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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Vitrael
Reaper Industries
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:17:00 - [241]
 

1. You're decreasing CONCORD response time. Fair enough. But the very least you could do is tell us how much you are decreasing response time.

2. You are decreasing the amount of CONCORD that spawns. That's good, because currently they are a huge cause of lag. But why does it matter that their frigate locks faster than their battleships when every ship has infinite tackle, CONCORD deactivates all modules and evading CONCORD is an exploit?

3. You're making sec loss even higher in high sec. I don't think you understand exactly how bad it is right now. I think a dev should have to grind up a -5 character and add his input before this change is implemented.

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.

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:19:00 - [242]
 

there was a big thread 4 months ago about this topic here

just because it is satisfying for me i will quote myself on the 23rd of April of 2008, at 11 in the morning.

Originally by: Apertotes
it will happen the same with this. there is no need of any evidence. it is just time, until CCP decides that paying insurance to criminals is no longer within the spirit of the game, and they will reafirm the change with lots of big words about honorability, morality, economy health and bOObs.

everybody will applaud them for doing so. a few will fill the forums with threats to leave the game with 400 alts, and fewer still will wonder how on earth that was not against the spirit of the game some weeks ago.



oh my God, how sweet it feels now. keep crying, it will make it even more rewarding

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:20:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: Khatred
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?



Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i *grasp* actually like the eve concept.

Khanto Thor
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:23:00 - [244]
 

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

Matalino
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:23:00 - [245]
 

I have a question that will hopefully get an answer instead of being lost in the whining:

Will this change impose a full security hit for ALL attackers? Or will only the person laying the final blow take the full security hit, with the other attackers taking a hit for attacking, but not for destroying the target?

Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [246]
 

I would also like to point out how horribly out of balance this puts the isk/risk ratio. Running level 4 missions in near perfect safety in empire gives the same or better isk as ratting in 0.0, where your ship can be ganked with no consequence.

If you're going to make Empire perfectly safe, make 0.0 more valuable.

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [247]
 

Edited by: Clansworth on 06/08/2008 15:31:08
NVM

Adam Coyle
Caldari
Vesa Supply Corp
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:29:00 - [248]
 

I cannot understand you all whiners, the proposed change is for one thing only a proposed change and for another thing very small.

I have no basis for saying the following, it is just speculation:
But from what I have understood and from my own destructions while hauling most suicide ganking happens in 0.5-0.6, right?
The proposed change will only increase the penalty slightly for suicide ganking in 0.5-0.6 anyway, so why are so many complaining about the end of the world.

I say that since the reward from security systems is gradual already I am all for that the risk should also be gradual (best mission agents are always in lower security systems and best ore is the same).

But the change that your own sec status and the attackers sec status should make any difference, that I do not understand. If I am a law bidding citizen and have never drawn attention from CONCORD before, why should I get less penalty than a pirate that has made his career in confronting CONCORD?
A crime is still a crime regardless of who is doing it, right?

Third, I do not approve of just removing insurance from CONCORD involved incidents. Please make an overhaul of the complete insurance system instead. If I am a mission runner and am careless to lose a lot of ships, then I should have to pay a higher premium than pilots that never lose their ships regardless of reason. Maybe it is enough to raise the hand payment, but introduce a lower fee to extend an existing insurance. That way you punish those that lose a lot of ships, but reward those that take care of them. Yes, changing the insurance system will always draw insults from forum readers that CCP is giving in for whining carebears. But the insurance system needs an overhaul sooner than later anyway.

Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:30:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0


Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i *grasp* actually like the eve concept.


I wouldn't worry to much, considering this blog and the "speed balancing" one it's obvious that CCP loves big alliances and empire dwellers. After all, you are probably 95% of the player base.


Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:38:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: Khatred
Originally by: Pesadel0


Because i actually am worried were the frack this path leads .And i *grasp* actually like the eve concept.


I wouldn't worry to much, considering this blog and the "speed balancing" one it's obvious that CCP loves big alliances and empire dwellers. After all, you are probably 95% of the player base.




Are you dense?

Slim Goodbody
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:47:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Harris
I don't think its sad.
It places consequences in your way that you have to consider more seriously than before. Isn't that what Eve is aboutQuestion
Ganking will still happen - which is good. I suspect it will be more intel-driven targets now, rather than 'just-happened-to-scan-his-cargo-at-the-gate-and-liked-what-I-saw'.

I particularly like the fact that there will be some sort of difference between Hi & Null sec rather than just acting as a buffer zone between 0.1 and 0.4. I think that should be developed further in the future.


What about the consequences of transporting valuable goods without proper protection?

Goes both ways.

Badly WrappedKebab
THE INTERNET.
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:47:00 - [252]
 

Any chance of making webbing, remote repping and remote sensor boosting not cause aggression if you are in the same fleet regardless of alliance/corp?

It sucks royally to take a sec status hit if I want to stop a neutral cyno alt's ship getting blown up and/or not being able to web a neutral freighter in highsec..

Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
Final Agony
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:48:00 - [253]
 

Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 06/08/2008 15:49:09
Pathetic changes. Except for the insurance one.

"Concord provided consequences not protection"... not anymore!


Also how about fixing GCC mechanics and just remove gateguns now maybe? Remote rep my own corpmate for GCC ftw!

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:51:00 - [254]
 

Make PVE server instead.

Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:54:00 - [255]
 

Oh good lord.

I'll agree that getting insurance for a suicide gank should be removed. That never made any sense. I can't agree with the rest of this, particularly the security status changes.

Some of the most active suicide gankers come into empire from 0.0, where they often have 5.0 or higher sec status from farming officer and faction rats, so that does nothing at all to them.

On the other hand, you have people that live in empire who, because you do such a terrible job of removing them, take matters into their own hands to suicide gank ISK farmers. An ISK farmer can farm his way to 5.0 or higher in just a couple of weeks.

You also have people whose low security status comes from fighting with non-outlaw pirates who just might have a higher sec status than they do.

There's also people at war (Faction War in particular) who take sec hits from shooting neutral scouts.

You fix things by tweaking them and standing back to see what happens, not by grabbing it by the power cord and slamming it against the wall. You people are changing too much, too drastically, too quickly.

Nathan Baxter
InterSun Freelance
The Forsaken.
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:55:00 - [256]
 

I think those are fine changes, not sure why all these people are complaning ... nothing really drastic ... but it will be less profitable for sure , an increase in loot drop seem a well deserve counterbalance... or some good salvage , something to make it worthwhile still.



Nathan

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:58:00 - [257]
 

Meh ugh.


I never suicide ganked but really removing insurance alone would be more then enough (if not to much already). What's happening with the cold hard space ideology?

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:01:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Shevar
What's happening with the cold hard space ideology?


its being promoted. now it affects suicide gankers too.

Cypher Run
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:01:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Shevar
What's happening with the cold hard space ideology?


It's still there.

Hint: You'll have to look a little beyond hi sec to find it.

Auraurious
Infinity Enterprises
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:02:00 - [260]
 

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

Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW



If you AFK trough High sec and get ganked. It's your fault you made a misstake of thinking high sec is completly safe.

So ganking is going too get harder at the cost of Low sec pvp?. Oh w8 didn't you freaking devs wanna make Low sec more active. More sec loss everywhere is stupid.

Cypher Run
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:03:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Apertotes
Originally by: Shevar
What's happening with the cold hard space ideology?


its being promoted. now it affects suicide gankers too.


Bah! Even a better response than mine.

Mik Starret
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:05:00 - [262]
 

The forum posting pirate minority never ceases to amaze me. Many of you seem to think that it is CCP's responsibility to provide you a playground to do the things you want to do, no matter if they interfere with the activities of a larger group of paying customers. Get a clue, it isn't. CCP's only responsibility is provide positive ROI to their owners, and if they best way to do that is to make the empire experience safer then that is what they are going to do. Their goal is to attract and keep paying customers, the advantage for us is that to do that they need to create and maintain the best game possible, for the *majority* of players. How can you possibly question that as a goal?

Although I don't know, I would assume before they make these changes they study the available statistical data concerning accounts, joins,quits, in game actions, etc. The game system is so sophisticated I'm sure it provides these kinds of reports, which players never see and have no basis on which even to make any assumptions.

Thus, if they are doing their jobs as well as I think they are, any changes like this are made, after careful study, for the good of the game. It won't please everyone, and forums exist largely for an outlet for complaining, but the posts that imply that CCP owes you the right to gank other players is just silly.

MS

Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:05:00 - [263]
 

Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 06/08/2008 16:05:44
"Eve online is not designed to look like a caring and sensitive world, it is a caring and sensitive world"

Thanks for caterating to a bunch of carebears

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:10:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Mik Starret
The forum posting pirate minority never ceases to amaze me. Many of you seem to think that it is CCP's responsibility to provide you a playground to do the things you want to do, no matter if they interfere with the activities of a larger group of paying customers. Get a clue, it isn't. CCP's only responsibility is provide positive ROI to their owners, and if they best way to do that is to make the empire experience safer then that is what they are going to do. Their goal is to attract and keep paying customers, the advantage for us is that to do that they need to create and maintain the best game possible, for the *majority* of players. How can you possibly question that as a goal?

Although I don't know, I would assume before they make these changes they study the available statistical data concerning accounts, joins,quits, in game actions, etc. The game system is so sophisticated I'm sure it provides these kinds of reports, which players never see and have no basis on which even to make any assumptions.

Thus, if they are doing their jobs as well as I think they are, any changes like this are made, after careful study, for the good of the game. It won't please everyone, and forums exist largely for an outlet for complaining, but the posts that imply that CCP owes you the right to gank other players is just silly.

MS


The more they move into the mainstream MMO market (with features such as safer space) the more they will alienate the player base that's paying for this game because it isn't like the other MMO's. Not to mention that they will have to compete more with the nicer MMO's.

And if you look at the development of nice MMO's subscription rates you will notice that outside EQ1 and WoW not one has been able of doing much, let alone be comparable with eve's yearly subscriber increase rate. And I hope it isn't the case but really 95% of those MMO's have declining player bases not increasing ones after the initial hype.

Mik Starret
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:16:00 - [265]
 

I don't disagree, but I think you are over inflating the group that plays EvE because it allows endless opportunities for violence. The great thing about EvE is that it is a sandbox, you are not limited by strict paths and previous decisions in how you approach the game. Unlike many other MMO's, the basic EvE concept is extremely strong and compelling.

For some, the best part of that concept is that you can kill at will. For others, that is the worst part. Only CCP knows who the majority is, but I can guess, and I'd wager the balance tilts far to one side.

MS

Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:18:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: Shevar
What's happening with the cold hard space ideology?


CCP decided they like carebear money more.

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:18:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: Shevar


The more they move into the mainstream MMO market (with features such as safer space) the more they will alienate the player base that's paying for this game because it isn't like the other MMO's. Not to mention that they will have to compete more with the nicer MMO's.


we've been doomed before. remember when jump clones were anounced? the riots were quite big. the game kept on growing on players. remember when carriers were nerfed? well, the game kept on growing. remember the privateers and how CCP changed the war system? well, the game kept on growing. remember torps nerf? oh my god, by the looks of the forum whines, the game would go to one third of its subscribers. but the number of players kept raising. remember ECM nerf? NOS nerf? the reduction of drones from 15 to 5?...

i could go on and on. players adapt, and most of them, after some time, end up agreeing with past changes.

Rear Commander
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:20:00 - [268]
 

Edited by: Rear Commander on 06/08/2008 16:20:41

Here's the breakdown:
Thread Link

Originally by: CCP fear
We are increasing the security penalties throughout high-security space. It will be a gradual change, from 1.0 down to 0.1, where the security level of the system will dictate how much penalty you receive for illegal actions against a fellow capsuleer. This means that 1.0 will now be the safest of places, where aggressions and kills will be severely penalized and can quickly outlaw the aggressor from higher security levels. Conversely, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 will see a decrease in penalty, but not a big step down.


To me this reads as if .4 systems were chosen as the balancing point, retaining the standard .5% loss for aggression and 2.0% loss for destruction. However, this hasn't been done. Instead it's been balanced around .3 systems.

Sec status is already a royal PITA to maintain. So far on Sisi, sec loss on high sec systems and sec loss versus high security targets have already been penalized. Let's not start increasing the base sec status loss in .4s as well. As it stands on sisi you can lose as much as thirty two percent more sec lost than currently on tranq (since .4s can be .44 true sec)

Compared to before:
1.0 = 3x sec loss
.9 = 2.7x sec loss
.8 = 2.4x sec loss
.7 = 2.1x sec loss
.6 = 1.8x sec loss
.5 = 1.5x sec loss
.4 = 1.2x sec loss
.3 = .9x sec loss
.2 = .6x sec loss
.1 = .3x sec loss

Previous LOSS formulas were:
Aggress: (.005)*(Current Sec + 10) = actual sec loss
Destroy: (.02)*(Current Sec + 10)= actual sec loss

New LOSS Formulas are:
Aggress: (.005*(1-(aggressor's sec- victim's sec)/100)*(truesec *3)*(current sec + 10)= actual sec loss
Destroy: (.02*(1-(aggressor's sec- victim's sec)/100)*(truesec *3)*(current sec + 10)= actual sec loss

Test Numbers:
Test 1:
.06 aggresses a -1.6 in a .3384 system
Combat log reports a .0998% loss.
Security sheet reports a .4991% loss
Resulting sec status is .01

Test 2:
.01 aggresses a -1.6 in a .4319 system
Combat log reports a -.1274% loss
Security sheet reports a .6372% loss
Resulting sec status is -.05

Test 3:
-.05 aggresses a -1.6 in a .1889 system
Combat log reports a -.0558% loss
Security sheet reports a .279% loss
Resulting sec status is -.08

Test 4:
-.08 aggresses a -1.6 in a .1498 system
Combat log reports a -.0443% loss
Security sheet reports a -.2213% loss
Resulting sec status is -.10

Test 5:
-.10 destroys a -1.6 in a .1498 system
Combat log reports a -.1771% loss
Security sheet reports a -.8855% loss
Resulting sec status is -.19

Silent Calling
Gallente
North Eastern Swat
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:21:00 - [269]
 

WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle.

Why not just make CONCORD a giant Commet that once a person commits a violation it comes out of no where and destroys them? That might save on lag? Very Happy

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:23:00 - [270]
 

Originally by: Silent Calling
WOW - Apparantly you can cure stupid. Well done CCP, great to see you taking care of the morons that afk Billions of isk in BPC's and BPO's afk in a shuttle.


what is stopping you from ganking him and getting the loot?


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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