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]

Author Topic

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:12:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Ki An

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.



I have told you how I genuinely (or naÔvely) find those "points" invalid. You just read how he considered the ganking a trivial matter (just like I do) and at the same time, removing it's NPC leniency towards it would break the game's economy. I don't repeat stuff and slogans more than you guys do.

In all these years, I've been made a fool of more than once through the net. Excess of assumption has lead me to incorrect conclusions and trust me on this, if I got it the way you seem to be getting it, I'd apologize and acknowledge my mistakes.

There are few things more beneficial to newbies than arguing with veterans. But I am simply trying to understand why bringing down insurance as I have been repeating can alter the balance in other fields, like wars. I'll read Avon's last post and follow.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:25:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: Avon

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.


However, war declarations are limited, and timed. Suicide ganking can carry out indefinitely as long as they rat a bit afterwards. Not to mention that players you are at war with are marked by the game system (flashing red?).

Originally by: Avon
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.


Concord is the fictional police force of EVE. It attacks "criminals". I agreed on the proposed insurance removal, but I fail to see why it has to be tied to less ratting time. If any, Sec hits for multiple offenders should be somehow permanent to an extent. If we removed insurance for Concordokken, why should we give them anything else in compensation? Compensation should be their loot. Exclusively.

[quote_Avon]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.


Not really, as ratting brings more ISK on the table. Not really atoning, as there is economical rewards too.

Originally by: Avon
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.


Never thought you were. I can see there might be mechanics that could be altered by said insurance removal, but you did not post any that I remember. You just posted that war-decced people have it worse, and war-deccing people have it easier than gankers. That does not, in any way, modify where the conversation was.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:27:00 - [303]
 

On more interesting matters, my ridiculously French looking avatar has just been updated to the forums, bringing me a greater deal of embarassment than of joy. Funny thing, as I haven't been in here for 3 months yet and people keeps ranting about 4 months with nothing more than an exclamation sign.

Maybe the number of active posts in the forum can speed things up?

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:28:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Avon on 31/03/2008 18:28:43
Originally by: Darius Brinn

Never thought you were. I can see there might be mechanics that could be altered by said insurance removal, but you did not post any that I remember. You just posted that war-decced people have it worse, and war-deccing people have it easier than gankers. That does not, in any way, modify where the conversation was.


Shocked

If you haven't read other posts and other threads on this topic, then I can understand your ignorance - but don't flaunt it like a virtue.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:33:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

I have told you how I genuinely (or naÔvely) find those "points" invalid. You just read how he considered the ganking a trivial matter (just like I do) and at the same time, removing it's NPC leniency towards it would break the game's economy. I don't repeat stuff and slogans more than you guys do.

In all these years, I've been made a fool of more than once through the net. Excess of assumption has lead me to incorrect conclusions and trust me on this, if I got it the way you seem to be getting it, I'd apologize and acknowledge my mistakes.

There are few things more beneficial to newbies than arguing with veterans. But I am simply trying to understand why bringing down insurance as I have been repeating can alter the balance in other fields, like wars. I'll read Avon's last post and follow.


Well, first let me just say that this 'discussion' is completely skewed. We have several people, including you, who believe it is up to those that disagree to disprove the need for a removal of insurance. In my view, the burden of proof lies on the accuser so to speak, and there hasn't been any such proof laid forth in this thread. Only assumptions and guesses.

Second, I have told you before and I'll tell you again, you are looking at this from only one point of view. Again, that is understandable because you're new, but it does tend to give your arguments less weight.

Now, to adress the issue. The removal of insurance from Concord related kills is not a matter of just popping in, change some codes and pray it works. Even if everything would work as intended (i.e. no bugs), there's still the question of accidental shootings. To be perfectly honest, except for the rantings and ravings of people on Eve-O, I have heard of a lot more cases of accidental concordokken than I've heard of suicide ganking, so, using forum logic, it's at least as big a 'problem' as the gankings.

I have yet to hear an objective presentation of the 'problem' the removal of insurance is supposed to 'solve'. There has to be a problem for there to be a solution. What I've heard is that insurance for Concord deaths is too unlike RL insurance. This would mean that insurance for Concord death would be against the storyline of Eve. This hasn't been proved, or even touched by posters. It is also highly subjective.

Another thing I've read is that people feel it is 'unfair' for the ganker to get insurance money. Why is it unfair? As far as I've been able to tell it is because people want to feel that they got back at the evil people that killed them. So, it's a matter of feeling frustrated because they can't get revenge if they aren't PvP specced. Again, I will touch on this later.

Now then, what would the removal of insurance actually solve? It wouldn't stop the gankings, as you have said yourself. The only thing that would happen is that the gankees would get to feel like the gankers actually lost something. This means that it's not a matter of balance, it's a matter of revenge. This is completely understandable and I will adress this further below. The removal of insurance would reduce the ability for people to deal with their own problems, as it is no longer economically feasable to suicide gank someone if he isn't loaded with loot or mods. It should be economically feasable to get vengeance on an NPC corper, or for a one man corp to get at a macro miner. Note that I say feasable and not necessarily profitable.

So far we have established that removal of insurance for Concord related deaths would discourage active PvP and player driven content. This is NOT the right way to go.

Cont...

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:36:00 - [306]
 

cont...

Instead of whining about people getting handouts from Concord, demand a way to actively pvp with your market skills. Come up with ideas of how to improve economic warfare, such as embargoes and strikes, and post these ideas, well formulated and thought through, in the ideas section of the forum. I would gladly support the introductions of new features into the game that focuses on market PvP. I will never support something that takes away from other kinds of pvp.

Instead of thinking about how to stop other people from doing what they are doing, think about what you would need to do something unto them. If you can't fight you should be able to fight with your wallet or the market. Spawn ideas instead of whining.


Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 18:46:00 - [307]
 

Originally by: Ki An
cont...

Instead of whining about people getting handouts from Concord, demand a way to actively pvp with your market skills. Come up with ideas of how to improve economic warfare, such as embargoes and strikes, and post these ideas, well formulated and thought through, in the ideas section of the forum. I would gladly support the introductions of new features into the game that focuses on market PvP. I will never support something that takes away from other kinds of pvp.

Instead of thinking about how to stop other people from doing what they are doing, think about what you would need to do something unto them. If you can't fight you should be able to fight with your wallet or the market. Spawn ideas instead of whining.



That's why people was doing. Such a possibility has also being introduced, and particular ideas have been written in this very thread. Unfortunately most of them crash against the "you're ganked, here and now" versus the "I won't sell my awesome T2 modules to any pirate...but oh wait, how can I sort them out from alts?" problem.

Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
Posted - 2008.03.31 19:53:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Ki An
I have yet to hear an objective presentation of the 'problem' the removal of insurance is supposed to 'solve'. There has to be a problem for there to be a solution.


Problem: Suicide ganks can be carried out with a minimal investment in fittings, unlike normal PvP. If more DPS is needed you simply bring additional ships. Ships which cost is almost etirely covered by insurance. Each day BPOs are getting researched to be more and more effective, and the EVE economy matures, increasing the problem of "no loss" for the suicide gankers as time goes on and the checks and balances aren't re-evaluated.

Originally by: Ki An
Another thing I've read is that people feel it is 'unfair' for the ganker to get insurance money. Why is it unfair? As far as I've been able to tell it is because people want to feel that they got back at the evil people that killed them. So, it's a matter of feeling frustrated because they can't get revenge if they aren't PvP specced.


Pot, meet kettle. How is this in any way different from "PvPers" feeling it is unfair that they can't touch people in hi-sec? I'm not argueing for or against this but it's a pretty subjective, if not weak, argument to use in regards to suicide gankings. It pretty much the essence of what suicide gankers feel they are entitled to, turned around and used against people who are opposed to suicide ganks being risk-free.

You can still use it of course, but not without accepting the opposite argument.

Originally by: Ki An
Now then, what would the removal of insurance actually solve? It wouldn't stop the gankings, as you have said yourself. The only thing that would happen is that the gankees would get to feel like the gankers actually lost something. This means that it's not a matter of balance, it's a matter of revenge.


No, not stop suicide ganks, but reduce the amount of perceived profitable targets. This is actually the core of the argument for removing insurance.

Right now, a T1 ship with cheap T1 fittings which is more than enough for suicide ganks ( just multiply the number of ships with x for the amount of DPS gank you need), is almost comepletely covered by insurance, which means that even the most meager targets are potentially profitable for suicide gankers.

Originally by: Ki An
The removal of insurance would reduce the ability for people to deal with their own problems, as it is no longer economically feasable to suicide gank someone if he isn't loaded with loot or mods. It should be economically feasable to get vengeance on an NPC corper, or for a one man corp to get at a macro miner. Note that I say feasable and not necessarily profitable.


So if you can't get back at someone within your prefered playstyle, it's wrong? What makes you feel as if you're entitled to revenge by means of pew pew?

What do you suggest industrial corps do when they are war-decced? That they keep mining and building to get back at the attackers, or pick up combat and fight?

No matter what your answer is, what is feasible, do you mean a 10m loss? 20m? 30m? How much ISK is such "revenge" worth in your mind? The cost of a war-dec maybe?

Originally by: Ki An
So far we have established that removal of insurance for Concord related deaths would discourage active PvP and player driven content. This is NOT the right way to go.

No, you have claimed certain things would happen, just like others claim other things. I fail to see why we should accept your assumptions as established facts, while you do the exact opposite.

Overwhelmed
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.03.31 20:02:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: Overwhelmed on 31/03/2008 20:03:24
Originally by: Pohbis
No, not stop suicide ganks, but reduce the amount of perceived profitable targets. This is actually the core of the argument for removing insurance.


There is no problem with the amount of perceived profitable targets. You have to play the game for at least several months - hardcore - in order to procure a gankable ship in high-sec. You people are acting like every single newb is exploding while trying to finish Cash for Capsuleers 1/10 and the pirates are walking away rich.

Funny that, many pirates still feel the need to run empire alts in order to fund their operations. One lucky pirate hits jackpot and all of sudden it becomes the bar for "rampant suicide ganking." Please. I wish I could blow up your frigates for free.

addendum: Also understand that eve if you only break even suicide ganking, it takes a considerable amount of patience and time... time you might spend making $25 mil/hour. There is a very small proportion of players that does it.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.03.31 20:04:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Pohbis

Problem: Suicide ganks can be carried out with a minimal investment in fittings, unlike normal PvP. If more DPS is needed you simply bring additional ships. Ships which cost is almost etirely covered by insurance. Each day BPOs are getting researched to be more and more effective, and the EVE economy matures, increasing the problem of "no loss" for the suicide gankers as time goes on and the checks and balances aren't re-evaluated.


Ok, but why is it a problem? I'm NOT saying there is no loss for the suicide gankers, because there is, but still, why is it a problem that they don't lose isk when they suicide gank?

Originally by: Pohbis

Pot, meet kettle. How is this in any way different from "PvPers" feeling it is unfair that they can't touch people in hi-sec? I'm not argueing for or against this but it's a pretty subjective, if not weak, argument to use in regards to suicide gankings. It pretty much the essence of what suicide gankers feel they are entitled to, turned around and used against people who are opposed to suicide ganks being risk-free.


This isn't really a pot, meet kettle situation. The burden of evidence lays on those that wish to change the game. Why is that situation I described unfair?

Originally by: Pohbis

No, not stop suicide ganks, but reduce the amount of perceived profitable targets. This is actually the core of the argument for removing insurance.


You think there needs to be less PvP in empire. That's your argument then? If so, I disagree.

Originally by: Pohbis

Right now, a T1 ship with cheap T1 fittings which is more than enough for suicide ganks ( just multiply the number of ships with x for the amount of DPS gank you need), is almost comepletely covered by insurance, which means that even the most meager targets are potentially profitable for suicide gankers.


That's a falacy. I urge you to find information supporting this claim. I can promise you that, barring extreme cases like jihadswarm where they don't care about profit (and hence wouldn't care about insurance either), you will find that only extremely valuable cargos, or less valuable but in thinner ships, get ganked. The reason for that is the other consequences for suicide ganking.

Originally by: Pohbis

So if you can't get back at someone within your prefered playstyle, it's wrong? What makes you feel as if you're entitled to revenge by means of pew pew?


I would think that everyone would feel entitled to get revenge on another person by using their own skills. That is why I posted what I did, and proposed what I think you should be asking for instead.

Originally by: Pohbis

What do you suggest industrial corps do when they are war-decced? That they keep mining and building to get back at the attackers, or pick up combat and fight?


See above.

Originally by: Pohbis

No matter what your answer is, what is feasible, do you mean a 10m loss? 20m? 30m? How much ISK is such "revenge" worth in your mind? The cost of a war-dec maybe?


Definately the cost of a wardec. I would never suicide someone if I could wardec him instead. The problem is, you can't always do that. If you want, I can give you examples, but I'm out of room here.

Originally by: Pohbis

No, you have claimed certain things would happen, just like others claim other things. I fail to see why we should accept your assumptions as established facts, while you do the exact opposite.



What I claim is fact. It's not assumption or guesswork. It has been admitted by most of the people on the "other side" of the argument as well. I just summed up, and put it into context in a PvP game such as Eve.

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.03.31 23:33:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: Pohbis
Why do suicide ganks have to be profitable at all?


Why shouldn't they be?

Almijisti Almagest
Posted - 2008.04.01 00:58:00 - [312]
 

re: lots of posts about game play styles and what kind of game CCP "meant" to create with Eve.

Any reference to what CCP intended with Eve or what it was before is irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. I could not possibly care less what CCP wanted to do with the game or what old-timers claim the game used to be like. This is a virtual world that's arguably better than the devs intended for whatever the reason. But it is and, it is also a place where players may now be able to shape the game to what we want it to be.

I agree that New Eden is a cold, brutal place...for now. But there are enough "carebears" as you all derisively refer to them (about 80% of Eden, in fact) to wipe the griefers off the map eventually. I say griefers because there is no distinction whatsoever between a griefer and any self-righteous PvPer who engages in nonconsensual combat with a noob then complains about why people stay in highsec (I assume that most such persons are basket-cases in r/l).

If Eve is to evolve as a "real" virtual world, then it is natural that it evolve from a lawless, barbaric environment to a lawful one where violence is "ordered" as much as possible--players and player corps evolving into nation-states with their own police forces and armies; the eventual elimination of npc corps; and the gradual elimination of piracy or at least its marginalization--just like the real world.

In other words, why shouldn't players be able to bring civilization to New Eden? It doesn't mean no PvP; it means no more barbaric behaviour like gatecamping and other forms of griefing. Well, it's coming sooner or later; that or Eve Online will be gone since those seeking something more than getting ganked by sociopaths who gate-camp will eventually get a game that delivers and there aren't enough griefers to keep CCP in business. Griefers can whine all they want--they are wrong as a matter of fact in r/l economic terms and CCP will either figure that out or go the way of the dinosaurs.

hellraiser reborn
Posted - 2008.04.01 02:33:00 - [313]
 

If Eve is to evolve as a "real" virtual world, then it is natural that it evolve from a lawless, barbaric environment to a lawful one where violence is "ordered" as much as possible--players and player corps evolving into nation-states with their own police forces and armies; the eventual elimination of npc corps; and the gradual elimination of piracy or at least its marginalization--just like the real world.



If you want a game with no chance of loss. I think the carebears have an online game you should look for that.

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.01 03:13:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Almijisti Almagest
:words:


lol

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.01 08:42:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Almijisti Almagest
:words:


lol


Well exactly. His post reads like a parody of the silliest anti-PvP replies I've seen over the past year or so.

I'm going to assume that it's a troll and give it a solid 8.5/10. Almost every line is constructed so as to provoke divisive argument.

hellraiser reborn
Posted - 2008.04.02 00:53:00 - [316]
 

You carebears kill me. You mine the ore,build the weapons,sell them to us,and whine when we blow you up with them.Come on, you are only feeding the machine,or dont you realize this.If you don't like it you should go play "SIM CITY".


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [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