These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#261 - 2012-10-09 23:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Mallak Azaria wrote:

I fixed this, because the point has always been about profit.



Fix it properly ..

with the correct POSTER name.
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2012-10-09 23:09:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

Industrial scale ganking of poorly tanked barges is no longer viable as it requires far too much capital investment and provides only a loss in return. Can flipping is more or less gone now that miners dont drop cans and wardecs are so esily avoided theres not point to them. This leaves the NPCs which are so esily shrugged off they might as well not be there.



Working as intended. The devs clearly stated recently that suicide ganking ships like miners was never intended to be profitable.

Ganking a lone freighter hauling very valuable goods may be. Ganking a PVE pimpboat may be.

But it wasn't intended to be. It's a sandbox - so you certainly have the freedom to incur the loss of ISK and standing you will suffer to gank a miner. But you seem to be complaining that it's not profitable. It's not DESIGNED TO BE! Never was.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#263 - 2012-10-09 23:11:44 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.


How?

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.


Yeah that's not penalizing some more than others anymore than people being too apathetic to vote for CSM penalizes them. It provides new players 1 year to figure out the game. It removes consequence free npc corps and gives players an incentive to explore different player corps or create their own. CCP has already shown and stated that players who get involved in player corps tend to enjoy EVE more than those who remain in npc corps so this is a win all around. The trade hub, I can agree with slightly; this could prompt minmatar/gallente to make their own jita and have two competing highsec trade hubs which would be a good thing.

In the examples there were some advantages present depending on how you view them.

1. Those who have no need to travel to opposing faction HS have no change
2. Those who have capable alts have minor changes

Genuinely new players wouldn't be negatively affected since they would have the grace period, but having corp chat with veterans has helped quite a few actually get to the point of wanting to get into a player corp rather than just quitting immediately.

The proposed doesn't seem to provide real incentive to leave but rather to turtle even further into a specific area of space.
Conrad Makbure
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2012-10-09 23:17:35 UTC
All of those suggestions are just "ok" at best. Also, moving level 3 and 4 missions to low/null won't solve anything, it will just F up mission running as it is now. If anything, level 5's should be moved back into highsec.

You leave mission runners with level 1's and 2's in highsec while they wait for that stupid training queue to finish, then it's F you and EVE for good. You can play with each other. Null should just blow each other up and wait for new people to enter nullsec, not the other way around.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2012-10-09 23:22:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.


How?

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.


Yeah that's not penalizing some more than others anymore than people being too apathetic to vote for CSM penalizes them. It provides new players 1 year to figure out the game. It removes consequence free npc corps and gives players an incentive to explore different player corps or create their own. CCP has already shown and stated that players who get involved in player corps tend to enjoy EVE more than those who remain in npc corps so this is a win all around. The trade hub, I can agree with slightly; this could prompt minmatar/gallente to make their own jita and have two competing highsec trade hubs which would be a good thing.

In the examples there were some advantages present depending on how you view them.

1. Those who have no need to travel to opposing faction HS have no change
2. Those who have capable alts have minor changes

Genuinely new players wouldn't be negatively affected since they would have the grace period, but having corp chat with veterans has helped quite a few actually get to the point of wanting to get into a player corp rather than just quitting immediately.

The proposed doesn't seem to provide real incentive to leave but rather to turtle even further into a specific area of space.


I addressed both of those points. There is an entire help channel as well to provide exactly the same benefit those veterans will. It is much better at helping new players than npc corp chat. Turtling I see as a benefit, it provides a hunting ground for FW pilots as faction police are not a threat to a decent fleet.

There is a very good incentive to leave the npc corp, lower taxes, better atmosphere, more safety, and more. If highsec players are anything, they are risk averse and that will propel them into player corporations. They might try to avoid the wardec via leaving the corporation but then they lose easy of access to some space and still might not be safe if the wardecing corp is part of the opposing FW. It provides more risk and as a consequence makes highsec player's decisions more meaningful as there is more at stake.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2012-10-09 23:24:36 UTC
Why does access to a corp channel justify wardec immunity?
You can join channels independently of being part of a corp already.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2012-10-09 23:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
La Nariz wrote:
I addressed both of those points. There is an entire help channel as well to provide exactly the same benefit those veterans will. It is much better at helping new players than npc corp chat.

The population in help/rookie chat and the speed at which it moved actually made it less friendly for me that NPC corp chat and it is a terrible forum for prolonged discussion or follow up questions. The NPC corp channels provide a forum where these conversations can happen prior to being in a player corp and often allowing a player to remain in the game long enought to get to that point.

As for addressing the points, there is still no added incentive to leave that I see.
La Nariz wrote:
Turtling I see as a benefit, it provides a hunting ground for FW pilots as faction police are not a threat to a decent fleet.

I've yet to see such a fleet operating in opposing space, but that isn't to say it cannot happen. That said I wonder how likely it is for a group of sufficient size and coordination to do so.
La Nariz wrote:

There is a very good incentive to leave the npc corp, lower taxes, better atmosphere, more safety, and more. If highsec players are anything, they are risk averse and that will propel them into player corporations. They might try to avoid the wardec via leaving the corporation but then they lose easy of access to some space and still might not be safe if the wardecing corp is part of the opposing FW. It provides more risk and as a consequence makes highsec player's decisions more meaningful as there is more at stake.

The reasons you give for players to want to leave NPC corps already exist. That being the case if these are to be the fundamental motivators, why is any change needed and how would it be expected to be effective?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2012-10-09 23:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Why does access to a corp channel justify wardec immunity?
You can join channels independently of being part of a corp already.

Being able to join channels and being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is are 2 different things. Those that benefit from this are those that benefit for roughly the same reason they benefit from wardec immunity, not knowing what to do and how to do it be it general gameplay or defense. While veterans lingering is problematic the protection and advise offered to new players is, I believe, quite valuable to retention as well prior to a player being truly familiar with the idea of joining a corp much less even knowing the qualities of a good corp.

Edit: 3 years since being introduced to this game and still haven't mastered that last part.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2012-10-09 23:45:47 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

There is a very good incentive to leave the npc corp, lower taxes, better atmosphere, more safety, and more. If highsec players are anything, they are risk averse and that will propel them into player corporations. They might try to avoid the wardec via leaving the corporation but then they lose easy of access to some space and still might not be safe if the wardecing corp is part of the opposing FW. It provides more risk and as a consequence makes highsec player's decisions more meaningful as there is more at stake.

The reasons you give for players to want to leave NPC corps already exist. That being the case if these are to be the fundamental motivators, why is any change needed and how would it be expected to be effective?

Because NPC corps come with their own incentives (wardec immunity) that are counterproductive to EVE both from a business and gameplay perspective. They need to be removed. The NPC corp channel can carry on independently of the NPC corp, don't worry.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#270 - 2012-10-09 23:50:26 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

There is a very good incentive to leave the npc corp, lower taxes, better atmosphere, more safety, and more. If highsec players are anything, they are risk averse and that will propel them into player corporations. They might try to avoid the wardec via leaving the corporation but then they lose easy of access to some space and still might not be safe if the wardecing corp is part of the opposing FW. It provides more risk and as a consequence makes highsec player's decisions more meaningful as there is more at stake.

The reasons you give for players to want to leave NPC corps already exist. That being the case if these are to be the fundamental motivators, why is any change needed and how would it be expected to be effective?

Because NPC corps come with their own incentives (wardec immunity) that are counterproductive to EVE both from a business and gameplay perspective. They need to be removed. The NPC corp channel can carry on independently of the NPC corp, don't worry.

That was directed at his proposed changes regarding enrolling NPC corp characters in FW corps. While you present the same motivation, to which I don't necessarily disagree, it doesn't answer how this changes the current situation for many characters. I personally have no reason to leave under his suggestion. I imagine there are many who feel the same.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#271 - 2012-10-09 23:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Why does access to a corp channel justify wardec immunity?
You can join channels independently of being part of a corp already.

Being able to join channels and being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is are 2 different things.
Not really, the idea of making a character join a channel on chargen is trivially simple. No wardec immunity needed.

Quote:
Those that benefit from this are those that benefit for roughly the same reason they benefit from wardec immunity, not knowing what to do and how to do it be it general gameplay or defense.
This is false. I can hang on the other side of a rookie system jump gate and suicide gank some newbie and all his short life's savings NPC corp or no NPC corp with the cheapest of ships. And of course, if they leave to join their first player-run corp and do some of that fun stuff they read about, they're fair game. NPC corps only serve to protect the PvE alts (or mains) of veterans with ships in the hundreds of thousands of EHP. Not new players.

Quote:
While veterans lingering is problematic the protection and advise offered to new players is, I believe, quite valuable to retention as well prior to a player being truly familiar with the idea of joining a corp much less even knowing the qualities of a good corp.
Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on.
Ginger Barbarella
#272 - 2012-10-09 23:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ginger Barbarella
Kitty Bear wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.

That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.


So newbies should only be in 1.0 systems then ??

Because with your advocted change to belts rats, they would get butt f***ed (without lube), and then most likely uninstall the game permanantly.


And your problem is? No, they won't get violated as you suggested, rather a change and tactics and more willingness to join a corp (just as likely as your "violation" note above). If I recall the thread was about adding risk to high sec, with an obvious unspoken slam on miners. Well, they just got buffed rather well as you guys love pointing out, so have at it.

Quit trying to coddle the players, INCLUDING the newbs and gankers. They are the two single most hand-held groups in this game: one for good reason, the other because they haven't made the choice many others, INCLUDING NOOBS, have long since made. If they quit after losing a ship then this obviously isn't the game for them. And no, that statement has NOTHING to do with big, bad gankers and baddies. It has to do with playing the game handed to them on a silver platter.

Edit: YOU chose to suggest newbs should be "stuck" in 1.0; I say that's a boolshite attitude. people looking for the easy button will stay in 1.0: so be it.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2012-10-09 23:59:12 UTC
I will go ahead and give a very specific example of when the risk should outweigh the reward.

Murder. Killing someone for no reason at all other than to take their stuff. So...ganking.

Working as intended.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#274 - 2012-10-10 00:17:45 UTC
Ginger Barbarella it's obviously quite clear it's a very long time since you were completely new in eve.
Eve, by it's design, is a massively complex game
You do not get to understand eve in 5 hours
You do not to 'rush' end content in a few weeks
There is so much content available it can take a week just to discover what most of your options are.
Clones, Skilltraining , Fitting Skills , Core Skills and Tanking Styles are just some of the basics that you take for granted as 'given knowledge' ... but how long did it take you to aquire that 'given knowledge'. was it weeks or months ... when did you STOP learning.



You cannot detrimently affect the completely new players to the game, just because you dont like how some people continue to play after several months or even years in some cases.

New players are potentially, the future bittervets of a few years down the line, but not if hisec is changed to exclude them from 90% of it. They simply will not stay in the game, new players are needed and your a fool if you think otherwise.


CCP realise that people need time to get to grips with the game, thats why there is a blanket ban on griefplay ONLY in starter systems ... because if you grief them within their first f ew hours (and there are braindead retards in this game that would) they will quit, and it is not hand holding.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2012-10-10 00:23:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Not really, the idea of making a character join a channel on chargen is trivially simple. No wardec immunity needed..
This isn't joining a channel independently.

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
This is false. I can hang on the other side of a rookie system jump gate and suicide gank some newbie and all his short life's savings NPC corp or no NPC corp with the cheapest of ships. And of course, if they leave to join their first player-run corp and do some of that fun stuff they read about, they're fair game. NPC corps only serve to protect the PvE alts (or mains) of veterans with ships in the hundreds of thousands of EHP.
No, it's actually quite true as you are limited in your means of aggressing them. Granted it only limits one way, but any but of assistance helps. Add to that the fact that the method you mention at least causes you to incur loss in both ships and security status and you've reduced its viability as a full time occupation to many.

I've already agreed with you on the point of veterans, but allow me to now state explicitly that "Those that benefit from this" being "being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is" refers directly to new players and as such complaints about veterans aren't terribly relevant.
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on.

I think we may be at a disagreement here as to whether genuinely new players are deserving of any protections. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-10-10 00:29:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Malphilos
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:

Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be profitably destroyed in hisec" is not true?


I fixed this, because the point has always been about profit.


Yeah, it's never been just about the lulz.

Or "behavioral correction"

Roll
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2012-10-10 01:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it's actually quite true as you are limited in your means of aggressing them. Granted it only limits one way, but any but of assistance helps. Add to that the fact that the method you mention at least causes you to incur loss in both ships and security status and you've reduced its viability as a full time occupation to many.
Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit.

Quote:
I've already agreed with you on the point of veterans, but allow me to now state explicitly that "Those that benefit from this" being "being given a channel while you may not even know where the channel button is" refers directly to new players and as such complaints about veterans aren't terribly relevant.
Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them.
Quote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Keep the channel, remove the wardec immunity 'features'. Then newbies get all that vital legitimate advice you say is so necessary and the veterans have reason to move on.

I think we may be at a disagreement here as to whether genuinely new players are deserving of any protections. Correct me if I am wrong here.

I joined my first random player run corp within 14 hours of signing up for the game and I'm still here 5 years later.
So I don't exactly buy it when I'm told that sheltering some 5 year old player grinding plexes in a officer fit faction ship or their multiboxed t2 mining barge fleet is vital to 'protecting newbies'. What you and I consider 'protection' is the difference I take it.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#278 - 2012-10-10 01:49:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
baltec1 wrote:

As pipa said, drakes have lost 7 mil after the changes

Caldari fuel has lost almost half of its value after the barge changes.

Pfft... Prices, prices, prices....

FACT >> Drakes USED to sell for 23m...

Come on, we can use ANY time span and we can find an argument for justification.

Check this out....

ICE
Ice was artifically inflated (by death and by speculation) and the price at the height of that period is being repeatedly used to compare to today. For a TRUE comparison, what was it BEFORE the ice interdict?

FACT (Rens market)
I graphed up on all 4 isotopes, I see the prices have ice have returned to +- 10% over a year.

Plot interdict (6 months), well, look at that, it spiked. SURPRISE!!!

And if I errr..... plot over 3 months, OH NOES, Bring back gankers!!!!


MINERALS - just one example
Ganking is neccessary to retain market prices. Bring back ganking!!!

FACT (Rens market)
Trit - 3 months - OH NOES!!!! Bring back gankers!!!!
Trit - 12 months, I'm going mining... do dah, do dah. (3.2 >> 5.5)

DRAKES
Drakes are falling in price. Bring back ganking!!!

FACT (Rens market)
Drake - 5 days - Trending UP
Drake - 10 days - Trending UP
Drake - 1 month - Trending UP
Drake - 3 months - Trending DOWN (announcement of missile nerf?)
Drake - 6 months - Trending DOWN (?)

Drake - 12 months - WOW!!! (less than 25m each >>> 47m)

I could go on. Pick a statistic, ANY statistic gankers and run with it.

The market has a LONG way to go before the claims made here get any traction.

Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2012-10-10 02:00:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit.

This would only stand true if suicide ganks were the only way of getting at these players. They aren't. I at no point claimed they protected from all types of aggression, but they do protect from one. The one you mention is again odd because being in a player corp in no way makes you more or less susceptible to a suicide gank. So let me ask, why does suicide ganking even matter since it can be done to both veterans and new players of player corps and NPC corps alike? How does this draw any distinction? If it doesn't, it is irrelevant. and even if it did it does not negate the fact there is some value in spending time as a new player not locked down by wardecs.
Quote:
Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them.

A good solution, but then what becomes the new system in which new players are to be introduced to the game as being a part of?
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I joined my first random player run corp within 14 hours of signing up for the game and I'm still here 5 years later.
So I don't exactly buy it when I'm told that sheltering some 5 year old player grinding plexes in a officer fit faction ship or their multiboxed t2 mining barge fleet is vital to 'protecting newbies'. What you and I consider 'protection' is the difference I take it.

To be specific, I'm talking about protections to new players only, not veterans.

Edit: Last part was unnecessary and was condensed
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#280 - 2012-10-10 03:53:11 UTC
Quote:


Working as intended. The devs clearly stated recently that suicide ganking ships like miners was never intended to be profitable.

Ganking a lone freighter hauling very valuable goods may be. Ganking a PVE pimpboat may be.

But it wasn't intended to be. It's a sandbox - so you certainly have the freedom to incur the loss of ISK and standing you will suffer to gank a miner. But you seem to be complaining that it's not profitable. It's not DESIGNED TO BE! Never was.

Yet I can gank any other fitted ship that has no tank fitted and make a profit off nearly all of them. Also CCP said ganking the hull shouldnt be profitable, not a fitted barge with no tank.