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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

namesarehard
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:39:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Gealbhan
You can persecute us, nerf our standings, buff your concord and remove insurance for concord related deaths but you will NEVER, EVER stop us!

Pirates will Always be a part of Eve in every system from 0.0 to 1.0!

Yarrr with me brothers!!!! YARRRR!!

P.S. This will increase war dec's on small empire corps 10x and turn empire into a warred out wasteland.


Thats the attitude! If anything pirate corps can just start wardeccing and atleast they get 24 hours to kill to their hearts content.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:45:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: namesarehard
Originally by: Gealbhan
You can persecute us, nerf our standings, buff your concord and remove insurance for concord related deaths but you will NEVER, EVER stop us!

Pirates will Always be a part of Eve in every system from 0.0 to 1.0!

Yarrr with me brothers!!!! YARRRR!!

P.S. This will increase war dec's on small empire corps 10x and turn empire into a warred out wasteland.


Thats the attitude! If anything pirate corps can just start wardeccing and atleast they get 24 hours to kill to their hearts content.


Hope you got a lot of money and patience with corphopping then.

Maverick Ice
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:58:00 - [213]
 

I actually see more high-sec ganks coming with this change, at least for a while after the change, as the carebears will be lulled into a false sense of security. YARRRR!!

I like the variable sec hit for system security level, think it is long overdue. I also, in principal, like a variable by standings difference, although I don't like the implementation here. If you shoot someone with a negative standing, it should increase your standing to CONCORD, not decrease it. Should be just like shooting NPC rats Cool, perhaps CONCORD bounties placed on individuals too Twisted Evil

To those complaining about the decreased security hit in low-sec, two points...1) encourages you to kill more ****....how can that be bad? and 2) reduces the hit that people take to proactively engage you, meaning you might get more real fights, instead of ganking only carebears.....how can that be bad unless you are a griefer?

Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:59:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,

Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW


This.

We have super-star game designers, they want to change everything. Here's the tip, dumb-asses: Eve is good as it is. At most it needs some minor tweak here and there over time. If you have an issue deal with it, don't change game mechanics that have nothing to do wit the issue and that are not broken.

Remove insurance for high-sec ganks, it's ok and it makes sense. An insurance company would never insure for illegal activities.

No, too easy for "CCP Fear", the super-game-designer has to show he really is a pro. And we get tons of crap ideas like in this dev blog. Look how smart he is, you get 1% less penalty loss for each point of relative difference in concord standing between aggressor and victim.

Lol pathetic.

-
not my singature



Zoom Cheesedog
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:59:00 - [215]
 

Sheesh. PvPers are always the biggest whiners in any MMO, but I swear, EVE's players raise it to a whole new level.

PvP is not going away. Want pew pew? Join faction warfare. Move to 0.0. Wardec somebody. Join a mercenary corp. Gank a faction-fit battleship.

We just got a huge content upgrade dedicated entirely to PvP, but when the rules are changes to make ganking newbies and mining barges less profitable, all you see is "WAAAAH CCP STOP CATERING TO CAREBEARS!! SO NOT FAIR!!"

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:07:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Miklas Laces
Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,

Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW


This.

We have super-star game designers, they want to change everything. Here's the tip, dumb-asses: Eve is good as it is. At most it needs some minor tweak here and there over time. If you have an issue deal with it, don't change game mechanics that have nothing to do wit the issue and that are not broken.

Remove insurance for high-sec ganks, it's ok and it makes sense. An insurance company would never insure for illegal activities.

No, too easy for "CCP Fear", the super-game-designer has to show he really is a pro. And we get tons of crap ideas like in this dev blog. Look how smart he is, you get 1% less penalty loss for each point of relative difference in concord standing between aggressor and victim.

Lol pathetic.

-
not my singature





A case of the blind quoting the blind...

Tova Hilt
North Star Networks
Black Hand.
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:11:00 - [217]
 

Hmm, I guess I just missed it, but I assume that along with these changes, you will also remove all bugs and useability problems with the Overview?

Because, let's face it, the number one reason for being Concordokkened is a misclick of one kind or another. I've never done a suicide gank in all my EVE career, but I've lost count of the number of ships I've lost to Concord because of bugs, lag, tiredness or just plain stupidity.

The sec status hit from an accidental attack shouldn't be that much of a problem for a non-pirate, but losing a fully insured and fitted BS costs somewhere around 150M if you get no insurance payout. This is a big deal for a lot of players, and it is generally very hard to get any reimbursement for bugs involving the Overview.

My suggestion would be, make the sec status changes, but don't touch the insurance payouts. It's not like it's free to lose a BS anyway, just because it's insured.

Gaius Gallius
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:12:00 - [218]
 

Along with the other recent dev blogs, all of this gives the impression of "too much, too fast".

Please start by removing the insurance payout from CONCORD-caused ship kills and see what happens.

The shotgun debugging approach that you are taking currently makes it quite difficult determine which specific change is causing a resultant effect.

namesarehard
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:15:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: Zoom Cheesedog
Sheesh. PvPers are always the biggest whiners in any MMO, but I swear, EVE's players raise it to a whole new level.

PvP is not going away. Want pew pew? Join faction warfare. Move to 0.0. Wardec somebody. Join a mercenary corp. Gank a faction-fit battleship.

We just got a huge content upgrade dedicated entirely to PvP, but when the rules are changes to make ganking newbies and mining barges less profitable, all you see is "WAAAAH CCP STOP CATERING TO CAREBEARS!! SO NOT FAIR!!"


I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.

Eric Lendall
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:16:00 - [220]
 

Quote:
The changes to security standings will make it harder for players to casually gank another player, and creates a challenge, so that if you are going to kill someone, you better realize the consequences. We are also considering merging EVE Online with Hello Kitty Online.



Fixed.

Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:17:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Qual on 06/08/2008 14:18:08
1st priority should have been "no pay out".

But hey, you cant win 'em all.

Sec loss based on sec sounds resonable to me, though I would set the curve so that 0.4/0.5 was equal to today and go from there.

Taking char sec status into the equation seems a bit over the top tbh. I would scrap that for now and see how the rest works out first.

Concord response time? Did that really need fixing? Me thinks not!

Umit Davala
Corpus PCG
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:18:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

Erm... Well no it isn't. But thats kind of the point, surely? Just like belt piracy, scamming, gatecamping, can baiting, ganking, and so on, and so on... None of these are sporting. And yet is a large basis of what made Eve unique.

Now I don't agree that the sky is falling like some of the more vociferuous pilots are saying, but it does seem to be a step in slowly removing the elements that made Eve stand out in the first place. A shame really.



Arctur Ceti
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:22:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: namesarehard
I'm just gonna come out and say whats on everyone elses mind here. It is a lot more fun to ruin a carebears gameplay experience and drive him to quit the game then it is to shoot someone who wants to be shot in return. Most of us get a lot of enjoyment out of getting pubbies to cry and moan and talk about how life isn't fair and then rage quit over it. Nothing is more satisfying then ruining the game for someone else or for an ISK farmer.


I don't think Eve was designed with the intention of being a griefer's game or a game to take pleasure on other people's miseries. Perhaps this isn't the game you're looking for.

Khanto Thor
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:23:00 - [224]
 

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.

#

That's the problem, Pirates aren't very bright, but they sure do whine a lot!! Laughing

Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:24:00 - [225]
 

"Welcome to World of Minecraft, where you can macro to your hearts content in the warm, cuddly embrace of Concord." - CCP

This change makes it abundantly clear who CCP listens to and cares about. Macro-miners and Empire missioners get immediate results with their constant whinging and vast numbers, while 0.0 alliances are forced to wait years for responses after writing detailed manifestos.

CCP just gave up even trying to make design decisions themselves, delegating that to the CSM. It's too bad CCP can't be arsed to play their own game and actually see how their own game mechanics work. Can't really blame them, though, the game isn't that well documented.

Used to be that Eve-O was about the harsh, unforgiving environs of space, and the social consequences of your actions. Now it's clear CCP wants it to be about the warm comfort of AFK macro mining and Empire missioning.

Space just got a little safer. Crying or Very sad

Laconis Dax
Children of Armok
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:25:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: MarcusCole
While you're nerfing different playstyles into oblivion would you care to take a look at the players who spend their entire careers in noob corps, unable to be attacked and generally not interacting with others at all.

If say after 3 months (arbitrary time) they were moved into their factions militia via some sort of graduation ceremony idea it would provide some sort of gradual introduction to the harshness of eve without making them entirely fair game in high sec. In addition they should not be allowed to rejoin the starter corp, the factional militia BECOMES their default corp.

the nerf bat should swing both ways
I'd vote for this, and I'm in an NPC corp. It's an exploit, but at the moment a legal and widely-used one.

NPC corps should not be used as a shield against aggression. I admit I'm in the NPC corp ONLY to provide protection from wardecs-- it sure isn't for the stimulating conversation or because I love ISK-seller spam.

Letouk Mernel
Caldari
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:28:00 - [227]
 

Increase the % chance that the victim's items will drop as loot, rather than be destroyed, to counterbalance this nerf.

Breaky Uzumaki
Caldari
Spleen Merchant
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:29:00 - [228]
 

When does Trammel come out?

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:29:00 - [229]
 

Good times. When will we have this pvp-flag everyone was talking about?

Katana Seiko
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:33:00 - [230]
 

these proposed changes are great. there's just one thing missing: most people go into high-sec ganking for profit. a ship that is destroyed by concord should not get any insurace payout...

the other proposed changes are great - let's see how that changes the makeup of the galaxy.
(Can we have concord agents back please (two of each level per empire)? A positive standing with concord makes sense now...)

TheG2
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:36:00 - [231]
 

The security sec "buff" to pirates is great. It makes low-sec pirating not as brutal on your security status, I'm very pleased with this.

Suicide ganking will still be possible. I've done it twice myself, 1 successful, 1 not. It's fun, and a great way to strike back against macro miners.

Insurance...well, I think completely removing insurance from Concord intervention is a bad idea. How about this, if a ship gets blown up while ganking, and in the process of ganking they result in the destruction of a ship, they forfeit insurance, otherwise insurance still applies.

Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:39:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
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.


Not Sporting? I cannot believe you wrote that. Since when has Eve ever been about gentlemen's rules or being polite and "sporting"? Eve is supposed to be harsh and brutal.

How can you possibly state that a change that makes Empire even safer for afk macro miners and missioners doesn't reward being careless and AFKQuestionExclamation

I can't believe you're allowed to have input on game design.

Slanty McGarglefist
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:41:00 - [233]
 

Edited by: Slanty McGarglefist on 06/08/2008 14:40:43
I fear CCP Fear. His changes and logic are out of right field.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:42:00 - [234]
 

Waiting for the death threats.

Phillipe d'Rothschild
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:49:00 - [235]
 

I'm not in favor of hassle free freighter travel. As a freighter pilot myself, part of the reward balancing is determining how much ISK you are willing to risk on a trip thru Niarja, etc. The fact that people that are 'relatively' safe lose ships and other items is an intrinsic part of what made my friends wish to play eve in the first place. Turning this into WoW is NOT the way to proceed forward.

Celedris
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:03:00 - [236]
 

It's nice to see you devoted an entire TASK FORCE for this one. The Lord knows making money while AFK in empire needed a boost.

Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:05:00 - [237]
 

I have the solution for you all:

1. High sec gankers can go to WoW pvp servers, level to 70 and then gank 20's in Ashenvale.
2. High sec carebears can go to WoW pve servers and do whatever.

That will also solve Jita lag.

There, I want a Noble prize now.


Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:06:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Khatred
I have the solution for you all:

1. High sec gankers can go to WoW pvp servers, level to 70 and then gank 20's in Ashenvale.
2. High sec carebears can go to WoW pve servers and do whatever.

That will also solve Jita lag.

There, I want a Noble prize now.




Thank you for your input ,here take a buck of STFU.

Alz Shado
EverFlow
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:08:00 - [239]
 

I'm hoping that the Insurance changes come sooner rather than later, because the sec status penalties will only mean that the suicide gankers will have to recycle their alts more frequently now.

I'd rather see a "Karma" based system, where the sec status is shared across all of the characters on an account. Recycling an alt would just mean that you lose your skills, so there's no "fresh start" with CONCORD without buying a new account. Those who want to grind their sec status back up can have a lowsec ratting alt, which will mean that they'll need to put the gankers into cold storage (and away from the gates) while the ratters do the boring work.

Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:11:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0
Originally by: Khatred
I have the solution for you all:

1. High sec gankers can go to WoW pvp servers, level to 70 and then gank 20's in Ashenvale.
2. High sec carebears can go to WoW pve servers and do whatever.

That will also solve Jita lag.

There, I want a Noble prize now.




Thank you for your input ,here take a buck of STFU.


And why exactly do you f***ing care? Aren't you like supposed to be in 0.0 where this changes have no effect whatsoever?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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