open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Before you whine, read this:
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:52:00 - [271]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 09:52:48
Originally by: Malcanis

I presume that you're also in favour of heavily nerfing NPC corps in some way to make up for the huge advantage that this would give them over player corps? (NPC corps can't be war-dec'd; player corps can)

What adjustment to NPC corp membership would you make to balance this advantage out?

The simplest method I can think of would be to automatically remove players from NPC corps after they finish the trial and create an individual, war-deccable "MeCorp™" for them (With all Mecorps sharing the same corp channel). But perhaps you have a better idea?


I could say that both things NOT AT ALL compensate each other, or that the existance of both "problems" does nothing to solve either of them.

NPC corp-players can't be war-decced. . They can't war-dec either. Whoever wants to war-dec can join one of the myriads of corps that play that game. Such players are not protected, or avenged, by operatives in the same corp, and they cannot own space.

I'd say that belonging to NPC corps brings more disadvantages than advantages. If there was balance to be brought, I doubt it should be in the lines of further nerfing NPC corps.

I'm not sure about this, and I don't give a damn. If you want to nerf, eliminate or castrate NPC corps, I'm all for it. Want to remove players from NPC corps as they finish the Tutorial? Fine. Is that really important in the High security ganking we're discussing?

NPC corps and people ganking for a profit (or at least for free) have absolutely nothing to do. Completely different discussions. And be it NPC corps or player corps, there are Hulks being ganked for free and for fun out there (guess so, as I never saw a Hulked attacked myself).

What advantage does being in a NPC corp bring you, apart from being safe from war declarations and exactly as vulnerable as the rest of the players towards being ganked by a pirate that recovers all his stuff back from other NPCs?


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:54:00 - [272]
 

Darius, don't tell lies about the post you're actually replying to. it makes you look silly. Did I say that it's not an issue at all?

No, I said "I don't recall you ever actually supplying the evidence that I asked for that suicide ganking was currently a big enough problem to require fixing."


Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:00:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: Pohbis on 31/03/2008 10:15:12
Originally by: Overwhelmed
Originally by: Darius Brinn

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.



So instead of making 200 million ISK off of some sucker, they'll make 150 million.

You hear it here folks, all suicide ganking would cease with this simple solution!

Don't quit your day job.

No, it wouldn't stop suicide ganking. It would however raise the potential value a suicide target has to bring to the table.

It also deals with the fact you aren't even "safe" in the bigger heavier ships that were designed to counter these kind of attacks, since suicide gankers can just bring more ships, at virtually no cost at the moment.


Suicide ganking ships with stupendios amounts of value in their cargoholds isn't the problem.

Suicide ganking a competitors freighter in order to remove competition, isn't a problem.

Suicide ganking enemey logistics in hi-sec when their guard is down isn't the problem.


The problem is that the potential loss for being a suicde ganker is so low that pretty much everyone is a profitable target. It turns suicide ganking into a profession, rather than being a well thoughtout strategic blow against a player/corp/alliance. A blow they are willing to pay ISK for delivering.

90% of the time suicide ganking should cost the attacker ISK, not turn a profit, in return for whatever the gankers were looking to achieve. Pretty much a form of economic warfare were you trade ISK for kills.

At the moment, suicide ganking is the most out of whack mechanic in regards to risk vs. reward.

Suicide ganking is the mechanic that sets the bar for how much ISK you can "safely" manage in form of goods in hi-sec, and that bar is too low, or rather it hasn't really been raised to reflect how EVE has matured. In fact, the total cost of ownership for ships is decreasing, lowering the bar as each day goes by.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:04:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn


What advantage does being in a NPC corp bring you, apart from being safe from war declarations and exactly as vulnerable as the rest of the players towards being ganked by a pirate that recovers all his stuff back from other NPCs?




Being effectively invulnerable in hi-sec is a pretty big advantage. As suicide ganking is the ONLY way that people in NPC corps can be attacked in hi-sec, an economic nerf to ganking is a boost to NPC corps. Remember that suicide ganking is supposed to be "the biggest danger in hi-sec".

You can't have it both ways - if removing insurance will make so little difference to ganking as you claim, why are you arguing so passionately for a solution you admit that won't work to solve a problem you admit that doesn't really require solving to nerf a playstyle you admit is legitimate?

And if being safe from war decs is no great advantage, that says that war-decs are no great danger. Therefore some other source of risk is required, if only to balance out empire and lo-sec/0.0

Indeed, the balance between 0.0 and empire is already very hotly debated without giving hi-sec in general such a big boost. The oft-quoted 75% figure, taken at face value as so many anti-ganking proponents claim to, would seem to indicate that hi-sec needs to be rebalanced in favour of 0.0 (or 0.0 rebalanced if you prefer).

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:27:00 - [275]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 10:31:19
Originally by: Malcanis
Darius, don't tell lies about the post you're actually replying to. it makes you look silly. Did I say that it's not an issue at all?

No, I said "I don't recall you ever actually supplying the evidence that I asked for that suicide ganking was currently a big enough problem to require fixing."




Malcanis, it's not my intention to lie, and I think I didn't actually do such a thing. Didn't say you do, either. But you implied that I suggested it was a really pressing issue happening to many people. I then addressed you to my previous posts, in which I explain that are not, at all, my views. You can check it yourself, or I can quote myself if you so desire.

You ask for evidences that I do not have to provide, as I agreed (multiple times) with the fact that it's not a big problem in itself. Again, in that, we agree.

We don't agree, however, in the "big enough to require fixing" thingy. If people are being ****ed off by seemingly unfair policies, it's always worth mentioning. Be it 100 people or 10.000.

You are apparently trying to dismiss the discussion on the basis that "it's just occasional episodes, not a plague", and I am trying to keep it alive despite agreeing with you on the fact that it's not a a recurring phenomenon everywhere.

You didn't say it was not an issue at all. I didn't say it was a generalized issue at all. Both meet in the middle: it IS happening, but it's not game-breaking.

It does not make the topic less valid, or the proposed changes in the insurancing policy less valid, in my opinion.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 10:41:00 - [276]
 

"You ask for evidences that I do not have to provide, as I agreed (multiple times) with the fact that it's not a big problem in itself. Again, in that, we agree.

We don't agree, however, in the "big enough to require fixing" thingy. If people are being ****ed off by seemingly unfair policies, it's always worth mentioning. Be it 100 people or 10.000."

So in short: because there's forum noise, there's a problem that needs fixing. Well if we're going by that metric, it looks like at least as many people will be ****ed off by a change as are by the status quo.

Making sweeping changes to the game rules to answer a few forum whines, with no supporting evidence that there's even a problem large enough to need fixing... I dunno, if you can't see why that's a bad idea, we don't really have enough common ground to discuss.

Sheesh, you know it's not as if there aren't a lot - a LOT - of other things for CCP to sort out without them spending the time to investigate this (and there would be economic repercussions, as I'm sure you can see) and implement it. Fine, if you want it on the "fix list" we can put it just above amending the description of Crystal implants to make it clear they don't work with Capital reps. If you want it to be a higher priority than that, you need to explain why this should be.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 11:00:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

Being effectively invulnerable in hi-sec is a pretty big advantage. As suicide ganking is the ONLY way that people in NPC corps can be attacked in hi-sec, an economic nerf to ganking is a boost to NPC corps. Remember that suicide ganking is supposed to be "the biggest danger in hi-sec".


Not being war-decced is an advantage. One, among the ocean of advantages player corps have. Socially and economically. NPC corps are amalgamated groups of newbies and solo pilots who own no space, no exclusive access to any belts, or cooperative manufacturing, or researching. It's generally agreed that, in order to get anything done, it's necessary to join a player corp, isn't it?

NPC corps have many disadvantages. And what's more, their members do not and cannot pose any threat to player corporations. Being immune is compensated by being largely harmless. It's an inocuous playstyle.

Being a High sec ganker being compensated for all you put at stake is compensated by WHAT, exactly?

Originally by: Malcanis
You can't have it both ways - if removing insurance will make so little difference to ganking as you claim, why are you arguing so passionately for a solution you admit that won't work to solve a problem you admit that doesn't really require solving to nerf a playstyle you admit is legitimate?)


It is a playstyle I judge legitimate. The execution of such actions doesn't happen fairly, in my opinion. Haulers should try to balance things out: what they should carry in one trip, what systems to go through, etc. Pirates should try to balance if it's going to be worth it.

Whoever wants to gank should obtain all benefit from his potential prey. The way it's designed now, ALL industrials are worth a go. You're not losing anything, after all. NPCs compensate the gankers. When they wait, research, and prepare themselves, they multiply their profit. LOSSES aren't even being contemplated, and this is conceptually wrong.

That's the only reason I am so adamant. Eliminating insurance for Concord'ed ships won't make the game more carebear-friendly. Juicy, profitable targets will keep being profitable (and ganked)targets. Ganking for fun will continue. But it will STOP free ganking.

Nothing is free, in EVE, except for fitting a T1 blasterboat and blowing a random Itty hoping for the big prize and have a laugh over local or corp channel.

Originally by: Malcanis
And if being safe from war decs is no great advantage, that says that war-decs are no great danger. Therefore some other source of risk is required, if only to balance out empire and lo-sec/0.0)


You seem to look for a balance between Empire and "unsafe" areas. This is wrong. We are discussing a situation that while potentially profitable and certainly fun, it contains NO potential loss whatsoever for the ganker. Our proposals will not end this behaviour, or alter anybody's playstyle at all. But it will help people think that pirates are not the favourite pretty princesses of the developers.

It will help many people understand that, when they're ganked, it might have been because they were carrying a fortune in a ship not designed for safety transport.

I agree with you. And with Avon, and the others. Ganking exists. Whoever gets ganked was unlucky, or most probably unconscious and ignorant of the risks. But gankers face a win-win situation, and are the only ones.

Originally by: Malcanis
Indeed, the balance between 0.0 and empire is already very hotly debated without giving hi-sec in general such a big boost....


Oh, I think you're wrong. If 25% of the total area comprises 75% of the paying playerbase, there's something worth checking there. You all cry "IT'S A PVP GAME!", while 75% of the population disagrees and operates in PvP-restricted area. I am with you there: PvP all the way. But REAL PvP. Not sissies with losses being covered completely.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 11:27:00 - [278]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 11:29:09
Originally by: Malcanis


So in short: because there's forum noise, there's a problem that needs fixing. Well if we're going by that metric, it looks like at least as many people will be ****ed off by a change as are by the status quo.


Not a chance. There's forum noise. People look at it. People see a change would not be out of place. They argue about it here, the right place. What is fair is fair, independently of the number of people crying about it.

Are the changes fair? I believe they are. Will they take place? I couldn't care less. But it doesn't stop me from talking about them, and analyze them to an extent.

For every whine, there's a counter-whine, even more virulent.

Originally by: Malcanis
Making sweeping changes to the game rules to answer a few forum whines, with no supporting evidence that there's even a problem large enough to need fixing... I dunno, if you can't see why that's a bad idea, we don't really have enough common ground to discuss.


We do have it, I think. Some people are being screwed by this. Some people say so in the forums, other suffer them alone in silence (like haemorrhoids). But it's happening.

A little phenomenon that can be tweaked by a little change. A change that will not stop the ganking, or benefit the ganked, but make EVE more hardcore, planning-demanding and fair. All advantages to the comunity. Plus ganked people will stop the whining, as everything the pirate obtains comes from his unsuspecting cargohold that shouldn't be full of the stuff in the first place.

What's not to love about this changes, Malcanis? It will stop a large portion of the whines, it will not cripple gankers at all, it will not protect haulers. EVE becomes colder and harder, just as you like it. And the forums become cleaner.

Originally by: Malcanis
Sheesh, you know it's not as if there aren't a lot - a LOT - of other things for CCP to sort out without them spending the time to investigate this (and there would be economic repercussions, as I'm sure you can see) and implement it. Fine, if you want it on the "fix list" we can put it just above amending the description of Crystal implants to make it clear they don't work with Capital reps. If you want it to be a higher priority than that, you need to explain why this should be.


Again, I agree. There are other things in the top list. MANY more things, actually. But it still CAN be checked and discussed. It is not, as you and I have stated, the most pressing matter out there. But it MIGHT be nice. One day.

And it's you the one that frontally opposed the changes arguing several things. Now the idea is "it's happening to a few people, not worth reviewing it even if it's inherently unfair". Or maybe "the game has other things that need correcting before investing effort into this one"? Which one, Malcanis?

I don't want it to be in "any" particular place on the to do list. But you have been denying it its very right to a place on the list.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 12:09:00 - [279]
 

"What's not to love about this changes, Malcanis? It will stop a large portion of the whines"

Wow, you really haven't been playing EvE for very long, have you?

Look the people behind the forum noise, the ones who are really pushing this have one agenda, and they're not very secretive about it either:

Removal of non-consensual PvP from hi-sec

OK, let's say this change goes through. What happens?

Well shooting noobships for fun becomes a much less attractive proposition, for sure. We'll say that gets reduced a lot. Cool.

Shooting ships with expensive mods and/or cargo is less attractive as well. Instead of 3-4 billion in cargo, a freighter needs 6-7 billion in cargo to be worth ganking. A lot less freighters are gonna get ganked - as long as you fly around with 5.5B or less, you're effectively invulnerable. Standard faction-fit mission BS become unviable targets; it's really only worth it for officer fits, and they'd better be good officer fits, not just a 750M Power Diag or something. Estamel or GTFO. Hmm, maybe this in't so cool.

Moops who fly BPOs and stuff around in untanked AFK shuttles still get ganked because you can't help people like that unless you remove weapons from the game.

But anyway, suicide ganking falls by the wayside in a good cause because after all telling people how to play is bad (unless you don't like how they play, then it's good). But sooner or later (and I'll be it will be sooner).

Quite a lot of traders and miners are unhappy, because the profits in such professions will fall. A lot. The unhappy ones are the ones who play alertly and fly sensibly. There is now little advantage to doing such things unless you're in an exceptionally fitted mission ship or freighting an outstandingly valuable cargo. The ones in player corps are really unhappy, because the suicide gankers now form disposable player corps who wardec everything in sight: wardecs increase. Haulers and miners desert to the NPC corps in droves, and forming a player corp in hi-sec becomes far more dangerous. Macro/sweatship mining in hi-sec will become an epidemic, even more so than now, as NPC corp iskfarmers are effectively invulnerable: players have no economic means of recourse against them. This will of course depress ore prices still further: hi-sec mining will become an extremely marginal profession, and players who want to make a profession out of mining will find it very hard to get started, and will have no realistic means of recourse against the NPC corp bots who termite through the belts.

Given this highly predictable turn of events, are you seriously trying to tell me that there will be fewer complaints on the forums?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 12:15:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 31/03/2008 12:20:26
(cont)

So now with it being so very unattractive to be in a hi-sec mining corp, what change will be demanded next?

Ending or castrating war-decs. Let's make war-decs start at a billion a week. As we all know. there are more miners than mercs, so isn't this a case of the greatest good for the greatest number? Isn't it wrong to make people play in a way they don't want to? And anyway those mercs can go play in 0.0 if they want PvP, right?

After all, the proponents can now point to an official CCP rule discriminating against non-consensual PvP in hi-sec. And really isn't it unfair that the poor player corps are so disadvantaged and vulnerable? Won't somebody please think of the poor noobs?

And they'll know that whining on the forums will get them the result that they want. So why not pull the same trick again...

Being a moop who flys an untanked shuttle with 10 battleship BPOs is a playstyle. Jeez, not everyone can watch the screen all the time: they have kids/wives/jobs/lives/pets to pay attention to? Isn't it about time we fixed this glaring exploit? Gankers should not only get no insurance, they should be fined the value of the cargo they stole. Or instantly and permanently expelled from hi-sec. Or given 30-day bans (all suggestions I have seen made on the forum, btw). My prediction is the fine - after all, isn't it ridiculous for pirating to make a profit? Everyone knows that's not what piracy was ever about.

Once war-decs are nerfed, and ganking is finally eliminated, what risk will be left in hi sec?


Next stop for the whine-train: lo-sec.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:17:00 - [281]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 14:20:29
Originally by: Malcanis

Wow, you really haven't been playing EvE for very long, have you?
Look the people behind the forum noise, the ones who are really pushing this have one agenda, and they're not very secretive about it either:
Removal of non-consensual PvP from hi-sec
OK, let's say this change goes through. What happens?
Well shooting noobships for fun becomes a much less attractive proposition, for sure. We'll say that gets reduced a lot. Cool.


I don't hear a cry of such a removal, Malcanis. I hear a cry against the universal consideration of PvP as pew pew. Industrials, traders, miners...none can use their SP to defend themselves. Trading is often labelled as PvP, while in fact it´s anonymous. Alts, ratting back Sec hits and non personalized trade orders mean that pirates cannot be sorted or punished...except by their own sort.

You claim that removing NPC compensation would destroy the ganking effectively. Are you suggesting NPCs (insurance) are the only thing keeping such a thing alive?

Because I keep reading pirates about EVE, coldness, harshness, Pew pew, carebear and nonsensical remarks by combat pilots... only to learn that they keep at it by NPCs protecting their suicided ships? Malcanis, the mere idea of it sounds pathetic, and I refuse to believe it.

If removing insurances artificially eliminate certain gankings, the opposite is also true: CCP is artificially maintaning them by giving ship-blowers full compensation for crimes.

Originally by: Malcanis
Shooting ships with expensive mods and/or cargo is less attractive as well. Instead of 3-4 billion in cargo, a freighter needs 6-7 billion in cargo to be worth ganking. A lot less freighters are gonna get ganked - as long as you fly around with 5.5B or less, you're effectively invulnerable. Standard faction-fit mission BS become unviable targets; it's really only worth it for officer fits, and they'd better be good officer fits, not just a 750M Power Diag or something. Estamel or GTFO. Hmm, maybe this in't so cool.


Of course. We HAVE to make Freighters profitable to kill with a squad of T1 battleships. Right. Because all haulers have Freighters at their disposal. And your idea of "worth it/not worth it" is SUBJECTIVE. Not to mention you might not really need 6 billions in T1 battleships to gank a Freighter. Or do you? I've read a but about this, and 8 to 10 battleships can effectively destroy a Freighter before Concord hands them their asses in a silver plate. 10 battleships, T1 fitted, amount for 600 million each? I am only up to Battlecruiser class ships, but I don't think you need 6 billions to make a Freighter worthy, even if you don't get insurance money back.

[Quote=Malcanis]Moops who fly BPOs and stuff around in untanked AFK shuttles still get ganked because you can't help people like that unless you remove weapons from the game.


I don't want to help anybody. Not haulers, but not gankers.

Originally by: Malcanis
But anyway, suicide ganking falls by the wayside in a good cause because after all telling people how to play is bad


Nobody is telling people how to play. It's a simple fact: gankers use NPCs to avoid any losses. Then they come to the forums and talk about other players as if they were an inferior kind.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:21:00 - [282]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 31/03/2008 14:21:50
I keep forgetting to take in to account your relative inexperience when saying things that are obvious to someone with more.

Ah well never mind. Really, I know there's no convincing someone who simply refuses to be convinced. I'll just have to hope that CCP listen to people who think that presenting evidence is more important than some illusory concept of "fairness".

The sooner as you realise that EvE is completely fair right up until you finish the character creation dialogue, the more you will enjoy the game.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:42:00 - [283]
 

[quote = Malcanis]Quite a lot of traders and miners are unhappy, because the profits in such professions will fall. A lot. The unhappy ones are the ones who play alertly and fly sensibly. There is now little advantage to doing such things unless you're in an exceptionally fitted mission ship or freighting an outstandingly valuable cargo. The ones in player corps are really unhappy, because the suicide gankers now form disposable player corps who wardec everything in sight: wardecs increase. Haulers and miners desert to the NPC corps in droves, and forming a player corp in hi-sec becomes far more dangerous. Macro/sweatship mining in hi-sec will become an epidemic, even more so than now, as NPC corp iskfarmers are effectively invulnerable: players have no economic means of recourse against them. This will of course depress ore prices still further: hi-sec mining will become an extremely marginal profession, and players who want to make a profession out of mining will find it very hard to get started, and will have no realistic means of recourse against the NPC corp bots who termite through the belts.

Given this highly predictable turn of events, are you seriously trying to tell me that there will be fewer complaints on the forums?


Oh, they will. Your "predictions" require an extraordinarily amount of faith to swallow, Malcanis.

How exactly are traders and miners unhappy? Do you mean the "less ships destroyed, less ships sold" thing? I thought we had agreed that ganking is not really a problem to most users, who have never and will never suffer it.

"Disposable player corps" is a thing they could be doing now. You mean they don't, merely because insurance payouts APPEASE them? That sounds quite like CARING for ganked people. By the way, I am not familiar with war-deccing, but isn't a 24 hours timer in place? I mean, passing Freighters cannot precisely be decced and ganked on the spot, can they? Will gankers stay in the area and pray that the hauler dockes there for the night? Please correct me if I am wrong.

The line of thought between insurance being removed when Concord'ed and High sec mining dying out is thin, flimsy and utterly wrong, if you ask me. It's not as if gankers will not pew pew at all if deprived of free targets, for once. Or that people, in their crave for pew pew, develop more Red & Blue operations to quench their thirsts.

It's all a heap of quick conclusions, Malcanis. You cannot claim ganking is not relevant to the community, and then arguing that making it less "carebearing" will cripple EVE economy for good. Please be consequent.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:47:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 31/03/2008 14:21:50
I keep forgetting to take in to account your relative inexperience when saying things that are obvious to someone with more.

Ah well never mind. Really, I know there's no convincing someone who simply refuses to be convinced. I'll just have to hope that CCP listen to people who think that presenting evidence is more important than some illusory concept of "fairness".

The sooner as you realise that EvE is completely fair right up until you finish the character creation dialogue, the more you will enjoy the game.


Oh, so that's it. Final ace up the sleeve. It's fine as it is because it doesn't have to be fair. There is supposed to be an IMBALANCE, and my concept of losses exclusively on one plate of the scale is an illusory idea of fairness.

I bid you farewell, if you have desisted in trying to convince me. In case you don't mind, I'd rather ask you to keep replying, and I mean this without a trace of sarcasm, as I've picked up a few interesting concepts and ideas from your posts and will like to keep doing so.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:50:00 - [285]
 

This is what I mean about stuff that is obvious to me and not to you.

Traders and miners will be unhappy for exactly the reasons I stated: because anyone will be able to do it with very little risk.

We saw the same thing when CONCORD was buffed.


BTW re: fairness. Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:53:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

The sooner as you realise that EvE is completely fair right up until you finish the character creation dialogue, the more you will enjoy the game.


Oh, and forgot to address this sentence. I enjoy EVE. A lot, more every day it passes. And plan to keep doing it, whatever falls upon me. Everything starts in a newbie frig and everything can me remade from a newbie frig.

But, as in every other game out there, you have to juggle your professions and classes carefully. You have to achieve a kind of BALANCE, so that players themselves make the difference. As it should be. Devs do look onto this things, or so it seems judging by the last Amarr buff.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:55:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Malcanis

The sooner as you realise that EvE is completely fair right up until you finish the character creation dialogue, the more you will enjoy the game.


Oh, and forgot to address this sentence. I enjoy EVE. A lot, more every day it passes. And plan to keep doing it, whatever falls upon me. Everything starts in a newbie frig and everything can me remade from a newbie frig.

But, as in every other game out there, you have to juggle your professions and classes carefully. You have to achieve a kind of BALANCE, so that players themselves make the difference. As it should be. Devs do look onto this things, or so it seems judging by the last Amarr buff.


Which is why I made that post God knows how many pages back that the miner who chooses to put points into maximising his mining skills rather than investing in some nav/tanking skills should not complain that he's too easy to gank.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 14:59:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
This is what I mean about stuff that is obvious to me and not to you.

Traders and miners will be unhappy for exactly the reasons I stated: because anyone will be able to do it with very little risk.

We saw the same thing when CONCORD was buffed.


BTW re: fairness. Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.


But that's the thing, exactly. You said ganking is irrelevant as a whole. You said ganking is full of ganker-wanabees that don't know what they're doing. And then you say that by separating grain from chaff will automatically imply universal safety and bored miners/traders. It's a logic that doesn't stand its ground, Malcanis.

Does EVE PvP HAVE to be sustained artificially by allowing everybody to gank for free? I doubt it. Ganking is a dent in the Empire life, and a sand speck in the PvP whole of EVE (you said it affects so few people that it was not worth reviewing). Does EVE need free ganking in Empire to survive? Will insurance removal eliminate ganking? Does High security ganking keep the ship building and the mining industry alive?

Answer to all three questions seems to be NO.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 15:07:00 - [289]
 

*sigh*

A deterrent doesn't have to be universally applied to work.

A small number of ships being lost because most people know that they can be ganked does not mean that a large number of people will not change their ways when the prospect is removed. And then very quickly come to view the situation as right and proper - and then come to view what little danger remains as the new "CCP FIX THIS OR I QUIT".

In short, humans tend to greatly overvalue risks, by a factor of about 9:1 IIRC.

Sorry if my explainations are a bit terse atm. We're hoping for another freighter kill and I'm having to pay most of my attention to the other screen.

Pirating = fun YARRRR!!YARRRR!!YARRRR!!

Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
Posted - 2008.03.31 15:11:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 31/03/2008 14:21:50
I keep forgetting to take in to account your relative inexperience when saying things that are obvious to someone with more.

Ah well never mind. Really, I know there's no convincing someone who simply refuses to be convinced. I'll just have to hope that CCP listen to people who think that presenting evidence is more important than some illusory concept of "fairness".

The sooner as you realise that EvE is completely fair right up until you finish the character creation dialogue, the more you will enjoy the game.

Maybe if you back up your "experienced" claims with some facts other than your subjective opinion, people will listen.

When you claim that anything under 5.5b ISK value would be safe to fly, if there was no insurance, 'cause it wouldn't be profitable to suicide gank, I can only chuckle at whatever math you base that claim on, and then ask; Why do suicide ganks have to be profitable at all?

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 15:15:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


Which is why I made that post God knows how many pages back that the miner who chooses to put points into maximising his mining skills rather than investing in some nav/tanking skills should not complain that he's too easy to gank.


Easy to gank or hard to gank. Gankers still can try, fail and walk away laughing. You want it hard and unfair and cold and all that? Why not on gankers? You do seem to like it soft on gankers.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 15:24:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 15:29:22
Originally by: Malcanis
*sigh*

A deterrent doesn't have to be universally applied to work.

A small number of ships being lost because most people know that they can be ganked does not mean that a large number of people will not change their ways when the prospect is removed. And then very quickly come to view the situation as right and proper - and then come to view what little danger remains as the new "CCP FIX THIS OR I QUIT".

In short, humans tend to greatly overvalue risks, by a factor of about 9:1 IIRC.

Sorry if my explainations are a bit terse atm. We're hoping for another freighter kill and I'm having to pay most of my attention to the other screen.

Pirating = fun YARRRR!!YARRRR!!YARRRR!!


9:1?Don't pull up up statistics like that. I won't quote Homer Simpson on this, but you know the drill.

I can equally argue that people like to play their way, and unless THEIR way is altered, they carry on with their normal behaviours.

Can you see what's wrong with your arguments? Ganking is not relevant, but people overreact, so making gankers resort to ACTUAL SUCCESSFUL GANKING TO GET PROFITS will ruin Empire and EVE economy. You don't need 50 million SP to see that's essentially not right.

Miners want profit? They have to succeed at mining. Traders, haulers, mission runners, 0.0 pirates...all professions. High security gankers have it easy, have it brainless, have it pink and fluffy.

All your logic boils down to "piracy is fun". I, at least, speak impartially, not being involved in ganking or in being ganked. You might get a jacpot at that Freighter party you're attending, but whatever happens (and even if you fare terribly) you won't lose. Win-win.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.31 15:49:00 - [293]
 

Malcanis, there's no point in continuing debating with this guy. He doesn't even want to try to understand what you're talking about, and instead he's making up stuff you supposedly said. You usually know a troll when you see one Wink

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 16:00:00 - [294]
 

Edited by: Darius Brinn on 31/03/2008 16:00:41
Originally by: Ki An
Malcanis, there's no point in continuing debating with this guy. He doesn't even want to try to understand what you're talking about, and instead he's making up stuff you supposedly said. You usually know a troll when you see one Wink



I'm no troll, Ki an. Pohbis is no troll to me, either. Not the other ones that posted similar stuff. I'm not the only one.

When you don't like it, call "troll". Internet forum rule 1.

I believe I have tried to understand his (and your) points. Honestly. And he (and you) does have a point in many things, and he got thanked and appreciation for those, if you've been following this.

It's him that refuses to acknowledge the fact that he might be too much one-sided on this. But to each his own.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.31 16:15:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

I'm no troll, Ki an. Pohbis is no troll to me, either. Not the other ones that posted similar stuff. I'm not the only one.

When you don't like it, call "troll". Internet forum rule 1.

I believe I have tried to understand his (and your) points. Honestly. And he (and you) does have a point in many things, and he got thanked and appreciation for those, if you've been following this.

It's him that refuses to acknowledge the fact that he might be too much one-sided on this. But to each his own.


I'm not calling you a troll because you disagree with me or with Malcanis. I'm calling you a troll because you aren't discussing this. You are reiterating your own points again and again, and you either deliberately or ignorantly miss all the points Malcanis has made.

This is why both me and him have been talking about your lack of experience. That would explain why at least.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 16:21:00 - [296]
 

I don't think he's a troll. I think he just genuinely doesn't understand some of the concepts and balances.

Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2008.03.31 16:33:00 - [297]
 

Random thought on fixing noob-corpers who never join a player corp, ever:

After a character is at least two months old, the NPC execs of any NPC corp they happen to be part of (or join later) begin including them in the corporate money-making scheme. As such, their earnings start getting taxed at a rate of 35% just as if they were in a player corp with that tax rate. As many player corps have a lower tax rate, this would encourage them to leave the noob corp and get to the real meat of the game.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 16:41:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Wrayeth
Random thought on fixing noob-corpers who never join a player corp, ever:

After a character is at least two months old, the NPC execs of any NPC corp they happen to be part of (or join later) begin including them in the corporate money-making scheme. As such, their earnings start getting taxed at a rate of 35% just as if they were in a player corp with that tax rate. As many player corps have a lower tax rate, this would encourage them to leave the noob corp and get to the real meat of the game.


Pft. As if being immune to war decs isn't punishment enough.

hellraiser reborn
Posted - 2008.03.31 17:10:00 - [299]
 

OK lets try again. Have you ever had an insured ship lost.Insurance might give you enough to replace your ship and some of your mods,but not all. When you mine you mine for ore,when I mine I mine for what you have. Its how I make my profit if successfull,and I get my pvp in. Two things I was told when I was new. #1 If you cant afford to lose it dont fly it.#2 It's just a game. Meaning you have fun in your way and I have fun in mine.If our paths cross meh sorry about your luck.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.31 17:14:00 - [300]
 

The problem with the suicide ganking issue is that it is not taken in context, nor is the broader picture often observed - this is especially true of those who suggest the removal of insurance as a solution.

Imagine exactly the same attack as a suicide gank, but both sides are in player corporation, and war has been declared.
For a nominal fee the attackers are now immune from concord response, sec status hit, and would still be fully insured if they somehow managed to lose a ship (which would now be far more unlikely).
When you consider the penalites a suicide ganker receives compared with players at war, you realise they are far in excess of the small fee they could have paid if war was possible.

In order to push their point, those in favour of insurance removal *must* use it as a single issue, because viewing it as part of the whole measure of penalities weakens their position.
For example, what if CCP agreed to remove insurance for Concord kills, but also removes the security status reduction of the attacker?
Would that be a better balance? Afterall, people at war don't have to suffer that.
Of course that wouldn't be accepted, because the reduction in security status is, if anything, the biggest penalty to ganking - getting you ships killed by Concord is an inconvenience which can be compensated for from loot. However, the very fact that a ganker has to spend an amount of time "atoning" for his sins in order to maintain his security satus is a very real punishment.

I have in other threads put forward a proposal for altering the way NPC corps function so that war is possible but unfavorable for the casual ganker.
When a system like that is in place there is really no reason why suicide ganking could become more heavily penalised.
I have also suggest a method for players to purchase a high level of "one off" protection for their ships, through the use of ablative defences - similar to shield or armour extender, but with far more HP's, but impossible to repair in any way.

You see I am not, as some would portray me, a mindless griefer who thinks the current balance is appropriate.
However, I still do not believe the nerfing insurance is the correct way to tackle the situation, and nothing in this thread has convinced me otherwise.
The problem with focusing on this "solution" is that it really does just get in the way of a far better review of the entire mechanic.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only