These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Highsec reform thread: uniting the highsec candidates!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#21 - 2015-01-31 14:14:12 UTC
That was one long read Big smile. Not much to add. I agree with almost all that Black Pedro said and a few things Jenshae Chiroptera said. I myself try to listen to both sides and see where we have common ground, but sometimes I feel that some care bears are not willing to do the same.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#22 - 2015-01-31 15:32:56 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Otherwise, if you give protection to them for free why would any corp bother to spend the resources or effort on defending themselves?
I think my answer to the next quote should answer most of your post.
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
At the minute to me it appears high sec is a playground for bittervets to hit players who can't or won't hit back.
... high sec just teaches players not to leave high sec, turtle up in station if war decced or get bored and quit alone. Sure you can earn isk in high sec in relative safety, but again this only teaches players not to leave high sec.
I think there is a gap between the bittervet and new player characters who got bored and quit entirely because of high sec mechanics..
I think high sec should be a lot smaller and possibly be four high security islands. Concord is retribution, not protection. Vets with plenty of ISK can lose it. Newbies can't throw ships away.

So, there should be a system of protection in starting systems, structures that repair the ships shot at for example. The resources should be scarce and as time goes on taxes keep rising for a player in a newbie corp.

Other NPC corps would be at war with each other.

Essentially, you can avoid fights, be so secure but it becomes more and more difficult to scratch out the ISK you want for the ships you desire.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#23 - 2015-01-31 20:35:43 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.


Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jenshae Chiroptera
#24 - 2015-01-31 20:37:59 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.
Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?
Prove it.
Show me how you know that every main pilot is used in ganking when so many are only flying around destroyers.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#25 - 2015-01-31 20:42:57 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.
Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?
Prove it.
Show me how you know that every main pilot is used in ganking when so many are only flying around destroyers.


Throwaway alts are a myth and by claiming we use them you are lying. Also, my gank alt has a link to my main in its bio. If I asplode you, I damn well want you to know it was me. Hell, most of the major gankers around these days either use their mains, or people know who their gank alts are.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jenshae Chiroptera
#26 - 2015-01-31 20:49:07 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Throwaway alts are a myth and by claiming we use them you are lying. Also, my gank alt has a link to my main in its bio. If I asplode you, I damn well want you to know it was me. Hell, most of the major gankers around these days either use their mains, or people know who their gank alts are.
I suspect that is in a limited circle of your friends. Why did you have a gank alt to start off with? Why not your main?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#27 - 2015-01-31 20:58:31 UTC
My "limited" circle of friends being the New Order of Highsec, who are reasonably prolific in today's suicide ganking market. Why does it matter why I have an alt? It's about as relevant to you spreading lies as the fact that my main actually does most of my ganking.

Anyone who says gankers use throwaway alts is a liar. Would you care to retract your claim and admit that it was wrong?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#28 - 2015-01-31 23:10:33 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.


Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?


Have you read their post history? Not only do they not actually play the game (personally I suspect an illegal character transfer), but they lie constantly.

There is absolutely no such thing as "throwaway alts", that is pretty much the sole area in which the GM staff is 100% on top of things all the time.

Hells bells, you can biomass an alt that hasn't had negative sec status for a calendar year, and that can sometimes bring the GMs knocking. (personal experience on that one)

Jenshae just loves to talk **** about things he has no clue about.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#29 - 2015-01-31 23:27:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
admiral root wrote:
My "limited" circle of friends being the New Order of Highsec, who are reasonably prolific in today's suicide ganking market. Why does it matter why I have an alt? It's about as relevant to you spreading lies as the fact that my main actually does most of my ganking.
Anyone who says gankers use throwaway alts is a liar. Would you care to retract your claim and admit that it was wrong?
When you managed to get all the facts and figures, rather than your perception from one group.

For example, I know there are gankers who form up from multiple corps, NPC ones included to go and slaughter people. They do this because it is more difficult to set them all red and see when their scouts are coming.

Let me also clarify, when I talk about throw away alts, I do not mean people deleting and re-rolling them. That is against the rules. I talk about people raising them up for one easy to train ship such as a Thrasher and then nothing else.
Throw away in the sense that you can throw them into a suicide situation, welp them and discard them as they are essentially meaningless to the player.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Haedonism Bot
People for the Ethical Treatment of Rogue Drones
#30 - 2015-01-31 23:54:45 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
admiral root wrote:
My "limited" circle of friends being the New Order of Highsec, who are reasonably prolific in today's suicide ganking market. Why does it matter why I have an alt? It's about as relevant to you spreading lies as the fact that my main actually does most of my ganking.
Anyone who says gankers use throwaway alts is a liar. Would you care to retract your claim and admit that it was wrong?
When you managed to get all the facts and figures, rather than your perception from one group.

For example, I know there are gankers who form up from multiple corps, NPC ones included to go and slaughter people. They do this because it is more difficult to set them all red and see when their scouts are coming.

Let me also clarify, when I talk about throw away alts, I do not mean people deleting and re-rolling them. That is against the rules. I talk about people raising them up for one easy to train ship such as a Thrasher and then nothing else.
Throw away in the sense that you can throw them into a suicide situation, welp them and discard them as they are essentially meaningless to the player.


You are digging yourself deeper. Think about what you are doing. You are arguing about a topic about which you have no personal knowledge against people who are among the foremost experts on the subject. In doing so you are making a fool of yourself.

Yes, some people have dedicated suicide ganking alts. This is a matter of convenience, in the same way that people have alts for hauling, trading, mining, nullsec ratting, etc. It almost never has anything to do with anonymity. Many people gank with their mains and those who use alts will generally not hesitate to tell you who their mains are if you ask.

The reason that you see gank fleets with many different corps involved is not to conceal anyone's identity or to make it difficult to set everyone red, it is because many gank fleets are relatively open NPSI affairs and lots of different people like to get involved. It takes a good deal of manpower to gank after all the nerfs and we have learned to work together.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#31 - 2015-02-01 00:20:38 UTC
Haedonism Bot wrote:
You are digging yourself deeper. Think about what you are doing. You are arguing about a topic about which you have no personal knowledge against people who are among the foremost experts on the subject.
EVE has half a million subscribers.
What makes you think that your little alliances are the beginning and end of all ganking?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#32 - 2015-02-01 00:30:36 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Let me also clarify, when I talk about throw away alts, I do not mean people deleting and re-rolling them. That is against the rules. I talk about people raising them up for one easy to train ship such as a Thrasher and then nothing else.
Throw away in the sense that you can throw them into a suicide situation, welp them and discard them as they are essentially meaningless to the player.


This is some pretty funny backpedalling.

Just admit that you tried to call out people you don't like for something that doesn't actually happen, and apologize.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#33 - 2015-02-01 00:52:03 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
When you managed to get all the facts and figures, rather than your perception from one group.

For example, I know there are gankers who form up from multiple corps, NPC ones included to go and slaughter people. They do this because it is more difficult to set them all red and see when their scouts are coming.


The New Order is one of, if not the largest ganking group in today's highsec. That makes us pretty significant in terms of any statistics relating to ganking.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Let me also clarify, when I talk about throw away alts, I do not mean people deleting and re-rolling them. That is against the rules. I talk about people raising them up for one easy to train ship such as a Thrasher and then nothing else.
Throw away in the sense that you can throw them into a suicide situation, welp them and discard them as they are essentially meaningless to the player.


A throwaway alt and a dedicated ganking alt are too different things. The only way you can discard an alt is to biomass it, and I've heard tell that the game doesn't let you do that with negative sec status anymore (if it's not true, it's certainly a good idea).

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-02-01 03:31:35 UTC
Cool it, guys. This is not the place for a heated exchange.

admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.


Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?

As a ganker, I can vouch that I use my main, and I see no reason to use an alt. Plenty that have ganked me seemed to be on their mains, not all were well trained but all were quite active players.

Hitting back at the gankers really is meaningless because we just know how to play our game. Our only valid targets are those who don't. The ganking game is too easy, you're vulnerable until you learn a few simple tricks, then you're untouchable. I dislike that. It'd be nice if I could fear repercussions from those who I have annoyed, but as it stands even Marmite can't stop me from using their favorite trade hub for bringing in and out shipments of valuable cargo in an industrial.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#35 - 2015-02-01 04:03:26 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Cool it, guys. This is not the place for a heated exchange.


You wouldn't know it, since your CSM candidate is openly accusing people of widespread use of a perma ban activity.

That, or he's so very ignorant of the basic rules of the game that he can't even tell the difference.

Or he's such a partisan anti PvP advocate that he doesn't care about the difference.

All three are equally damning.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#36 - 2015-02-01 10:51:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I think high sec should be a lot smaller and possibly be four high security islands. Concord is retribution, not protection. Vets with plenty of ISK can lose it. Newbies can't throw ships away.

So, there should be a system of protection in starting systems, structures that repair the ships shot at for example. The resources should be scarce and as time goes on taxes keep rising for a player in a newbie corp.

Other NPC corps would be at war with each other.

Essentially, you can avoid fights, be so secure but it becomes more and more difficult to scratch out the ISK you want for the ships you desire.

This vision I agree with. Having a smaller, more secure but not very lucrative starting area is fine design. Unfortunately that is not what we have - in general highsec is far too safe, and worse, far too lucrative.

I think I would classify breaking up highsec into islands as a more radical reform, but one I don't necessarily disagree with on a game design level. I think there would be much resistance from part of the player base if they tried to implement it - the same with making NPC corps at war with each other - but would I would have a lot of respect if CCP showed the gumption to implement those changes. CCP Seagull is claiming to want to move the game in that direction so I am hopeful that we might get a re-balance of the risk vs. reward calculation at some point in the future, especially if CCP wants to drive players into this new space they are supposedly working on.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#37 - 2015-02-01 12:11:59 UTC
"Dedicated" is too positive a word for alts that are designed to fly only destroyers because they can be thrown against a target over and over, losing the ships without the main even blinking at the cost.

There is a lot more to ganking than a few dedicated alliances in high sec. A public example is Goons embargos.

Black Pedro wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I think high sec should be a lot smaller and possibly be four high security islands. Concord is retribution, not protection. Vets with plenty of ISK can lose it. Newbies can't throw ships away.

So, there should be a system of protection in starting systems, structures that repair the ships shot at for example. The resources should be scarce and as time goes on taxes keep rising for a player in a newbie corp.

Other NPC corps would be at war with each other.

Essentially, you can avoid fights, be so secure but it becomes more and more difficult to scratch out the ISK you want for the ships you desire.

This vision I agree with. Having a smaller, more secure but not very lucrative starting area is fine design. Unfortunately that is not what we have - in general highsec is far too safe, and worse, far too lucrative.

I think I would classify breaking up highsec into islands as a more radical reform, but one I don't necessarily disagree with on a game design level. I think there would be much resistance from part of the player base if they tried to implement it - the same with making NPC corps at war with each other - but would I would have a lot of respect if CCP showed the gumption to implement those changes. CCP Seagull is claiming to want to move the game in that direction so I am hopeful that we might get a re-balance of the risk vs. reward calculation at some point in the future, especially if CCP wants to drive players into this new space they are supposedly working on.
Reaver brought up the idea of a "middle sec" which had me thinking. What if the areas between the high sec islands had faction guards, rather than Concord?

Then you can raise faction in your area of high sec to show where you are most loyal and that would determine where you are guarded.

The guards would take a quick read of a few things like eHP, damage and such then spawn some help, including logistics help that would try and repair the ships that were first attacked.
It would be similar to attacking one gang and having another appear to help them rather than the all mighty Concord gods blasting your ship out of existance.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-02-01 19:13:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Then you can raise faction in your area of high sec to show where you are most loyal and that would determine where you are guarded.

The guards would take a quick read of a few things like eHP, damage and such then spawn some help, including logistics help that would try and repair the ships that were first attacked.
It would be similar to attacking one gang and having another appear to help them rather than the all mighty Concord gods blasting your ship out of existance.

These weren't my specifics, but the basic idea is something weaker than CONCORD that alone won't deter suicide ganks so well but encourages the attack victim to fight back during the fight, and/or fit a lot of tank. My vision is for a place where puny and weak ships will frequently get shot, almost as in lowsec, but well-fit and defended ships flown solo would be unlikely to get picked on.

I think if this middle-sec also offered more than one travel route, it would be viable to send freighters through it, though you'd have to be much more careful and this could significantly increase price variances between the major regions.

I suspect that turning 0.4 to 0.6 space into middle-sec would come pretty close to making 4 highsec islands while also increasing the number of not-lowsec routes between Dodixie and Amarr.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mag's
Azn Empire
#39 - 2015-02-01 21:10:32 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.
Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?
Prove it.
Show me how you know that every main pilot is used in ganking when so many are only flying around destroyers.
You made the claim of using throw away alts, therefore the onus is upon YOU to show proof. Not the other way around.

But you can't and this is yet more of that toxic approach you have, towards the game and certain play styles.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#40 - 2015-02-01 21:57:28 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
they know that hitting back at the gankers is utterly meaningless because they are using anonymous throw away alts.
Are you here to have a reasoned discussion or just to spread lies?
Prove it.
Show me how you know that every main pilot is used in ganking when so many are only flying around destroyers.
You made the claim of using throw away alts, therefore the onus is upon YOU to show proof. Not the other way around.
But you can't and this is yet more of that toxic approach you have, towards the game and certain play styles.

I can. Anyone can.
All you do is run through all their loss and kill mails, finding destroyer after destroyer for years.
There is no way a main would fly only one ship right from newbie.

Thing is - do I want to waste all that time either scripting something to harvest the data or sitting around sifting manually?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.