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 : ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 : last (22)

Author Topic

Zachstar
Posted - 2008.08.15 13:01:00 - [571]
 

Edited by: Zachstar on 15/08/2008 13:01:29
Looking forward to seeing the cloakers react the same way when CCP puts an AFK timer in the game...

CCP thank you for these changes! The insurance change was spot on! And the standings changes are quite nice as well!

Thank you!

Zachstar
Posted - 2008.08.15 13:07:00 - [572]
 

Originally by: Miyagi Sensei
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.

If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?


They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..

LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:08:00 - [573]
 

Originally by: Sethose Olderon
Edited by: Sethose Olderon on 15/08/2008 11:58:58
A lot of good points have been made in this thread for the benefit of the Industrialists, (Don't call me a carebear, and I won't call you a Jarhead)however one good point hasn't.
...


As a Retired US Marine, feel free to call me "Jarhead" any time... I take it as a compliment... I can also be called "Carebear" as I avoid PvP combat whenever I can...

I am not sure when or how "Jarhead" became a bad name, but in a game where a POS is a good thing, I guess anything is possible.

Imrys
Posted - 2008.08.15 20:00:00 - [574]
 

Many delicious ganker tears in this thread. Now that the tables are turning a bit in the favor of the non combatant players all I can say is "Please please cry more as I find it very entertaining."Razz

Aknot Wat
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:05:00 - [575]
 

None of this means anything because of ALTs.

Until CCP makes a single accounts ALTs all suffer the same penalties it is meaningless. The ALTs a player account is allowed need to be treated like a player owned "gang". They all suffer the security hit and standing hit.

The only way a player should be able to be "two faced" is to PAY for it. PAYING for a second account. So that they can have their carebear and their bear killer players. A real-life adjustment to help balance the game.

If it's truly CCPs intent to provide consequence, this is the only true way. Anything else is a waste of programming time.

Haji Moto
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:58:00 - [576]
 

I like what CCP Fear has proposed here, with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.

Example: Person kills a homeless man; Sentence: 25years to life imprisonment

Second Example: Person kills a father with 3 children and a wife; Sentence: Death Penalty.

Killing is killing, and ganking is ganking. Keep it even.

-Haji Moto

Setarcos Nous
Posted - 2008.08.15 23:49:00 - [577]
 

Originally by: Haji Moto
I like what CCP Fear has proposed here, with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.

Example: Person kills a homeless man; Sentence: 25years to life imprisonment

Second Example: Person kills a father with 3 children and a wife; Sentence: Death Penalty.

Killing is killing, and ganking is ganking. Keep it even.

-Haji Moto


Eh, I look at it more as "productive member of the community kills a known felon with a long criminal history to protect a stranger from possible harm" vs "known felon kills a cop (or ally of the cops)".

Kurann
Tribe of One
Tribal Conclave
Posted - 2008.08.16 02:05:00 - [578]
 

le sigh...

im done trying to prove my point of how hypocritical some of you are being. Some of you have good ideas and good points, for that i thank you.
my reasons for doing things my way are sound, and i odn't need to hear anymore of it. I'll adapt, and continue on roaming alone, just to give myself something to do.

P.S. I rage quit myself once, yes, i was a carebear, and yes i was pirated, but im back, because the smell of pvp was in the air, and im hungry.

P.P.S. None of you answered my questions which further prooves my point that you have no incentive to come to low sec.

Aemun Anarch
Posted - 2008.08.16 12:27:00 - [579]
 

People do get punished according to who they committed it against. The man who killed John Lennon did not get parole and likely will not. Someone who killed a homeless man might. The men who killed the president get more of a punishment than the men who kill some druggy in a crack deal.

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:46:00 - [580]
 

Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.

If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?


They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..

LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..




farmer alt spotted...

Startling Revelation
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:00:00 - [581]
 

Originally by: Haji Moto
...with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.


No, it's to encourage vigilantism, which is fine by me, and by most people.

One other possibility, rather than having all record of criminal activity subsumed in a single, erasable security standing, would be to flag repeated suicide gankers, in a similar way to players with a bounty on them. If a character who's been involved in a certain number of suicide ganks within a certain period were excluded from Empire space irrespective of sec standing, it would be a little more meaningful.

Fact is, these changes aren't going to make a huge difference because it's easy enough to make disposable suicide gank characters - what do you need, about 1.5m SPs? In the absence of detection and punishment of white collar crimes, money laundering, handling stolen goods etc, nothing is going to be done to stop crime paying, any more than you can stop unsuccessful pirates replacing their losses with funds from carebear alts.

Assimil8r
Posted - 2008.08.19 15:09:00 - [582]
 

Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do? Ever considered that launching personal atacks on a dev, becausde you don't like what he/she blogs about, is about as mature as oh, say, stealing a 12-year-old's bicycle? But then, you're pirates... that's the kind of thing you get a kick out of.

For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.

If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.

Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...

silken mouth
Gallente
Core Genes Applied Technologies
Posted - 2008.08.20 08:19:00 - [583]
 

Originally by: Assimil8r
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?


Yeah....., right...., zulupark and the overkill speednerf really support your argument... Rolling Eyes
Quote:


Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...


Which is what most people complain about --> insurance removal is nonsense, as long as there is nothing viable against noobcorp-hugging-farmers

MongWen
Xeno Tech Corp
Self Destruct.
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:13:00 - [584]
 

Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.

If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?


They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..

LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..


right... the get removed form game... then tell me why i see "players" that mine 23x7 not missing a cycle for months after they are "reported" still in game ?

And still no human will sit up and active for that time not missing a cycle...

Patrika Deane
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:42:00 - [585]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Dev blog

In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.


Do NOT put this in. This is a hugely terrible change. If you want to modify insurance, then MODIFY INSURANCE.

Explain to my why suiciding ganks get no insurance, but SUICIDING into 0.0 or SUICIDING your own ship via self-destruct gets you insurance.

Explain to me why Pend Insurance Inc. would insure any ship that is to be flown by a player in a 0.0 alliance or a -10.0 pirate or someone who loses 10 ships a day or someone shooting Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar/Caldari ships in a mission. No, if insurance doesn't make sense for suicide ganking then you have to modify it for ALL types of SUICIDING and RISKY behavior.

This is a bad move CCP. If you do this, there needs to be *balance*, a way for pirates to increase security standings or at least get SOMETHING cool out of it. The pirates/suicide gankers and such are the people providing non-NPC content, nerfing them is penalizing players for interacting with each other in a god damn mf'ing MMORPG.

The rest of the changes I don't care about, but FFS no insurance on suiciding ships is flat-out caving to the whiners, you have ZERO basis or reasoning on this change and I'm calling you out right now. Nerfing level 4 missions is a "highly requested feature" so where is that?


Actually, this is a VERY valid point. The concept of insurance is that of a risk pool. Thos who are in a hihg risk pool pay more for insruance than those ina low risk pool.

A CareBare running missions with a High Sec rating should have a lower insurance premium than a outlaw with a -10 rating. Similarly ... A hi sec rated pilot who loses ships to misisons every week should have a higher premium than a veteran outlaw who loses 1 ship every 6 months.

HOWEVER! Most insurance payments are null and void when the payouts are made as a result of a commission of a felony. So this removal of insurance payouts for CONCORD responses has a contractual and legal basis.

Ira Black
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:14:00 - [586]
 

I haven't fully read the topic responses since I'm not really impressed with the response so far. Lot of low-class moaning and childish reactions aimed at persons (instead of opinions).

I have read a few comments that did have a point, so here goes:
I don't really mind gankers. I've been ganked a few times (not afk or transporting valuables) and one of the advantages the current system has is stress. The rage I felt at being ganked is actually what interests me in EVE. A different point of view would be high-sec as farmground and low-sec or 0.0 being PvP areas. That would alter the concept of EVE as it is tho.

As it is, I will enjoy EVE. Whether they make this change or not.

Gaufres
Posted - 2008.08.22 03:41:00 - [587]
 

While they are at it, deny travel thru High Sec even to Pods for people who can not fly a ship thru the same area without getting Concorded

Ahsekuaw
Brother Theo's Monastery
The Ancients.
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:37:00 - [588]
 

The whole point of the revision of the security system is to move the ganking out to low sec where it belongs. Nobody is stopping you from ganking. Just do it somewhere else.

I for one halfway applaude the change. I say halfway as I don't think it goes far enough in a .9 and 1.0 system. Gankers in those systems should be penalized monitarily in addition to quick death and bigger security hit. Those monitary hits should double after each gank. New players need a place to learn. That's what the .9 and 1.0 systems are for. Pilots that think it's fun to gank a newb in a rookie ship undocking from a station in a 1.0 system are pathetic. They need to be dealt with swiftly. Evil or Very Mad

I'm not giving CCP a free pass on this. It is their responsibility to ensure the macro pilots are dealt with too. The macro pilots are wrecking the economics of the game. What about Concord and security penalities for them too?

Ahs

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.08.22 17:44:00 - [589]
 

Originally by: Assimil8r
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?

For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.

If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.

Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...


Here we have The Big Guy with his harsh words, but still afraid to post under his main. Brilliant Laughing (because a 3 months old char is an alt, yeah yeah I know, you have other accounts and your big brother plays also).

First postulate: the devs that make the game are the ones to know how to balance the game. If his brain is slightly bigger than the average guinea pig dodoo, might the Genius tell us where all these mods, rigs, skills and implants that are cyclically either taken away or nerfed come from to start with ?

Second postulate, implying that rectums are something bad. I don't know about you, but my beloved wife has quite a nice butt, and she uses it admirably at my highest entertainment & satisfaction.

Third postulate, that a game world should be "believable". So suddenly the Genius is the self-appointed reference in what makes or not this game believable ? I'll tell you what makes a game believable: IMMERSION. And in the kind of game where EVE pretends to hold a niche, IMMERSION comes from RISK. If you don't like RISK, there are plenty of other games out there that have been specifically designed for all these "mature" players who are even afraid to loose pixels... Laughing

Fourth postulate: a law agency is able to protect. But dude, if this doesn't even happen in RL where the stakes are magnitudes higher than in a game ? The only place where you are protected by a law enforcement agency is when living just in front of the precint. Short of that, over 80% of the events only see law enforcement elements intervene when the offense has ALREADY been committed. Sorry, maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, we ain't living in a perfect world and neither should EvE be the exception.

Fifth postulate: A pirate has the same chances to get popped in low-sec as his victim. Cough cough... Did you ever go in low-sec except for an agonizing transit between high sec systems ? Guess not. I won't loose time to explain you why you are spitting nonsense, you'll have to wait that some compassionate sole does it Laughing

Sixth postulate: Micro-miners are bad. I don't know if they are good or bad and frankly I don't care. But most of the peeps who hate macro-miners are... miners. So what do we have here ? The Uber Miner happy that soon EVE will turn into a spreadsheet laid in space ?

On the other hand, it's people like you that makes people like me happy to suicide a ship even if the result is an isk loss, just for the exquisite pleasure of watching your resulting mood in local Laughing

ouranei
Posted - 2008.08.22 18:21:00 - [590]
 

Most crazy situation is leaving station in Jita with a full cargo with a value of more than 400MIsk and discover after the lag in Jita the ship destroyed and the cargo already looted by a suicide gang....easy they have no risk except probably their frigate and they pick cargo and in same time enter in station....no risk for them....no chance for me even to play...

That case is really against game spirit and pleasure to build business in game.....

(sorry for my poor english :p)

Ouranei

Heliosium
Posted - 2008.08.23 10:10:00 - [591]
 

These measures are definitely a step in the right direction, but I have to admit that the whole perfect -10.0 status thing actually forcing players to attack more people than rats is an interesting unforseen consequence.

May I suggest extending the security status to below -10.0, BUT hiding that excess below -10.0? This will give the pirates a bit of cushion so that killing rats doesn't affect their precious -10.0 as much.

Smokin' Dragon
Astroforge Industries
4U Holdings Inc
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:03:00 - [592]
 

Edited by: Smokin'' Dragon on 25/08/2008 22:04:59
Having just been a victim in a suicide gank let me tell you what happened ....

Me and my corp (of ten) were out minig ore to build new PVP ship with, so we can join in all the fun and enter CONSENSUAL PvP combat in LO-SEC.

Then along pops a raven and smartbombs the entire operation.

Net result -

Having just spent 6 hours bonding with my corp, having fun, and building ourselves a better future in EVE, some 16 yr old idiot (probable) spoils our entire day, and leaves 1/3 of my corp debating whether to keep playing this game.

Put simply, suicide ganking like this (unprovoked, practically worthless cargo) is pointless and will result in the loss of (a rough guess) 30% of your potential player base who actually want to spend there RL time (you have 70 years approx) BUILDING something. (in this case it amounts to about 50 gbp per month, so its only 1000 GBP, nothing to cry over im sure.... (now scale that up by a factor of 3000) )

To rub salt in the wound, the guy then petitioned me when i told him what i thought of his pointless attack

If all you Yaaaaaar pirates truly believe this is justified, effective and above all NOT POINTLESS AND IRRITATING behaviour, feel free to comment.

Truly ,the point is, if i wanted to pvp a battleship in my barge, i'd be in lo-sec where the minerals might actually be worth the loss of a ship.

If CCP cannot realistically control, minimize or downright prevent this kind of behaviour, what is the point of playing? the only income left is missions, and this becomes a space conquest game.

Personally I prefer counterstrike, there is less lag involved

Tehopenee
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:47:00 - [593]
 

I have played eve now for a couple of years and have noticed the many changes---all aimed at more conflict and less chances for survival for new players. Eve is good if you are a ganker, pirate, high sec thief, and general scammer. I use to like to do missions with different ships and try new things--but why bother? There will only be some jerk comeing in to steal your salvage and you can't shoot back. Well, maybe I will give up on the missions and try mining---wow--can flippers all over the place--I know I will try trade and contracts---whoa scammers all over the place---if you ask about it ccp says no big deal---it is ok for you to be cheated if you dont read carefully. What war dec a can flipper or ore thief--oh no---ccp has decided they can hide in npc corps so you can not war dec them. Now they are worried about gankers. I think some of the ideas are good--but why cant we have a level playing field. I dont mind the thieves--just give me a chance to shoot them. I think things you work for should be yours---or at least give you a chance to fight for it. I know the only comments this will gt is the usual from the gankers about whinning and ccp will totally ignore this. :)

Aakaa
New Eclipse
Not Found.
Posted - 2008.08.26 01:35:00 - [594]
 

NoooooO...Mad

This will mean less explosions in Empire dang it. Muderous Inc steam rolling the gank machine till Security changes hit...YARRRR!!

WA Dragon
Caldari
108 Field Squadron RM RE
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:19:00 - [595]
 

WELDONE CCP you just handed all the games macro miners a get out of jail for ever card you bloody fools

WA Dragon
Caldari
108 Field Squadron RM RE
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:50:00 - [596]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
CCP you took my only weapon against Makrominers away!

Please do not let them destroy our game. If you take suicide ganking away, PLEASE remove THEM first!





CCP take no action when Macro miners are petitoned and now it looks as if they are even going as far as to fully protect them. This game is losing its flavor rappidly

CMHQ Morswin
Posted - 2008.08.28 19:12:00 - [597]
 

This makes no sense, how will i be able to gank macro miners now ?
People suicide gank becouse t1 ships are cheap, with insurence it cost 20-30M to lose bs in high sec, while a freghter can drops few billions...
Macro miners are the ones who spoil this game the most, cheap minerals make ganking possible and affordable. If you apply these changes be able to kill any macro miner any more, mineral prices will fall down even lower than they are now (sucide ganking acctualy keep them up) making mining a total lose of time.
As the resoult, small miners will loose isk, and maybe get concorded by an accident, pvp players will have nothing to do in the empire and freighters from bob and ra will fly with billions of isk onboard, and macros will never be interupted again.
I dont even want to talk abaout carebears who put milions of isk on tiny industrials and blame the game for losing it :/

Get rid of lag and macro first

Tempo Paradiso
Posted - 2008.08.28 21:22:00 - [598]
 

I am a Carebear Very Happy, and I like being a Carebear missionrunner since I only play for about 1-2 hours.

It doesn’t prevent me from understanding the frustration of the players who make a living being a pirate, preying on the innocent, defenceless and uncareful.

In the end it just forces Carebears, miners, traders and other players who are not into PvP, to think twice before entering lower security space. And if they are flying in valuable goldbirds or moving vast fortunes from point A to B, then they need to operate in groups, posibly with escort ships and good recon.
Knowledge is power, and the key to power is good intelligence. So make use of it all. Send out reconships, use spies etc. Think of the convoys during WWII, the key to their survival was recon planes and picket ships. Its all a case of the chicken outsmarting the fox. If the chicken is to well guarded, the fox will look elsewhere for food.

In order for the Carebear community to fight the dark side of EVE, we need to think like a pirate and operate accordingly.
In the end, these adjustments to Concord wont make suicide gangkers go away or impossible, it will just make it harder and more dangerous.

I do agree with most of the gankers and miners in the fact that macro-miners are a big problem, but in the end that is problem CCP must resolve, not the players. Its only CCP that is able to install software that can monitor the systems for macro miners. And CCP apparently thinks it is ok.

Nick Domani
Posted - 2008.08.29 04:33:00 - [599]
 

Originally by: Khanto Thor
Originally by: Vitrael

4. You're removing insurance for CONCORD losses - why? Over suicide gankers? What about the dozens of ships that are CONCORD'd accidentally every day? I think you've fallen down a slipperly slope.


oh wait... you're right there! how many of us have accidentally shot at the stargate instead of our war target Sad


Hmm...maybe hot-locking targets via a pre-activated weapon isn't such a good idea. Turn off the 'easy mode' of your guns and this won't happen.

Uni Zueto
Amarr
Nakama
Gemini Federation
Posted - 2008.08.29 22:31:00 - [600]
 

Any insurance company that doesn't try to weasel out of a payout just isn't a proper Insurance Company.

Thankyou CCP for putting the cut throat attitude back into the SCC. Let's see those SCC fiscal reports now...



Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 : 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