open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Serious Security
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Adrellias
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:00:00 - [391]
 

Its funny how ccp always cave's to the crying/weeping non smart carebears... o i died cause i went through a KNOW GANKING system and they gangked me... O please ccp do something. This game is turning into a wow lookalike where pvp is a really special thing. COME ON GUYS its easy dont mine solo in a 0.4 system have all your buddies there to protect you thats how its supposed to work you know 0.4 less secure than 1.0 ??? Same with the ganking happening you do release there are routes around these systems ?? Or take a escort with you ? Instead of nerfing the game to death, for the pvp guys. If they would think a little they wont get killed the whole bloody time. You get killed if your stupid about where you travel and how you travel... But thats my 10'cs worth

Mr Banzai
Caldari Rogue Squadron
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:45:00 - [392]
 

Good, long-awaited change, thanks CCP.
Though i consider sec status mechanics update a rather minor one, main impact will come from the criminal insurance removal.

And yeah, gotta love all the usual suspects whining about it. Sad to inform you guys, but "adapt or die" principle applies to you too.

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:00:00 - [393]
 

Actually - I've changed my mind - I support the removal of insurance.

I've found an even better way of making carebears cry. Ninja-salvage their mission, wait for them to shoot me (a few will), and laugh as their raven explodes with no insurance YARRRR!!

Also, even if they don't suicide me I can still loot their mission freely and hope they attack me once I'm flashy red. Then it's off to get the nice big ganky domi YARRRR!!Laughing

csebal
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:05:00 - [394]
 

Edited by: csebal on 07/08/2008 11:10:27
Edited by: csebal on 07/08/2008 11:10:02
From on side, im happy as i will be able to haul billions around (again) without worrying about getting my stuff blown up.

On the other side however, i think someone should seriously be fired from the CCP design team. Whoever came up with these ideas is.. well.. let's just say, that the person never heard about balancing and it shows.

You have a problem and there were several ideas circulating to correct the problem. What would a NORMAL designer do? Make small changes and adjustments to fine tune the system.

What does CCP do? Throw everything they heard at once into the game completely going overboard and falling onto the other side of the horse.

Seriously guys.. It's been how long? 5-6 years now? Would be about time to grow up.

edit: lets not even mention, that this further promotes single player gaming.. as usual.
I for one was happily busting high sec gank camps with a billion isk packed t1 bait hauler and a logistic ship to ruin the day of the ganker.

Whoever things that high sec ganking is a problem.. well.. that person needs to have his ways of playing this game revised. Even before the LAST concord boost, people had plenty of ways to avoid ganking. After the concord boost ganking T2 haulers with a single ganker became near impossible but even T1 ones might pose a problem if they are fitted well and the ganker is not that skilled.

Now if you say that ganking in high sec should go, then im fine.. but say it damn, dont just dance around the topic by nerfing it more and more until its virtually impossible to gank even though you *could* do it if you would really want to.

Adrellias
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:06:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: Karentaki
Actually - I've changed my mind - I support the removal of insurance.

I've found an even better way of making carebears cry. Ninja-salvage their mission, wait for them to shoot me (a few will), and laugh as their raven explodes with no insurance YARRRR!!

Also, even if they don't suicide me I can still loot their mission freely and hope they attack me once I'm flashy red. Then it's off to get the nice big ganky domi YARRRR!!Laughing


Or we could always do that :D YARRRR!! To the guy above you im not whining just sad to see eve turn into a girlie game where crybaby's cry cause they fail horrabily. When i got ganked in my earlier days. I didnt go ooooo booohooo ccp this is a bug booohhooooo ccp fix this. NAH I JOINED THE RANKS!!

Adrellias
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:07:00 - [396]
 

Originally by: Mr Banzai
Good, long-awaited change, thanks CCP.
Though i consider sec status mechanics update a rather minor one, main impact will come from the criminal insurance removal.

And yeah, gotta love all the usual suspects whining about it. Sad to inform you guys, but "adapt or die" principle applies to you too.


Ohh and believe me we always addapt little person. At least the game stays intresting for us... Unlike mining a roid to death. YARRRR!!

No Beard
The Polite Society
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:21:00 - [397]
 

"In many cases, unsuspecting victims have no chance to escape , nor any help from CONCORD. We want to change this." CCP Fear.

I take issue with this, if people mine in weak barges without being aligned and without being at their keyboard paying attention, then why should they have automatic protection?
If people are stupid enough to haul valuable cargo afk in unsuitable craft then again why should they get automatic protection?

This nerf to sui ganks will benefit alliance alts and semi afk second account cash cows, not to mention macro miners. As usual CCP bows to whining carebears, when the game is perfect for these hanky wavers then all the real people will leave and you can have mining tournaments 24/7. That time is getting near.



sg1jack
Caldari
The Omega Particle
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:36:00 - [398]
 

The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.

I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.

I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.

Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?

Huan CK
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:42:00 - [399]
 

LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.

RL-Example:
If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.

It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue.
The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all.
This is the only thing changing.

You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.

Good move ccp, very good one!

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:43:00 - [400]
 

Originally by: sg1jack
The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.

I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.

I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.

Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?


So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to?

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:46:00 - [401]
 

Originally by: Huan CK
LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.

RL-Example:
If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.

It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue.
The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all.
This is the only thing changing.

You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.

Good move ccp, very good one!


RL anology;

You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.

After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional.

sg1jack
Caldari
The Omega Particle
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:47:00 - [402]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: sg1jack
The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.

I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.

I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.

Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?


So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to?[/quote

no i would never agree with that 0.0 has always been and hopefully always will be completly lawless


Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:59:00 - [403]
 

Edited by: Pesadel0 on 07/08/2008 12:00:22
double post.

Sher Khanid
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:59:00 - [404]
 

As i have a Carebear and a pvp alt i think i can state for a few peeps that the Insurance loss for ganking should be enough. Getting your Sec status back form -5 is a horrifically long time to do as a couple of my PVP corpies can testify too, all you're really doing is protecting the peeps with high sec status when they fly through lowsec.

CCP are just kicking the yarrs when they are alrady being nerfed for other things. If you want to make this game more balanced then get rid of the macros and sort the lag out, Everywhere in Caldari space atm moment is Lag central which just ruins the game more than high sec ganking. Ganking affects one or 2 peeps at a time Lag affects whole systems at a time..... you should really sort out your priorities and Macro's and Lag are way higher up on most peeps lists than Ganks which generally are only flown int by Afk haulers that should know better.


Ps apologies for my rambling

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:00:00 - [405]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: sg1jack
The main problem with ganking was when it was happening for greifing purposes.

I know it is part of the game mechanics but really a large amount of the time it was done for greifing first possible profit second.

I totally agree that if you want to lose your precious 1 bill cargo the best way to go about it is to travel afk and I say tough should have been paying attention but the main point most of the unhappy posts seem to be making is, it is no longer easy for them to kill easy targets for a laugh if you want to make isk sui ganking then you better get good at picking your targets.

Honestly how many people out there who sui ganked done it because they could not because they where trying to profit from it ?


So are the next nerf going to be the nerf my ability to kill a multitude of people in low sec because i can i want to?[/quote

no i would never agree with that 0.0 has always been and hopefully always will be completly lawless




I was talking about low-sec,and the principle is the same ,reward stupidity and penalize smart people or people that donīt conform and want to do their thing .

Huan CK
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:00:00 - [406]
 

Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: Huan CK
LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.

RL-Example:
If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.

It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue.
The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all.
This is the only thing changing.

You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.

Good move ccp, very good one!


RL anology;

You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.

After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional.


You'd think surveillance in space would be far more advanced than in RL ;)

Also, most suicide ganks happen at gates or stations, only little happen in missions where there's no neutral or police forces nearby.
Keep in mind that at gates in high-sec as well as at stations there's always some law-enforcement units nearby, so you wouldn't go unnoticed.

csebal
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:10:00 - [407]
 

Originally by: Huan CK
LOL at all those suicide gank whiners. Why are you opposed to the changes, they only make sense, and you know so very well.

RL-Example:
If you're committing a crime, then use your car to escape, ignore the law and go 120mhp in town, bumping other cars, etc. while the police is chasing you, would YOUR insurance cover the dough for all the damage inflicted and a new car if you wreck yours in such a pursuit? I very much doubt so.

It's the very same in eve, and the change is long overdue.
The issue with suicide ganking wasn't that it was possible, the problem was you could use an insured battleship with cheapass t1 fit, lose the ship, get insurance, buy a new one, and have literally no loss at all.
This is the only thing changing.

You'll have to make more investigation of the worth of the possible loot and recalculate risk vs. reward. Before there simply was no risk.

Good move ccp, very good one!

Actually the insurance change isnt the problem. I always said it is dumb to pay insurance for suicide ganking ships. Then again, removing the insurance is a FREAKING BIG STEP in itself against high sec ganking. Add the rest of whats detailed in that blog post, and you have what i just call the CCP syndrome.

+ this:
Originally by: Shevar

RL anology;

You kill someone no police in sight and you move around relatively freely afterwards and police only hears about the crime hours after you left.

After several months you (might) get captured. Those car chases you see on the television are rather exeptional.



versus this:

Originally by: Huan CK

You'd think surveillance in space would be far more advanced than in RL ;)


You'd think that space is just a tiny bit bigger area to monitor than the streets of a city.

I'd say you go back to your fleet of AFK barges and think hard about the next subject to whine about. Basically any two possible nerfs to high sec ganking from that blog would have been too much for balancing. So CCP decided to go with all 4 of them.

If you are going to go overboard, then at least do it big time.
Hats off CCP.. really.

Ironnight
x13
IT Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:11:00 - [408]
 

Where are the old devs, the one that believed in people having to do the work and thing to succed? These new guys are useless, Hello kitty online rejects?

EO a pvp game, yeah right
Server isnt build for large fleet actions (Large being more then 10 ships on gird) BAH
PVP ships are to fast BAH
You cant PVP there BAH

Axhind
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:23:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: No Beard
"In many cases, unsuspecting victims have no chance to escape , nor any help from CONCORD. We want to change this." CCP Fear.

I take issue with this, if people mine in weak barges without being aligned and without being at their keyboard paying attention, then why should they have automatic protection?
If people are stupid enough to haul valuable cargo afk in unsuitable craft then again why should they get automatic protection?

This nerf to sui ganks will benefit alliance alts and semi afk second account cash cows, not to mention macro miners. As usual CCP bows to whining carebears, when the game is perfect for these hanky wavers then all the real people will leave and you can have mining tournaments 24/7. That time is getting near.





Might I suggest trying to use the mentioned mining barge or a freighter before whining here?
You can not mine while aligned and at speed. It takes about 10+ seconds for a hulk to get up to warp speed. If the suicide ganker hasn't killed you in that time (or at least scrambled) he is such a morone that it's incredible that he is still alive as breathing takes more brain power than that.

Other problem is freighters who are easily ganked (escort can't do **** about it as DPS is huge, logistics can't do anything either as it's shield and armour buffers are so low). Worst of all it's stupidly cheap to gank them making the whole ship class glorified t1 hauler as even filled with trit it's profitable to gank. And with todays free torp ravens no matter what crap is in the freighter you are still making money and ruining someones day without them having any viable option to defend them selves.

Loyal Servant
Caldari
The Knights Templar
Strategic Operations Brigade
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:52:00 - [410]
 

CCP Fear..

You FAIL...

Maplesyrop
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:00:00 - [411]
 

I would like to see an economic blog about the state of Eve after some of the suggested change like moving all positive quality agent to lowsec and cutting the bounty for mission in half and lets see how it look in about 6months ... lets face it pvper don't fly marauders or faction bs or much faction modules ... who would buy your loot... many officers and faction modules only find buyers in the PVE and spliting PVP and PVE server ... and I'm fairly confident that most suicide gankers are not the one producing T2 modules, heck they don't even us them obviously...

The length of the thread says a lot also ... 14 pages ... that is a minor issue, the speed "adjustement" had 110 pages in 4-5 days .

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:02:00 - [412]
 

And after destroying the nanostyle of pvp devs working hard on destroy this style of fight too....

Good work Please do not bypass the profanity filter. Navigator

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:18:00 - [413]
 

While I agree suicide ganking in it's current form needed to go it would have been nice if you'd thrown the pirate profession a bone before making life more difficult for them yet again.

Many great suggestions have been made regarding security status, all have been ignored in place of a system that seems to aim to keep pirates in lo-sec, something that would be fine if there were more targets there.

0.5 Systems could allow outlaws entry while still providing CONCORD protection. This would give them an area to trade at reasonable prices instead of Outlawship being economic suicide for anyone without multiple accounts.

Lo-sec needs more bait. Plain and simple.

Pirate hunters should be able to engage pirates without penalty. This could be done using relative sec status, licenses, or changes to criminal flagging.

And why are there no pirate faction agents in our shark infested custard (lo-sec) are these entire factions supposed to be alliance content only?


Hell, you could go crazy and actually make something of the pirate factions. Have them pay bounties (relative to insurance) on FW militia members. Create lo-sec pirate havens, policed by the local pirate faction, where standing with them and not CONCORD determines protection. Perhaps even smugglers gates accessible only to those with the right faction standings that lead from their lo-sec havens to their 0.0 territories. The possibilities are both endless and completely ignored at the moment.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:24:00 - [414]
 

More suicide ganker emo rage quit tears please. EVE is a cruel and harsh place and you just lost your ISK button. Grow up! Rolling Eyes

Tildah
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:30:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
While I agree suicide ganking in it's current form needed to go it would have been nice if you'd thrown the pirate profession a bone before making life more difficult for them yet again.

Many great suggestions have been made regarding security status, all have been ignored in place of a system that seems to aim to keep pirates in lo-sec, something that would be fine if there were more targets there.

0.5 Systems could allow outlaws entry while still providing CONCORD protection. This would give them an area to trade at reasonable prices instead of Outlawship being economic suicide for anyone without multiple accounts.

Lo-sec needs more bait. Plain and simple.

Pirate hunters should be able to engage pirates without penalty. This could be done using relative sec status, licenses, or changes to criminal flagging.

And why are there no pirate faction agents in our shark infested custard (lo-sec) are these entire factions supposed to be alliance content only?


Hell, you could go crazy and actually make something of the pirate factions. Have them pay bounties (relative to insurance) on FW militia members. Create lo-sec pirate havens, policed by the local pirate faction, where standing with them and not CONCORD determines protection. Perhaps even smugglers gates accessible only to those with the right faction standings that lead from their lo-sec havens to their 0.0 territories. The possibilities are both endless and completely ignored at the moment.


Totally agree , now that is something interesting and many good ideas for the futur of eve ... there's little reason to go to lowsec if you aren't looking for a fight , except the few lowsec pos and such ... if only we had more poster like this ...

csebal
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:38:00 - [416]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
More suicide ganker emo rage quit tears please. EVE is a cruel and harsh place and you just lost your ISK button. Grow up! Rolling Eyes


The point of your post is..

what exactly?

This isnt just about suicide ganking. This is about the way CCP approaches problems. Instead of making fine adjustments to the system and watch how it reacts, they constantly keep going to the extremes.. Hell even for newly added stuff, they add is 'pre-nerfed' so that they make sure its not unbalanced, but the fact that it is pre-nerfed usually makes it unbalanced and worthless to begin with.

This is a clear sign that people over there are either unwilling (lazy) or just plain unable (incompetent) to make proper game design decisions.

None of those options are really promising.

So please, for f..s sake.. go troll somewhere else and let the honest people shout the living s..t out of CCP for what they are doing. Not that it matters anyway, but at least they can't say noone told them they are wrong.

Gumpy Nighthawk
Amarr
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:50:00 - [417]
 

Can we also get concord in 0.0 please, because it's just too dangerous there.

Also 2 titans in system make that impossible, it means i actually have to use my head before jumping into a system. I mean i want to make money with just my auto-pilot. Please make it so that when i enter a system no weapon systems will work anymore.

CCP good work, oh wait.....

Simorgh
The People's Front of Judea
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:53:00 - [418]
 

Hmm,

Whilst the removal of insurance for suicide ganking is probably a good balancing measure (making it still possible whilst not making it risk-free anymore) I'm not so sure about the sec status changes - grinding up sec status is hard as it is before making sec status gain harder (by an as-yet unspecified amount) and by introducing higher sec status hits for piracy (even in 0.4, which is madness).

If CCP wants pew pew to happen in low-sec, then it needs to:

a) throw the pirates a bone - slightly reduced sec hit in 0.3 or below is not enough;
b) give targets a reason to go there. Lowsec is a rubbish place to rat or mine. If you want jaspet/omber/kernite you can get it in (not very) hidden belts without too much hassle. And as for ratting - am I going to flit nervously around a 0.3 system, looking for battlecruiser spawns in between dodging pirates and sweatily keeping an eye on local, or am I going to a nice juicy L4 agent and slap an endless procession of battleships and get LPs as well? Even a middling L3 agent will earn you more isk.

Lowsec needs to be more attractive to both pirates and those they hunt. Lowsec needs better roids, better rats and maybe more faction spawns, to make the risk/reward ratio closer to hisec mission-running.

Sgt Blade
Caldari
Save Yourself Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:14:00 - [419]
 

whats really funny is how some people think that ccp are caving in to those whinging/crying noobs.

now i dont like them either BUT they do somtimes have a point and on this situation, i think ccp have acted/will act well. if they have never changed anything on how concord worked then we will all be sitting in jita with 40 man fleets with logistics cruisers repping everyone and killing anyhting non blue on site.

the move is to make what concord do what they are intended for and these sec status changes are just a little extra

Shinigami
Gallente
Shinra
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:36:00 - [420]
 

Originally by: Sgt Blade
whats really funny is how some people think that ccp are caving in to those whinging/crying noobs.

now i dont like them either BUT they do somtimes have a point and on this situation, i think ccp have acted/will act well. if they have never changed anything on how concord worked then we will all be sitting in jita with 40 man fleets with logistics cruisers repping everyone and killing anyhting non blue on site.

the move is to make what concord do what they are intended for and these sec status changes are just a little extra


That's pretty funny coming from a carebear thats a member of a carebear corp in a carebear alliance. Just come out of the closet and join hands with your empire brethren to cheer CCP Fearful on.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (22)

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