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 : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Reikku
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:59:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Reikku on 06/08/2008 11:05:25
Originally by: CCP Fear

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?

List of things afk-miners had to fear up until now:

1) suicide-gankers

List of things afk-miners will have to fear after this patch:

-

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:00:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


Are you a new employee? I seriously can't believe you actually believe what you just wrote.

Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
Halinallen veroparatiisi
Inglorious Carebears
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 - [123]
 

This:

"no-risk no-thought ganking"

Might get obsolete with this...but only when sober. Enough beer and say hello to no-risk no-thought ganking!

Flawed. Yes, there are people who like to mess RP-players just for kicks when they are feeling merry YARRRR!!

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didnīt deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools donīt take them away.Crying or Very sad

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:04:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?


If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:07:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?


If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.


Since you obviously can't read, I've bolded and italisized the important part for you.

Sopha Serpentia
Core Dynamics
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 - [127]
 

What a bunch of geniuses at CCP eh? I love how it take five years for them to come up with this stuff.


Reikku
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?


If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.


You dodged the question.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0


Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didnīt deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools donīt take them away.Crying or Very sad


How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????

Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.

Hoody
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:10:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.



You sir seem to have no clue, how are people supposed to stop the botters now? not only do they have to spend ages fixing their sec status after ganking the macro barges they now have a financial penalty as well, all because CCP does jack **** about them when they are petitioned.

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:11:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?


If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.


Since you obviously can't read, I've bolded and italisized the important part for you.


Pardon me..I got a little carried away, I apologise for not reading your post properly. :(

Now let me undodge the question:
macro-miners is not something that's being covered in this change as far as I'm aware (re-reading the devblog), and you can hardly justify suicide ganking remaining the way it is because of macro miners - Atleast I don't think you can.
It's just 2 different things

Caol
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 - [132]
 

The changes to the insurance payout are only really adding a real deterence to freighter ganks using t1 bs/bc. The people flying bpos or other small volume high value items around in shuttles/frigs/t1 industrials etc will still be at risk for stealth bombers etc, though there will be an increase in effort for the suicider to get his sec back up again to get into high sec.

In this respect, the dev blog changes don't obviously make high sec 100% safe.

However,

In contrast to the speed rebalancing changes, these ideas seem to be a shift in Eve's philosophy. The games credibility as one of, if not THE, game where a players in game choices and behaviour can be black, white or a multitude of greys seems to be up for a knock. In a game of choices, another one seems to have just got struck off.

I say this seriously and without venom or spite but after reading this dev blog i thought: Could they be possibly looking at locking jet cans in the future, only for those of the same corp/alliance to be able to remove ore/items from? If changes based on the popular forum opinion of the moment, such as the removal of insurace payouts, are now part of the CCP operating procdure can we expect to see other such moves?

Whatever is said however, in a years time after these changes have gone through, no one will know the difference probably. It will be as if it always was and alittle of the danger, the risk, the excitment when you [a player on an alt or main] transport something of value in high sec will be gone. In effect, high sec will become a bit more flat and boring (if thats possible).
Originally by: "CCP Fear"
This is, of course, a major change in the landscape of EVE, but we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.

Assuming i haven't misunderstood you and your actually refering to the dev blog itself, when can we expect to hear possible other major changes involving sec status?

Changes/ideas/content additions along the lines of:
  • Smuggling plans/ideas

  • Plans/ideas for a black market

  • Plans/ideas for kill right trading and bounty hunting

  • Sec change tweeks and content addition for those in the pirating profession - ideas like possibly be able to enter 0.5 space but only fire if fired upon and so forth

  • Plans/ideas to link sec status into factional warfare

  • Plans/ideas for other imaginative schemes that link into the Eve sandbox idea

If im completely off the mark with the above are there any other plans/ideas on horizon with regards to the game mechanic of security status? Or are current plans as stated: just to reduce suicide ganking in high sec and make getting your sec status back up harder?

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Pesadel0


Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didnīt deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools donīt take them away.Crying or Very sad


How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????

Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.


Because:


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

The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1."

This was just an informative blog not a ask for help ,they most of the time listen to fedback and donīt change a thing so yes mate i've been around for a lott of time and the only time i say them backing out was the carrier nerf and when tux send a bone to the minmatars in red moon rising.

I still have a bit of faith they are actually asking for feedback but mhee ,i'am too old to believe in fairy tales.



Korinn
Habitual Euthanasia
Dystopia Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:13:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:14:39
Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


It REALLY sounds like you're trying to solve two mutually exclusive issues here with a single set of changes revolving around security; making 0.1 - 0.3 harsher does precisely **** all, and making it harder to rat up sec also makes precisely **** all difference to suicide gankers so I don't really see what these changes are designed to do. Lowsec is still absolutely ****ing pointless (HERES A HINT GUYS MOVE ALL THE ****ING LEVEL 4'S TO LOWSEC JESUS ****ING CHRIST THEN MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY USE LOWSEC MORE THAN JUST A CONDUIT BETWEEN EMPIRE AND 0.0), and it's still just as viable to suicide gank people and YET AGAIN it's CCP's game design department wielding an elephant rifle instead of a scalpel.
Rolling Eyes

Oh and maybe if you want people to test things you should sort out a goddamn SISI mirror that isn't 3 months old.. not like it'll matter since nothing that's made it to sisi aside from the carrier nerf has ever been severely altered by player input.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:17:00 - [135]
 

I'd bet that if level 4 missions were low-sec only, people would abandon them in favour of safe level 3 missions.

Caiman Graystock
Caldari
Cornelius Starship and Computer Design
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:19:00 - [136]
 

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

Perfect. This is all that was necessary, really.

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:19:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I'd bet that if level 4 missions were low-sec only, people would abandon them in favour of safe level 3 missions.


And some a little percentage would go to low sec and *shivers* actually make a community of mission runner like in haedlorfarber.

Acheron Watcher
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:19:00 - [138]
 

It's a very nice change.

Suicide ganking was unbalanced with a raven giving more money than it's cost+insurance.
Also the harsher sec loss is good, too many ppl were "casual pirates" who just ganked then went back to doing missions. Let pirates be pirates, with consequences.

Gneeznow
Minmatar
Ship spinners inc
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:20:00 - [139]
 

So it used to be 0.5% for agression and 2% for a ship kill, the blog says 9% loss for a -4 to kill a +5 sec status player, lets say I kill a 5.0 sec status player and I am 0 sec status, that gets me what? a 4.5% sec penalty instead of the old 2% ? thats a bit harsh isnt it, piracy is hard enough these days, now after every third kill people will have to jump clone back to 0.0 to grind sec back up.

This is gonna hurt pvp in low sec, I spent a lot of time running around stirring up the hornets nest in a cruiser or bc and getting into outnumbered fights on gates with guns on my side, now everyone will be too concerned with their sec status to get into a fight if it means losing between 4% and 9% per ship kill Rolling Eyes

Antodias
Ship spinners inc
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:21:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
Player vs. Player standing penalty

We will also count the standings of the two players involved; this extra variable can affect the total penalty received by a few percent. For example, if an aggressor has a high standing, and the victim negative standing, the aggressor get less of a penalty hit. This works in reverse, too. If you have low and the victim high, you will get an increased penalty.

As it currently stands, every whole point of standing difference will increase or decrease the penalty by 1%. If the aggressor has +5 and the victim -4, the overall penalty would be reduced by 9% (and increased if the other way around).

This is, of course, a major change in the landscape of EVE, but we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.


You're taking the **** right? Thanks for making low sec pirating even less feasible.

Korinn
Habitual Euthanasia
Dystopia Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:22:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:23:38
Originally by: Acheron Watcher
Suicide ganking was unbalanced with a raven giving more money than it's cost+insurance.


This isnt a problem with insurance, it's a problem with the market being ****ED because it's too easy to make isk AFK or botted and mineral cost is now lower than insurance cost (this should never happen, but yet again it's possible because of good old CCP). Fat lot of good their economist did them Neutral

ANYWAY, it's just as unbalanced as when someone insures and loses their raven in a level 4 mission in highsec and suddenly gets more isk back than they paid for it, how is that any more fair than someone who ganked an idiot with it?

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:23:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Gneeznow

This is gonna hurt pvp in low sec, I spent a lot of time running around stirring up the hornets nest in a cruiser or bc and getting into outnumbered fights on gates with guns on my side, now everyone will be too concerned with their sec status to get into a fight if it means losing between 4% and 9% per ship kill Rolling Eyes


Ummm.. you *did* read the dev comment on the previous page, right? The one in which he says that sec hits in 0.1 - 0.3 have actually been lowered?

So if you're actually concerned about low-sec pvp (and not risk-free highsec ganking like most of your alliance mates posting here), you'll actually be better off after this change.

FireFoxx80
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:26:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16
CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!


God, that makes me feel old.

Bad Messenger
draketrain
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:27:00 - [144]
 

My last 3 loss to concord has been accidents/player faults when pvping in highsec.
And why?
1. You can not setup overview properly for highsec war needs.
2. 'CONCORDOCKEN' warning has same setting for all clients and characters on your computer, so if you disable it on one char, all other disable it too.
3. lagg issues

So what i am asking is why you want to punish more players who accidentally shoot innocent people in highsec?

CCP should check aggression penalty rating on such cases. Most who accidentally get shoot by concord are newbies and miners and mission runner who do not exactly know all aggression rules.

I agree that ship kill sec penalty can be higher in higsec but not aggression sec penalty.

Sorry about Bad english Wink

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:27:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Antodias
Originally by: CCP Fear
Player vs. Player standing penalty

We will also count the standings of the two players involved; this extra variable can affect the total penalty received by a few percent. For example, if an aggressor has a high standing, and the victim negative standing, the aggressor get less of a penalty hit. This works in reverse, too. If you have low and the victim high, you will get an increased penalty.

As it currently stands, every whole point of standing difference will increase or decrease the penalty by 1%. If the aggressor has +5 and the victim -4, the overall penalty would be reduced by 9% (and increased if the other way around).

This is, of course, a major change in the landscape of EVE, but we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.


You're taking the **** right? Thanks for making low sec pirating even less feasible.


Lowsec pirating will be even MORE feasible after this...helloooo???

Korinn
Habitual Euthanasia
Dystopia Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:31:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Lowsec pirating will be even MORE feasible after this...helloooo???


I like how CCP Fear thinks that this will move ganking to lowsec, maybe moving all the juicy targets to lowsec would move ganking there but while there are still ******s in expensive ships or hauling expensive cargo in highsec, there will always be highsec ganking no matter the consequences.

As for lowsec piracy, it's been dead for years and this will do **** all to change it Rolling Eyes

Fuddlesticks
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:33:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Korinn
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Lowsec pirating will be even MORE feasible after this...helloooo???


I like how CCP Fear thinks that this will move ganking to lowsec, maybe moving all the juicy targets to lowsec would move ganking there but while there are still ******s in expensive ships or hauling expensive cargo in highsec, there will always be highsec ganking no matter the consequences.

As for lowsec piracy, it's been dead for years and this will do **** all to change it Rolling Eyes


I semi-agree with that, atleast as far as the highsec ganking thingie.
Lowsec piracy though? Yeah it's dead..as far as if this change will do anything in bringing it back to life? Maybe not, but it's a step in the right direction imho.

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:35:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Korinn
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Lowsec pirating will be even MORE feasible after this...helloooo???


I like how CCP Fear thinks that this will move ganking to lowsec, maybe moving all the juicy targets to lowsec would move ganking there but while there are still ******s in expensive ships or hauling expensive cargo in highsec, there will always be highsec ganking no matter the consequences.

As for lowsec piracy, it's been dead for years and this will do **** all to change it Rolling Eyes


I semi-agree with that, atleast as far as the highsec ganking thingie.
Lowsec piracy though? Yeah it's dead..as far as if this change will do anything in bringing it back to life? Maybe not, but it's a step in the right direction imho.


Low-sec been long time dead.I lolled when i read in the blog that this was a way to encourage more ganking in low sec :)

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:37:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Korinn


I like how CCP Fear thinks that this will move ganking to lowsec, maybe moving all the juicy targets to lowsec would move ganking there but while there are still ******s in expensive ships or hauling expensive cargo in highsec, there will always be highsec ganking no matter the consequences.



Yeah. And that's fine. It's the fact that it used to carry little to no penalty and had virtually no risk that was the problem.

If you find someone carrying valuable cargo or flying a very expensive mission ships it, gank it, and make a profit -- good for you. Keeps everyone on their toes.

...and of course, people can still do it just for fun. They will just have to pay the price, now, in isk and secstatus loss.

Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:37:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Veldya on 06/08/2008 11:37:53
I posted this months ago, everything thank Goons for these changes. When you abuse a suspect mechanic then it is only a matter of time until a very negative significant change occurs. If you guys kept to the valuable haulers nothing would have changed. Popping trillions in defenseless mining ships for laughs? Welcome to the consequences of stupid behavior.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : 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