employed on suicide ganking. Not in the slightest. I think it was imbalanced as hell. Nor is it the upcoming 'look into war dec'. That's also a mechanic that has been used and abused for a long time. It IS, however, more the intent of the game, as spoken by the developer in this very post (if I'm in the right post, that is). The general tilt of the game has gone from a sandbox, to an 'open ended' gamestyle. The differences between the two are often minute, but the application is not. There's a reason I play EvE, and from my talks with others, I'm not alone. I don't appreciate someone imposing their morals and values on me through a video game. I love how EvE is a single universe, and PvE and PvP are so intimately intertwined. A player cannot get away from either, no matter what part of space their in. It's not 'PvP here, PvE over there'. It's 'live in this world'. But the old guard of developers have moved on to bigger and higher things. And with them, much of the wicked and free world of EvE has slowly diminished. It's not an SOE crapshoot of NGE. No, its very slow, very subtle, and very quite. One at a time. So, okay. Adapt or die, many will say. If you don't like it, leave, many others will say. It gets tossed around so much, it's practically everyone's signature. And the truth is, it's a bit of a letdown to watch something you like change. Like watching an innocent kid grow up and become something ... mean. Only, kinda in reverse. Whatever. Many will keep believing that these are revenge threads on suicide ganking, no matter what we profess. It's the way of things ... you see what you want to see. But is it really so? Is Eve going to go increasingly towards PvE with consensual PvP, or is the game just being rebalanced a bit? It's easy to assume that this is a trend that will continue to some "carebear utopia" conclusion, but that's just an assumption. The game may drift a little in that direction, and then go no further. You might be right, but I am not yet convinced that things will get to that stage. The clearest indicator, I suspect, will be what happens when they adjust high-sec wardecs. If they do it right, it might actually satisfy both sides of the argument. We'll see.
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.03 01:03:00 - [425] Edited by: Mika Meroko on 03/09/2008 01:04:21 The devs actually spoke... hmmm, well, Life goes on....XD but yeah... everytime in the last few years, someone screams: "Eve is dying".... well, more than half a dozen patches and 2 years later...(the ones I am aware of anyways...) Eve is still growing.... meh... hey Ki... if you really want that kind of game play.... I might suggest Pirates of the BURNING seas... everything is gankable in the big red circle XD... and you can make the red circle anywhere if you put in enough effort.. but yeah, dont put in a year long sub though... that game is sinking fast.. just had a server merge a short while ago... (cause well, no body likes to get ganked while doing their starter mish....) but yeah, you can gank anything in any big red circle on the map... and you can make the circles too XD edit: oh and yeah.... whats the point of the last 5 pages again? XD Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Emeline Cabernet Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 01:11:00 - [426] yes missions in high sec is clearly whats screwing up the economy. not broken 0.0 cosmos at all... nope they are working just as intended...
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.09.03 02:10:00 - [427] So... Basically, three things are obviously true. 1) People who want HiSec to be PvP free in all forms have no balls. 2) People who want to suicide gank without any real consequence have no balls. 3) People who are in favor of a balance are accused of having no balls. It's kinda funny, really. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.03 02:34:00 - [428] Originally by: Allen Ramses So... Basically, three things are obviously true. 1) People who want HiSec to be PvP free in all forms have no balls. 2) People who want to suicide gank without any real consequence have no balls. 3) People who are in favor of a balance are accused of having no balls. It's kinda funny, really. Eve General Discussion Forum - "A great way to lose your balls"
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2008.09.03 03:17:00 - [429] Balls.
Tzigan Jegos Dirty Gypsies Trading Co.	Posted - 2008.09.03 04:02:00 - [430]

Tiro Whyte	Posted - 2008.09.03 05:12:00 - [431] People keep talking about the sandbox system Eve is built on, wheere you can do what you like where you like (within reason). But jsut like real world what each person wants is different and unfortunately the aspects PVPers get from PVP is somethign I prefer not to engage in. I enjoy monotonous killing of unthinking repeativtive missions, or mining asteroids, I build my bank roll doing so and spend my isk how I choose. I don't get the PVP side of the game and personally don't want to try it, because I know I won't like it. I've been killed multiple times and in fact quit previously as I was harassed by a group because I refused to play their rules in the sandbox. But I came back and adapted. I won't go into 0.0 or low sec again because I don't want the constant fear of looking over my shoulder nor is the sandbox really a sandbox in that area. Your forced to be in a corp or alliance to play in that space. If you don't your labeled a chinese farmer and hunted relentlessly. this type of behavior is even encouraged by ccp by saying its lawless. As for the whole risk versus reward concept one forgets the other balancing factor // time vs reward and risk verus time factor. I would rather face minimal risk making average or better reward on a semi constistent basis than do High risk High reward on occasional basis. For example many PVPers look for the faction fitted ship kill which droppes the 'uber' loot, the rare ratter that doesn't cloak or jsut in at that right moemnt. and drops multi billion isk wreck with cargo full of other loot. that is the high reward 0.0 potentially brings the risk is that the guy you targeted had buddies and you could die. The time factor is you spend time roaming having occcaisonal encounters. Whereas I prefer the 4 hours a day doing same missions knowing that I will get mostly subpar loot and slim possiblity of anything worhtwhile. but a constant flow of isk to keep me motivated. Taht is my choice. Removing Hi-sec gangking means a lot of people will be polarized but I see no reason why we can't both play our games in the same box, I jsut don't want you stepping on my sand castle, theres other peopel you can fight I'd rather it not be me PVP is its own reward. Killing other people and having the Kill mail (or at least use to) was the reward for PVP. The risk was losing your own ship.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.03 07:23:00 - [432] 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.
Thorexion Lynch Gallente Snake Assault	Posted - 2008.09.03 07:55:00 - [433] Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. According to EULA, it is only considered griefing if the attacker doesnt profit/gain from the action. If said "griefer" pops a hauler and it drops deadspace/faction/officer mods then he gains so it is not griefing, hell even if it only drops something worth 100k the "griefer" still makes something from it. The changed to CONCORD kills and insurance payouts just makes it harder and adds more risk. So, technically it isn't considered "grief play" so there's no reason it should be removed. -Thor-
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:08:00 - [434] Originally by: Thorexion Lynch Originally by: 5pinDizzy 2. It's considered grief play - So remove it then. According to EULA, it is only considered griefing if the attacker doesnt profit/gain from the action. If said "griefer" pops a hauler and it drops deadspace/faction/officer mods then he gains so it is not griefing, hell even if it only drops something worth 100k the "griefer" still makes something from it. The changed to CONCORD kills and insurance payouts just makes it harder and adds more risk. So, technically it isn't considered "grief play" so there's no reason it should be removed. -Thor- Of course, it will be virtually impossible to profit from ganking a freighter after the insurance nerf, so the only ganks that can occur will be griefing. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ralara Caldari Shadow Incursion	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:16:00 - [435] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 Ahh you know it'll end up like in this primary schools where "everyone's a winner!", there's no games to play because if you lose it could affect your development etc. You know what I'm talking about. Playing musical chairs with 15 chairs and 10 people and never actually removing one when the music stops. --
Glengrant TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:28:00 - [436] Empire mission runners: This is EVE. There is no 100% safety. Nothing new - get over it. Suicide gankers - it still works, it's just not going to be so damn and silly easy. It got out-of-hand. Used to be rare - now it's getting too much. Welcome to game design 101. Get over it. Whiners everywhere. Speed - still works Damage - still done War - still declarable High sec - still only 99% safe Nothing has changed. Nerfs usually don't remove a feature (that's just your excitable brain gone exaggerating) - they just bring it back into line - to the intended equilibrium. Not everything works as intended and designed? Tough. EVE is a highly complex beast. There's always the next patch. GET OVER IT! sigh --- Save the forum: Think before you post. ISK BUYER = LOOSER EVE TV- Bring it back!
Nova Satar Exiled. Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:38:00 - [437] this is the biggest noob thread ive seen all day. If you dont like somthing, just **** off, seriously, this is the only game ever created where if players dont get their way they have a forum they can whine on so it gets changed.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.03 08:59:00 - [438] Originally by: van Uber 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. I can agree with this, alongside Ruze's earlier suggestion regarding a hi-sec tax paid towards the local authorities/CONCORD. Hi-sec should be a place of refuge and reasonable safety. NPC corps should be the last refuge of the hunted or PvP averse. But those securities should come at a price. This is EVE, and the only inalienable thing your entitled to for free is your noobship.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 11:42:00 - [439] Originally by: Mika Meroko [hey Ki... if you really want that kind of game play.... I might suggest Pirates of the BURNING seas... everything is gankable in the big red circle XD... and you can make the red circle anywhere if you put in enough effort.. but yeah, dont put in a year long sub though... that game is sinking fast.. just had a server merge a short while ago... (cause well, no body likes to get ganked while doing their starter mish....) but yeah, you can gank anything in any big red circle on the map... and you can make the circles too XD Already tried that game. Now that's an example of what you shouldn't do as an MMO developer. Have a bunch of neat ideas, a great combat system and an interesting trade system, and then screw it all up because people don't want to be sunk in the red circle. That game is a write-off. Sad, really. Could have been the Eve-competitor we are all waiting for. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:07:00 - [440] Originally by: Ki An Already tried that game. Now that's an example of what you shouldn't do as an MMO developer. Have a bunch of neat ideas, a great combat system and an interesting trade system, and then screw it all up because people don't want to be sunk in the red circle. That game is a write-off. Sad, really. Could have been the Eve-competitor we are all waiting for. I have not tried that game, but I don't see the problem here why it should not be that hardcore eve-competitor here. I mean if you can create the red circle and gank in that red circle it's as hardcore as it gets, right ? Assuming there is also real death penalty assosiated ofc in getting ganked. Only downside would be ofc, that if new players get killed to pad the ego of hardcore players there will be the issue of dropping sub numbers until no one is paying the bills for game anymore. Ofc this is relatively offtopic here. In my opinion EVE is fine and will be fine after next 5 years regardless of all the doom and gloom that floats in forums every time something happens, be it then carrier nerf, stacking penalty on modules or nerfing mission loot that all generated a lot of outcry.

Kyle Klanen	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:10:00 - [441] I made a thread about this a short while ago and got insulted and flamed and now CCP have finally came out and admitted it.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:15:00 - [442] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Ki An Already tried that game. Now that's an example of what you shouldn't do as an MMO developer. Have a bunch of neat ideas, a great combat system and an interesting trade system, and then screw it all up because people don't want to be sunk in the red circle. That game is a write-off. Sad, really. Could have been the Eve-competitor we are all waiting for. I have not tried that game, but I don't see the problem here why it should not be that hardcore eve-competitor here. I mean if you can create the red circle and gank in that red circle it's as hardcore as it gets, right ? Assuming there is also real death penalty assosiated ofc in getting ganked. Only downside would be ofc, that if new players get killed to pad the ego of hardcore players there will be the issue of dropping sub numbers until no one is paying the bills for game anymore. Ofc this is relatively offtopic here. In my opinion EVE is fine and will be fine after next 5 years regardless of all the doom and gloom that floats in forums every time something happens, be it then carrier nerf, stacking penalty on modules or nerfing mission loot that all generated a lot of outcry. A pro tip is to try the game before you attempt to make any comparisons with Eve. Might end up with you looking stupid otherwise. Just saying. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Kyle Klanen	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:31:00 - [443] Originally by: Carniflex Ofc this is relatively offtopic here. In my opinion EVE is fine and will be fine after next 5 years regardless of all the doom and gloom that floats in forums every time something happens, be it then carrier nerf, stacking penalty on modules or nerfing mission loot that all generated a lot of outcry. EVE wont die and will carry on but the real issue is the way CCP are almost betraying the loyal fans who have put up with all the problems and shortcomings over the years and stayed and paid because they loved the core values on which the game was created, those values have slowly been eroded like Skunky describes as a "drip drip" process, and where will it stop? who's to say low sec wont suffer the same eventually or the slow deterioration of the "risk vs reward" principle, and its no good a dev posting that it will never happen because they already said it about the stuff they are already nerfing.
Meriela	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:49:00 - [444] Does anyone even remember when ganking freighters actually was a really RARE newsworthy occurrence, back when they DIDN'T drop anything when ganked? CCP changed that, they made freighters viable gank for profit targets when they introduced loot drops from them. However, CCP now states that the incidence of gank for profit is way too high, they have the numbers, they can see all the incidents, no one in game can do that. CCP has not removed them from the gank for profit list by returning them to the way they were before. So if they carry too much they are still viable targets. An individual Dev's statement that war decs are "pay to grief" (he must really kick himself everytime that gets used) I have to agree with, I know corps who's only reason for being is to dec someone "for lulz" or to "pad the killboard and show how l33t" they are, most people know corps like this. CCP is thinking about changing the wardec system, they are not going to remove it entirely. I dont see how anyone can say CCP is determined to remove non consentual PvP from high sec when there are so many things they COULD have done. They could have removed jetcan mining, no more can flipping. They could have introduced immediate spawn, immediate lock rep ships to concord so a gank target becomes essentially invulnerable. They could remove the wardec system altogether, but there aren't even any rumours that that has crossed their minds. Non consentual PvP is alive and well in high sec, and will continue to be. All that's happened is that the attackers, who get to choose the target, the time and the place, now have to work just a little bit harder.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.03 13:23:00 - [445] Originally by: Kyle Klanen ... but the real issue is the way CCP are almost betraying the loyal fans who have put up with all the problems and shortcomings over the years and stayed and paid because they loved the core values on which the game was created, those values have slowly been eroded like Skunky describes as a "drip drip" process ... I do not feel betrayed. There has been some changes over the past 3 years I have been here. Some I like others I don't, but thats life. Perhaps I'm minority, as I do not have insight into the minds of other people, but as speculation I would claim that majority of people are happy with the game. They do pay to play it afterall. Ofc there is a lot of issues, EVE is evolving world and that brings with itself all kinds of stuff. We would not have this discussion if EVE would be static world, freighters would not drop loot, there would be no drone regions and cost of 'suiciding' something would be considerably higher. Privateers would do their thing still, hell perhaps even moo would be still around. What has happened that dev clarified CCP vision. Thats awesome in my opinion regardless if I agree or disagree with it. As far as the game world goes I guess it's still 'adabt or die'. In EVE context 'die' is ofc 'emoragequit' or just 'quit' and adabtion is finding something other to do that entertains the subject if something is changed. At least thats how I see my game experience. There has been few changes in the past that have pushed my abilities to 'adabt' in this game but with will to look for solutions there IS usually solution available.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 14:05:00 - [446] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Kyle Klanen ... but the real issue is the way CCP are almost betraying the loyal fans who have put up with all the problems and shortcomings over the years and stayed and paid because they loved the core values on which the game was created, those values have slowly been eroded like Skunky describes as a "drip drip" process ... I do not feel betrayed. There has been some changes over the past 3 years I have been here. Some I like others I don't, but thats life. Perhaps I'm minority, as I do not have insight into the minds of other people, but as speculation I would claim that majority of people are happy with the game. They do pay to play it afterall. Ofc there is a lot of issues, EVE is evolving world and that brings with itself all kinds of stuff. We would not have this discussion if EVE would be static world, freighters would not drop loot, there would be no drone regions and cost of 'suiciding' something would be considerably higher. Privateers would do their thing still, hell perhaps even moo would be still around. What has happened that dev clarified CCP vision. Thats awesome in my opinion regardless if I agree or disagree with it. As far as the game world goes I guess it's still 'adabt or die'. In EVE context 'die' is ofc 'emoragequit' or just 'quit' and adabtion is finding something other to do that entertains the subject if something is changed. At least thats how I see my game experience. There has been few changes in the past that have pushed my abilities to 'adabt' in this game but with will to look for solutions there IS usually solution available. Well said. CCP have made their decision regarding hi-sec. That decision is not up for debate any more: it's a done deal. Greyscale has madewhat was obvious before extremely clear now. Kind of sucks for the professions of suicide ganker and empire merc, but there we have it. The hay is in the barn. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Kyle Klanen	Posted - 2008.09.03 14:20:00 - [447] Originally by: Malcanis Well said. CCP have made their decision regarding hi-sec. That decision is not up for debate any more: it's a done deal. Greyscale has madewhat was obvious before extremely clear now. Kind of sucks for the professions of suicide ganker and empire merc, but there we have it. The hay is in the barn. True the discussion now is fairly moot, but it wont end there other stuff will be slowly changed or removed like gate camping or perhaps even some kind of npc protection in low sec or reduced death penalty and the slow shift towards catering to risk adverse players will continue.
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 14:36:00 - [448] As in so many things, looking at this from an RP/"Ingame" perspective clears up so much. +++Scene - Yulai Council room - it's newly refit but some parts of it were clearly part of the old Concord station. The scorch marks are still there. A reminder.+++ Concord Commissioner (Tiredly): "Okay, next on the agenda please?" Secretary: "We have a rep from the Jita Mercantile Guild here, Commissioner." Commish: "Okay - show him in." The rep comes in, a haggard balding guy with a paunch, a big plastic box and a couple of flow charts on 4x4 sheets. He looks tired and a bit ****ed. Commish: "NOW what is it Wallace?" Rep (dumping the box's contents on the Commish's desk so that the hundreds of datachits overflow it and fall to the blackened carpet): "New complaints and reports for you Commissioner. In the last month 6400 various haulers and transports destroyed in Jita system alone. Total loss to the economy (he sticks up one of the flowcharts) 12%. Hauling is going down and everything's being devalued as the pirates are selling their wares for half price. Manufacturers and miners are screaming and threatening a general strike." Commish: "But we're destroying them!" Rep: "Yes, sir. You are. And here's your cost of the ammunition and material used. Oh, and here's the statement from the Concord subsidized insurance company on the payouts for all the ships you're blowing up." Commish: "Okay - I know I'm new here since the last guy got blown up with the station but isn't this stupid? We're paying out insurance to people we're blowing up? AND they're making off with the cargos after we blow them up?" Rep: "Yep." Commish: "Okay - so they're making all kinds of money while we pay them to get blown up. But they're outlaws? Why aren't we shooting them before they get to the haulers?" Rep: "Oh, they're not outlaws sir. Rep is in good standing even for the worst repeat offenders. They just go and blow up pirates and send the reports to Concord and get the sec upgrades. Then come back and do the same thing again." Commish: "WHAT? Get the council in here NOW. We're re-writing this mess so fast their heads will spin!" Secretary: "There's one more person to see before the Council arrives, sir. Should I send him away?" Commish (Checking the clock): "Nah, send him in. My day is ruined anyway." A nervous young Concord clerk comes in also with a big box but this one is full of flimsy forms. Commish: "What have you got, son and make it quick!" Clerk: "Yes sir, sorry sir. The previous Commissioner asked me to collect forms for Concord approved War Declarations and summarize their reasons listed on the forms." Commish: "Okay, sure. Whatcha got?" Clerk: "Well sir, the break out is as follows in no particular order: 1) Declaration to remove competion from a system; 2% 2) Revenge/Vengeance for previous war/action 7% 3) Proving how l33t we are! 11% 4) Just for lulz; 30% 5) I wanted their crap 35% 6) Blackmail for money 15% Commish: "Wait a sec - hang on. HALF the war declarations we're approving are for PIRACY and BLACKMAIL?" Clerk: "Umm - yessir." Commish: "And most of the rest are for - what - psychopathic killing for giggles?" Clerk (sheepish) "Yessir." Commish: "Why are we approving these? We're the bloody COPS aren't we?" Clerk: "Well, the policy is we approve every declaration. The reasons don't matter. They're just for record keeping. Lots of folks don't even fill out that part of the form." Commish (Losing it): "GET THE COUNCIL IN HERE NOW!" May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Kwedaras Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:00:00 - [449] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom 1) Declaration to remove competion from a system; 2% 2) Revenge/Vengeance for previous war/action 7% 3) Proving how l33t we are! 11% 4) Just for lulz; 30% 5) I wanted their crap 35% 6) Blackmail for money 15% i herd 87% of all statistics are made up.
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:01:00 - [450] I guess I am one of the few who still thinks Concorde was the worst thing for the game and hates it everytime something is done to 'protect' a player. I belive this is a harsh game, I belive there should be a steep penalty for mistakes. And I definatly hate it when people stay in the noob corps to avoid war decs and haul tens of billions around and I can't touch it. But then again, the game and the players seem to have gotten really soft since early 04. ----

Xeronn Amarr Ordo Drakonis Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:15:00 - [451] Originally by: van Uber 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?! 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 Agressor stops the Agression. No way around it .
Zeknichov Realm Industries	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:17:00 - [452] As soon as they made it an exploit to avoid concord it was evident CCP had no intention of having Empire anything but a pseudo safezone.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:18:00 - [453] Edited by: Ruze on 03/09/2008 15:19:15 Originally by: Zeknichov As soon as they made it an exploit to avoid concord it was evident CCP had no intention of having Empire anything but a pseudo safezone. Very true. Before, it was just a crime to avoid or fight CONCORD. Then CCP made it an exploit. The difference is subtle, but it was a clear step away from a sandbox style of gameplay, and towards the 'open ended' style we have now. Personally, I think it was a step in the wrong direction. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:21:00 - [454] Originally by: Zeknichov As soon as they made it an exploit to avoid concord it was evident CCP had no intention of having Empire anything but a pseudo safezone. True. Now it's just a tug-of-war match to see just how safe it should be. And even that isn't exactly true. More like a bunch of us geeks rabble-rabble back and forth at each other while CCP rolls their eyes at us and do whatever they were/are planning to do anyway. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:22:00 - [455] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom As in so many things, looking at this from an RP/"Ingame" perspective clears up so much. +++Scene - Yulai Council room - it's newly refit but some parts of it were clearly part of the old Concord station. The scorch marks are still there. A reminder.+++ Concord Commissioner (Tiredly): "Okay, next on the agenda please?" Secretary: "We have a rep from the Jita Mercantile Guild here, Commissioner." Commish: "Okay - show him in." The rep comes in, a haggard balding guy with a paunch, a big plastic box and a couple of flow charts on 4x4 sheets. He looks tired and a bit ****ed. Commish: "NOW what is it Wallace?" Rep (dumping the box's contents on the Commish's desk so that the hundreds of datachits overflow it and fall to the blackened carpet): "New complaints and reports for you Commissioner. In the last month 6400 various haulers and transports destroyed in Jita system alone. Total loss to the economy (he sticks up one of the flowcharts) 12%. Hauling is going down and everything's being devalued as the pirates are selling their wares for half price. Manufacturers and miners are screaming and threatening a general strike." Commish: "But we're destroying them!" Rep: "Yes, sir. You are. And here's your cost of the ammunition and material used. Oh, and here's the statement from the Concord subsidized insurance company on the payouts for all the ships you're blowing up." Commish: "Okay - I know I'm new here since the last guy got blown up with the station but isn't this stupid? We're paying out insurance to people we're blowing up? AND they're making off with the cargos after we blow them up?" Rep: "Yep." Commish: "Okay - so they're making all kinds of money while we pay them to get blown up. But they're outlaws? Why aren't we shooting them before they get to the haulers?" Rep: "Oh, they're not outlaws sir. Rep is in good standing even for the worst repeat offenders. They just go and blow up pirates and send the reports to Concord and get the sec upgrades. Then come back and do the same thing again." Commish: "WHAT? Get the council in here NOW. We're re-writing this mess so fast their heads will spin!" Secretary: "There's one more person to see before the Council arrives, sir. Should I send him away?" Commish (Checking the clock): "Nah, send him in. My day is ruined anyway." A nervous young Concord clerk comes in also with a big box but this one is full of flimsy forms. Commish: "What have you got, son and make it quick!" Clerk: "Yes sir, sorry sir. The previous Commissioner asked me to collect forms for Concord approved War Declarations and summarize their reasons listed on the forms." Commish: "Okay, sure. Whatcha got?" Clerk: "Well sir, the break out is as follows in no particular order: 1) Declaration to remove competion from a system; 2% 2) Revenge/Vengeance for previous war/action 7% 3) Proving how l33t we are! 11% 4) Just for lulz; 30% 5) I wanted their crap 35% 6) Blackmail for money 15% Commish: "Wait a sec - hang on. HALF the war declarations we're approving are for PIRACY and BLACKMAIL?" Clerk: "Umm - yessir." Commish: "And most of the rest are for - what - psychopathic killing for giggles?" Clerk (sheepish) "Yessir." Commish: "Why are we approving these? We're the bloody COPS aren't we?" Clerk: "Well, the policy is we approve every declaration. The reasons don't matter. They're just for record keeping. Lots of folks don't even fill out that part of the form." Commish (Losing it): "GET THE COUNCIL IN HERE NOW!" CONCORD don't pay the insurance, you moop. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:22:00 - [456] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Originally by: Zeknichov As soon as they made it an exploit to avoid concord it was evident CCP had no intention of having Empire anything but a pseudo safezone. True. Now it's just a tug-of-war match to see just how safe it should be. And even that isn't exactly true. More like a bunch of us geeks rabble-rabble back and forth at each other while CCP rolls their eyes at us and do whatever they were/are planning to do anyway. Hahahahah ... Alas, that's the way it should be. I just wish I was the one making the decisions, is all Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:23:00 - [457] Originally by: Kyle Klanen Originally by: Malcanis Well said. CCP have made their decision regarding hi-sec. That decision is not up for debate any more: it's a done deal. Greyscale has madewhat was obvious before extremely clear now. Kind of sucks for the professions of suicide ganker and empire merc, but there we have it. The hay is in the barn. True the discussion now is fairly moot, but it wont end there other stuff will be slowly changed or removed like gate camping or perhaps even some kind of npc protection in low sec or reduced death penalty and the slow shift towards catering to risk adverse players will continue. Yes I know. That's why I want a shitload more 0.0 space - I mean a lot more. Space far enough away that I can actually play EvE. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Irida Mershkov Gallente Trader's Academy Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:36:00 - [458] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kyle Klanen Originally by: Malcanis Well said. CCP have made their decision regarding hi-sec. That decision is not up for debate any more: it's a done deal. Greyscale has madewhat was obvious before extremely clear now. Kind of sucks for the professions of suicide ganker and empire merc, but there we have it. The hay is in the barn. True the discussion now is fairly moot, but it wont end there other stuff will be slowly changed or removed like gate camping or perhaps even some kind of npc protection in low sec or reduced death penalty and the slow shift towards catering to risk adverse players will continue. Yes I know. That's why I want a shitload more 0.0 space - I mean a lot more. Space far enough away that I can actually play EvE. What about turning previous low-sec into 0.0 and turning, say, 40% of empire space into low-sec, cluster the high-sec guys together. Would be interesting. Give it some RP reason like all the pirate factions smack the Empires or something.
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:41:00 - [459] Originally by: Irida Mershkov What about turning previous low-sec into 0.0 and turning, say, 40% of empire space into low-sec, cluster the high-sec guys together. Would be interesting. Give it some RP reason like all the pirate factions smack the Empires or something. I'd say, turn 50% of existing high sec into low sec. Add 10-20 more 0.0 regions, about 25% of them of NPC sov. Detach high sec markets from all other markets. That includes contracts. Make high sec markets only applicable to high sec resources, and make everything else only sellable and buyable on low sec or 0.0 markets. In essence, shard the game completely. It's already half way there. In order for low sec and 0.0 players to be able to compete with high sec dwellers without using high sec alts, the sharding must be thourough. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:46:00 - [460] Step 1: Make CONCORD exist in all Empire, hisec and losec. Scale the reaction time in .4 and below, just as it's scaled in hisec. Contested space will have no CONCORD presence, of course. (This makes the 'safe space' approximately 34% of the universe) -or- Step 1: Double the size and density of hisec space. Step 2: Double the size of deep space. Many more nulsec regions, with far broader reaches. Essentially, make it so that if you want PvP, you go to one of the contested systems, or nulsec. Losec still has crime, but is balanced to be far safer than it currently is. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File

Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:49:00 - [461] Originally by: Ruze Step 1: Make CONCORD exist in all Empire, hisec and losec. Scale the reaction time in .4 and below, just as it's scaled in hisec. Contested space will have no CONCORD presence, of course. (This makes the 'safe space' approximately 34% of the universe) -or- Step 1: Double the size and density of hisec space. Step 2: Double the size of deep space. Many more nulsec regions, with far broader reaches. Essentially, make it so that if you want PvP, you go to one of the contested systems, or nulsec. Losec still has crime, but is balanced to be far safer than it currently is. That's where Eve is headed, alright. That's not what most of us want, though. Therefore I think a sharding of the server is the only way. It will keep the game alive until after WoD goes gold, thus guaranteeing CCP's capital for that, and after that, who cares about Eve, right? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 15:57:00 - [462] Originally by: Ki An That's where Eve is headed, alright. That's not what most of us want, though. Therefore I think a sharding of the server is the only way. It will keep the game alive until after WoD goes gold, thus guaranteeing CCP's capital for that, and after that, who cares about Eve, right? If they shard, I want just one thing: Completely copy the server over, with all player skills and financial gains. Cause I'll tell you right now, if you make a new 'start', the old server will die. What new player in their right mind would willingly compete with players who have loyally payed for the game for 5+ years, when they could compete with those their own age. And if you kill any chance of new players joining the old server, you are just betraying those who have invested years of time and effort. Complete copies is the only way to work it. That way, those players who have been around for years, can still carry on and keep playing. Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:03:00 - [463] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Ki An That's where Eve is headed, alright. That's not what most of us want, though. Therefore I think a sharding of the server is the only way. It will keep the game alive until after WoD goes gold, thus guaranteeing CCP's capital for that, and after that, who cares about Eve, right? If they shard, I want just one thing: Completely copy the server over, with all player skills and financial gains. Cause I'll tell you right now, if you make a new 'start', the old server will die. What new player in their right mind would willingly compete with players who have loyally payed for the game for 5+ years, when they could compete with those their own age. And if you kill any chance of new players joining the old server, you are just betraying those who have invested years of time and effort. Complete copies is the only way to work it. That way, those players who have been around for years, can still carry on and keep playing. Sure, let them join with their old characters or make new ones. We need to shard, though, because otherwise Eve will be destroyed. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:04:00 - [464] Dude, this thread is getting stupid even by my standards... Now you're seriously talking about sharding? You guys are really losing it. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:07:00 - [465] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Dude, this thread is getting stupid even by my standards... Now you're seriously talking about sharding? You guys are really losing it. Hey, I'm just having fun. We could be talking about cannibalism, and I'd still put my two cents in. Actually, that's not a fair relation, because I support cannibalism, but you get my drift ... Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:10:00 - [466] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Dude, this thread is getting stupid even by my standards... Now you're seriously talking about sharding? You guys are really losing it. We're simply extrapolating on the changes CCP have already decided upon. It's clear that high sec is soon going to be completely safe. I don't want to play in a game with battle grounds. My bet is that many agrees with me. Therefore, when CCP implements safe high sec, the game will die, unless they shard it. Then it has a chance of surviving for six months, thus freeing up capital for the WoD project. Eve still dies, but it takes a bit longer. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:12:00 - [467] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Roy Batty68 Dude, this thread is getting stupid even by my standards... Now you're seriously talking about sharding? You guys are really losing it. We're simply extrapolating on the changes CCP have already decided upon. It's clear that high sec is soon going to be completely safe. I don't want to play in a game with battle grounds. My bet is that many agrees with me. Therefore, when CCP implements safe high sec, the game will die, unless they shard it. Then it has a chance of surviving for six months, thus freeing up capital for the WoD project. Eve still dies, but it takes a bit longer. Seriously, battlegrounds are already in game. It's not that big an issue, they put them in place months ago. Riskless PvP with no hard effect on anything, where anybody can equip a ship and blow something up. EvE and WoW both have battlegrounds, and it's old news. Sadly, it kinda works in EvE Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:13:00 - [468] Originally by: Ruze Seriously, battlegrounds are already in game. It's not that big an issue, they put them in place months ago. Riskless PvP with no hard effect on anything, where anybody can equip a ship and blow something up. EvE and WoW both have battlegrounds, and it's old news. Sadly, it kinda works in EvE True, but soon battle grounds will be all we have. There's still some meaningful PvP in the game. It's headed for the abyss, though. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:14:00 - [469] Having not read the other 17 pages of replies, I've considered this idea before. It'd fit a lot closer with what people's preconceptions are of any game. What other game can you be blown up in straight away after you start? If you told newbies the truth, "that you're at risk soon as you undock" they would never undock and no one would play the game. However, such a change would require a major rethink about the way security works in Eve: For example, if you made the 100% safe newbie island and then had the rest of Eve as low sec, the pace of the game would be much slower, you'd have to make it much easier for people to move around and avoid gatecamps. You'd have to disincentive people from going back to the newbie zone (maybe even ban them from returning). There would also have to be a lot more tools to help casual players and help anti-pirates, or those who want to increase security (stuff like being able to take control of gate guns or become official local militias / police enforcers, market controls / embargo's etc, lots of the sorts of things that 0.0 players have to defend their own space and make it secure would have to be transported to low sec). I think though, what wkould happen is the happy gank crowd wouldn't like it because atm the emphasis is on a very hands off approach by concord, where security is in the hands of the players and the mechanics are on the pirates side. If there were no secuirty and pvp zone almost anywhere, it'd have to be the other way round _______ People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:17:00 - [470] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Roy Batty68 Dude, this thread is getting stupid even by my standards... Now you're seriously talking about sharding? You guys are really losing it. Hey, I'm just having fun. We could be talking about cannibalism, and I'd still put my two cents in. Actually, that's not a fair relation, because I support cannibalism, but you get my drift ... I can't be the only one to think that Hannibal Lector was vulgar to drink Chianti with liver. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:18:00 - [471] Originally by: Spoon Thumb Having not read the other 17 pages of replies, I've considered this idea before. It'd fit a lot closer with what people's preconceptions are of any game. What other game can you be blown up in straight away after you start? If you told newbies the truth, "that you're at risk soon as you undock" they would never undock and no one would play the game. So did you join the game under false pretences? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Syringe Morphine Inc	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:35:00 - [472] Lemme just turn on my PvP flag here. Click "yes" if you want to accept my duel request. --------- War isn't the answer. However, the objective isn't to provide answers rather than eliminate the question.
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:40:00 - [473] 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?
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:40:00 - [474] Originally by: Syringe Lemme just turn on my PvP flag here. Click "yes" if you want to accept my duel request. Anyone else ever notice that when you have a game with 'consensual' PvP, the only people who want to fight you are three levels or more higher than your character? Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:55:00 - [475] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Ruze Step 1: Make CONCORD exist in all Empire, hisec and losec. Scale the reaction time in .4 and below, just as it's scaled in hisec. Contested space will have no CONCORD presence, of course. (This makes the 'safe space' approximately 34% of the universe) -or- Step 1: Double the size and density of hisec space. Step 2: Double the size of deep space. Many more nulsec regions, with far broader reaches. Essentially, make it so that if you want PvP, you go to one of the contested systems, or nulsec. Losec still has crime, but is balanced to be far safer than it currently is. That's where Eve is headed, alright. That's not what most of us want, though. Therefore I think a sharding of the server is the only way. It will keep the game alive until after WoD goes gold, thus guaranteeing CCP's capital for that, and after that, who cares about Eve, right? I m bookmarking this thread for future reading for when i am having a bad day or for when my cat craps on the carpet and I have to clean it up. No matter who bad life gets, I will always have this thread to read to cheer me up. "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:04:00 - [476] Originally by: Kelli Flay I m bookmarking this thread for future reading for when i am having a bad day or for when my cat craps on the carpet and I have to clean it up. No matter who bad life gets, I will always have this thread to read to cheer me up. Because of your passive aggressive carebear nature, the only time you can truly have fun is when someone else isn't? Doesn't that make you a griefer? Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:06:00 - [477] When my life gets bad I just go for a walk, smoke a cigarette, or hang out with my wife for a bit (I can mix walking and cigarettes, or walking and wife, but not cigarettes and wife, as she hates the smell). Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Kelli Flay	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:15:00 - [478] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay I m bookmarking this thread for future reading for when i am having a bad day or for when my cat craps on the carpet and I have to clean it up. No matter who bad life gets, I will always have this thread to read to cheer me up. Because of your passive aggressive carebear nature, the only time you can truly have fun is when someone else isn't? Doesn't that make you a griefer? {lays on couch} Yes because of my passive aggressive nature and my childhood. I think it goes back to when I was four and my mom took me to the circus. There were elephants and clowns............ "The National Weather Bureau is forecasting a thunderstorm of failure."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:17:00 - [479] Originally by: Kelli Flay {lays on couch} Yes because of my passive aggressive nature and my childhood. I think it goes back to when I was four and my mom took me to the circus. There were elephants and clowns............ You griefer you. Can only have fun at someone else's expense. Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:42:00 - [480] Originally by: Malcanis CONCORD don't pay the insurance, you moop. Don't be a jerk just because you can't respond to the argument. If you would like the detail behind that comment (and this is opinion but so far as I know it's never been discussed anywhere in canon so it's as valid as any other) here's my take on it: The insurance system of EVE cannot be an independent company. There are two reasons for this. They would go entirely out of business at lightspeed as we all know how often players renew their insurance as opposed to collect it. The second reason is that if you lose an uninsured ship, there's still a payout. No regular company does such things. If your house or car is uninsured and gets destroyed, do you suddenly get a cheque from some insurance company? Of course not! But if you lose a ship in EVE and you've bought no insurance your wallet will still get a nice little pump (my last payout for that was a little over a million ISK). So - if the insurance 'company' isn't a purely private vehicle, which it cannot be based on the above, then it is either a private venture both subsidized by the government and subject to regulations from it, or run by the government as some kind of Empire Corporation (rather like Commonwealth Crown Corporations). So, either way the government is paying for it. Since it seems to be the same insurance company whether you are in Amaar, Matari, Federation, Caldari or Null Sec space, it makes the most sense to relate it to the only other organization that can be found in most of those places - that being Concord. So, next time, try engaging your brain before your mouth. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)

Feilamya Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:44:00 - [481] Originally by: 5pinDizzy 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? That's where the op is wrong. Carebears's aren't people. They are giant flying pinatas.
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:45:00 - [482] Originally by: Kwedaras i herd 87% of all statistics are made up. Oh those ones totally are. I just needed numbers for the story. In reality the number of folks going to war in Empire for 'real' reasons is probably much much smaller. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Drunk Driver Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:46:00 - [483] Originally by: Feilamya Originally by: 5pinDizzy 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? That's where the op is wrong. Carebears's aren't people. They are giant flying pinatas. Now that's funny. .
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:49:00 - [484] Edited by: Malcanis on 03/09/2008 17:52:52 Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Malcanis CONCORD don't pay the insurance, you moop. Don't be a jerk just because you can't respond to the argument. If you would like the detail behind that comment (and this is opinion but so far as I know it's never been discussed anywhere in canon so it's as valid as any other) here's my take on it: The insurance system of EVE cannot be an independent company. There are two reasons for this. They would go entirely out of business at lightspeed as we all know how often players renew their insurance as opposed to collect it. The second reason is that if you lose an uninsured ship, there's still a payout. No regular company does such things. If your house or car is uninsured and gets destroyed, do you suddenly get a cheque from some insurance company? Of course not! But if you lose a ship in EVE and you've bought no insurance your wallet will still get a nice little pump (my last payout for that was a little over a million ISK). So - if the insurance 'company' isn't a purely private vehicle, which it cannot be based on the above, then it is either a private venture both subsidized by the government and subject to regulations from it, or run by the government as some kind of Empire Corporation (rather like Commonwealth Crown Corporations). So, either way the government is paying for it. Since it seems to be the same insurance company whether you are in Amaar, Matari, Federation, Caldari or Null Sec space, it makes the most sense to relate it to the only other organization that can be found in most of those places - that being Concord. So, next time, try engaging your brain before your mouth. If you're going to try and justify radical mechanics changes with RP fluff, you should at least get the fluff details correct. Your post-hoc justifications are almost laughably strained, by the way. No company would ever run an insurance business like the one in EvE for any reason whatsoever. Still less one so venal and self-centred as CONCORD. "Insurance" is just a rather clumsy ship replacement mechanic. As soon as you start bringing in "sensible" reasons for not granting it for a given category of ship loss, you pretty much have to immediately concede that there are virtually no ships lost under circumstances which would in any feasible economic system merit an insurance payout. Otherwise I want my Caldari ships to be like they sound in the race description at character creation. "Agile hi-tech" ships my arse CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:50:00 - [485] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Kwedaras i herd 87% of all statistics are made up. Oh those ones totally are. I just needed numbers for the story. In reality the number of folks going to war in Empire for 'real' reasons is probably much much smaller. Out of interest, what would you define as a "real" (ie: acceptable) reason for starting a war-dec? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 17:52:00 - [486] Originally by: Ki An Originally by: Kelli Flay I m bookmarking this thread for future reading for when i am having a bad day or for when my cat craps on the carpet and I have to clean it up. No matter who bad life gets, I will always have this thread to read to cheer me up. Because of your passive aggressive carebear nature, the only time you can truly have fun is when someone else isn't? Doesn't that make you a griefer? I propose that we campaign to have the forums declared part of hi-sec so that his kind - the grief-poster - can be excluded as they deserve. If not, I and 80% of EvE players will quit and destroy the game if we can't have our way. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:00:00 - [487] Edited by: Allen Ramses on 03/09/2008 18:03:44 Ugh... The amount of extremes being thrown back and forth is embarrassing. Suicide ganks favor the gankers WAY more than the victims. This is a serious problem. CONCORD intervention protects the victims WAY too much. This, too, is a serious problem. These are both indisputable facts. To solve the first problem, CONCORDOKKENED(?) ships having their insurance premium refunded, and basic compensation offered will shift the balance much toward the middle where it needs to be. Gankers won't have zero loss, but they won't have a full loss either. To solve the second problem, CONCORD would patrol every gate and station, but backup shouldn't be instantaneous. They should also not do uber OMFGWTFBBQLOL damage. They should be able to neutralize their targets, but in a matter of minutes. Not a matter of milliseconds. This will make suicide ganking more fun for everyone involved. Of course neither of the two solutions can exist without the other. EDIT: GCF'd pilots should be denied docking rights and traffic control while in CONCORD patrolled space. This way, even their pod is in danger. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:02:00 - [488] The only acceptable reason for a war dec is when both corps want to put their PvP tag on and fight without having to be troubled to go into the battlegrounds. Only with both groups consent to PvP, can it be legal. Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:03:00 - [489] Edited by: Jarvis Hellstrom on 03/09/2008 18:12:32 Originally by: Malcanis If you're going to try and justify radical mechanics changes with RP fluff, you should at least get the fluff details correct. Did I have a detail incorrect somewhere? I'm not aware of one, but I'm not an encylopedia of New Eden knowledge either. Or is it just your beef that you don't think CCP gets them correct? If so, that has no bearing on my argument as I'm not them. Quote:* Your post-hoc justifications are almost laughably strained, by the way. No company would ever run an insurance business like the one in EvE for any reason whatsoever. Actually all that's strained is your own lack of perspective or perhaps ability to reason. In fact, the Province that I live in has a government run, no fault and not for profit auto insurance company. It's not allowed any competition and if it makes too much money, everyone gets a cheque from it if they pay insurance. Other than the requirement that everyone HAS to buy it (if you operate a car on the road), it's not all that much different from the one available to our capsuleers in New Eden. Government subsidized military and support/replacement programs are nothing new and go back thousands of years. If you look at the amount of work that the government gets out of capsuleers (primarily in mission running) for the very low cost they pay out it actually makes total sense to sponsor some kind of replacement system. It means more capsuleers running more missions which means less need for the Navy to do all those things. Not to mention deniability and all manner of other subsidiary benefits. So by all means, complain all you like but it is logically and internally consistent even if you would prefer not to think about it too much as that damages some of your arguments. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:11:00 - [490] Originally by: Malcanis Out of interest, what would you define as a "real" (ie: acceptable) reason for starting a war-dec? To be entirely honest, I'm not sure. I can tell you that it would include things like being stolen from or attacked by members of the other corp. I would also want to see the kinds of things that have created real world corporate war in the past. Access to markets, trade goods, raw materials etc. I'd also say accepting a Mercenary contract would make one eligible to participate - although the mechanics of that would need to be worked out. That isn't an exhaustive list by any means. I'd need access to CCP's resources (and a fair bit of time) to even attempt that. And none of that makes those things easier to define. However 'Because I feel like beating up on a bunch of strangers' wouldn't be included. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)

Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:55:00 - [491] Long, long ago, it was possible to tank/evade CONCORD. Guess what? Most people did just that. It got exploited to the bone, just like current suiciding, and CCP decided it had to go. Then, in 2006. people started discovering that you can sometimes earn quite enough cash from a kill, if you tag it before you die to the cops. From first few heroic freighter ganks, we slowly progressed to Jihadswarm, and to the point where you weren't safe in any ship in a crowded system. Suicide gankers not needing to fit ship and cargo scanners and still earning cash was broken.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.03 19:22:00 - [492] Originally by: Ruze It IS, however, more the intent of the game, as spoken by the developer in this very post (if I'm in the right post, that is). The general tilt of the game has gone from a sandbox, to an 'open ended' gamestyle. The differences between the two are often minute, but the application is not. I don't see a whole lot of that. I do see what I percieve to be a focus on lowering the bar for new players. Making the game easier to figure out. Giving them more of a running start so that they can do more things from day one. But every game I've ever played has done that over time. Trying to figure out EQ on launch day was a completely different experience than trying to figure it out after the "plane of knowledge" was introduced. Another thing goes on in most games, that is that the devs introduce a set of mechanics, and the players immediately look for ways to exploit them so that they are for all intents invulnerable, and able to pwn everyone in the face while hardly ever dying themselves. The devs fix it. The players figure out a different way to do the same thing. The devs fix it, and on it goes. Ask any veteran player of any game, and they can tell you about all kinds of shit they used to be able to get away with in the "old days". Vets always resent the game getting friendlier to newcommers. I think what they don't realize though is that part of what makes the game harder over time, and necessitates it becoming friendlier, is the presence of vets, and more importantly, the alts of vets. Concessions just about have to be made after a while, or the game becomes completely unattractive to someone who doesn't know how to play it already.
Philis McCrakin	Posted - 2008.09.03 19:56:00 - [493] Originally by: CCP Greyscale (Excercising my developer prerogative [I do have one of those, right?] and not reading the entire thread - sorry) The simple answer to the question in the thread title is "because we don't want to". A slightly more complex answer is "because the general design opinion is that implementing a hard limit on non-consensual hi-sec PvP is neither desirable nor necessary right now; we reserve the right to change our opinions in future etc no matter how unlikely or remote the possibility seems to us right now, because I just know this is going to get quoted in the eventuality that all the stars align backwards and the devourer emerges from the bowels of the earth and so on and so forth and we do for some reason I can't possibly fathom right now decide to change our minds, and hell I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort". In this specific case, there's a two-pronged argument for stopping more or less where we have with the latest blogs on the subject. Firstly, there's a compelling reason why you should, at a high level, be able interfere with any and all activities of other players with a sufficient amount of effort, which is that true invulnerability leads to all kinds of quirky issues with invulnerable supply lines and so on, which are undesirable. By ensuring that for example all freighter movements, everywhere, have at least some in-principle form of risk, we go some way towards mitigating those concerns. There are other considerations coming into play of course, such as the fact that by denying blanket immunity (and assuming we're communicating this effectively) we attach some perceived risk to all activities, which gets players familiarized with the idea of risk early on in the game, which lowers the hurdle in front of the option to shoulder greater risks later on in their career. This is a benefit, but not in my personal opinion as solid a reason as the previously stated objective. When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. Is that what you meant by quoting out of context?
Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 20:22:00 - [494] Originally by: Ruze Correct usage is up to the individual. While calling a white man a 'racist' may seem like just using the word, it is as offensive and derivative as calling a Hispanic 'wtback' or an African American 'ngger'. So goes the term 'terrorist'. While it may be 'correct usage', it still does not alleviate the derogatory nature that it has developed over the last six years. That is utter rubbish. If a person is practicing or advocating racism, calling them a racist is an accurate usage of the term. If they are not, then doing so is slander. Don't start with politically correct claptrap. I won't tolerate such perversion of either language or culture. The act threatened was one of (game virtual) terrorism. Terrorism 'in game' if you will. Therefore the term is correct in that context. It has nothing to do with 'real world' terrorism anymore than calling someone a pirate in EVE means they run around the horn of Africa firing RPGs at cruise ships. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Syringe Morphine Inc	Posted - 2008.09.03 20:29:00 - [495] Originally by: Kelli Flay I m bookmarking this thread for future reading for when i am having a bad day or for when my cat craps on the carpet and I have to clean it up. No matter who bad life gets, I will always have this thread to read to cheer me up. Always look on the bright side of life. [whistling] Always look on the light side of life. [whistling] If life seems jolly rotten, There's something you've forgotten, And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing. When you're feeling in the dumps, Don't be silly chumps. Just purse your lips and whistle. That's the thing. And... Well - you get the idea --------- War isn't the answer. However, the objective isn't to provide answers rather than eliminate the question.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 20:32:00 - [496] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Ruze Correct usage is up to the individual. While calling a white man a 'racist' may seem like just using the word, it is as offensive and derivative as calling a Hispanic 'wtback' or an African American 'ngger'. So goes the term 'terrorist'. While it may be 'correct usage', it still does not alleviate the derogatory nature that it has developed over the last six years. That is utter rubbish. If a person is practicing or advocating racism, calling them a racist is an accurate usage of the term. If they are not, then doing so is slander. Don't start with politically correct claptrap. I won't tolerate such perversion of either language or culture. The act threatened was one of (game virtual) terrorism. Terrorism 'in game' if you will. Therefore the term is correct in that context. It has nothing to do with 'real world' terrorism anymore than calling someone a pirate in EVE means they run around the horn of Africa firing RPGs at cruise ships. Despite the fact that you 'won't tolerate it', it happens anyhow. The word 'terrorist' has be perverted to mean many more things besides it's definition. That's the way languages evolve. At one time in history, 'fck' was an acronym, btch meant nothing more than a female animal in heat, and 'cnt' was nothing more than scientific shorthand for the vagina. Languages evolve. The word 'terrorist' has developed derogatory terminology that IS offensive to many people, and despite it's 'pure' definitions, it is disrespectful to just throw it around. Originally by:* CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Norrin Ellis	Posted - 2008.09.03 20:58:00 - [497] Originally by: Ruze Languages evolve. The word 'terrorist' has developed derogatory terminology that IS offensive to many people, and despite it's 'pure' definitions, it is disrespectful to just throw it around. Anyone offended by the word terrorist probably is one, and their feelings are of no real consequence to any sane person.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.03 21:05:00 - [498] Originally by: Norrin Ellis Originally by: Ruze Languages evolve. The word 'terrorist' has developed derogatory terminology that IS offensive to many people, and despite it's 'pure' definitions, it is disrespectful to just throw it around. Anyone offended by the word terrorist probably is one, and their feelings are of no real consequence to any sane person. Anyone making sweeping generalizations is probably a Scientologist who wears pink tutus. And they definately shouldn't be served cran-apple juice drinks on Sundays. See? I can spew nutty, senseless stuff as well! Your turn.
oilio Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.03 21:19:00 - [499] Originally by: Dzajic Long, long ago, it was possible to tank/evade CONCORD. Guess what? Most people did just that. It got exploited to the bone, just like current suiciding, and CCP decided it had to go. Then, in 2006. people started discovering that you can sometimes earn quite enough cash from a kill, if you tag it before you die to the cops. From first few heroic freighter ganks, we slowly progressed to Jihadswarm, and to the point where you weren't safe in any ship in a crowded system. Suicide gankers not needing to fit ship and cargo scanners and still earning cash was broken. This. No matter how Ki An et-al try to dramatise it, this sums up the whole issue. Risk free ganking is over. Risk-free ganking was pretty much an exploit. Now suicide ganking is harder and costs. It was always meant to.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.03 21:35:00 - [500] Originally by: oilio Originally by: Dzajic Long, long ago, it was possible to tank/evade CONCORD. Guess what? Most people did just that. It got exploited to the bone, just like current suiciding, and CCP decided it had to go. Then, in 2006. people started discovering that you can sometimes earn quite enough cash from a kill, if you tag it before you die to the cops. From first few heroic freighter ganks, we slowly progressed to Jihadswarm, and to the point where you weren't safe in any ship in a crowded system. Suicide gankers not needing to fit ship and cargo scanners and still earning cash was broken. This. No matter how Ki An et-al try to dramatise it, this sums up the whole issue. Risk free ganking is over. Risk-free ganking was pretty much an exploit. Now suicide ganking is harder and costs. It was always meant to. That's fine, but high frequency suicide ganking was caused by mineral prices, ship prices and insurance prices getting out of kilter. CCP have outlawed a symptom without addressing the cause. It's like trying to cure a measles epidemic by making it illegal to have spots. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Jarvis Hellstrom Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.03 22:43:00 - [501] Originally by: Ruze Despite the fact that you 'won't tolerate it', it happens anyhow. <snip> Languages evolve. The word 'terrorist' has developed derogatory terminology that IS offensive to many people, and despite it's 'pure' definitions, it is disrespectful to just throw it around. Languages evolve - and are sometimes prevented from evolving expressly by people refusing to tolerate certain usages. I'm just doing my part to knock the stops out from under the polictical correctness numpties. I find them and their future vision for the language offensive - so I'll keep them from spreading their garbage wherever I encounter it. So - don't like if you must, it's still the correct usage of the term. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.03 22:48:00 - [502] Originally by: CCP Greyscale If not, for the time being we're holding the course, and the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further. Can you provide us with a solid list of things that you (as a company) feel are not living up to par? Put them in a sticky topic in Features/Ideas to encourage brainstorming? Have some sort of review process by which things are added/removed from the list? -Lang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.03 22:57:00 - [503] Originally by: Malcanis That's fine, but high frequency suicide ganking was caused by mineral prices, ship prices and insurance prices getting out of kilter. CCP have outlawed a symptom without addressing the cause. It's like trying to cure a measles epidemic by making it illegal to have spots. What? No it wasn't. Suicide ganking comes from only 2 places. 1) Idiots that think it's fun. 2) groups taking down high value targets. Only the first is going to change. ______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational"
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 22:58:00 - [504] Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Originally by: Ruze Despite the fact that you 'won't tolerate it', it happens anyhow. <snip> Languages evolve. The word 'terrorist' has developed derogatory terminology that IS offensive to many people, and despite it's 'pure' definitions, it is disrespectful to just throw it around. Languages evolve - and are sometimes prevented from evolving expressly by people refusing to tolerate certain usages. I'm just doing my part to knock the stops out from under the polictical correctness numpties. I find them and their future vision for the language offensive - so I'll keep them from spreading their garbage wherever I encounter it. So - don't like if you must, it's still the correct usage of the term. And I'm saying that the definition of 'correct' is completely arbitrary. If we wait on Webster to define what is right and wrong, there are a lot of words we simply can't use. Plus, I personally think American's (of which I am) stopped speaking 'English' a long time ago. We should probably stop trying to argue the semantics of what is 'proper' English, and just break down and call it something different. Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.03 23:01:00 - [505] Originally by: Locke DieDrake Originally by: Malcanis That's fine, but high frequency suicide ganking was caused by mineral prices, ship prices and insurance prices getting out of kilter. CCP have outlawed a symptom without addressing the cause. It's like trying to cure a measles epidemic by making it illegal to have spots. What? No it wasn't. Suicide ganking comes from only 2 places. 1) Idiots that think it's fun. 2) groups taking down high value targets. Only the first is going to change. When your ships cost more than they do now, insurance was fairly inadequate. With that, suicide ganking WAS less frequent, because not every Tom, Dck and Harry could afford the firepower necessary to make a gank succeed. As with anything, the situation is FAR more complicated than it first seems. Originally by:* CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Betty Vector	Posted - 2008.09.03 23:08:00 - [506] Hi. i agree. leave me alone in highsec. go fry your brains in the 0.0 sandbox. play your silly silly games way out there. highsec should be immune to all your lies, deceit, corruption, and stupid, dumb dumb, metagaming. Leave us carebears in peace and quiet. that is all.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.03 23:15:00 - [507] Originally by: Malcanis That's fine, but high frequency suicide ganking was caused by mineral prices, ship prices and insurance prices getting out of kilter. CCP have outlawed a symptom without addressing the cause. It's like trying to cure a measles epidemic by making it illegal to have spots. And Greyscale still hasn't answered my questions from way back here. Which were: 1) Why address a symptom rather than the actual problem 2) Why is it possible for insurance payout vs. ship cost to get so out of wack in the first place? Shouldn't insurance payout itself be looked at for overall game health? Of course, there's potentially more. Like: 3) If ship cost vs insurance payout can cheapen ships to such a degree as to make "suicide ganking for lols" a natural reaction, what about the other areas of the game where that dynamic plays a part? Surely suicide ganking isn't the only "bad actor" in that regard. What about wars of attrition when BS are so cheap thanks to min market + insurance? Hasn't "meaningful pvp" taken a hit as well? 4) Is there any thought at all to redesigning the drone regions that have apparently caused so much balance havoc across the game? Mineral market imbalance seems to lead to other issues such as the devaluing of lowsec and some 0.0 mins. 5) If current ship costs are figured into the idea that it should cost you to suicide gank, what about if the mineral market ever reverts back to how it used to be and ship prices go back up? Will that unbalance these recent (and future) suicide gank changes into the realm of being too prohibitive? Or does these changes include a "we never want to see this situation again" finality with it and thus no chance of readdressing it in the other direction? I'm not an Akita T market expert, but these seem like logical extensions of what has been said in many places, including this thread. If I'm wrong about all this stuff, I wish someone would tell me. I'm losing sleep over it. But... Originally by: CCP Greyscale Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. seems to confirm it. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Locke DieDrake Human Information Virus	Posted - 2008.09.03 23:16:00 - [508] Edited by: Locke DieDrake on 03/09/2008 23:16:13 Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Locke DieDrake Originally by: Malcanis That's fine, but high frequency suicide ganking was caused by mineral prices, ship prices and insurance prices getting out of kilter. CCP have outlawed a symptom without addressing the cause. It's like trying to cure a measles epidemic by making it illegal to have spots. What? No it wasn't. Suicide ganking comes from only 2 places. 1) Idiots that think it's fun. 2) groups taking down high value targets. Only the first is going to change. When your ships cost more than they do now, insurance was fairly inadequate. With that, suicide ganking WAS less frequent, because not every Tom, D*ck and Harry could afford the firepower necessary to make a gank succeed. As with anything, the situation is FAR more complicated than it first seems. Alright, if you are going to force me to use logic and reason... I'll concede that when ship prices were higher, we saw less suiciding. It is of course much more complicated than just that factor alone. It's also notable that there are considerably more freighters running around, and since most of them are now "personal" they aren't nearly as well protected as say a corp freighter running war supplies out of empire. A year and a half ago it was rare to see a freighter, even in jita and you pretty much never saw one that didn't have a combat escort. Those escorts are gone now, I haven't seen them in ages. That also has a massive impact on the amount of suiciding. IMO : economic factors have made Freighters cheap enough that people don't go very far out of their way to protect them "At All Costs" like they used to. Combined with the MASSIVE payout of taking down a freighter, you end up with lots of ganks. I personally don't expect insurance or concord changes to stop those sorts of ganks. What the changes (proposed and actual) will do is help limit the amount of twits that think it's fun to suicide for no good reason. At least now, they likely won't get the kill before being smeared by concord. EDIT: NOTICE, this is of course still only part of the story, there are more facets and factors too this of course, and I recognize that. ______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational"
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.03 23:28:00 - [509] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2008 23:32:49 Originally by: Locke DieDrake I personally don't expect insurance or concord changes to stop those sorts of ganks. What the changes (proposed and actual) will do is help limit the amount of twits that think it's fun to suicide for no good reason. At least now, they likely won't get the kill before being smeared by concord. 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. You could spend weeks scanning for such a target in 0.5. Anything higher then 0.5, and you need even more ships, meaning the required loot for the freighter goes up to really insane regions. To suicide gank a freighter in 0.7-0.8 you'd have to preety much one-volley it. Basically, say bye bye to suicide ganking as a profession. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Setarcos Nous	Posted - 2008.09.04 00:41:00 - [510] Originally by: Roy Batty68 5) If current ship costs are figured into the idea that it should cost you to suicide gank, what about if the mineral market ever reverts back to how it used to be and ship prices go back up? Will that unbalance these recent (and future) suicide gank changes into the realm of being too prohibitive? Or does these changes include a "we never want to see this situation again" finality with it and thus no chance of readdressing it in the other direction? I'm no expert either, but I would think if ship prices were increasing, then the materials going into building them would also, making for costlier suiciding but with bigger payouts. Seems like it would make things self-balancing.

Setarcos Nous	Posted - 2008.09.04 00:47:00 - [511] 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.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 00:56:00 - [512] 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
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 01:02:00 - [513] Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer. BUT They should underline their risk vs reward PR. Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety? I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly. lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7 lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only. Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place. regards c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.09.04 02:44:00 - [514] You know there is somthing everyone has failed to see here...a safer empire brings in more players...Alot of people wont play Eve-online because of the PvP aspect in the game. They want time to build up to be able to function in the game...not be cannon fodder. The guy who got me into this game five years ago, left after getting "screwed" by some other players. Yes the game is changing, better or worse thats up to be seen. I think this is a wise move on CCP's part. A non combative PvP area would be concidered by alot of future players a benifit....more players...more $$$ for CCP....More resources to invest in Eve-online.... Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.09.04 02:52:00 - [515] Originally by: c0rn1 Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer. BUT They should underline their risk vs reward PR. Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety? I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly. lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7 lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only. Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place. regards c0rn1 And by your table there...Nobody would risk their boats doing level three missions or higher. Mission runners set up to run the missions not pvp...a mission ship, no matter what tech level he is running cant fight a pvp ship. Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?
Xzar Fyrarr Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.09.04 03:45:00 - [516] Originally by: Roshan longshot You know there is somthing everyone has failed to see here...a safer empire brings in more players...Alot of people wont play Eve-online because of the PvP aspect in the game. They want time to build up to be able to function in the game...not be cannon fodder. The guy who got me into this game five years ago, left after getting "screwed" by some other players. Yes the game is changing, better or worse thats up to be seen. I think this is a wise move on CCP's part. A non combative PvP area would be concidered by alot of future players a benifit....more players...more $$$ for CCP....More resources to invest in Eve-online.... Don't the people who won't play EvE-online because of the pvp aspect of the game and "you're NEVER "safe" aspect of the game play WoW where there are pvp zones and thousands of "safe" zones? "Being "screwed" by other plays" Welcome to EvE for him? Sandbox? Yes/No? "They want time to build up to be able to funct- " Again... Star Wars Galaxies and WoW are way tbh. You can safely level up your character to lvl 90 and function in the game at no risk at all from what I've seen. You CAN* do the same in eve, buy ships, build ships, trade, etc, however, it takes... oh lord ... :effort: if you want to do it and be good and/or not die at it. You travel in a freightor with 3bill worth of stuff you better be damn sure you have people remote repping you for each warp you take or about to take or a scout reporting, IN MY HONEST opinion, assuming the freightor is in a player owned corp. Is not like WoW where you can carry basically the same as 4bill, yes / no? , here for 5 6 straight without some type of risk in any shape and/or form. "not be cannon fodder" Corp 1 wardeccs corp B, corp b will be assumed to be the "Cannon fodder" Now! Oh Joy! The sandbox portion of EvE! You can either A)Quit the game in extreme internet emo-rage of how you don't have the skills to fight back. b)RESEARCH! Ways to fight back! C)Maybe ask for help AND SHOW INTEREST IN IT. Don't ask for help and then just stand back and watch the people your asking for help do all the work. D)Post on C&P how X corp has wardecced us and we can't do anything about it. Or! E)Hire a merc corp and/or :gasp: ! fight back! There are many a way to function in this game. It just isn't as hold my hand hello kitty online happy rainbow straight forward point A --------- B There is no line in this game. To get from point A to be B, the player needs to find a way to do it. Many of these ways involve some type of pvp one way or another, or some type of player to player interaction in some shape and/or form. I'm done .
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 04:17:00 - [517] Originally by: Ruze Plus, I personally think American's (of which I am) stopped speaking 'English' a long time ago. We should probably stop trying to argue the semantics of what is 'proper' English, and just break down and call it something different. You certainly don't seem to know the proper way of using apostrophes. That's not the language evolving, though, that's just you not knowing how to use apostrophes.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 08:30:00 - [518] Originally by: Roshan longshot Originally by: c0rn1 Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer. BUT They should underline their risk vs reward PR. Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety? I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly. lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7 lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only. Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place. regards c0rn1 And by your table there...Nobody would risk their boats doing level three missions or higher. Mission runners set up to run the missions not pvp...a mission ship, no matter what tech level he is running cant fight a pvp ship. Ireckon you could run most/all level 3 missions in a PvP ship. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.04 09:14:00 - [519] Originally by: c0rn1 Empire should be a safe trading place. Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one…
Felix Dzerzhinsky Caldari Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.04 09:38:00 - [520] I still cannot understand why people had to join a pvp game and demand pve and safty. . .EvE was always about pvp. . .why are you people ruining that. ---- GO BLUE!!

RagnhildR tu Caldari Rognvald Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.04 10:21:00 - [521] Attacking enemy logistics is a legitimate act of war. Suicide ganking, (Because you can, or for personal profit) is different that is one player merely being true to himself, or in plain good old anglo-saxon, he's being a **, because he is one. What are you doing in my pod? GTFO!**
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.04 11:04:00 - [522] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky I still cannot understand why people had to join a pvp game and demand pve and safty. . .EvE was always about pvp. . .why are you people ruining that. Hmmm... what do you say to people who complain about too little PvP in EVE. Would "Go back to Counterstrike" probably do? --- Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes.
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.04 11:13:00 - [523] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky EvE was always about pvp. Can you plz point out where CCP says Eve is a pvp game?
Pheusia Gallente Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 11:45:00 - [524] Originally by: fuze Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky EvE was always about pvp. Can you plz point out where CCP says Eve is a pvp game? It's pretty implicit here. Signed, Pheusia
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.04 13:26:00 - [525] Originally by: Pheusia It's pretty implicit here. Please train your URL Linking skill to lvl 1. Kthxbye.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.04 13:36:00 - [526] On the suicide gank changes: There's little problem with the gankers getting their hundred mill from the gank they may have waited hours for, the problem is that the cost incurred by the victim is/was vastly disproportionate to the time and effort invested by the attacker. To put it in popular EVE vernacular, using a freighter pilot as an example, the risk was a respectable chance of losing four billion plus on a run and the reward the chance of getting a couple of dozen million ISK (after successfully risking that cargoes profits again on the competitive and volatile player market) on a successful run. CCP's intent seems to be that hi-sec is supposed to be safe provided you aren't stupid or in what they consider a "valid" war. Provided stupid people still come to the forums complaining about their lost faction/officer fitted CNR's or the BPO's they decided to carry around in a Velator or shuttle, or losing everything they owned in their t1 hauler I'd say CCP have fulfilled their design intent, right or wrong, with this change. Altering suicide ganking has no impact on the majority of PvP'ers as they don't live is high-security space because the security there is... too high. Complaining like this change is the end of everything isn't going to change CCP's mind. They want the "carebear" population in hi-sec paying their bills, they want to see maximum returns on ambulation, but they also want the logistics of wealthy organizations to be viable targets so they really are going to have to take a good look at the NPC corps and corp-hopping to avoid war-decs sooner or later. A simple, band-aid change would be setting a list of ships an NPC corp player cannot fly much as they have for trial accounts and ensuring that during a war-dec players are either locked into the corp for that cycle or tagged as viable targets for that cycle regardless of changing corp. This is the kind of stuff we should be discussing if we want risk to remain in hi-sec, so that the high-security in hi-sec isn't a blanket effect but one that can be successfully negated against deserving targets. Of course with CCP's plans to alter the war-dec system then we should also be discussing just what makes a valid target and what the conditions of renewing a war-dec should be. Two 0.0 entities should be able to shaft each other in hi-sec until the second coming, but a veteran PvP corp should not, in CCP's eyes it would seem, be griefing new player corps out of the game. TL:DR We need suggestions that suit what the game is and what CCP intend it to be, not what it was or what we wish it to be. If we don't like CCP's intentions then we should vote with our wallets and go play play something else. [The lo-sec/hi-sec income disparity belongs more in the lvl4 mission threads so no there's no mention of it in this post.]
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.04 13:38:00 - [527] Originally by: RagnhildR tu Attacking enemy logistics is a legitimate act of war. Suicide ganking, (Because you can, or for personal profit) is different that is one player merely being true to himself, or in plain good old anglo-saxon, he's being a ****, because he is one. The problem is that there is no way of mechanically separate the two. Sometimes, the only way to legitimately attack that supply chain is to employ suicide ganks.
JamnOne Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.04 15:33:00 - [528] Edited by: JamnOne on 04/09/2008 15:35:52 Originally by: Tippia The problem is that there is no way of mechanically separate the two. Sometimes, the only way to legitimately attack that supply chain is to employ suicide ganks. 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. Originally by: CCP Greyscale When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game. Which runs on into the second part of the argument, which is that as Zulupark mentioned earlier in the week, the goal isn't to try and step away from the original vision - it's to try and bring things back in line with that vision, as we understand it. A couple of years ago suicide-ganking was, as far as I could tell, a near-total non-issue, occurring in a few sporadic cases where someone really wanted to achieve something but otherwise didn't seem to be happening a whole lot. Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. Again, this isn't a case of us wanting to alter the original paradigm, it's an attempt to return to the actual balance of play we had before. EDIT: Sorry if I quoted out of context or misrepresented what you were saying CCP Greyscale. ________________ Poor is the nation that has no heroes. Shameful is the one that, having heroes - Forgets them! Author Unknown
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.09.04 15:35:00 - [529] Risk vs reward? Is that your argument? Because the reward of any mission right now is no where near the risks of ship loss to pvp. Remember, most missioners are solo... most low sec gankers have griefer pals. So in essence you want to moo the cattle of missioners one at a time thru your camps. NOT gonna happen. Lvl 5's are the only missions somewhat near the risk of low sec. Leave, and go fight where people want to fight. Missioners have the risk of npcs... they have the time to grind. That's their style... don't be a hater just cuz you rather waste your time on a gate camp, rather than profit thru missions. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Drunk Driver Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.04 15:38:00 - [530] Posting in a whiny pirate "nerf missions" revenge thread. .

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 16:27:00 - [531] 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
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.04 17:10:00 - [532] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 17:15:41 Originally by: Le Skunk 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 A lot of sense right there. It is difficult to impossible with the current mechanics to tell the casual, soloist, NPC corp player from the NPC corp alt that is used to shelter logistics and isk grinding that benefit supposedly PvP oriented corp and alliance players from PvP. About the only way around, truly, is to nerf high-sec across the board. This would include: Restricting manufacturing to T1 stuff smaller than a BS. Restricting the markets to T1 items and materials, and substantially limiting the number of open orders a character could have in high-sec. Getting rid of high-sec POSes. Moving L3 and L4 missions to low-sec. Restricting Freighters from high-sec. If you did all of the above, high-sec becomes a "starter island" for genuine noobs that nobody would ever stay in after a few weeks, or visit again after they left. Everything meaningful in the game would happen in low-sec and nullsec, where PvP is always an option. I'd be game, but I doubt CCP would be. They are moving in the other direction, and making the game more friendly to players who don't want to PvP. The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave.
Doctor Remulak	Posted - 2008.09.04 17:16:00 - [533] Originally by: 5pinDizzy oh god not another whine couldn't agree more
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 17:53:00 - [534] Edited by: c0rn1 on 04/09/2008 17:55:55 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: c0rn1 Empire should be a safe trading place. Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw oneà I do not see the part of the contradiction. Let people ship their stuff under Police protection anywhere in Empire. I don't mind. But don't give the big fishs out for free. - If I wanna have my big fishs in mining I gotta go to 0.0 to get the real stuff. (either moon or roids) - If I wanna earn some money with ratting I gotta go to 0.0 to make some real bounties drop in on my wallet. => So I fail to grasp the fact why people - according to the RvsR policy by CCP - get free big fishs in form of lvl 4 missions in police protected territory? That's the contradiction I see in CCP's ruleset. * If you wanna earn cash, you gotta risk some of your possessions. Eve is not a SOLOPLAYERWTFBBQIAMUBERRICH game. * If you wanna do lvl 4 missions you gotta go where it might hurt you. Find a corp if you can't stand against the odds coming up to you by yourself. This is a _massively_ MULTIPLAYER online game. MULTI and PLAYER. If you connect that with massive you get the meaning of Eve. Like I said above. I am ok if they make the police stronger and remove the insurance. But on the other hand remove the blanko cash cheque given into players hands in form of high level missions there. regards c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Shagrath Neptune Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:05:00 - [535] Originally by: c0rn1 Edited by: c0rn1 on 04/09/2008 17:55:55 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: c0rn1 Empire should be a safe trading place. Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw oneà I do not see the part of the contradiction. Let people ship their stuff under Police protection anywhere in Empire. I don't mind. But don't give the big fishs out for free. - If I wanna have my big fishs in mining I gotta go to 0.0 to get the real stuff. (either moon or roids) - If I wanna earn some money with ratting I gotta go to 0.0 to make some real bounties drop in on my wallet. => So I fail to grasp the fact why people - according to the RvsR policy by CCP - get free big fishs in form of lvl 4 missions in police protected territory? That's the contradiction I see in CCP's ruleset. * If you wanna earn cash, you gotta risk some of your possessions. Eve is not a SOLOPLAYERWTFBBQIAMUBERRICH game. * If you wanna do lvl 4 missions you gotta go where it might hurt you. Find a corp if you can't stand against the odds coming up to you by yourself. This is a _massively_ MULTIPLAYER online game. MULTI and PLAYER. If you connect that with massive you get the meaning of Eve. Like I said above. I am ok if they make the police stronger and remove the insurance. But on the other hand remove the blanko cash cheque given into players hands in form of high level missions there. regards c0rn1 When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough. Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think. A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it. To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless.
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:12:00 - [536] Originally by: Shagrath Neptune When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough. Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think. A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it. To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless. So you call me clueless while you admitted losing ships because of misstakes a sentence before? And due to this you actually admit if you would be a smart mission runner you'd not lose ships and have a free blanko cheque in your hand? that, sir, was a priceless answer. I give you that. regards c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:13:00 - [537] Edited by: Malcanis on 04/09/2008 18:13:38 Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 17:15:41 Originally by: Le Skunk 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 A lot of sense right there. It is difficult to impossible with the current mechanics to tell the casual, soloist, NPC corp player from the NPC corp alt that is used to shelter logistics and isk grinding that benefit supposedly PvP oriented corp and alliance players from PvP. About the only way around, truly, is to nerf high-sec across the board. This would include: Restricting manufacturing to T1 stuff smaller than a BS. Restricting the markets to T1 items and materials, and substantially limiting the number of open orders a character could have in high-sec. Getting rid of high-sec POSes. Moving L3 and L4 missions to low-sec. Restricting Freighters from high-sec. If you did all of the above, high-sec becomes a "starter island" for genuine noobs that nobody would ever stay in after a few weeks, or visit again after they left. Everything meaningful in the game would happen in low-sec and nullsec, where PvP is always an option. I'd be game, but I doubt CCP would be. They are moving in the other direction, and making the game more friendly to players who don't want to PvP. The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave. Good reply to a good post. No idea why you wouldn't want it attributed to your main, actually, but that's a side issue. Anyway, just wanted to comment on your final paragraph: The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual SOLO player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave. A player who joined a moderately well-organised mission corp should have little difficulty in surviving in lo-sec, especially if some of the mooted changes to the way missions are received and structured were to be implemented. Intel channels, mercenaries, deals cut with local pirate groups, combined with the change in ships types that would be required by decoupling missions from the brainless treadmill of 'higher level = more DPS = bigger, slower ship' would mean that the casual player would have the chance to be reasonably safe. There would then actually be a point to mission running corps, and the good ones would gain reputation and grow. Casual players would be the very ones most likely to need and be in a corp - solo mission running in lo-sec would become the occupation of the elite. There would be a massive swing away from the 'solo game with a chat client' archetype that is counter to everything a game like EvE should be. And I think that would be a very, very good thing. In short, I believe that the great numbers of mission runners could potentially have far more in-game power than they realise. Most of the posts I have seen from them are predicated on the assumption that they will lose any conflict, and it makes me sad to see people arguing so passionately for their own helpnessless and against any attempt to remedy it. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Shagrath Neptune Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:23:00 - [538] Originally by: c0rn1 Originally by: Shagrath Neptune When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough. Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think. A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it. To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless. So you call me clueless while you admitted losing ships because of misstakes a sentence before? And due to this you actually admit if you would be a smart mission runner you'd not lose ships and have a free blanko cheque in your hand? that, sir, was a priceless answer. I give you that. regards c0rn1 Yes I think you are clueless. I don't see how me losing a few ships in some missions has anything to do with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Thing is, I was a "smart mission runner." I made enough isk off of it to not have to do it anymore. I made enough capital from it to allow me to make isks in a different profession. However, it took a long time and it wasn't a "blank check." You should be banned from the forums just for saying something so idiotic. The time it takes to go from a noob in the game to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is hardly a blank check. Not to mention equip, skill training times necessary then the time to actually do all those missions. You are one of clueless souls who believes that time in the game isn't worth anything right? I bet you think the minerals you get from asteroids are free too.....right?
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 18:57:00 - [539] Originally by: Shagrath Neptune Yes I think you are clueless. I don't see how me losing a few ships in some missions has anything to do with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You admitted yourself that you did misstakes running the missions. Further you pointed out that it is hard to make level 4 missions. Only thing hard is to fight the boredom. There's no scrambler frig which can't be get a grip on with some small drones in your raven. A 3 month old alt character can run lvl 4 missions in a raven. I made mission running in a 0.3 system [Reynire] when my character was pretty new. Made my fair share of ISK there and had the pirates in my neck. I didn't lose too many ships to pirates to make it NOT profitable. local helps alot and a corp which you are in. we settled in that area at that time. Made corp mining, pirate hunting to get used to PvP and mission running if we needed some extra cash or where not enough to do something else. Originally by: Shagrath Neptune Thing is, I was a "smart mission runner." I made enough isk off of it to not have to do it anymore. I made enough capital from it to allow me to make isks in a different profession. See, you still made a good amount of ISK by missions without any player interaction. You played it as a solo game. Today you got constellation channels to warn you of pirates. I didn't and still were profitable with lvl 3 (!didnt have level 4 at that time!). Originally by: Shagrath Neptune However, it took a long time and it wasn't a "blank check." You should be banned from the forums just for saying something so idiotic. The time it takes to go from a noob in the game to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is hardly a blank check. Not to mention equip, skill training times necessary then the time to actually do all those missions. It is a blank check since everyone else who gets the nerves ripped out of his backbone by the boredom mission running does has to go to low sec or better 0.0 to get some ISK on his wallet. They have to interact with other players' evil or good intention. Be it mining, be it ratting in a profitable area. That is what makes a MMOG. If you don't like it I recommend Freelancer or some sort of solo player product. Yeah, the hard part of getting to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is to read worth of 2 pages on one of your favourite eve fan sites and a 3 month old character in a raven. I still have a raven sitting in Frarn to do level 4 missions when I need some extra cash. Cashs out at 30-40 million/hour with an additional character salvaging all the wrecks. That, you can hardly call a TOUGH time earning some cash. Originally by: Shagrath Neptune You are one of clueless souls who believes that time in the game isn't worth anything right? I bet you think the minerals you get from asteroids are free too.....right? I had my fair share of a start in eve a couple years ago and I managed it. Why shouldn't others? Sitting in Empire and earning ludicrous amounts of ISK by rince and repeat without interacting with other players is what makes an MMOG for you? Eve is/was intented as pure Player versus/with Players and a risk vs reward policy. Why should you have 0.0 rats, bounties and loot in empire for free? regards c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Shagrath Neptune Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.04 19:10:00 - [540] Originally by: c0rn1 Originally by: Shagrath Neptune A lot of whatever..... Anyone who has done missions as a profession will lose a few ships to warp scram frigs or just doing something stupid. Sometimes mistakes are made from the sheer boredom of it. This will cause you to overlook or forget about something whehter it is an e-war frig or trigger to a pocket of new spawns ect. Anyone who says they seriously ran lvl 4's for any length of time and never lost a ship is lying. Me admitting to losing a few ships just goes to show that there are losses and risks. Even if they are small ones. Sorry, i didn't read the rest of your drivel. You just come across to me as a bitter little kid who isn't getting his way in game and is lashing out at all the "evil carebears." I already wasted more of my time responding to you than you deserved. CCP obviously agrees with my view more than yours so keep arguing until your face turns red if this is how you vent. Cya.

Setarcos Nous	Posted - 2008.09.04 20:33:00 - [541] Originally by: Cpt Branko stuff. Originally by: Setarcos Nous Me thinking I was being smart. Originally by: Le Skunk Over correcting me. My mistake occurred to me a few minutes after posting, but an emergency at work prevented me from correcting it. I was wrongly assuming that everything over the "break even" point should count as profit, when only a percentage of that actually would. According to Skunk's correction, Cpt Branko must have been being generous with a 50% drop rate. However, one thing I am noticing with all these figures being thrown around, is that they are all trying to show the amount of force and payout required to guarantee a profit. I.E. The amount of force required to eliminate the risk...and they make no mention of how the risk vs reward the pirates are taking stacks up against the risk vs reward the freighter pilot is taking.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 20:42:00 - [542] Originally by: Setarcos Nous Originally by: Cpt Branko stuff. Originally by: Setarcos Nous Me thinking I was being smart. Originally by: Le Skunk Over correcting me. My mistake occurred to me a few minutes after posting, but an emergency at work prevented me from correcting it. I was wrongly assuming that everything over the "break even" point should count as profit, when only a percentage of that actually would. According to Skunk's correction, Cpt Branko must have been being generous with a 50% drop rate. However, one thing I am noticing with all these figures being thrown around, is that they are all trying to show the amount of force and payout required to guarantee a profit. I.E. The amount of force required to eliminate the risk...and they make no mention of how the risk vs reward the pirates are taking stacks up against the risk vs reward the freighter pilot is taking. 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. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:16:00 - [543] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 21:26:08 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 21:19:09 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 21:17:22 Originally by: Malcanis A player who joined a moderately well-organised mission corp should have little difficulty in surviving in lo-sec, especially if some of the mooted changes to the way missions are received and structured were to be implemented. Yeah, I have do doubt that if those changes were implimented, fairly strong, well connected mission running corps would evolve that catered to occasional, casual players. Some might even connect themselves with 0.0 alliances who would benefit from the tax revenue. That kind of thing goes on in 0.0 NPC space. I used to have an alt in a Tri corp that farmed Guristas missions pretty much non-stop. The casual player wouldn't need to be "safe" necessarily, just able to cover his losses and still progress at a reasonable rate even though the amount of time he plays is somewhat limited. Quote: I believe that the great numbers of mission runners could potentially have far more in-game power than they realise. I don't know if their power would increase, but pushing them to low-sec would require them to become politically connected and play in a multi-player environment, as you suggest. Yes, I think that's a good thing. A typical 4 month old would have to sus out his options and get into a strong corp if he wanted to continue to progress in his "PvE Oriented" play style. There would no longer be a meaningful "PvE Only" progression. I'm convinced. Sign me up. The only thing that I am against is half-measures. If you're going to nerf high-sec and make Eve a PvP mandatory game, just nerf it, for crissakes, don't just target the mission runners. Like I said though, I doubt that the CCP bean counters would go anywhere near it. I'm sure their focus groups and market surveys suggest otherwise.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:22:00 - [544] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 21:19:09 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 21:17:22 Originally by: Malcanis A player who joined a moderately well-organised mission corp should have little difficulty in surviving in lo-sec, especially if some of the mooted changes to the way missions are received and structured were to be implemented. Yeah, I have do doubt that if those changes were implimented, fairly strong, well connected mission running corps would evolve. Some might even connect themselves with 0.0 alliances who would benefit from the tax revenue. That kind of thing goes on in 0.0 NPC space. I used to have an alt in a Tri corp that farmed Guristas missions pretty much non-stop. Quote: I believe that the great numbers of mission runners could potentially have far more in-game power than they realise. I don't know if their power would increase, but pushing them to low-sec would require them to become politically connected and play in a multi-player environment, as you suggest. Yes, I think that's a good thing. A typical 4 month old would have to sus out his options and get into a strong corp if he wanted to continue to progress in his "PvE Oriented" play style. There would no longer be a meaningful "PvE Only" progression. I'm convinced. Sign me up. The only thing that I am against is half-measures. If you're going to nerf high-sec and make Eve a PvP mandatory game, just nerf it, for crissakes, don't just target the mission runners. Like I said though, I doubt that the CCP bean counters would go anywhere near it. I'm sure their focus groups and market surveys suggest otherwise. I have to say that I'm a bit shocked at your reply, but in a good way. I truly, genuinely, sincerely believe that the concept we're talking about here would improve the game for everyone, including and especially mission-runners. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:24:00 - [545] 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
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:28:00 - [546] Quote: Like I said though, I doubt that the CCP bean counters would go anywhere near it. I'm sure their focus groups and market surveys suggest otherwise. I'm not so sure. From CCP Dionysus: Quote: Basically - PvP is not a profession. It doesn't get you any isk, but makes all sides loose isk (destroyed items, repairs, ammo, etc) Ship shooting ship is what you do to protect your income, it doesn't make you income by itself. For context, the thread was in Game Development Forum asking about PVP as a profession for making ISK. I'm not sure if Dionysus is the only one who feels this way or not, but apparently he believes that PVP isn't something you do when you want to blow shit up...it's something you do to grow stronger and protect your assets and ISK making capability. If this truly is what CCP thinks then there's probably some changes brewing.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 21:32:00 - [547] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: Like I said though, I doubt that the CCP bean counters would go anywhere near it. I'm sure their focus groups and market surveys suggest otherwise. I'm not so sure. From CCP Dionysus: Quote: Basically - PvP is not a profession. It doesn't get you any isk, but makes all sides loose isk (destroyed items, repairs, ammo, etc) Ship shooting ship is what you do to protect your income, it doesn't make you income by itself. For context, the thread was in Game Development Forum asking about PVP as a profession for making ISK. I'm not sure if Dionysus is the only one who feels this way or not, but apparently he believes that PVP isn't something you do when you want to blow shit up...it's something you do to grow stronger and protect your assets and ISK making capability. If this truly is what CCP thinks then there's probably some changes brewing. That's pretty worrying actually. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:01:00 - [548] so... since CCP admitted it... new thread? but yeah, it makes sense ...the pvp (actual shooting things) ideally you want to ransom... I mean yeah... compared to actual crimes, the ones that pays off are usually non-violent... (white collar crime and stuff) so... yeah, goes off to find some highsec POS Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Xzar Fyrarr Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:04:00 - [549] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: Like I said though, I doubt that the CCP bean counters would go anywhere near it. I'm sure their focus groups and market surveys suggest otherwise. I'm not so sure. From CCP Dionysus: Quote: Basically - PvP is not a profession. It doesn't get you any isk, but makes all sides loose isk (destroyed items, repairs, ammo, etc) Ship shooting ship is what you do to protect your income, it doesn't make you income by itself. For context, the thread was in Game Development Forum asking about PVP as a profession for making ISK. I'm not sure if Dionysus is the only one who feels this way or not, but apparently he believes that PVP isn't something you do when you want to blow shit up...it's something you do to grow stronger and protect your assets and ISK making capability. If this truly is what CCP thinks then there's probably some changes brewing. That's pretty worrying actually. Concord may as well be providing safety now.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:10:00 - [550] Originally by: Malcanis That's pretty worrying actually. No it isn't. CCP Dionysus is just the current bearer of the virus that sometimes goes around CCP HQ known as MissQuoteThe**OutOfMe-itis. It ranks right up there with all the, "Hurr hurr, CCP dev can't fit a vagabond" BS that was paraded around like some blind gopher that had just dug up Jimmy Hoffa and was so proud he had to make a sig out of it. Read the quote in context and it's so straight forward as to be down right boring. This attempt at, "OMG looky what a dev said" is pretty much the epitome of reaching imo. Further proof: Originally by:** CCP Dionysus well, yes. Piracy is a profession. Suicide ganking might net you some money (but we'd prefer if it was done mainly to stop the other guy from making money). But the shooty bits dont make you money. Salvaging, looting etc - that might make you some money, but not necessarily more than you lost if you get destroyed. Where he basically says, "Yeah, the ACTS of pvp can be done in order to make isks, but the shooty shooty part of that equation is just about blowing things up". Well, no shit. Shooting ships until they are right down to the last bar does tend to make them explode. How that can be misconstrued into CCP slipping up and letting their evil plan to kill off pvp just before invading Canada is beyond me. In fact the only thing that was slightly of interest in that particular Gold Bar fest was the bit where he basically says, "No, we don't want Suicide Ganking to be a profession". Now, just so I don't peg out the Irony-O-Meter, I will admit he doesn't actually say that. But you don't have to hit me over the head with a brick for me to finally get the message... at least no more than 9 or 10 times, anyway. I'll admit that I find it troubling that CCP is on a quest to find "Fair" in regards to war decs when they apparently couldn't give flip-all about NPC corp protected isk farming or hidden logistics while practically giving a big thumbs up to corp hopping war dodging bean bags. That's a bit troubling. But if we're going to tote out the flimsiest of out of context dev quotes as our Save Eve campaign tee shirt slogans, I think I'm going to have to defect from the forces of evil. And since I don't care much for the other side of the fence, I guess I'll just have to stand in the middle and get pelted by both the jocks and the geeks in a grand game of humiliate the social outcast dodgeball. Like usual. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

mishkof Caldari Dirty Denizens	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:16:00 - [551] Edited by: mishkof on 04/09/2008 22:16:43 This game cannot compete with other PVE based games. I hope CCP knows this. All the insurance nerf did was raise the minimum value needed to break even with a battleship gank loss to 102 mil instead of 2 mil. Get over it. 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
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:24:00 - [552] Originally by: mishkof Edited by: mishkof on 04/09/2008 22:16:43 This game cannot compete with other PVE based games. I hope CCP knows this. All the insurance nerf did was raise the minimum value needed to break even with a battleship gank loss to 102 mil instead of 2 mil. Get over it. Actually that's incorrect. Halving CONCORD time also means you need twice as many people. To gank a freighter with insurance nerf will cost more than a faction fitted dreadnaught. Meaning that unless the freighter has cargo worth more than two faction fitted dreads, it's not even worth considering. And 30 highly skilled pilots taking triple strength sec-hits are gonna want paying quite a bit. So now we're getting close to mothership values before it pays more than missioning (which increases your sec). That's not a "nerf", that's the virtual elimination of a profession. Just as if mission rats had their bounties reduced by 90% - technically you could still mission, but in practice, no-one would bother. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Rifter Drifter Minmatar Greatly Reducing Inflation Every Fight	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:26:00 - [553] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: mishkof Edited by: mishkof on 04/09/2008 22:16:43 This game cannot compete with other PVE based games. I hope CCP knows this. All the insurance nerf did was raise the minimum value needed to break even with a battleship gank loss to 102 mil instead of 2 mil. Get over it. Actually that's incorrect. Halving CONCORD time also means you need twice as many people. To gank a freighter with insurance nerf will cost more than a faction fitted dreadnaught. Meaning that unless the freighter has cargo worth more than two faction fitted dreads, it's not even worth considering. And 30 highly skilled pilots taking triple strength sec-hits are gonna want paying quite a bit. So now we're getting close to mothership values before it pays more than missioning (which increases your sec). That's not a "nerf", that's the virtual elimination of a profession. Just as if mission rats had their bounties reduced by 90% - technically you could still mission, but in practice, no-one would bother. After reading MANY malcanis posts its clear to seem, YOU ARE GENERALLY CORRECT. Malcanis > 20 page threads
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:27:00 - [554] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 04/09/2008 22:28:23 Quote: No it isn't. CCP Dionysus is just the current bearer of the virus that sometimes goes around CCP HQ known as MissQuoteThe**OutOfMe-itis. It ranks right up there with all the, "Hurr hurr, CCP dev can't fit a vagabond" BS that was paraded around like some blind gopher that had just dug up Jimmy Hoffa and was so proud he had to make a sig out of it. Read the quote in context and it's so straight forward as to be down right boring. This attempt at, "OMG looky what a dev said" is pretty much the epitome of reaching imo. what the ? Quote:** Where he basically says, "Yeah, the ACTS of pvp can be done in order to make isks, but the shooty shooty part of that equation is just about blowing things up". That was exactly my point. He said that PVP is something done to protect your income. It contrasts the "PVP for fun, missions for ISK" shit I've been hearing constantly.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:29:00 - [555] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: mishkof Edited by: mishkof on 04/09/2008 22:16:43 This game cannot compete with other PVE based games. I hope CCP knows this. All the insurance nerf did was raise the minimum value needed to break even with a battleship gank loss to 102 mil instead of 2 mil. Get over it. Actually that's incorrect. Halving CONCORD time also means you need twice as many people. To gank a freighter with insurance nerf will cost more than a faction fitted dreadnaught. Meaning that unless the freighter has cargo worth more than two faction fitted dreads, it's not even worth considering. And 30 highly skilled pilots taking triple strength sec-hits are gonna want paying quite a bit. So now we're getting close to mothership values before it pays more than missioning (which increases your sec). That's not a "nerf", that's the virtual elimination of a profession. Just as if mission rats had their bounties reduced by 90% - technically you could still mission, but in practice, no-one would bother. 1. The number of high sec freighter ganks was irrelevant, get over it 2. T1/T2 haulers can still be ganked easily. 3. Boo hoo, adapt and find another profession (but as we know you don't even really PVP much and are just arguing for the sake of it) How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:31:00 - [556] Originally by: Kahega Amielden That was exactly my point. He said that PVP is something done to protect your income. It contrasts the "PVP for fun, missions for ISK" shit I've been hearing constantly. I don't really mind PVP that is always fun for one side only (a.k.a. ganking) being more costly than typical consensual PVP. You? How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:38:00 - [557] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 04/09/2008 22:38:49 Quote: I don't really mind PVP that is always fun for one side only (a.k.a. ganking) being more costly than typical consensual PVP. You? erm, why? PvP just because (Consensual) is stupid. PVP over territory/resources is much better and that should be the focus of EVE. Of course nonconsensual PVP will generally be more costly, but it strengthens the winners.
Victor Forge Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:39:00 - [558] Edited by: Victor Forge on 04/09/2008 22:39:03 Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky I still cannot understand why people had to join a pvp game and demand pve and safty. . .EvE was always about pvp. . .why are you people ruining that. How do tradesmen and industrialist stops you from doing pvp in low-sec and 0.0 sec may I ask? High-sec is like only 25% of all systems. It isn¦t something wrong with high-sec that makes low-sec empty, it is something wrong with low-sec. Btw it would have been nice if it was possible to make a difference between suiciding a ship in the asteroid belts than ganking a freighter at the gate or near station. Like make concorde responce time be much slower out in the belts, and the penalties less. =) Those macro-miners needs to die!
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:45:00 - [559] Originally by: Le Skunk 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. 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. What you've costed up is a piracy gank for profit. CCP's "logistic terrorism" is something different. 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. Of course, it is a strategy of attrition, which means it's not going to be very effective if you're a 10 man corp trying to wear down a 1000 man alliance this way. But then why should a war of attrition be stacked in favor of the little guy in the first place? Re-doing the costing from that perspective, the gank will still cost 3-5 bill. However, the sums are very different in the "logistic terrorist" scenario, though I prefer to call it "strategic asset denial". In that scenario, you only have to cause them to lose 3-5 bill worth of stuff for the exercise to break even strategically. If you factor in getting loot to partially offset the cost of the gank, that figure moves even lower. If we assume a gank cost of 5 bill and your stated loot recovery rate of 35%, the breakeven point for a strategic gank is 3.7bil. The loss of the freighter itself will count for 0.3 to 0.5 bill depending on whether it was insured, that means the cargo itself only has to be worth at least 3.4bil. Assuming a freighter-load of 900k m3, that gives a value density of 3777 isk/m3. If we assume a gank cost of 3 bill, same assumptions, breakeven point is 2.2bill, minimum cargo value would be 1.9bill, giving a value density of 2111 isk/m3. There are going to be many freighter cargoes that exceed those criteria. And of course that doesn't take into account the strategic value of your opponent not having whatever was in that freighter where and when they wanted it. While the value of that is harder to quantify in raw isk terms, it is still a benefit of the action. 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. Originally by: Le Skunk 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. In terms of Empire ganks, they have actually come up with a very effective economic filter to judge which is which. This is most clearly demonstrated by the difference between your breakeven point and mine. Having the breakeven point for the "for profit" or "just to do it" gank significantly higher than the breakeven point for "strategic asset denial" acts as a natural filter, discouraging the former while maintaining the latter as a viable possibility. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:46:00 - [560] Originally by: Kahega Amielden That was exactly my point. He said that PVP is something done to protect your income. It contrasts the "PVP for fun, missions for ISK" shit I've been hearing constantly. Well, I apologize if I took your meaning wrong. I figured you were siding with the people who were over reacting within that thread. Having read through it again I see your posts in there are more on the logical side of the aisle. However I still think that CCP Dionysus' comments were too basic as to derive any weighty meaning from them. If you were implying something else, I must have missed it. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.04 22:50:00 - [561] Originally by: Malcanis That's not a "nerf", that's the virtual elimination of a profession. Just as if mission rats had their bounties reduced by 90% - technically you could still mission, but in practice, no-one would bother. 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. If you want to make a living from piracy, go to low-sec, that's what it's for (yes, I am aware low-sec has it's own set of issues, but those need fixing in their own right, not covered over by high sec piracy). Note that the nerfing of high sec piracy for profit is not the same as making high-sec completely safe. You can still be suicide ganked, and the thresholds are still quite viable, provided you are doing it for strategic reasons, rather than just a money making profession or "for the lulz". ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.04 23:29:00 - [562] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Malcanis That's not a "nerf", that's the virtual elimination of a profession. Just as if mission rats had their bounties reduced by 90% - technically you could still mission, but in practice, no-one would bother. 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? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 00:15:00 - [563] 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 - [564] 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
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.05 00:49:00 - [565] Quote: However I still think that CCP Dionysus' comments were too basic as to derive any weighty meaning from them. If you were implying something else, I must have missed it. Well I didn't expect to derive some incredibly new, amazing insight. Just like Greyscale's recent posts about randomely pewpewing shit vs strategic attacks, EVE PVP is not supposed to be just random fly around and pewpew shit. EVE PVP is supposed to be for something...to strengthen yourself. Now, the defenders of missions as they are almost universally hold the idea that PVP is a different style of play for those who want to do it when they feel like it and, when you do do it, just for fun. I just pointed those posts out to show that that is -not- the intention.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:07:00 - [566] The security levels achieve what other games can only achieve with several shards. Every area focuses on a different style of playing. Highsec is focusing on PvE mostly. The PvP in highsec is market oriented mostly. Wardecs and random ganking are rather uncommon and discouraged. Lowsec is corporation level ship PvP. There's some overlapping with PvE in lowsec mission but that's minor. Also the market usually sucks too much to allow proper market PvP. Factional warfare introduced the blob warfare and some more PvE into lowsec, but the blobs were a unintended effect and means to reduce it are worked on. (look for the devquote yourself) Nosec is the alliance size cap blob PvP. Masses of players against masses of players against the lag monster. Ideas are gathered to go against cap- and titan-blobs but it'll be at least 6-12 months away until anything in this direction will be implemented. Small scale PvP is limited to 'Random hostile is interrupting my backwater mining op'. What is needed are more single / small group ship PvP professions and a reduction on the capital blob warfare in nosec. Highsec needs a improvement of the PvE content to add a brain requirement to the copy/paste BS fit to missioning. Nosec especially needs more small scale endeavors and generally more things to do than rat/mine/fleetblob/POSyawn. Again I say, different areas focus on different kinds of playing without sharding the server. CCP "only" need more 10 years in the future technology to advance their server network and database functionality (along with a superconductor internet connection) to add more content to the areas in EVE. Ugh. That is all. Now I need another beer. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:18:00 - [567] Originally by: Abrazzar Highsec is focusing on PvE mostly. The PvP in highsec is market oriented mostly. Wardecs and random ganking are rather uncommon and discouraged. Lowsec is corporation level ship PvP. There's some overlapping with PvE in lowsec mission but that's minor. Also the market usually sucks too much to allow proper market PvP. Factional warfare introduced the blob warfare and some more PvE into lowsec, but the blobs were a unintended effect and means to reduce it are worked on. (look for the devquote yourself) Nosec is the alliance size cap blob PvP. Masses of players against masses of players against the lag monster. Ideas are gathered to go against cap- and titan-blobs but it'll be at least 6-12 months away until anything in this direction will be implemented. Small scale PvP is limited to 'Random hostile is interrupting my backwater mining op'. The problem with this is that in Eve, everything you do affects someone else. When hi-sec is perfectly safe, it means that all other areas are indirectly much less profitable. Think about this: the only real things you need in Eve that cannot be gained in hi-sec (IIRC) are moon minerals and officer/deadspace items. That's it. Minerals -> Missions ISK -> Missions/Mining/Trading Research -> Hi-sec POS's Manufacturing -> Innumerable stations Faction items -> LP store -------- EVE - The only non-consensual PvP MMORPG* *Note: does not contain non-consensual PvP as of 8/3/2008
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:39:00 - [568] Originally by: Vikarion Originally by: Abrazzar Highsec is focusing on PvE mostly. The PvP in highsec is market oriented mostly. Wardecs and random ganking are rather uncommon and discouraged. Lowsec is corporation level ship PvP. There's some overlapping with PvE in lowsec mission but that's minor. Also the market usually sucks too much to allow proper market PvP. Factional warfare introduced the blob warfare and some more PvE into lowsec, but the blobs were a unintended effect and means to reduce it are worked on. (look for the devquote yourself) Nosec is the alliance size cap blob PvP. Masses of players against masses of players against the lag monster. Ideas are gathered to go against cap- and titan-blobs but it'll be at least 6-12 months away until anything in this direction will be implemented. Small scale PvP is limited to 'Random hostile is interrupting my backwater mining op'. The problem with this is that in Eve, everything you do affects someone else. When hi-sec is perfectly safe, it means that all other areas are indirectly much less profitable. Think about this: the only real things you need in Eve that cannot be gained in hi-sec (IIRC) are moon minerals and officer/deadspace items. That's it. Highsec shouldn't be absolutely secure. Only 50-75% secure or something. The rest should be OMGWTFHAPPENEDTOMYSHIPOHNOES-HARHARHAR-insecure. Before the CONCORD upgrade it approached the Hauler-Full-Of-Trit-POP-Insecure. That's good for lowsec or lower highsec but highsec should limit the profitability of suicide ganking to a level that pop-anything isn't a option. Also, keep in mind, that highsec is the area where new players pour in. They need to have a zone of security where they can get use to EVE gameplay without being harassed by those more familar with the game. The intput of new players must be at least equal, better greater, than the output of newish players (and older ones, around 6months) to keep this game alive. The possibility to choose a more or less harsh environment to fit your style of playin is also part of the basic 'sandbox' design. Sandbox doesn't equal complete anarchy but choices and options fitting to what you want to do and to achieve. The daring objective of EVE is to put all those choices onto one server, instead of sharding it into different servers with rules defining each style of playing. Instead there are zones of security focusing on them but not being limited to one. What CCP needs to be careful about is to have areas completely eliminate other styles of playing and thus effectively shard the server. Threads like this help CCP to estimate where the line is they shouldn't step over. CCP are careful about this, no NGE in sight yet and this 'NGE Event' has shown every game designer how important player opinion can be. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:40:00 - [569] Originally by: Vikarion The problem with this is that in Eve, everything you do affects someone else. When hi-sec is perfectly safe, it means that all other areas are indirectly much less profitable. Think about this: the only real things you need in Eve that cannot be gained in hi-sec (IIRC) are moon minerals and officer/deadspace items. That's it. Minerals -> Missions ISK -> Missions/Mining/Trading Research -> Hi-sec POS's Manufacturing -> Innumerable stations Faction items -> LP store Wrong: 1) High end minerals are not produced in enough quantity by misisons. The current Zydrine and Megacyte explosion due the drone regions conflicts clearly shows this. There is a dire need of 0.0 high ends minerals in high sec. 2) Capital production - Carriers and Dreads can only be produced in low sec and bellow. 3) Super Cap production - It is only possible in sovereignty space. 4) Pirate Faction items - Come from Pirate stations in NPC 0.0 5) Deadspace itens - Come from 0.0 complexes mostly 6) Decryptors and exploration loot - Mostly come from 0.0 7) Boosters - 0.0 and low sec (synth) 8) Officer loot - 0.0 officer spawns ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.05 01:50:00 - [570] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Wrong: 1) High end minerals are not produced in enough quantity by misisons. The current Zydrine and Megacyte explosion due the drone regions conflicts clearly shows this. There is a dire need of 0.0 high ends minerals in high sec. 2) Capital production - Carriers and Dreads can only be produced in low sec and bellow. 3) Super Cap production - It is only possible in sovereignty space. 4) Pirate Faction items - Come from Pirate stations in NPC 0.0 5) Deadspace itens - Come from 0.0 complexes mostly 6) Decryptors and exploration loot - Mostly come from 0.0 7) Boosters - 0.0 and low sec (synth) 8) Officer loot - 0.0 officer spawns You are missing the point. Hi-sec doesn't need hardly anything from 0.0, while 0.0 uses massive amounts of things from hi-sec, ruining the 0.0 economy, because the hi-sec economy is perfectly safe. It's like a first-world country wiping out the economy of a third-world country by exporting massive amounts of cheap goods. I will grant you a partial on the hi-end minerals - zyd and mega are a little hard to produce in hi-sec, though I suspect that much of the zyd/mega jump is due to speculation. And I already noted deadspace/officer/t2 gear. However, those things are relatively less necessary to hi-sec dwellers than hi-sec things are to 0.0 dwellers. Neither capitals nor supercapitals are necessary in hi-sec, or even allowed, so that point is moot. Neither are pirate faction items. Or officer loot. Or deadspace loot. Most players never even fit that stuff - faction is cheaper and performs more than adequately. In fact, the foremost use of most hi-end deadspace/officer loot is BY 0.0 dwellers, so it's economically a non-issue in this discussion. Decryptors and boosters are largely (esp. boosters) ignored by the player base, and for good reason. My point is that hi-sec needs almost nothing - maybe one or two classes of items - from 0.0, while 0.0 can use everything from hi-sec. Therefore, making hi-sec safe has a very negative effect on 0.0, because everything can be produced more cheaply there. In fact, for many people, it is more profitable to simply import something from hi-sec than to assemble and build it themselves. This is bad. -------- EVE - The only non-consensual PvP MMORPG* *Note: does not contain non-consensual PvP as of 8/3/2008

Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.05 09:08:00 - [571] Edited by: Gamesguy on 05/09/2008 09:08:58 Originally by: Etho Demerzel Wrong: 1) High end minerals are not produced in enough quantity by misisons. The current Zydrine and Megacyte explosion due the drone regions conflicts clearly shows this. There is a dire need of 0.0 high ends minerals in high sec. The only thing you're correct about. Quote: 2) Capital production - Carriers and Dreads can only be produced in low sec and bellow. 3) Super Cap production - It is only possible in sovereignty space. Considering that you can't fly them in highsec, how does this affect highsec in any way? Quote: 4) Pirate Faction items - Come from Pirate stations in NPC 0.0 5) Deadspace itens - Come from 0.0 complexes mostly 6) Decryptors and exploration loot - Mostly come from 0.0 7) Boosters - 0.0 and low sec (synth) 8) Officer loot - 0.0 officer spawns Plenty of decryptors come from highsec, in fact they used to come exclusively from highsec. I wasn't aware pirate/faction/deadspace/officer mods were a necessity of the eve and mandatory for highsec operations. You're grasping at straws.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.05 09:14:00 - [572] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: However I still think that CCP Dionysus' comments were too basic as to derive any weighty meaning from them. If you were implying something else, I must have missed it. Well I didn't expect to derive some incredibly new, amazing insight. Just like Greyscale's recent posts about randomely pewpewing shit vs strategic attacks, EVE PVP is not supposed to be just random fly around and pewpew shit. EVE PVP is supposed to be for something...to strengthen yourself. Now, the defenders of missions as they are almost universally hold the idea that PVP is a different style of play for those who want to do it when they feel like it and, when you do do it, just for fun. I just pointed those posts out to show that that is -not- the intention. Exactly. If eve pvp is supposed to be about defending/taking resources from other people(like 0.0 territorial warfare), then why in the f*ck are missions an unlimited resource that little competition? I don't mind traders making billions, they risk billions and they compete with all the other traders. Trading is a vicious pvp game with cutthroat competition. Mining, not quite as competative as trading, but still plenty of competition involved, even in highsec. Ratting, limited number of belts/systems with good spawns, the very definition of a limited resource to compete over. Moon mining, same thing. Wars are foughter over moons, alliances have disbanded over moons. Mission running, you can solo them in an NPC corp with no risk and ignore everyone else. Oh and you can make more isk than the miners and as much isk if not more than the 0.0 ratters. Why is it that mission running is the only profession in the game with basically no competition?
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.05 12:50:00 - [573] 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. Originally by: Le Skunk 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. By the same analogy, a regular fleet battle is simply two people trying to head-butt each other into unconciousness. In both situations, you are risking a certain amount of loss in order to inflict a certain amount of damage to your opposition. The only difference is that the losses taken, and the damage inflicted, are more predictable in a well planned strategic asset denial operation. Originally by: Le Skunk * 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. This is true. However, you should factor against the time taken to raise sec, the bounties and loot obtained from the rats while doing so. This is clearly less of a problem if your corp performs a range of activities, including harvesting the available rats in their area, as you could then rotate pilots between NPC harvesting and suicide ganking duties. Originally by: Le Skunk * 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. I'd be interested to know how you came to the 10 hours per player. Is this factoring in the time taken to recover sec status, or just the time taken in the ganking op itself? I wouldn't expect the entire gank squad to be sitting around for all that time waiting for their scout to find the target, for example. And if it takes you 10 hours to assemble a squad to engage the target, you're not going to get there in time. I would expect the most time consuming element to be the scout locating a target, during which time the rest of the squad can be engaging in isk-making activities in the general area. Once a target is sighted, they should be able to rapidly assemble and perform the gank. After all, outrunning a freighter is hardly a challenge. Of course, when factoring in man hours, you also have to factor in the man hour damage you've done to the opposition. The destroyed freighter doesn't just represent it's isk value. It also represents the time spent acquiring the freighter and it's cargo, as well as the time spent getting it from it's point of origin to wherever it was when you blew it up (including fuel costs if the stuff has been jumped in from 0.0). After all, if we assume a competent enemy, then the fact they are hauling things somewhere suggests that those items are not readily available, or considerably more expensive to acquire, in the location where you destroyed them, compared to where the goods originated. Now, I fully admit that this tactic is not going to win you a war on it's own, and is not going to be a good option for some types of corp. But it is going to be a useful strategic option in some circumstances. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.05 12:57:00 - [574] 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. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.05 12:59:00 - [575] Edited by: Malcanis on 05/09/2008 13:01:46 Edit: duplicate. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:07:00 - [576] 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
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:33:00 - [577] Originally by: Le Skunk 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. I am aware of that fact. I have several such blockade runners myself. But I am also aware that blockade runners are rather limited in their cargo capacity, and that other types of transport are required to effectively move many classes of cargo. Originally by: Le Skunk 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). ok, so difficult but not impossible. But presumably have the potential to become more of a target if there is a strategic, rather than purely financial, incentive to doing so? Originally by: Le Skunk 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. ok. The afk distinction brings up an interesting strategic angle. afk hauling is generally done by players during time in which they would not have been able to play fully anyway (and thus be unable to engage in effective isk-making activities). If you can prevent them from afk hauling, that means they will need to spend "full-speed" playing time to do their hauling in. Which will impact on their isk-making activities. Once you've demonstrated a willingness to gank, you won't actually have to perform the ganks to have this effect - a small but credible force (a couple of siege ravens going by your figures) hanging around their high-sec area of operation should provide sufficient incentive to force their entire corp to be awake while hauling. Clearly this would be more time-efficient the bigger the corp you're doing it to. And with it being high-sec, they can't chase you away unless they're willing to suicide you themselves, or wardec you. Originally by: Le Skunk Barges I had no interest in as the were not profitable. Fair enough. Though a fully rigged/expanded hulk is quite expensive, so might be a possibility in asset denial terms, even if it isn't that profitable for a piracy kill. Plus you can actively encourage the use of this fitting through ore theft (or alternatively tie up extra man hours in them guarding against your thieves). ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:42:00 - [578] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Kahega Amielden Quote: However I still think that CCP Dionysus' comments were too basic as to derive any weighty meaning from them. If you were implying something else, I must have missed it. Well I didn't expect to derive some incredibly new, amazing insight. Just like Greyscale's recent posts about randomely pewpewing shit vs strategic attacks, EVE PVP is not supposed to be just random fly around and pewpew shit. EVE PVP is supposed to be for something...to strengthen yourself. Now, the defenders of missions as they are almost universally hold the idea that PVP is a different style of play for those who want to do it when they feel like it and, when you do do it, just for fun. I just pointed those posts out to show that that is -not- the intention. Exactly. If eve pvp is supposed to be about defending/taking resources from other people(like 0.0 territorial warfare), then why in the f*ck are missions an unlimited resource that little competition? I don't mind traders making billions, they risk billions and they compete with all the other traders. Trading is a vicious pvp game with cutthroat competition. ... Mission running, you can solo them in an NPC corp with no risk and ignore everyone else. Oh and you can make more isk than the miners and as much isk if not more than the 0.0 ratters. Why is it that mission running is the only profession in the game with basically no competition? In order for a mission runner to maximize his earning potential, the mission runner must do what?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:52:00 - [579] 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
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:52:00 - [580] Originally by: Vikarion The problem with this is that in Eve, everything you do affects someone else. When hi-sec is perfectly safe, it means that all other areas are indirectly much less profitable. Think about this: the only real things you need in Eve that cannot be gained in hi-sec (IIRC) are moon minerals and officer/deadspace items. That's it. Minerals -> Missions ISK -> Missions/Mining/Trading Research -> Hi-sec POS's Manufacturing -> Innumerable stations Faction items -> LP store (note with low-sec here I am referring to 0.1-0.4, not 0.0. Not all the low-sec arguments below will apply to 0.0) Minerals -> Shouldn't be coming from missions anyway, and mining needs sorting out to fix the ore quality-mineral quality link that is causing high-sec ores to be too valuable in relation to low-sec ones. ISK -> Isk should be made in all areas. The issue is the level of isk that can be made compared to the cost of operating in that area. Research -> If you're running a high-sec POS, then you are in a player corp and can be wardecced. In terms of the "valid objectives" debate around wardecs, eliminating your opponent's POS sounds like a valid objective to me. Manufacturing -> Yes, there's lots more stations in high-sec, but the majority of that capacity is not used. Manufacturing is centred in high-sec for two reasons: more customers, and lack of advantage to operate in other areas. Fixing the mineral situation is key to fixing that latter issue. Currently it's more effective to mine in high-sec, build in high-sec, and haul the finished product to low-sec. The only way to change that is if a decent mining scene develops in low-sec, which requires the mineral changes already mentioned. Faction Items -> Fair enough, though see my next point. One thing to bear in mind is that things being unique to low-sec is not enough in and of itself to make low-sec attractive. The key is reward vs cost of operation. The most obvious area this is failing at the moment is in mining. The key measure for mining profitability is the ore's isk/m3 value. Current mineral prices mean the low-sec ores have the same, or even lower, isk/m3 values than the high-sec ores. So low-sec is already not attractive, even before you factor in the higher cost of working there (whether that's in terms of ships lost, or time lost trying to avoid losing your ship). Items unique to sec status is just one way of applying the differential rewards required. Important to note is that this will only be effective if the market will stand the higher price this restriction generates. This also leaves you with a long-term balance problem, as you are relying on the value of that unique item remaining the same relative to other items and professions, in order to maintain balance between sec statuses. If the market decides to go it's own way (as has happened with minerals), your carefully designed balance is lost. As such, it is my belief that balancing sec statuses with unique items will create an inherently unstable balance, that will not be maintained in the long term. What I am in favour of is professions spread across all the sec statuses, but with appropriate step changes in income rate. For minerals, this would mean having higher yield versions of Veld etc, not just the more valuable ore types. For missions, this would mean maing sec status a much more sigificant factor in the agent reward and rat bounty/loot rates. I don't think it's a problem being able to shoot a battelship rat in high-sec, provided you earn significantly more when shooting that same rat in low-sec. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.

Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.09.05 13:58:00 - [581] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 Said runner could do both of these, but neither of them actually help maximize earning potential. Try again.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.05 14:01:00 - [582] Originally by: Malcanis 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. I think you are mistaking a Knowledgebase article for a design document. All the Knowledgebase article does is acknowledge the state of play that applies at the time (or did apply, as elements of that article are clearly out of date now). Saying "Players currently do this, it's not against the rules, and you need to know about it" is not the same as "Players currently do this, we think it's really cool that they can, and want to see more of it". Knowledgebase articles describe how the game functions at that point in time. It does not necessarily mean that that is the way it is supposed to be operating. A knowledgebase that describes what should happen, instead of what does happen, would not be particularly useful for it's purpose. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.05 14:08:00 - [583] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Spoon Thumb Having not read the other 17 pages of replies, I've considered this idea before. It'd fit a lot closer with what people's preconceptions are of any game. What other game can you be blown up in straight away after you start? If you told newbies the truth, "that you're at risk soon as you undock" they would never undock and no one would play the game. So did you join the game under false pretences? No, funnily enough I joined it with all the preconceptions of single player games. Was my first MMO _______ People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
Jane Vladmir Gallente Warmongers	Posted - 2008.09.05 15:55:00 - [584] Originally by: Hunter S. Thompson "Why not?" I said
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.05 16:18:00 - [585] Originally by: Spoon Thumb Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Spoon Thumb Having not read the other 17 pages of replies, I've considered this idea before. It'd fit a lot closer with what people's preconceptions are of any game. What other game can you be blown up in straight away after you start? If you told newbies the truth, "that you're at risk soon as you undock" they would never undock and no one would play the game. So did you join the game under false pretences? No, funnily enough I joined it with all the preconceptions of single player games. Was my first MMO I ask because the very thing you said would prevent anyone joining the game seems to be the very thing that persauded many to join it. The freedom and the associated risk. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.05 16:19:00 - [586] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Malcanis 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. I think you are mistaking a Knowledgebase article for a design document. All the Knowledgebase article does is acknowledge the state of play that applies at the time (or did apply, as elements of that article are clearly out of date now). Saying "Players currently do this, it's not against the rules, and you need to know about it" is not the same as "Players currently do this, we think it's really cool that they can, and want to see more of it". Knowledgebase articles describe how the game functions at that point in time. It does not necessarily mean that that is the way it is supposed to be operating. A knowledgebase that describes what should happen, instead of what does happen, would not be particularly useful for it's purpose. Dude, you're really struggling. So KB articles have state approval before a profession is valid? Can you cite postive examples? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Finuval Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.09.05 16:23:00 - [587] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny I gonna be a Minmatar night elf mage! I lol'd and I am ashamed
MushMush Minmatar Silent Ninja's	Posted - 2008.09.05 16:48:00 - [588] Apologies if this has already been covered but I didn't spot it if it was... Has anyone (CCP) looked at the economic impact of limiting or removing war decs from high-sec? Have all the so called 'carebears' that so eagerly support the removal of war decs thought how it might impact them? If I was into manufacturing ships, modules or T2 invention I would be really worried that suddenly no-one who lived in high-sec would lose a ship, ever. Once they had collected all the ships they wanted to own and pimped them up then no more repeat business. 0.0 alliances seem to have their own manufacturing covered so they won't be interested in buying from high-sec either. Just a thought.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.09.05 17:06:00 - [589] Originally by: MushMush Apologies if this has already been covered but I didn't spot it if it was... Has anyone (CCP) looked at the economic impact of limiting or removing war decs from high-sec? Have all the so called 'carebears' that so eagerly support the removal of war decs thought how it might impact them? If I was into manufacturing ships, modules or T2 invention I would be really worried that suddenly no-one who lived in high-sec would lose a ship, ever. Once they had collected all the ships they wanted to own and pimped them up then no more repeat business. 0.0 alliances seem to have their own manufacturing covered so they won't be interested in buying from high-sec either. Just a thought. The economic impact is likely to be negligible. At worst, empire Pvpers won't just stop pvping, they'll do it in low-sec or 0.0. Idiots pimping their ships with billions will still end up dead by a gang of 15 brutixes, so there won't be any more of an isk inflation, either. ------------------------------------------
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.05 17:11:00 - [590] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: MushMush Apologies if this has already been covered but I didn't spot it if it was... Has anyone (CCP) looked at the economic impact of limiting or removing war decs from high-sec? Have all the so called 'carebears' that so eagerly support the removal of war decs thought how it might impact them? If I was into manufacturing ships, modules or T2 invention I would be really worried that suddenly no-one who lived in high-sec would lose a ship, ever. Once they had collected all the ships they wanted to own and pimped them up then no more repeat business. 0.0 alliances seem to have their own manufacturing covered so they won't be interested in buying from high-sec either. Just a thought. The economic impact is likely to be negligible. At worst, empire Pvpers won't just stop pvping, they'll do it in low-sec or 0.0. Idiots pimping their ships with billions will still end up dead by a gang of 15 brutixes, so there won't be any more of an isk inflation, either. Obviously we view the severity of these proposed changes differently. Any reduction in ship loss will effect the economy. Hell, any change made in EvE effects the economy, some small, some huge. A reduction in hisec wars will likely mean an even heavier hit against those who distribute ships for these parties. A reduction in hisec piracy will do the same. This means that 'hopefully' ship prices may rise a little bit to compensate. But with the mineral and mission imbalances, it will probably mean that new producers will face a steeper hill to climb in order to get into marketable ship production, resulting in fewer new players becoming module or ship sellers early. Not a big hit to a market that can't get beyond the crap of mid-range minerals and mission loot reprocessing, but a big hit to new producers and new players trying to become producers. Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun

Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.05 17:32:00 - [591] Originally by: Malcanis Dude, you're really struggling. So KB articles have state approval before a profession is valid? No, of course not. All I'm saying is that the KB is intended to describe the current state of the system. You are trying to represent it as describing the original design intention, which is not what it does, and is not the purpose of the KB. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Trinity Council	Posted - 2008.09.05 18:07:00 - [592] Originally by: E'Pock ok, I might be a noob here but my question to all of you that are complaining about PvP in high sectors is this. 1) Why do you care if someone is just mining and making billions of isk? 2) if somone is just running missions then why do you need to PvP them? Honestly, grow up. This game is here for one reason and one reason only....to be played...and anyway people see fit. If you don't like the fact that high sectors are becoming more "safe" and less profitable for you then click your lil button that says "cancel account". I personally dont care if you come after me or not. This is after all "just a game" and I can find something else to do with my time if it gets "boring" To me so far in this post it seems like a bunch of PvP people whining that they cant do anything in high sector space anymore has totally destroyed the game for them. Is there not enough players out in 0.0 space to fight? Do you feel some justification in beating up on someone that all they want to do in this game is mine? What's it to you? My apologies to everyone that this doesnt apply to and also if i am wrong then i also apologize for that as well. Just giving my 2cents on this issue. =) ok, what if i want to kill noobs and miners like you and make billions? i mean afterall, this game is to be played how everyone *wants* to play it, and I want to play it by killing annoying miners who make 10x as much as me afk the point here is that everything they are doing is making it harder and harder for those people who want to kill miners and misison runners making billions, while simeltaneously making it EASIER for the the miners and mission runners to make even more money do you feel justified that you can sit there, click your mining laser and practically go afk for a couple of hours making billions while i have to fight and survive and actually be here, and TRY to get lucky if i kill someone that has faction loot? mining is making billions, why cant pvp go up to making billions, its so damn easy to go afk when your mining, and pvping can be very difficult, pvping is MY way of playing the game, while mining might be your way, but the point is that with each new patch its becoming more and more difficutl to do what i want to do, while its getting easier and easier for you, THAT is what the pvpers are ***ing about as for your 00 space fighting comment: no, because if you go to 00 space your immediatly bubbled, and hyper blobbed with capitals and dd's, not everyone likes organizing a 300 man lagging ass fleet - have a scout drop a cyno, cyno in your 300 man fleet, and repeat 3 or 4 times to get to your destination just to get completely lagged out and get no fighting in seriously, you need to try on the pvp'ing and 00 life, instead of using the "facts" that you might read on the forums you will start to see our point of view a bit more Originally by:** soldieroffortune 258 "*Eve is about making yourself richer while making the other guy poorer*"
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.05 18:17:00 - [593] Originally by: Matthew Research -> If you're running a high-sec POS, then you are in a player corp and can be wardecced. In terms of the "valid objectives" debate around wardecs, eliminating your opponent's POS sounds like a valid objective to me. If you war dec me, the first thing I'm going to do is look at your corp roster. If it looks like you can field enough BSes to bring it down, I'm going to unanchor it and store it in the 24 hours before war commences. If it looks like you can't field that many BSes, I'm going to empty and offline all the research labs, put all the hardeners, guns and other goodies online, and then giggle like a schoolgirl while I pop your BSes with my SDM 5 alt. If you do ultimately take it down yawn, you'll end up with a sore-ass and a hole in your wallet, and not much else, and you will have given me more fun than I've had in the game in years for a cost that is little more than background noise for me. I think it's moot though. I've had mine up for years and nobody has even tried. Quote: Manufacturing -> Yes, there's lots more stations in high-sec, but the majority of that capacity is not used. Manufacturing is centred in high-sec for two reasons: more customers, and lack of advantage to operate in other areas.... snip I mine if the mood strkes me, but I mostly just build from materials I purchase through buy orders, and sell right back on the high-sec markets. Not very exciting, but it's a damn good living. Quote: One thing to bear in mind is that things being unique to low-sec is not enough in and of itself to make low-sec attractive. The problem with low-sec is that it compares unfavorably to BOTH empire and 0.0 in terms of risk. You aren't going to get people to go there if they don't have to. If you push building and market hubs for anything other than noob items out of empire, you'll not only compell people to go, you'll also give 0.0 alliances a self-interested reason to make it safer, cause hey, they want to build and sell stuff too.
Iyhi Baal	Posted - 2008.09.05 18:22:00 - [594] Originally by: soldieroffortune 258 ... i mean afterall, this game is to be played how everyone *wants* to play it, and I want to play it by killing annoying miners who make 10x as much as me afk... do you feel justified that you can sit there, click your mining laser and practically go afk for a couple of hours making billions while i have to fight and survive and ... dude -- if a miner can make 10x more than you while afk then you are seriously doing something very wrong. look you decided how you wanted to make isk( or not make isk). We( I ) decided to invest time and effort into making isk. Accept the consequences of your decision. You should stop whining for CCP to change the game so that you can engage in risk-less exploitation of suicide gank /insurance scam for profit. ################# I see you!
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.05 18:28:00 - [595] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 05/09/2008 18:31:47 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 05/09/2008 18:28:29 Originally by: Iyhi Baal dude -- if a miner can make 10x more than you while afk then you are seriously doing something very wrong. look you decided how you wanted to make isk( or not make isk). We( I ) decided to invest time and effort into making isk. Accept the consequences of your decision. You should stop whining for CCP to change the game so that you can engage in risk-less exploitation of suicide gank /insurance scam for profit. CCP has been pretty consistant that PvP isn't for making isk, it's for protecting the stuff that you do to make isk, or disrupting the stuff that the other guy does to make isk. I think it's a basic design philosophy that they follow, for better or worse. So yeah, if you think that you're getting a shitty deal because you can't log on and do nothing but PvP and get as rich as an industrialist, you're playing the wrong game.
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.06 00:03:00 - [596] Edited by: Gamesguy on 06/09/2008 00:03:46 Originally by: Karii Ildarian Originally by: Le Skunk 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 Said runner could do both of these, but neither of them actually help maximize earning potential. Try again. Now you're intentionally being an idiot. You're trying to say that because mission runners salvage, loot, and cash in LPs they are like traders. WRONG. If I go down to a pawn shop and sell them my watch it doesnt make me a trader. The trading profession in eve is like professional stock traders, the mission runner's "trading" is like the guy who pawned his watch. Two completely different things. A 10% price drop in salvage component prices have basically no effect on mission runners, a 10% price drop on the items in a trader's inventory could very well mean he just lost billions. Its not even remotely comparable. That'd be like me saying ratters are traders too, don't be an idiot.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.09.06 12:51:00 - [597] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine If you war dec me, the first thing I'm going to do is look at your corp roster. If it looks like you can field enough BSes to bring it down, I'm going to unanchor it and store it in the 24 hours before war commences. So you're saying I can prevent your corp using POSes completely, indefinitely, by just having enough people in my corp, and keeping up the war fee? Without actually having to spend time shooting anything? That sounds like a pretty nice option to me. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine If it looks like you can't field that many BSes, I'm going to empty and offline all the research labs, put all the hardeners, guns and other goodies online, and then giggle like a schoolgirl while I pop your BSes with my SDM 5 alt. If you do that, I've still succeeded in denying you productive use of your POS, and again I don't actually have to go and shoot the POS. Sounds good to me. And if you assume I'm not coming and switch the labs on again, that's when I'll attack. Running costs on a death-star POS are also considerably higher than running costs on the wardec, so I'm losing you more isk than I'm spending during that stalemate. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine I think it's moot though. I've had mine up for years and nobody has even tried. Of course they haven't. High-sec POS have negligible strategic value beyond the isk they make, are rarely profitable piracy targets, and the other research corps generally prefer to compete on the market than with guns, probably because they are conscious of their own vulnerability if the conflict escalates to that level. But if you caused the competition enough problems, the option is there for them, as it should be. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine I mine if the mood strkes me, but I mostly just build from materials I purchase through buy orders, and sell right back on the high-sec markets. Not very exciting, but it's a damn good living. Whether you mine or not is irrelevant to my point. Unless someone mines, there are no minerals locally to fill your buy orders. Mining trit in low-sec is currently very unattractive, and it's far more efficient to haul finished product to low-sec stations than to haul the trit. Hence, even if you generate demand for product in low-sec, that product is going to be manufactured in empire unless you make the entire industrial chain viable in low-sec. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine The problem with low-sec is that it compares unfavorably to BOTH empire and 0.0 in terms of risk. You aren't going to get people to go there if they don't have to. The problem is that if you make content unique to low-sec, but don't assign it enough reward to be a viable profession, people are simply not going to use those content elements. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine If you push building and market hubs for anything other than noob items out of empire, you'll not only compell people to go, you'll also give 0.0 alliances a self-interested reason to make it safer, cause hey, they want to build and sell stuff too. If you push all that out to low-sec, you'll just push up operating costs for the industrial chain, resulting in either large price increases across the board, or nothing being produced. 0.0 alliances will not bother making low-sec safer. They make use of the safety of high-sec because they do not have to put effort in to provide that security. If they are having to provide security themselves, they may as well provide it in their more valuable 0.0 territories. If anything, alliances will care even less about low-sec, because they will now have less reason to travel through it to reach high-sec. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Karando Random Goods	Posted - 2008.09.06 12:57:00 - [598] Originally by: Iyhi Baal look you decided how you wanted to make isk( or not make isk). We( I ) decided to invest time and effort into making isk. Accept the consequences of your decision. Time and effort? Well, what's your problem then? You should do fine without CCP having to nerf suicide ganking and wardecs. It's the lazy and dumb carebears fault they destroy the game's basic idea. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine CCP has been pretty consistant that PvP isn't for making isk, it's for protecting the stuff that you do to make isk Actually, you are right. And exactly that makes me sad. CCP Greyfail says that you should NOT PvP for lulz, you should do it to protect and accumulate the ISK you earned while doing the most boring shit someone could possibly imagine (missions, mining, trading, ratting).
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.06 13:40:00 - [599] Originally by: Karando Originally by: Iyhi Baal look you decided how you wanted to make isk( or not make isk). We( I ) decided to invest time and effort into making isk. Accept the consequences of your decision. Time and effort? Well, what's your problem then? You should do fine without CCP having to nerf suicide ganking and wardecs. It's the lazy and dumb carebears fault they destroy the game's basic idea. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine CCP has been pretty consistant that PvP isn't for making isk, it's for protecting the stuff that you do to make isk Actually, you are right. And exactly that makes me sad. CCP Greyfail says that you should NOT PvP for lulz, you should do it to protect and accumulate the ISK you earned while doing the most boring shit someone could possibly imagine (missions, mining, trading, ratting). Next up: banning hi-sec scamming. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.06 13:59:00 - [600] Originally by: Malcanis Next up: banning hi-sec scamming. Yep. Because we are so weak-minded and soft that we need to pray to the god's of our internet universe to protect us, instead of doing it ourselves. Hmm. Seems remarkably like the existence of millions of human beings across the planet, to me. Don't take responsibility for yourself or your survival, no! Put it in the hands of whatever deity you believe in, despite the fact that they have a longstanding track-record of remaining 'hands off' when dealing with earthly affairs. Tsk, tsk. Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.06 14:30:00 - [601] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Malcanis Next up: banning hi-sec scamming. Yep. Because we are so weak-minded and soft that we need to pray to the god's of our internet universe to protect us, instead of doing it ourselves. Hmm. Seems remarkably like the existence of millions of human beings across the planet, to me. Don't take responsibility for yourself or your survival, no! Put it in the hands of whatever deity you believe in, despite the fact that they have a longstanding track-record of remaining 'hands off' when dealing with earthly affairs. Tsk, tsk. Yeah seriously. I see over and over again on this forum the implict assumption that defending oneself should be optional and unnecessary, and that asking someone to defend themselves is unreasonable, or even immoral. That all protection must and should come from authority. That's a basic split in philosophy right there. There's no way to have a reasonable discussion with someone who doesn't share your basic assumptions What the hell, people? Guns are legal in EvE. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Xeronn Amarr Ordo Drakonis Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.06 14:38:00 - [602] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Malcanis Next up: banning hi-sec scamming. Yep. Because we are so weak-minded and soft that we need to pray to the god's of our internet universe to protect us, instead of doing it ourselves. Hmm. Seems remarkably like the existence of millions of human beings across the planet, to me. Don't take responsibility for yourself or your survival, no! Put it in the hands of whatever deity you believe in, despite the fact that they have a longstanding track-record of remaining 'hands off' when dealing with earthly affairs. Tsk, tsk. They must be shown the True Path and the Light Brother! Have Faith , Amarr will prevail and the universe shall bend to the will of His chosen people.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.06 15:06:00 - [603] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 06/09/2008 15:12:49 Quote: So you're saying I can prevent your corp using POSes completely, indefinitely, by just having enough people in my corp, and keeping up the war fee? Without actually having to spend time shooting anything? That sounds like a pretty nice option to me. Yeah, you could keep my 4 man corp from having a POS up indefinately by maintaining your war-dec. Of course, most of my prints are already at max research and I'd just switch to buying T2 BPCs off sell orders, where they don't sell at much of a premium to their invention cost anyhow, but sure, knock yourself out. I don't think I've ever heard of someone war-deccing for the sake of quashing market competition. I think that's what the mechanic was intended for, but it didn't work out that way. It's just high-sec piracy at best, and grief "for lulz" at worst. The rest of this is pretty much moot. Looks like CCP's vision for low-sec is to turn it into 0.0 lite, where you'll be able to claim systems and become the "Viceroy" which I assume will let you deny station access to those with negative standings. It's worth a try, I guess.
Doris Dents	Posted - 2008.09.06 16:28:00 - [604] CCP once you've driven away all the people that were actually attracted to the cold, harsh universe and made your game a success in the first place then I hope you can get your act together and put out a well polished game. Because high churn WoW kids game hopping while they wait for the next expansion won't put up with 10 minute module lag or an interface that looks like it was programmed by interns.
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:23:00 - [605] Originally by: Doris Dents CCP once you've driven away all the people that were actually attracted to the cold, harsh universe and made your game a success in the first place then I hope you can get your act together and put out a well polished game. Because high churn WoW kids game hopping while they wait for the next expansion won't put up with 10 minute module lag or an interface that looks like it was programmed by interns. The problem with this statement....PVE servers have ALWAYS outnumbered the PvP servers in any-game. Eve-online is a busseness...in order for it to grow, they need more players to start playing the game. I really dont think CCP will sufer much if the hardcore PvP players all left. Makeing Empire "safer" is a good deal for CCP. I know they did'nt read all the threads about griefing word by word letter by letter to decide to do this. 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. Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:25:00 - [606] Originally by: Roshan longshot Originally by: Doris Dents CCP once you've driven away all the people that were actually attracted to the cold, harsh universe and made your game a success in the first place then I hope you can get your act together and put out a well polished game. Because high churn WoW kids game hopping while they wait for the next expansion won't put up with 10 minute module lag or an interface that looks like it was programmed by interns. The problem with this statement....PVE servers have ALWAYS outnumbered the PvP servers in any-game. Eve-online is a busseness...in order for it to grow, they need more players to start playing the game. I really dont think CCP will sufer much if the hardcore PvP players all left. Makeing Empire "safer" is a good deal for CCP. I know they did'nt read all the threads about griefing word by word letter by letter to decide to do this. 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. That may be true (it could well be true) but that doesn't mean we have to like it or aquiesce quietly. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:31:00 - [607] Originally by: Roshan longshot The problem with this statement....PVE servers have ALWAYS outnumbered the PvP servers in any-game. Eve-online is a busseness...in order for it to grow, they need more players to start playing the game. I really dont think CCP will sufer much if the hardcore PvP players all left. Makeing Empire "safer" is a good deal for CCP. I know they did'nt read all the threads about griefing word by word letter by letter to decide to do this. 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. Well, the problem with this statement is that Eve isn't designed like all those other games. Eve requires the PvP playstyle in order to function as a game. So, if CCP should find it in their best interest to drive us out of the game, they would have to redesign the entire game. If they do that I can promise you that the game won't survive longer than 6 months. You carebear types are so fickle in your taste, and there are so many other PvE games on the market - most of which are better at PvE than Eve - that you would leave very quickly.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:39:00 - [608] Directed towards specifically towards Greyscale... First off, nice to see some dev interaction again, its been too long. However, with regards to a wardec system that "offered no additional avenues for griefers in hisec space", I have reservations. First off, this game is the ultimate sandbox, who are you to determine whether or not a war against another corp has a valid purpose, or is griefing? I'm not trying to be an ass here, but it is a valid question. A group of vets might declare on a mining corp, and on the surface appear to just be looking for cheap ganks... but what if that mining corp is taking their minerals and selling them to a real enemy of theirs at discounted rates? Collaborating with the enemy warrants interference, many people would argue... or, what about a group of players declaring on a bunch of mission runners? Again, on the surface griefing, but by denying the ability of a group to make money in space, you give your own mission running alts more economic leverage, as it will drive up the prices of the products they can get (like CNRs and faction items) via supply and demand. Furthermore, why should this be an issue? With the new CONCORD response system to discourage suicide ganking, people in highsec are already the safest they've been in a long while (if ever), and all that's left to worry about is wardecs. Attempting to constrain these will only serve to make highsec even safer - how does this mesh with risk vs. reward? It doesn't, someone running highsec L4 missions receives a substantial amount of cash in the face of negligible danger, even while in a player corp - if wardeced, dock up or take a break from the game. Even worse still is that there is a significant portion of the highsec population that is nigh-invulnerable, those people still in NPC newb corps after years of playing the game, able to run missions or trade with no threat of consequences, while affecting the economy in potentially severe ways (see macro miners or farmers). This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I realize the devs have a vested interest in trying to prevent griefing, as the nature of your playerbase has changed with time, but it goes against the sandbox nature the game has thrived on. Time and time again, threads pop up with newbies asking for help against people randomly decing their new and small player corp, and the vets give them advice - fly cheap ships, swarm their expensive ships and try to take them out (and win on ISK), get friends to assist you, et cetera. Hell, a similar situation happened to me three years ago, and it actually drove me into PvP after I saw how much fun could be had... The TLDR point I'm trying to make? Wardecs are fine, if you want them to be less about griefing and more about combat bump up the fees a bit, rather than revamping the system to be even more protective of a section of players that are the safest they've ever been. Football? Hell yes.
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:40:00 - [609] give us days where concord goes on strike tia Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:45:00 - [610] Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Roshan longshot The problem with this statement....PVE servers have ALWAYS outnumbered the PvP servers in any-game. Eve-online is a busseness...in order for it to grow, they need more players to start playing the game. I really dont think CCP will sufer much if the hardcore PvP players all left. Makeing Empire "safer" is a good deal for CCP. I know they did'nt read all the threads about griefing word by word letter by letter to decide to do this. 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. Well, the problem with this statement is that Eve isn't designed like all those other games. Eve requires the PvP playstyle in order to function as a game. So, if CCP should find it in their best interest to drive us out of the game, they would have to redesign the entire game. If they do that I can promise you that the game won't survive longer than 6 months. You carebear types are so fickle in your taste, and there are so many other PvE games on the market - most of which are better at PvE than Eve - that you would leave very quickly. This comming from a guy with 'Manufacture and salvage' in his corp title? I am not a "carebear" But I dislike gate camping...and I pay too much money in order to play this game...to sit on a gate for hours on end...This being the only good space game on the market, makes it what it is...PvE is ok, as long as there is a challange for me. PvP is ok, as long as long periods of boardom are kept at bay. The sad part is...in one to four years, most of the pvpers will get out of university, and get a real life, and a new group of PvP whinners will take their place.... Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.06 18:38:00 - [611] 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.
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.09.06 18:50:00 - [612] Originally by: Roshan longshot This comming from a guy with 'Manufacture and salvage' in his corp title? What's wrong with my corp name? What the hell kind of a name is Ordos Humanitas anyway? My corp name hints at what this character normally does. "Order of Man" or however you translate yours doesn't really say anything at all. Originally by: Roshan longshot I am not a "carebear" But I dislike gate camping...and I pay too much money in order to play this game...to sit on a gate for hours on end...This being the only good space game on the market, makes it what it is...PvE is ok, as long as there is a challange for me. PvP is ok, as long as long periods of boardom are kept at bay. I don't particularly fancy gate camping either. It's boring as hell, but given how this game has been simplified over the years, it's one of the few places left to get any kills. Originally by: Roshan longshot The sad part is...in one to four years, most of the pvpers will get out of university, and get a real life, and a new group of PvP whinners will take their place.... See, this is why you are a carebear. You feel so intimidated by the "evil griefers" that you have to come out with ad hominem attacks like this. From your post, it is more likely that it is you who are in school (not necessarily university, your post hinted more at high school) and have yet to get a "real life".
Doris Dents	Posted - 2008.09.06 22:27:00 - [613] Originally by: Roshan longshot Originally by: Doris Dents CCP once you've driven away all the people that were actually attracted to the cold, harsh universe and made your game a success in the first place then I hope you can get your act together and put out a well polished game. Because high churn WoW kids game hopping while they wait for the next expansion won't put up with 10 minute module lag or an interface that looks like it was programmed by interns. The problem with this statement....PVE servers have ALWAYS outnumbered the PvP servers in any-game. Eve-online is a busseness...in order for it to grow, they need more players to start playing the game. I really dont think CCP will sufer much if the hardcore PvP players all left. Makeing Empire "safer" is a good deal for CCP. I know they did'nt read all the threads about griefing word by word letter by letter to decide to do this. 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. Number of hardcore PVP MMOs worth the bandwidth: 1 Number of PVE or low-to-none death penalty PVP MMOs: Damned if I know, lots and growing all the time Eve is doing very well for itself in it's little niche but if CCP reckons they can compete with the likes of WoW and the watered down but well polished PVP of WAR then I think they're dreaming. The game is old, laggy, difficult to understand and the PVE content is highly repetitive. But they've got an extremely loyal player base, many of whom sub for years, because it's the best hardcore PVP game around. Even when I was a total carebear and had never shot a gun in anger the "dog eat dog" atmosphere was attractive to me, sure I'm not alone in that. And thanks but I won't cancel just yet, but I reserve the right to whine like hell when we get devs talking about "pay to grief" like they were beamed in from an alternate Eve universe.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.06 23:04:00 - [614] Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 06/09/2008 23:04:26 remove hi sec. I think op has certain point though. Why have hi sec at first place... Everyone would do just fine without it.
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit	Posted - 2008.09.07 02:36:00 - [615] I think there should be alternatives to suicide ganking that will satisfy both parties. I don't think CONCORD should be invulnerable either but should be capable of being combated too. Instead of reducing the options they should be increased. For example make CONCORD capable of atopping suicide attacks but not appearing suddenly. Make CONCORD capable of repairing a victims ship and/or dampening enemy vessels to take away their target locks. If the suicide vessels can destroy the CONCORD ships they might be able to destroy the industrial ship. CONCORD should not be invulnerable. You wouldn't have suicide attacks anymore because there would be a chance to destroy combat vessels. You could extend killrights to not just include the individual, but to their corporation and alliance. Keep the insurance penaty for the attacking ships in high sec too. I also believe there should be a proper system for economic warfare in EVE, that doesn't rely on the shooting and blasting combat but allows you to drain an individuals or corporations isk resource and maybe create a prelude to war. It should always be easier to destroy than create in combat.
Vikarion Caldari BLACK 0RIGIN Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.07 03:13:00 - [616] Edited by: Vikarion on 07/09/2008 03:14:21 I think the best way to deal with it all is to simply make hi-sec resources limited. That solves a lot of problems. The real question is, HOW limited? -------- EVE - The only non-consensual PvP MMORPG* *Note: does not contain non-consensual PvP as of 9/3/2008
DiamondEdges Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.07 03:41:00 - [617] you got to be kidding me... why do you play this game? just to make isk and do nothing but hide in high sec? thats the impression you give with this post. Ya wanna make it gank proof, sure ok, thats a legit complaint, 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.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.07 13:46:00 - [618] 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
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:29:00 - [619] Edited by: Malcanis on 07/09/2008 14:33:54 Originally by: Le Skunk 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 And he got his answer: Greyscale said in so many words that CCP want to preserve the illusion of danger in hi-sec, whilst removing the reality (a.k.a. "greifing") So hi-sec mission runners can kid themselves that they're L33t playaz whilst never actually facing any risk whatsover apart from perhaps making an EFT mistake and losing a ship to mission rats. And of course by preserving the illusion of danger while removing the reality, the illusion of risk/reward balance can be maintained while removing the reality. Neat. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:34:00 - [620] if they ever ever did safe zones it should only be restricted to the player start star systems. that said we need a better system at dealing with pirates, currently if you hunt them as far as concord is concerned(unless you do it in 0.0) you are one as well. it would be pretty nifty if you could get some kinda Pirate Hunting Permit(would need to have a pretty high sec rating and pay some ISK)that would allow you to freely hunt and eliminate those below a certain sec rating. i think the term is Rights of Marqe(sp)? or something like that.

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:37:00 - [621] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker if they ever ever did safe zones it should only be restricted to the player start star systems. that said we need a better system at dealing with pirates, currently if you hunt them as far as concord is concerned(unless you do it in 0.0) you are one as well. it would be pretty nifty if you could get some kinda Pirate Hunting Permit(would need to have a pretty high sec rating and pay some ISK)that would allow you to freely hunt and eliminate those below a certain sec rating. i think the term is Rights of Marqe(sp)? or something like that. Heh. A Letter Of Marque is the exact opposite of what you're thinking of. It's basically state-authorised piracy. And yeah if instead of slapping increasingly ridiculous restrictions on who can touch who's doll where, we had a decent reform of the bounty system (many, many ideas have been proposed), then, well... eh, what the hell. The hay is in the barn. It's a done deal: hi-sec is not for all intents and purposes, a safe-zone. Deal with it and get over it CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:43:00 - [622] 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.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.07 14:50:00 - [623] 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. ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:01:00 - [624] 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. Personally, CONCORD needs more forms of punishment. I want to see the level of punishment subjective to the level of the crime. Pod killer? Yep, they send you to the cloning bays. Also, it's not really punishment unless you take something the player values. To really punish a player, you have to either take away isk (as being done with insurance changes) and/or time. So, imagine if CONCORD warped in and put up a real stasis field on your ship. I mean, no moving around, no activating modules, nothing. 'Prison', so to speak. Nobody can attack you, mind it, without getting a CONCORD response of their own (even with kill rights). However, this ten minutes to an hour long imprisonment is metted out for the level of criminal you are, as well as the type of crime you committed. If you log out, your timer freezes and resumes when you log back in. And you can't log out and log in another character on that account until a prison sentence is served. And yes, if you are scheduled to be killed for heinous acts, you can be put under a stasis field first, and killed AFTER. There also needs to be criminal records, permanent and kept per empire. A player who performs lots of crimes will have a track record, and those with positive standings can bribe DED for the report (and tag these individuals for their alliance/corp). Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:04:00 - [625] To go along with this, if players think it's unfair to extend limit a prison sentence to play-time only, then make the sentence far longer, upwards of a week for extreme repeat offenders. Sure, you can log out and log in another character. 'Sorry guys, but my other account has three more days to serve for a pod kill I did in Jita.' Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
TimMc Gallente SolaR KillerS	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:05:00 - [626] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Never ever ever put an end to the resistance against safezones in Eve. Ever. Don't give in on this, people. This. Lack of absolutes makes Eve unique.
Mr Crowley Minmatar Eve Liberation Force Liberty.	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:18:00 - [627] Ive said it before and I will say it agian. We do not need more high security. We need no security. Remove all pvp restrictions and leave security status of systems simply for a indication of NPC strength. Alliances are strong, Corps are strong and in 0.0 a new player can do fine if involved in a corp, only problem is they cant rat/mine cause NPC strength. This will make the region markets more defined and make pvp more focused on trade and industry then OMG there is a smaller ship then mine lemme wtfblast it to nothing. No discussion of moderation in signatures please - email us if you have any questions - Jacques([email protected])
Mr Crowley Minmatar Eve Liberation Force Liberty.	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:20:00 - [628] Ive said it before and I will say it agian. We do not need more high security. We need no security. Remove all pvp restrictions and leave security status of systems simply for a indication of NPC strength. Alliances are strong, Corps are strong and in 0.0 a new player can do fine if involved in a corp, only problem is they cant rat/mine cause NPC strength. This will make the region markets more defined and make pvp more focused on trade and industry then OMG there is a smaller ship then mine lemme wtfblast it to nothing. No discussion of moderation in signatures please - email us if you have any questions - Jacques([email protected])
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:31:00 - [629] Originally by: Mr Crowley Ive said it before and I will say it agian. We do not need more high security. We need no security. Remove all pvp restrictions and leave security status of systems simply for a indication of NPC strength. Alliances are strong, Corps are strong and in 0.0 a new player can do fine if involved in a corp, only problem is they cant rat/mine cause NPC strength. This will make the region markets more defined and make pvp more focused on trade and industry then OMG there is a smaller ship then mine lemme wtfblast it to nothing. Counterstrike is that way.... Counterstrike Source because that is what you are asking for. 100% war, in a game where losses count, is not sustainable. ------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Wrangler Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.09.07 16:36:00 - [630] 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

Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.07 18:32:00 - [631] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 It also ignores the amusing little fact that she is - despite being repeatedly told - too thick-headed to understand the simple fact that I have never suicide ganked on this or any other character. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Steve Hawkings	Posted - 2008.09.07 19:28:00 - [632] Quote: 1. Main argument Against Suiciding - People don't see why people harass and attack the highsec dwellers in the first place, lowsec and nullsec is the place for pvp, leave them alone. - Well there you go, doesn't that solve all your problems? Stopped reading here, OP is clueless where EVE is concerned.
Vabjekf	Posted - 2008.09.07 19:57:00 - [633] Guys! Guys.. guys. Lets be reasonable here. There is nothing wrong with killing someone for revenge, for hatred, or because you are 'in the mood' and want to procure some warm biomass for a little bit of alone time... But the minute you do it for profit? Well that's just too far! You evil godless soulless abominations! Who do you think you are?! I remind you, gentlemen, that while random acts of violence are perfectly reasonably logical. If you high sec suicide gank long enough eventually the man is going to crack down. After all, taxes! The empires in high sec get their money from trade. If trade is disrupted... They clearly have interest. If the game was being realistic they would be much more heavily guarded as a result of these 'tactics' and eventually people would become fed up with it, and hire other people not only to pod you, but also to take out all your clones simultaniously. And thats it man, character deleted, game over. Thats realistic. Clearly there are limitations to the system preventing that high level of realism. And therefore, to compensate for the lacking mechanisms of equilibrium, other measures must be taken. If an act has no counter when it should, remove the act! This is why i propose a removal of the warp gate system, just as soon as they get that technology that lets multiple nodes run the same sector up and running, then clearly we could just use all the nodes to run one massive sector! This will let us make all space low sec and remove all choke points. My plan is perfect, the only people who would disagree are stupid and therefore lack capacity to fully understand what i have said here (hence their disagreement). In conclusion, buff amarr.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.07 20:03:00 - [634] did you get banned again ki? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.07 20:25:00 - [635] Originally by: Vabjekf In conclusion, buff amarr. HEAR HEAR!!! Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
randomalt 1236	Posted - 2008.09.07 20:58:00 - [636] wtb: nano-nos/damp abaddon from 2004
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.07 21:00:00 - [637] Originally by: randomalt 1236 wtb: nano-nos/damp abaddon from 2004 An Abaddon from '04, hmm? That would be an interesting sight ... Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
randomalt 1237	Posted - 2008.09.07 21:06:00 - [638] wait, were there Tier3 BSs in 04?
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.09.07 21:09:00 - [639] Originally by: randomalt 1237 wait, were there Tier3 BSs in 04? No, there weren't. Nor where there tier3 BC's, either. Fact is, I think T1 bc's came out in '04, or early '05. Originally by: CCP Greyscale consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
The Slagh	Posted - 2008.11.09 23:22:00 - [640] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Carebear buffs No. I like this game because of the current system. Remove it and many people will leave.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one 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.

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