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

Santana Laurence
Posted - 2008.08.31 12:30:00 - [601]
 

Edited by: Santana Laurence on 31/08/2008 12:31:37
"Risk" vs. Reward:
If you're blathering about "risk vs. reward" as one of the people who were abusing the insurance bug, and turning a profit by killing ships containing loot with less value than the ship you're flying...you're a useless tool pretending to be a real PvPer. You had less "risk" than your victims, and you're just bandwagoning the whine to muddy the waters. Yeah, carebears should have some risk involved if they carry more than what your ship is worth. And you shouldn't have much of a reward if you shoot at something with less net worth...because if that's the case, you aren't risking enough for the reward you're claiming you deserve for farming your intellectual inferiors.

You are not a ballsy pirate who is doing something clever here. You are a bottomfeeding insurance fraudster; get over it. You ran the point that insurance was broken into the ground and made the game less fun for people who were doing something useful, like popping macro miners. At least they were serving the community! Very Happy

Gankers == Carebear Education:
You aren't really teaching a carebear a "lesson" about reality when you're abusing the insurance bug; you're just teaching them that you'll blow them up whenever you feel like it as long as the bug still works. While that's the current reality of things because of the broken mechanic...that doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is broken. You'll have to, gasp, move on to only educating carebears who are carrying more than what your ship is worth! Laughing

Macro Vigilantes:
You've got a much more reasonable platform to complain about these changes on. I wish it were possible to let you keep doing what you're doing without allowing the "Risk vs. Reward" pretenders force the matter on CCP. I'm all for them coming up with some mechanic that flags anyone who does nothing but go to belts and a station for 24 hours, though. Cool Anything that empowers you guys without enabling folks to turn a profit off of blowing up ships with less net worth than their ship and fitted modules would be nice. It's hard to prevent one without the other though.

Standing Shifts:
Probably weren't needed. The insurance bug should have come first. While I agree that there needs to be more of a "role" for 0.1-0.4, you need to add non-PvPer incentive for them being used as trade routes. Going out on a limb here, this is probably where the much-needed contraband "market" needs to be pushed...make it profitable to run contraband through these areas and the carebears with teeth will come. Pilots with low to mid range experience would run in small teams, with their opposition being the full-PvPer teams who have no cargo assets to defend on the route. That would be a situation with a fun measure of risk and reward on both sides. (yes, I know there are some logic holes with this, but try to build on the idea or suggest a new one instead of taking a cheap shot Twisted Evil - remember that both carebears and PvPers will need a sizable margin of profit to make 0.1-0.4 work)

Mithrandir TFC
Gallente
Ministry of Mojo
Posted - 2008.08.31 16:37:00 - [602]
 

Another step closer to `Hello Kitty` online.

Tehopenee
Posted - 2008.08.31 22:57:00 - [603]
 

I think some of the problems or complaints by some here is caused by their thinking. They must think ccp will actually be reading their whines and do something about it . I havent made up my mind if they do read all the blogs but I dont think they are really interested in making everyone happy---mostly the pirates and thieves and scammers it seems. I could be wrong---but I have never heard of anyone actually getting a ntoe form anyone on their blogs. :)

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.01 12:46:00 - [604]
 

Meh.

All the ISK making opportunities in high-sec (except trading/industry which are PvP activities themselves) need a good hit with the nerf-stick, together with NPC corps.

In a competitive game, if you want safety you need to make some serious trade-offs.


Innominate
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.09.01 21:06:00 - [605]
 

How do we get from
"Concord provides consequences, not safety."
to
"CONCORD has some issues, mostly that pilots are killed long before CONCORD arrives."

Fox Walken
Delucian Defence Initiative
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:44:00 - [606]
 

Few issues with this.

1. -10 standing was never easy, but true -9.999 was, and this just made it easier - as a pirate I find that annoying.

2. Protecting carebears... wish CCP would stop doing this - it is in their nature to whine, so let them, don't feed them, part of EVE's success is that it remains viable for non-consentual PKing, every other game that nerfs this and gives into the bears loses players to EVE. Until EVE gives in too..........

3. Macrominers boost - why? this will benefit macro miner isk sellers way more than the bears.

4. The law of unintended consiquence - there has long been an issue with war-targets in high-sec leaving corps to get enemies concorded, now they can do it to even more effect with the insurance nerf.

The best thing about EVE is that no-one is safe, even in high-sec. Do not feed the bears anymore concessions

Edric Jin
Posted - 2008.09.02 01:00:00 - [607]
 

Edited by: Edric Jin on 02/09/2008 01:00:54
About the whole insurance fuss. Insurance is an aspect of the game completely unregulated by player activity. It doesn't fluctuate or alter depending on how many ships you lose, or acts in any way like a dynamic market. Because of this fact alone, taking advantage of one of the few financially static areas of EVE to go suicide ganking is abusing an exploit. Even CONCORDS original design philosophy of consequences > protection wasn't being upheld. It's a blip caused by two different models conflicting, nothing more.

Also, this game has never been about an entirely lawless area of space, and for the most part I don't see the problem in making zones that are meant to be heavily policed a greater detterent to piracy.


Peregrine
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:18:00 - [608]
 

Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: Plave Okice
Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?

Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?



Originally by: CCP Fear
Be safe out there!


Hopefully this answers to your question of where CCP is steering this game.



Theyre trying to compete with HELLO KITTY online!

Infact, I heard theyve attempted recruiting CCP Fear for their new "OMG I can cuddle it" program.


raWill
Gallente
Total Comfort
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:16:00 - [609]
 

Fantastic changes. Now just remove cargo scanners from the game and remove the ability to receive insurance payout for any ganking.

Dr Octavius
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:17:00 - [610]
 

I am pleased that CCP have realised that the reality of a pirates life was high risk with great reward but very often short lived, I know this wont end high sec ganks but I can see the pirate attacks being more accurate with their victims.
I also notice those who speak against this have a negative standing and those for this have a positive...just a thought

Deija Vu
Minmatar
TalCorp Enterprises
Einherjar Alliance
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:27:00 - [611]
 

Im very happy to see this change to suicide ganking.Very Happy

Varies
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:27:00 - [612]
 

Edited by: Varies on 02/09/2008 14:42:39
Edited by: Varies on 02/09/2008 14:31:08
I guess I would consider myself an empire carebear, but I am a little wary of these broad reaching changes. As I believe other posters have pointed out, when some factor of gameplay becomes an issue, you (CCP), go at it with a sledge hammer instead of delicate tools. Changing many facets of what you are trying to balance, with what seems a dis-regard to what else it impacts.

I am concerned that the ramifications of what you are proposing will force pvp pirates into old tried and true aspects of their "trade", and that is low sec gate camping. Which I view as exceedingly boring for them, increasingly annoying to me, and while may result in a reduction in the number of pirates, also reduces a playstyle's viability. I am concerned with a phrase, "be careful of what you wish for".

If the primary concern is with suicide ganking in empire high sec systems, I agree with the an increased in standings reduction but what does it do really? A large percentage of the ganking is done with alts that are in npc corps, somewhat disposable characters, easily replaced with a new one when sec status gets too low. So does this really do anything at all?

Dropping insurance payout on concorded ships. Perhaps. But unlikely to do much, if anything to disuade gankers, the targets they hit are low defense, high value targets like an industrial hauling a full load of morphite, or several high value BPOs (yes many haul this way, I do not), the risk/reward is too great for them to pass it up, even if they lose 5-10 cruiser/BS attacking the industrial/transport, if it drops even half the load of morphite for example, they are way ahead.

It seems to me, that this is once again a case of leave the nerf bat in the closet, and find a better solution by affecting that which is affected. Namely the person who got GANKED!

My solution: Provide cargo insurance, adjustable based on cargo value, with some percentage forfeited based on a successful transport. Those that want to protect their cargo, can do so, those that want to risk it, can, and pirate gankers (while i hate them), continue to thrive as a playstyle.

I should add, that cargo insurance, should only be an option for starting high sec to ending high sec transport. Of course, this has some possible exploit potential, but its a line of thinking I am looking for from CCP which is important. And that is another phrase I like "a little less stick, and a little more carrot".

X24c
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:22:00 - [613]
 

this is a great idea. Now here it comes, There are so many can fliping jerks in Hisec. why dont you pod them as soon as they flip the can.
Also Mission running is hard enough when you are a new player. why do you let other players scan out your missions and salvage them or take the item that you were after?

machstem
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:12:00 - [614]
 

Very Happy
congrats new changes sound great cant wait to see the difference

machstem
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:31:00 - [615]
 

Finally CCP is doing something about the pirates! Its about time, if they are to coward to go to lowspace and gank gates this will force them were they belong! Im tired of hearing the same Ol' Pirates cowards laughing at scoring someone elses loot, but whinning about Concord and the change in rules! IM LAUGHING NOW! Go be a pirate where you can. LaughingTwisted EvilLaughing

Daneau
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:04:00 - [616]
 

All in all i kind of like griefers getting the short end of the stick, but i do agree that low-sec needs to be a lot
more useful to provide an arena for those who wish to hunt
people trying to explore the riches. What i do not agree with is the people that say we must increase the rewards of low-sec, inflation is bad enough as it is atm. The way to make low-sec better is to _decrease_ the profitability of high-sec without touching 0.0 and with making low only slightly better than it is today. High should be relatively safe but low profit while low should be high reward and the risk to go with it, not the other way around as it is today.
tpb Daneau

Vendetta X
Torchwood 1
PROBABLE CAUSE
Posted - 2008.09.02 20:32:00 - [617]
 

Edited by: Vendetta X on 02/09/2008 20:38:53
Edited by: Vendetta X on 02/09/2008 20:38:35
anything that makes Pirates whinge makes me laugh, lots and lots. Thanks for putting a smile on my face.Very Happy

Might force the cowards into 0.0 with ships that can shoot back then they'll realise who the real noobs are.

Mystral Seraphita
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:39:00 - [618]
 

Edited by: Mystral Seraphita on 02/09/2008 21:39:58
Edited by: Mystral Seraphita on 02/09/2008 21:39:49
wow - this is getting explosive. i would like to wade in here with my two cents:

i am a firefighter. i know all about insurance fraud.

collecting insurance money on an item that is destroyed with deliberate intent by the owner, or if action is taken by the owner that will result in the known destruction of said item, it is insurance fraud. i'm pretty sure it is as illegal in every other country as it is in the US.


think about that before ****ing and moaning about how the "carebears" forced CCP to make these changes.

that being said, this insurance issue should be resolved before needing a CONCORD buff - if "suicide" gankers realize that they are going to lose money on their ships, risk vs reward comes into play. if suicide ganking is still profitable due to insurance fraud (please read above for any confusion about this), then think about a CONCORD buff.

as to the security hits... who cares? pirates will be pirates . if they are forced to move to low sec space, so be it. if they can't find any "easy" or "carebear" targets out there, tough - last i checked, the pirates of the high seas were run out of business as more and more armed ships representing legitimate governments move into the area and forced them out. piracy still exists today, but where is it? in the middle of nowhere, on the fringes of civilization and government control.

and if you still can't deal with the logic of this reasoning, well, i guess you take this game way too seriously. get out of mom's basement and discover real life.

Vargrh
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:55:00 - [619]
 

Edited by: Vargrh on 02/09/2008 21:57:29
so basically CCP are giving a BOOST to empire isk farming multi barge 'player spawns', by detering players from ganking them...

And allowing the level 4 mission running cochroaches to isk farm all day in empire without consequence...

Eve used to be rich with player led content, it is now becoming an isk farming and 'fleet lag pvp' experience.

Brenten007IND
Posted - 2008.09.02 22:44:00 - [620]
 

Originally by: Fox Walken
Few issues with this.


2. Protecting carebears... wish CCP would stop doing this - it is in their nature to whine, so let them, don't feed them, part of EVE's success is that it remains viable for non-consentual PKing, every other game that nerfs this and gives into the bears loses players to EVE. Until EVE gives in too..........

3. Macrominers boost - why? this will benefit macro miner isk sellers way more than the bears.

4. The law of unintended consiquence - there has long been an issue with war-targets in high-sec leaving corps to get enemies concorded, now they can do it to even more effect with the insurance nerf.

The best thing about EVE is that no-one is safe, even in high-sec. Do not feed the bears anymore concessions




And you wonder why theres no new player accounts being created in the millions like World of Warcraft (11 million). This is the exact reason why. Personally I perfer a pvp server where theres a no hold bars and you can do whatever the heck you want. Of course, PVE server will have full restrictions of non pvp action unless flagged. CCP will never gather enough clients if a newb's keeps getting killed during their trial accounts in 1.0 - .5 space. Many will just get mad and quit the game all together and will never come back. In addition, for every newb killed within the first month there is a high chance that they will never play again. Which I know that a lot of the pirate don't care. However, it hits CCP bottom line. It's 14.95 a month lost per account. If you multiply it by a 1000 new accounts being created per day and for 30 days. That is an extra $448,500.00 per month lost in extra revenue. So tell me CCP are you really going to support pirates or carebares. Or create a seperate servers for pvp.

One last thing, in history, Pirates has always destroyed towns, villages, cities, and many other civilization in the past. (A good example is Ghost towns that was once run by outlaws.) The question is, will it destroy this game. Will subscription start dropping until there no one is left on the server but pirates. Check those active accounts. Will you even be able to rival WOW 11 million active accounts across the world.

Only Time will tell...





Dzajic
Gallente
Posted - 2008.09.03 16:15:00 - [621]
 

If someone tested it? How much faster does CONCORD arrive and how much faster do they kill?

Insurance removal was all that was needed to nerf suicide ganking, and that was alone maybe to heavy. Faster stronger CONCORD, and increase in sec loss is BAD, you hear CCP! I'm as carebear as they come (ok I do pvp occasionaly, a little, but still very bearish...) and I think that this nerf was overdoing it.

And CCP, please, dont nerf war decs. Yes, several new players starting a corp will be war decced to oblivion, and their only choice if they wish to play on corp level is to beg a 0.0 alliance to take them in... Still, dont kill war decs

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:18:00 - [622]
 

About sec loss for podding, could criminal status of the poddee be taken into account?

I took -16.5% for podding a pie in a 0.4, because he wasn't an outlaw (yet). He attacked me, I popped his ship then his pod. Podding him was somehow legal as I didn't get crim flagged for it nor did he get killrights, because he was under criminal timer.

I don't favor completely free podding of people under GCC, but maybe halving the penalty, they have been bad after all...

su ling
Posted - 2008.09.05 00:05:00 - [623]
 

I have been suicide ganked 2 since playing this game, it is no fun for the players who r not interested in pvp to spend time gaining skills to do things then have a bunch of wanna be pirates come in and waste there ships, if you wanna gank people go to low sec and only come to high sec to obtain the materials us care bears provide.
This is the best fix i have heard of since starting this game, good job

Prismariana
Amarr
The Green Machine
Posted - 2008.09.06 02:29:00 - [624]
 

I think this nerf as many whiners complain is not even far enough really. Truely make high security space... high security like it should be.

Gank someone in high sec when not in a wardec with them or part of faction war and the ganker should be criminal flagged and their security status dropped to -5.0 at once. Forceing them to rethink the cost and value of ganking other players.

I think the concord buff is actually small really compared to what it should be. In a high security area of .8-1.0 concord should be able to respond almost immeadiately or within less then one minute. In 0.6-.7 maybe 2 minutes and so forth. Thus making ganking or pking even harder for those not in a wardec or part of a faction war.

Let the pirates whine about it, let the griefers cry about it. So what, make them go back to the area they should be playing in 0.5-0.0 space where such activities really belong, not in .8-1.0 space.

I think gankers or suicide players should loose all insurance money period. No payout for any reason. You destroy your own ship take the full loss of it and deal with it like an adult.

If a pirates ship is popped by concord for attacking in high security space, no insurance either, but in lower space it would be allowed because of the possibility of corrupt insurance agents.

Make players start to think again and actually have to deal with loss and consequences of their actions.

As towards macro miners... stop whining, macro mining has been part of every online game since they existed. Grow up, stop whining that someone can make more isk quicker then you. I dont macro mine, I play the game.

Flagging someone as a macro miner just because they make many or constant miner runs and back to station in any set period of time is a bad idea. I personaly when mining can mine constantly for 8 hours or more at one time or another and do nothing else. Plus there are mining bots out there that are smart now, that can be programmed to take a break every so often to make them look like a real player.

Milamber Stone
Posted - 2008.09.09 05:52:00 - [625]
 

Hear Hear, well said!

Play the game and stop whining about people whining!

Pirates are some of the biggest whiners in the game and that has become evident in this thread completely.

The changes represent a more balanced game that just makes pirates have to use even more skill to kill "carebear" targets.

Patriak Marlowe
Posted - 2008.09.10 01:52:00 - [626]
 

These changes are drastic but acceptable, this is a great increase for the protection of the NPC corpmember.
Add to this list that NPC corps take 20% tax and then more pilots will join Player corps.
This tax could even be called WARTAX to finance the Faction War!?!
Anyway, basically this tax would represent the cost of NPC corps in keeping security in highsec, ie. paying Concorde for protection etc.
As it is all players are getting a free ride as long as they are in a NPC corp.
Player corps => wardec from the pirates/gankers/griefers.

ONLY TWO THINGS IN LIFE ARE GUARENTEED, DEATH AND TAXES!

I would allso suggest best reactiontime in Hi sec and increasingly lower responsetime and having the worst responsetime in 0.5sec!

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.14 02:16:00 - [627]
 

Originally by: Prismariana

I think the concord buff is actually small really compared to what it should be. In a high security area of .8-1.0 concord should be able to respond almost immeadiately or within less then one minute. In 0.6-.7 maybe 2 minutes and so forth. Thus making ganking or pking even harder for those not in a wardec or part of a faction war.



Hi! You are stupid. CONCORD is there within 20 sec in 0.5 and faster in higher sec.

Blackjack Turner
Caldari
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.09.15 10:56:00 - [628]
 

Was the insurance "bug" fixed? I shot at a Gallente pilot last night as an experiment, and was in my pod very fast from the faction gate guns. I also got my insurance money. Granted, Concord did not appear to be involved. And while the patch notes point to the blog, which details taking away the insurance pay out when Concord is involved, it is not specifically addressed in the patch notes.

So, is it only when Concord pops your ship? Or was it never implemented?

Valkerias
Posted - 2008.09.17 00:45:00 - [629]
 

A.) Has not yet been implemented.

B.) Only when your ship popped by CONCORD.

Raven x1
Posted - 2008.09.18 05:50:00 - [630]
 

This is a good idea for the players in high sec space, but those that have a bad standing already it wont hurt them if they have -10 standing already they dont care about your rules. U guys need stiffer actions, like putting them in debt 1 million isk finesYARRRR!! and adding bounty also or maybe gate restrictions into high sec space.Rolling Eyes


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