These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why do so many people seem to think they should be immune to ship loss?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
xh'neivers
House of Carrikk
#121 - 2011-10-24 10:45:36 UTC
Have to say the whole suicide gank thing is just getting sillier with time. When the only defense is not to undock, or fly a worse ship so you can at least get insurance, then the balance is too much in favor of the perp rather than the victim.

The point about industrialist having to compete both with each other and against bots (oddly enough bots that are believed to be widely run and allowed within alliances that claim to be largely pvp...) is a valid one.

Insurance should be removed for people committing a criminal act in Empire space - Insurance in low or null is a whole different issue. You want to insure your car for a roadtrip round Afghanistan? Good luck with that.

In addition to their standing loss I'd say their corp should take a concord standing loss (criminal/terrorist organisation?), but we all know that players would then just fly in NPC corps.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact it's a game. If there becomes no point in playing, if the only way to not die is to not undock, then where is the fun in that for the person being ganked?

My thoughts anyway, for all they are worth. The idea of a pvp switch is daft tho. Almost as daft as the idea of being killed and not being able to do a single things about it, again and again and again....
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#122 - 2011-10-24 10:49:02 UTC
Generals4 wrote:

It would be if they also had an option not to get suicide ganked upon just like you have an alternative to producing your own stuff.


Are you seriously saying that there's no way to avoid being suicide ganked when they can just buy the ore/ice on the market?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Generals4
#123 - 2011-10-24 10:53:26 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Generals4 wrote:

It would be if they also had an option not to get suicide ganked upon just like you have an alternative to producing your own stuff.


Are you seriously saying that there's no way to avoid being suicide ganked when they can just buy the ore/ice on the market?


Minerals are an essential part of the manufacturing process. Surely you see the ridicule into suggesting industrialists dropping that mineral acquiring process is viable? Maybe if one or two do it but if no one gets the minerals no one can produce. You're basically saying : either be suicide ganked or no more industry. Which doesn't go the other way, there is still plenty of pvp to be had that doesn't involve suicide ganking.

You're still trying to equate two totally different things. And this while there is totally no need to fabricate any more arguments.

_-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. _
destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Looking for Trouble
#124 - 2011-10-24 11:06:54 UTC
to buy every single ship excludeing muraders,faction,pirate faction super caps and titans.

37.5 Bill.
thats 1 of every ship excludeing the ones i listed.

But then again if you get mad about looseing a ship and want to be mr vincible go to a wormhole area C1 and their you can be mr unstoppable because the sleepers suck there :)
destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Looking for Trouble
#125 - 2011-10-24 11:09:05 UTC
xh'neivers wrote:
Have to say the whole suicide gank thing is just getting sillier with time. When the only defense is not to undock, or fly a worse ship so you can at least get insurance, then the balance is too much in favor of the perp rather than the victim.

The point about industrialist having to compete both with each other and against bots (oddly enough bots that are believed to be widely run and allowed within alliances that claim to be largely pvp...) is a valid one.

Insurance should be removed for people committing a criminal act in Empire space - Insurance in low or null is a whole different issue. You want to insure your car for a roadtrip round Afghanistan? Good luck with that.

In addition to their standing loss I'd say their corp should take a concord standing loss (criminal/terrorist organisation?), but we all know that players would then just fly in NPC corps.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact it's a game. If there becomes no point in playing, if the only way to not die is to not undock, then where is the fun in that for the person being ganked?

My thoughts anyway, for all they are worth. The idea of a pvp switch is daft tho. Almost as daft as the idea of being killed and not being able to do a single things about it, again and again and again....


Actually the only defence is why dont you be smarter about it. this whole waa waaa waaa reminds me of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9oAGnK9CU

kinda the same thing except guy gets pissed over a cruiser loss while mining in a 0.1 good video very funny.
xh'neivers
House of Carrikk
#126 - 2011-10-24 12:03:35 UTC
Thats not the point. Yes, ship losses are things that happen. It's to be expected in the game, thats what eve is all about.

However, there is a big difference between losing a ship in a situation where you were just outclassed, and losing a ship because a gang of people in an NPC corp warp in to your location (whether empire, lowsec or highsec - but I'm mainly talking about Empire) and gank you - and there is totally nothing you can do about it. Not fight back, not run away and not even be able to tank any ship to survive the alpha.

And the attacking ships get replaced by the authorities.

It's not big, and it's not clever. And it's not fun for the person thats the victim of something they could not avoid or fight against.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#127 - 2011-10-24 12:11:26 UTC
xh'neivers wrote:
However, there is a big difference between losing a ship in a situation where you were just outclassed, and losing a ship because a gang of people in an NPC corp warp in to your location (whether empire, lowsec or highsec - but I'm mainly talking about Empire) and gank you - and there is totally nothing you can do about it. Not fight back, not run away and not even be able to tank any ship to survive the alpha.
Just an initial nitpick: empire is highsec and lowsec, when you say “whether empire, lowsec or highsec - but I'm mainly talking about Empire” you're saying ”whether it's A or B or A or B, but I'm talking about A or B” — it's a bit redundant.

Anyway…

…the main issue with your statement is that you say there is nothing you can do about it. This is not true. You can most certainly run away. You can possibly tank it, depending on a number of factors. And if they're ganking regulars, you can definitely fight back. And the attacking ships only get partially replaced by the authorities, and the rest of the required equipment does not.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#128 - 2011-10-24 12:12:15 UTC
Generals4 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Generals4 wrote:

It would be if they also had an option not to get suicide ganked upon just like you have an alternative to producing your own stuff.


Are you seriously saying that there's no way to avoid being suicide ganked when they can just buy the ore/ice on the market?


Minerals are an essential part of the manufacturing process. Surely you see the ridicule into suggesting industrialists dropping that mineral acquiring process is viable? Maybe if one or two do it but if no one gets the minerals no one can produce. You're basically saying : either be suicide ganked or no more industry. Which doesn't go the other way, there is still plenty of pvp to be had that doesn't involve suicide ganking.

You're still trying to equate two totally different things. And this while there is totally no need to fabricate any more arguments.


No more ridiculous than your suggestion that I create my own complete supply chain from scratch. In fact my suggestion is considerably more workable, since the majority of minerals don't even come from mining.

Both are theoretically doable, but neither are truly practical. EVE is designed from the ground up to be based around player interaction, both competitive and co-operative. Part of that interaction is through the market, and part of it is through the overview. Whilst you can choose to maximise one and minimise the other, neither are (or should be) wholly escapable. I can't completely stop miners profiting from selling minerals to build the ships I buy; they can't completely stop me shooting at them if I want to.*

It's perfectly acceptable for some player to attempt to make a profit by manipulating the market in some item. If he succeeds, hundreds, maybe thousands of players will have no choice except to "lose" ISK to him or do without that item. If the item in question is something that doesn't have a reasonable subsititute (covops cloaks for instance), then people either have to pay or they're excluded from using whole classes of ships. Should market manipulation be allowed in hi-sec? Is it more acceptable to "force" hundreds of players to lose a couple of million ISK than it is to "force" a couple of players to lose hundreds of millions? If so, why?




*As it happens I currently have better thngs to do, but that's neither here nor there.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lee Thrace
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2011-10-24 23:17:03 UTC
A PVP/non-PVP option is so counter to the spirit of the game it's almost unfathomable, as you could participate in the economy of the game, load your pvp toon with isk you gained while risking nothing, and then continue to fly as poorly you like.

They honestly would be better off doing what wow does by creating a separate PVE server if only for the sake of the economics of the game. Also, those of you who feel you ought to be exempted from the harsh environment of the game, should not play. There are plenty of other MMOs for you. The learning curve in eve is steep, and those who joined early and remain like that.

Remaking the game environment to fit the peculiarly sensitive needs of people who don't like losing ships would inevitably engender boredom amongst the community of people who joined the game to play it as it is.

Make PVP optional in some sort of switch on/off setting manner, and you just turn this game into something else. Players will no longer be as accountable for their losses, their senses and approach will dull due to the loss of an incentive structure that rewards vigilant, cautious, and intelligent playing, and finally you'll just be left with the stink of entitlement.

Listening to players who hold everyone else accountable for their own stupidity will be the end of this game.

Every ship, implant, whatever, that you lose in Eve is the result of poor judgement on YOUR part. That harsh standard forces players to either diligently increase their ability and awareness or quit, and maintains the quality of gameplay we all enjoy.

Smart people enjoy a challenge. Stupid people encounter difficulty, blame an external factor, and then ask for the rules to be changed.


I wish all the pieces on my chessboard were queens, but they're not so I deal with it.
Mortis vonShadow
Balanaz Mining and Development Inc.
#130 - 2011-10-24 23:21:27 UTC
Lee Thrace wrote:
A PVP/non-PVP option is so counter to the spirit of the game it's almost unfathomable, as you could participate in the economy of the game, load your pvp toon with isk you gained while risking nothing, and then continue to fly as poorly you like.

They honestly would be better off doing what wow does by creating a separate PVE server if only for the sake of the economics of the game. Also, those of you who feel you ought to be exempted from the harsh environment of the game, should not play. There are plenty of other MMOs for you. The learning curve in eve is steep, and those who joined early and remain like that.

Remaking the game environment to fit the peculiarly sensitive needs of people who don't like losing ships would inevitably engender boredom amongst the community of people who joined the game to play it as it is.

Make PVP optional in some sort of switch on/off setting manner, and you just turn this game into something else. Players will no longer be as accountable for their losses, their senses and approach will dull due to the loss of an incentive structure that rewards vigilant, cautious, and intelligent playing, and finally you'll just be left with the stink of entitlement.

Listening to players who hold everyone else accountable for their own stupidity will be the end of this game.

Every ship, implant, whatever, that you lose in Eve is the result of poor judgement on YOUR part. That harsh standard forces players to either diligently increase their ability and awareness or quit, and maintains the quality of gameplay we all enjoy.

Smart people enjoy a challenge. Stupid people encounter difficulty, blame an external factor, and then ask for the rules to be changed.


I wish all the pieces on my chessboard were queens, but they're not so I deal with it.


Well said, sir. Well said. +1 to you.

Some days you're the bug, and some days your the windscreen.                   And some days, you're just a man with a gun.
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#131 - 2011-10-24 23:59:16 UTC
Why do you care? If you don't like people complaining, don't read the forums.

No good deed goes unpunished
Mortis vonShadow
Balanaz Mining and Development Inc.
#132 - 2011-10-25 00:22:27 UTC
Maxpie wrote:
Why do you care? If you don't like people complaining, don't read the forums.


Because the forums is a place for debating an idea, thought or comment. It is not a place to complain about this, that or the other.

Everyone forgets that the forums were started for a place to bring people together to share ideas thoughts or comments, but (even I) from time to time, get caught up in the heat of the debate and let emotions run rampant. Thus, degrading the idea down to a childs tantrum.

If the average age of the EVE player is 35+ years old, you would think that most of us would act like it. But, if a casual observer were to take a guess of our collective ages based on what they read on the forums. They would probably say somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 years of age.

Just my 2 isk on the thought.

Some days you're the bug, and some days your the windscreen.                   And some days, you're just a man with a gun.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#133 - 2011-10-25 08:27:21 UTC
Mortis vonShadow wrote:
If the average age of the EVE player is 35+ years old, you would think that most of us would act like it. But, if a casual observer were to take a guess of our collective ages based on what they read on the forums. They would probably say somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 years of age.

Just my 2 isk on the thought.


Heh, every time I see post like "CCP should prohibit this" or "I don't want to pvp, why there is no switch off" and such I think about how I heard about EVE for the first time and it was some flash ad with "you can be whoever you want to be and do whatever you want to do" but it was also "it is a cruel, harsh world, be vigilant in here or you will be ripped of everything you have". and since I subscribed and read a lot about EVE and they say average player's age is around 30+ and can't stop wondering is it me or those 30+ years old can't understand what they read? what part of "be prepare to fight for what is yours" they don't understand?

And what is more funny to me they cry about their ships like they would be something hard to replace. Adult people who can afford monthly payments can also afford to buy on or two PLEXs and sell them on market and buffer their in-game budget to either properly fit their industrials or to just replace poorly fitted ones when they got ganked. because I understand that somebody just loves mining in space and this is their "you can be whoever you like to be" but for **** sake if game mechanics are advertised up front with "everybody wants to kill you and they will do it if you let them" why to subscribe if you don't agree to be a part of such environment? And I can't stop to wonder how those adult people handle real life hits like sickness, flat tire, garbage truck not showing up on time?

I am noob but I joined in exactly because "everybody wants to kill you". I want have peace in real world, games are for blowing up the steam, to have challenges that are FICTION and are something you can laugh about when having a beer with your friends at weekend. Frustration over pixels, jeez....

Invalid signature format