open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked NEWS FLASH: CCP caves in to carebears, film at 11:00...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Jmanis Catharg
Caldari
Dusk Blade Logisitcals
Posted - 2008.06.03 14:48:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 03/06/2008 14:50:40
I love how everyone reads the bolded:
Quote:
Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."


and not

Quote:
Greyscale: Before anyone jumps to conclusions, what we're mainly looking at is small, common-sense adjustments to tune down the randomized griefing and opportunistic free lunch attacks without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on. There's a balance to be struck that's close to what we have currently, but not exactly the same."


Christ, mountain, meet molehill.

End of the day, only reason why this carebear has a fat wallet is because all the PvPers buy my ships and weapons. Rolling Eyes

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:01:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Winterblink
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
The current frrquency of suicide ganking is a MASSIVE change from a couple of years back. While its always existed, its become "casual and cheap" rather than "rare and focused"

The fact of the matter is, nowadays there's tons of money to be made by suicide ganking, say, a freighter. The isk loss from fully insured ships pale by comparison to what you might find in the can of some freighters.

Suicide ganking has become "casual and cheap" because moving large volumes of expensive goods through high security space has become casual.



Actually, it seems to be more and more common to blow up haulers no matter what their content is worth. The loot is just icing in the cake. As an additional example look at the goons' Jihad (whatever it's called). I think that was also just for the "LOL" effect.


Donald Truman
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:01:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Shakka Zulu
Any time something is done that can in any way be construed as "pro-carebear", the whole forums are up in arms that Eve is going down the drain.



Precautions. We have to stomp on the creeping carebearism right away.



So, you want to make sure that when any specifics on this come out, that your complaints are evaluated in a context of "this person doesn't actually care about the specifics; this person is anti-CB no matter what".

GG.

Cyberman Mastermind
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:02:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Alz Shado
Battleships make decent jetcan miners, and it's trivially easy to fit one that can take out the occasional passing ganker (hint: Scram, Web, 5x Ogre IIs)

So, we are supposed to be using a hammer on a screw because the screwdriver breaks once you apply a little force?
Doesn't that sound wrong to you? I usually adhere to the motto "the right tool for the job", but since I've started playing Eve I reconsider.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:04:00 - [95]
 

Quote:
without removing the ability to make premeditated strikes and so on.


ok

Brachis
Caldari
Eve Liberation Force
OWN Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:05:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Brachis on 03/06/2008 15:07:52
Originally by: Val Vympel

In general,I agree with your opinions and comments.

However...

If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality.

CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo.

People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not.

The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism.

My 2 ISKWink

EDIT: In addition,targeting a player should always be viewed as hostile by CONCORD thus negating any protection afforded by them if the targeted player chooses to fire first.
If the targeted player decides to fight..then they waive CONCORD protection as well.

If a gun is pointed at me in the RL,I am not going to wait until the trigger is pulled(if possible) before I react.



I actually agree with most of your points completely. The current incarnation of CONCORD does not fulfill the law enforcement and citizen protection role in a way that actually makes the game interesting.

What the game really needs are harsher penalties for high-sec violators, in my opinion. A teensy standing hit for assaulting another player and destroying their property isn't enough. Getting your own ship popped in the process isn't enough.

There is no reality equivalent to the strange and obscure way in which CONCORD deals with violent capsuleers. Piracy should have harsher penalties in high sec, and players who wish to evade the law should be given greater opportunity to do so, but at the cost of enormous security loss.

I'm not actually sure what exactly SHOULD be done. CCP has their own idea for what CONCORD should do, and there have been good player suggestions as well.
I think in the end, we just have to count on CCP to do their best to equalize the system.
Pirates should be able to pirate, but it should also come with equivalent punishment, when possible.

I think most players would agree that SOMETHING needs to be fixed, though not all of them have an idea as to what.

As for targeting being an act of aggression... naw, I think that's a tad far. There are a lot of modules in the game geared towards aiding or gathering intel without acts of force. Mixed-fleet logistics would become impossible.
Not to mention I enjoy spending my time in Motsu, scanning mission runner ships to learn more about what players like to fit.

sg3s
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:09:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
That part you bolded is terribly vague and I can't make any assumptions on it.

What I can say for sure, is that live dev blogs aren't worth the sh*tty bandwidth they are on. Lots of things are said in live dev blogs that never make it to TQ, most notably the nano nerf that has been in live dev blogs for almost a year and the 0.0 sov changes that we haven't heard much of.


They're worth alot, it informs us, players, of what they are thinking and looking into, and mostly they tell you becouse they want the feedback, constructive feedback.

I don't know about the nano nerf but I do think that one is still on. It's just that some parts of the game are so insanely hard to alter without destroying/changing a different part to such extend that something else ****s up/becomes a problem... There are many reasons.

About the sov changes; do you check the features and suggestions forum?... I don't think so but I'll tell you that there is a insane thread with many many many usefull suggestions and thoughts from both players and gamedesigners... It's definitly worth reading the dev posts in that thread, it should give you an idea of how many problems come with changing something in an already existing universe. Don't know if you want to take the time to read other posts but there are some awesome ideas in there.

Originally by: Vaal Erit
Pro-tip: live dev blogs are meaningless, REAL dev blogs that you can see from your sidebar navigation menu are pretty legit. Stop whining, Bellum. When CCP actually annoucnes such carebear hugging, then we shall WHINE IN HELL!


The live dev blogs are definitly usefull, it is a good tool to quickly explain some questions in the community, remember you are not the only player, you might not like a feature, but other definitly do.

If you don't care/like them try to give constructive arguments why these should not exist...

And if you want info on what is about to get to tranq. restrict yourself to the features pages for each patch.

Yuleth Gix
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:15:00 - [98]
 

The tears in this thread really taste yummy today.

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:21:00 - [99]
 

I'm pretty sure any such changes will mostly effect the balance of suicide ganking, so that it isn't quite the no-brainer it is now. Taking someones ISK is a good thing and an important part of EVE, but the ganking got to the point where the gankers can make more profit in an hours wait and gank than the gankee can make in a month.

A freighter is not supposed to be a floating money pot, and no amount of protection provided within the constraints of reasonable profit margins can stop the gank squads.

Over pimped CNR pilots have other options and thus only themselves to blame. Most seem to finally be wising up to these options.

The free lunch, it is over.

The good news is that lo-sec is about to be populated (at least briefly) by a lot of people doing FW. If you can stomach taking on a target that can fight back, and lets face it a lot of these ships are going to t1 frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, then there will be plenty of people to pew pew.

What we really need is for CCP to provide something in lo-sec of sufficient worth that carebears will go in to collect/supply it while making enough ISK not to cry when their ship gets popped. This way they keep coming back and the pirates who do the popping get some reasonable profits.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.06.03 16:16:00 - [100]
 

One detail that never ceases to amaze me in this debate are number of knuckle dragging idiots that talk about using "available defense options"

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)

That means Frigates, shuttles and Blockade runners.

NOTHING can "defend" a Frieghter. The defence a reasonable escort group can make in the time that the combat is decided is "nearly" meaningless.

and the notion that no frieghter should EVER fly with cargo EVEN IN EMPIRE, unless escorted, is just too stupid for words...... (and yes, thats what the "defend yourself" morons are basicly suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not....)

The idea that every time a ship undocks with more than 100mil in cargo, he should have a combat escort is even more brain dead, and once again, thats whats some fools are effectively suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not.

And its a whole additional magnitude of stupidity to actually expect players to choose between "Not hauling cargo" and "making several friends fly escort just move a 100mil worth of stuff in empire".

Carebearism in 0.5+ empire is ftw. THATS WHERE THE CAREBEARISM IS SUSPOSE TO BE. If you dont like it, LEAVE EMPIRE.

I live in 0.0, and have for a long time, but I never lost any sleep over empire carebearism, and never will. On the contrary, I was pleased that a ruthless game Eve could support varied styles of play.

That ability of Eve to support such varied styles of play is severely threatened. To be clear, it is NOT threatened simply by "Suicide Ganking" (which has always exitsed). It is threatened by "Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide Ganking"

Eve Needs to return to as it was. 0.5+ Suicide ganking Should not be common, it should not be casual and it should not be cheap. Having said that, "Focused, Rare, and Expensive" suicide ganking is cool. Everyone like to take part in, or read about a brillant plan successfully concluded (except maybe the target....)

Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide ganking in 0.5+ needs to cease to exist. Let em suicide gank, suicide ganking is fine, but NOT if it is "Common, Casual and Cheap".

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.03 16:22:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Val Vympel
Edited by: Val Vympel on 03/06/2008 14:13:12

In general,I agree with your opinions and comments.

However...

If EvE is supposed to be a simulation of a real life society then the LAW should not be exempt from that reality.

CONCORD,gateguns,faction police etc. should be perishable,tankable and escapable.Should it be easy..NO..should it be possible..YES imo.

People the world over evade or try to evade the law everyday. Some succeed..most do not.

The ability(no matter how slim the chances)to do so simply does not exist in EvE,that IMO doesn't lend much weight to the scales of realism.

My 2 ISKWink

EDIT: In addition,targeting a player should always be viewed as hostile by CONCORD thus negating any protection afforded by them if the targeted player chooses to fire first.
If the targeted player decides to fight..then they waive CONCORD protection as well.

If a gun is pointed at me in the RL,I am not going to wait until the trigger is pulled(if possible) before I react.



Okay, but then when they all hunt you down with superior numbers they do put you in jail/stasis (hey you just murdered hunderds on board the ship you destroyed) for the coming 50 years.

Alz Shado
EverFlow
Posted - 2008.06.03 16:45:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind
So, we are supposed to be using a hammer on a screw because the screwdriver breaks once you apply a little force? Doesn't that sound wrong to you? I usually adhere to the motto "the right tool for the job", but since I've started playing Eve I reconsider.

There's no right or wrong "tool for the job" in Eve. There's only getting the job done.

Mining a battleship is more like using a butterknife to turn a screw because the screwdriver you brought was too narrow. Oh, and it also spreads butter. Which is really helpful, if you need to make sandwiches *and* turn screws.

Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:16:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Euriti
Originally by: Wolfmoon
The only people that would be upset with grief exploits being locked out aren't real PvP'ers, they're simply childish cheating griefers. Those are the idiots that make a game like this NOT fun to play and deter the curious carebear from ever even trying pvp.
I stopped reading right there.
Makes sense to stop reading after that it's all that needs to be said, after all.

PvP is not griefing everyone seems to agree with this (at least the PvP:ers do) so any change that removes griefing from the game won't affect PvP. Griefing is also explicitly forbidden in the game, so the only ones who'd object to stronger counter-griefing mechanics are the ones who would risk getting banned a very tiny subset of players compared to the two main groups (PvPers and carebears).

So, honestly, I don't see why so many are upset about this, unless the game has a far higher population of EULA-breakers than anyone wants to admit.


I said "I stopped reading right there" because of the bolded parts, suicide gank is:

a) Not an exploit

b) Not griefing

c) Not childish cheating.

Major Death
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:17:00 - [104]
 

I suspect that the target CCP is aiming at is the use of one shot Alts to grief. I once lost my POD to a suicide ganking alt in high sec, which gave me kill rights on a character that was deleted 24 hours later. I have no problems with suicide ganks (maybe insurance needs a tweak, maybe not) but this sort of bullshot does nothing for the game.

Edward Preble
BioLith Industries
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:36:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Major Death
I suspect that the target CCP is aiming at is the use of one shot Alts to grief. I once lost my POD to a suicide ganking alt in high sec, which gave me kill rights on a character that was deleted 24 hours later. I have no problems with suicide ganks (maybe insurance needs a tweak, maybe not) but this sort of bullshot does nothing for the game.



I agree with Major Death. I don't mind suicide ganking per se, but I think it's a sign that game mechanic is being taken advantage in an unfair way if people are simply generating disposable characters to do it repeatedly.

Accountability and consequences make the ruthlessness of EVE fair(ish). The fact that you can "hurt" characters by hunting and killing them, or ruining their reputation helps make EVE feel consequence-laden. But if one character can be hurt and the other one simply disappears after 24 hours, that takes away the interaction and engagement the game is supposed to encourage. In short, fine, kill carebears, but leave mechanics so the motivated ones can get Carebear Revenge.

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:56:00 - [106]
 

Why are people so surprised when a CCP employee says, in a vague way, that they are looking at making minor adjustments to the balance of something?

Of course they are. That's how it should be.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:58:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)



Several people have told me their empty hauler was ganked, either for "lulz" or on the blind chance it had something in it.

Apoctasy
Lethal Injection.
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:19:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Bel Amar
I'm a carebear, and even I don't like the sound of that. EVE is EVE because it doesn't protect you from yourself.


qft

That is the attraction of this game. If carebears cannot protect themselves, then Wow is that way >>>

Most of the people whining about being ganked fail to realize that Eve is not like your other MMOs

Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:24:00 - [109]
 

My guess is they're just going to adjust insurance payouts with regard to getting concorded. If it's something other than that, then yea, this is ******ed.

Shintai
Gallente
Arx Io Orbital Factories
Arx Io
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:27:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot
One detail that never ceases to amaze me in this debate are number of knuckle dragging idiots that talk about using "available defense options"

Word to the wise: There are Two, and ONLY Two defense options that are truly effective:
--Fly a ship that gets into warp so fast they dont have time to scan you, and use warp to zero.
--Fly empty (or at least no more than a few million in cargo value if in a tough ship)

That means Frigates, shuttles and Blockade runners.

NOTHING can "defend" a Frieghter. The defence a reasonable escort group can make in the time that the combat is decided is "nearly" meaningless.

and the notion that no frieghter should EVER fly with cargo EVEN IN EMPIRE, unless escorted, is just too stupid for words...... (and yes, thats what the "defend yourself" morons are basicly suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not....)

The idea that every time a ship undocks with more than 100mil in cargo, he should have a combat escort is even more brain dead, and once again, thats whats some fools are effectively suggesting, regardless of if they admit it or not.

And its a whole additional magnitude of stupidity to actually expect players to choose between "Not hauling cargo" and "making several friends fly escort just move a 100mil worth of stuff in empire".

Carebearism in 0.5+ empire is ftw. THATS WHERE THE CAREBEARISM IS SUSPOSE TO BE. If you dont like it, LEAVE EMPIRE.

I live in 0.0, and have for a long time, but I never lost any sleep over empire carebearism, and never will. On the contrary, I was pleased that a ruthless game Eve could support varied styles of play.

That ability of Eve to support such varied styles of play is severely threatened. To be clear, it is NOT threatened simply by "Suicide Ganking" (which has always exitsed). It is threatened by "Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide Ganking"

Eve Needs to return to as it was. 0.5+ Suicide ganking Should not be common, it should not be casual and it should not be cheap. Having said that, "Focused, Rare, and Expensive" suicide ganking is cool. Everyone like to take part in, or read about a brillant plan successfully concluded (except maybe the target....)

Common, Casual and Cheap Suicide ganking in 0.5+ needs to cease to exist. Let em suicide gank, suicide ganking is fine, but NOT if it is "Common, Casual and Cheap".



Perfect said!

Mangtoos
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:30:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Mangtoos on 03/06/2008 18:33:06
If recommendation is to remove insurance from Jihad ganks because "who would pay insurance to a criminal who hit someone on purpose", then you're stupid. No one would insure you if you were planning to take your car out to war either. Comparing Internet Spaceships to real life is absolutely ******ed. The reason why it is cheap to suicide gank now because the price to buy, insure, and lose a ship is lower now than ever. If you want to make it more expensive then stop selling ships for so cheap. The market is controlled by the 'carebears', so it is they who choose to make it cheap to gank with battleships, and it is they who can control the market to make it less profitable.

The consequence for suiciding in highsec is the loss of security status. You must grind for hours in some cases for a single highsec gank, depending on what space you have to rat in. If CCP feels it is too the consequences are not severe enough for suicide ganking, then that is what needs to be changed (increase the multiplier). That is the whole purpose behing having a security status in the first place.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:32:00 - [112]
 

Suicide ganking is common because ships are much cheaper than they used to be.

When minerals go up in price and ships are noticeably more expensive than their insurance value, ganking will reduce. But as long as it's possible to lock and fire in hi-sec, it will not stop.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:32:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Mangtoos
The consequence for suiciding in highsec is the loss of security status. You must grind for hours in some cases for a single highsec gank, depending on what space you have to rat in.


Oh yes I can feel how painful it is to earn all that money while working sec back up...

Sarin Adler
Caldari
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:33:00 - [114]
 

Remove Concord kill insurance payment and it's fixed, this has been suggested bazillion times, CCP why the heck don't you do it? Do you like exploiters!?

Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:34:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
*ANY* change to the existing mechanics as mentioned above is a perfect example of CCP pandering to the idiot whiners who arn't smart enough to take care of themselves and compete against the rest of Eve's players for the right to exist.
That's right! Eve is perfect. There is no need to change anything ever, as CCP always gets it exactly right the first time.

CONCORD response times, hauler/barger HP, gank fleet alpha-strike were all perfectly balanced when the ships were first released, and remain perfectly balanced regardless of new content that has been added since.

Sounds about right to me. ugh

Agent Li
Caldari
CCCP INC
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:36:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Thenoran
Suicide ganking should remain viable, but I do hope that the adjustments they are talking about refer to the insurance problem which can make it nearly cost-free to suicide gank.


I think this is correct. I believe that if they make it so that if you initiate aggression, you don't get the insurance if you lose your ship, the suicide gank would become a costly operation if done only for fun and laughs. You would have to pick a lucrative target, and the wreck had better pop the right loot, or you've just lost isk.


Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:38:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
I have the knowledge of how to make a load of ISK in a short amount of time... I swear I will start suiciding out of spite if CCP screws this up. Tonight was my first actual suicide gank I did it because I was bored


And by your own words you made a profit on the insurance, just by getting your ship blown up. Even the most daft players have to see how ridiculous that is.

Mangtoos
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:43:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: Mangtoos on 03/06/2008 18:46:22
Edited by: Mangtoos on 03/06/2008 18:45:40
Cost isn't an issue. Whether you use an expensive battleship or two cheap cruisers you can obtain the same effective DPS. If you had any clue on the subject you would also know that Concord response has also been increased exponentially over the years. If you actually took the time to understand how the game mechanics worked, you would understand what is required in order to defend against such attacks in the first place.

Changes based on ignorance and incompetence will not significantly decrease your risk. Educating yourself will. I guess I can't change pubbie logic.

Agent Li
Caldari
CCCP INC
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:46:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Mangtoos
Cost isn't an issue. Whether you use an expensive battleship or two cheap cruisers you can obtain the same effective DPS. If you had any clue on the subject you would also know that Concord response has also been increased exponentially over the years. If you actually took the time to understand how the game mechanics worked, you would understand what is required in order to defend against such attacks in the first place.

Changes based on ignorance and incompetence will result in the same end result.


It sure helps to get isk back from insurance. If you believe that cost isn't an issue, then you won't mind at all if they change only "if you get CONCORDED you get no insurance payout".

That won't stop ganks on ships that are worth ganking - because it's a fat freighter or a faction CNR it's worth the gank.

But it would stop the "I'll gank an empty retriever just for the fun of it" - well, that will cost you a small amount right there...

Mangtoos
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:48:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Agent Li

It sure helps to get isk back from insurance. If you believe that cost isn't an issue, then you won't mind at all if they change only "if you get CONCORDED you get no insurance payout".

That won't stop ganks on ships that are worth ganking - because it's a fat freighter or a faction CNR it's worth the gank.

But it would stop the "I'll gank an empty retriever just for the fun of it" - well, that will cost you a small amount right there...


Like it would be worth the security hit to gank a single insurable retriever. Look how stupid you are.


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

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