These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#881 - 2015-05-22 12:28:31 UTC
yeah, mission runners have to occasionally reject two missions in a row for being anti-empire

now try and tell me there's no consequences to mission running D:
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#882 - 2015-05-22 12:32:38 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
yeah, mission runners have to occasionally reject two missions in a row for being anti-empire

now try and tell me there's no consequences to mission running D:

Let me tell you about standing loss from killing NPCs in missions.
Let me tell you about relations between empires.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#883 - 2015-05-22 12:41:57 UTC
the, uh, standings loss i didn't suffer for the npcs i didn't kill because i rejected the mission immediately after looking it up on eve survival

and gained an anti-pirate mission instead

that standings loss, right
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#884 - 2015-05-22 12:43:13 UTC
sometimes eve-survival is a little slow to download

you people just don't understand the plight of the mission runner
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#885 - 2015-05-22 12:48:49 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
All the way from holdign them under interrogation for fiveminues when they undock, to intercepting their clone transfer procedure and destroy 1,000,000 random SP, potentially disabling several skills depending on those.


And this right here proves that you hate the player.
That it's about punishing *the player*.

This kind of person are you.

When will you ever stop being such a hatefull and bad person ?


It's not hate. It's unconsensual PvP. It's the core of the game. Obviously you don't consent to suffer consequences after blowing somebody's ship. More news at 11: this game would be long dead without all the people who don't consent to sufer consequences for their actions.

What's specially hilarious is that you complain that I ask for more ways to PvP in a PvP game, and call that "hate"... Come on. That's not hate. If I hated you, I would ask for a PvP flag! Lol

For recognized criminal behaviour in Eve, the consequences are too light and easy to avoid but finding the right balance is the key.
5 mins trapped on an undock and 1 mil SP is just a bit harsh.
We have a player driven justice system that is only limited by incomplete mechanics that are easily manipulated.

IF Eve had meaningful wardec and bounty mechanics, many of the consequences for criminal behaviour would find their own balance.


Harsh? No, nothing ingame is too harsh if it comes for the right price. How long should a player work and get lucky until he haves the opportunity to cast a one-shot blow like destroying 1,000,000 SP from a guy he's got a killright on?

How long takes to earn 1,000,000 SP in real time hours? How many hours of gameplay would be a right price to cause such harm? What do you think that would be a sensible way to avoid that harm? Maybe do some PvE and get information on whether that guy you're about to gank is potentially hazardous to mess with? Or just go happily ganking around until one day you lose 1,000,000 SP and it hurts?

It's all a matter of balance. In EVE, it's normal to lose the frutis of weeks and even months of gameplay in a single freighter gank. Nobody calls that "harsh", only "HTFU" and "learn to avoid it".

Well, HTFU, you ganked the wrong guy. Learn to avoid that -by playing that guy's way, as much as he should avoid being ganked by playing your way. Ying and Yang.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#886 - 2015-05-22 13:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Harsh? No, nothing ingame is too harsh if it comes for the right price. How long should a player work and get lucky until he haves the opportunity to cast a one-shot blow like destroying 1,000,000 SP from a guy he's got a killright on?

How long takes to earn 1,000,000 SP in real time hours? How many hours of gameplay would be a right price to cause such harm? What do you think that would be a sensible way to avoid that harm? Maybe do some PvE and get information on whether that guy you're about to gank is potentially hazardous to mess with? Or just go happily ganking around until one day you lose 1,000,000 SP and it hurts?

It's all a matter of balance. In EVE, it's normal to lose the frutis of weeks and even months of gameplay in a single freighter gank. Nobody calls that "harsh", only "HTFU" and "learn to avoid it".

Well, HTFU, you ganked the wrong guy. Learn to avoid that -by playing that guy's way, as much as he should avoid being ganked by playing your way. Ying and Yang.
You wouldn't know balance if it approached in the form of a clown riding a unicycle and smacked you upside the head with a sign saying "balance".

Yes you can lose months of work in a single gank, but you have to be either unlucky or careless to do so. It doesn't affect your ability to fly the exact same ships you could beforehand.

The removal of SP via killright would be a disproportionate measure in that it would potentially affect the ability of the penalised player to fly the exact same ships they could beforehand.

That's not balance, that's being vindictive.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#887 - 2015-05-22 13:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Harsh? No, nothing ingame is too harsh if it comes for the right price. How long should a player work and get lucky until he haves the opportunity to cast a one-shot blow like destroying 1,000,000 SP from a guy he's got a killright on?

How long takes to earn 1,000,000 SP in real time hours? How many hours of gameplay would be a right price to cause such harm? What do you think that would be a sensible way to avoid that harm? Maybe do some PvE and get information on whether that guy you're about to gank is potentially hazardous to mess with? Or just go happily ganking around until one day you lose 1,000,000 SP and it hurts?

It's all a matter of balance. In EVE, it's normal to lose the frutis of weeks and even months of gameplay in a single freighter gank. Nobody calls that "harsh", only "HTFU" and "learn to avoid it".

Well, HTFU, you ganked the wrong guy. Learn to avoid that -by playing that guy's way, as much as he should avoid being ganked by playing your way. Ying and Yang.
You wouldn't know balance if it approached in the form of a clown on a unicycle and smacked you upside the head with a rubber chicken.

Yes you can lose months of work in a single gank, but you have to be either unlucky or careless to do so. It doesn't affect your ability to fly the exact same ships you could beforehand.

The removal of SP via killright would be a disproportionate measure in that it would potentially affect the ability of the penalised player to fly the exact same ships they could beforehand.

That's not balance, that's being vindictive.


Oh, the irony. Lol

Losing a ship because unlucky or careless = good
Losing SP because unlucky or careless = bad.

Negating a player to fly his ship (destroyed ships don't fly) = good
Potentially negating a player to fly his ship for a while = bad

Being unable to fly your ship because someone messed with you = good
Being unable to fly your ship because you messed with someone = bad

See, it's not about who or when or what. It's about consequences. Messing up with players who don't share your way of playing should expose you to be messed with by players who don't share your way of playing.

The exact mechanics could be worked out. Even "peacedecs" would work!

As the core of the concept it's about forcing other players to play in a way they don't want... unconsensually. There's nothing more EVE than that.

PvPr: "But, but, you can destroy my ship too! Even if I don't give a f*** of it...!"
PvEr: "Huh, no, I'd rather hit you where it hurts you, for a change. So say good bye to Small Hybrid Weapons IV for the next few days (or anything equally annoying)"

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#888 - 2015-05-22 13:45:23 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
the, uh, standings loss i didn't suffer for the npcs i didn't kill because i rejected the mission immediately after looking it up on eve survival

and gained an anti-pirate mission instead

that standings loss, right

Let me tell you about Pirate Faction agents, LP and stuff.

Let me remind you about relations between factions

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#889 - 2015-05-22 13:52:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Negating a player to fly his ship (destroyed ships don't fly) = good
Potentially negating a player to fly his ship for a while = bad

Being unable to fly your ship because someone messed with you = good
Being unable to fly your ship because you messed with someone = bad
The difference being that destroyed ships can be replaced, instantly.

Also Rule #1: Don't fly anything you're not comfortable with losing.

Quote:
See, it's not about who or when or what. It's about consequences. Messing up with players who don't share your way of playing should expose you to be messed with by players who don't share your way of playing.
I don't disagree with the principle I disagree with what you consider to be balanced.

Quote:
The exact mechanics could be worked out. Even "peacedecs" would work!

As the core of the concept it's about forcing other players to play in a way they don't want... unconsensually. There's nothing more EVE than that.
So do something instead of asking CCP to do it for you, that's kind of the point of playing a sandbox game.

Quote:
PvPr: "But, but, you can destroy my ship too! Even if I don't give a f*** of it...!"
PvEr: "Huh, no, I'd rather hit you where it hurts you, for a change. So say good bye to Small Hybrid Weapons IV for the next few days (or anything equally annoying)"
Different mindsets, one sees ships as disposable tools and uses them as such; the other sees them as valuable objects, but for the most part fails to take steps to protect them.

You can't justify penalising people for treating their ships as the tools they are.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#890 - 2015-05-22 13:57:47 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Negating a player to fly his ship (destroyed ships don't fly) = good
Potentially negating a player to fly his ship for a while = bad

Being unable to fly your ship because someone messed with you = good
Being unable to fly your ship because you messed with someone = bad
The difference being that destroyed ships can be replaced, instantly.

wrong. You need ISK, time and market.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Quote:
PvPr: "But, but, you can destroy my ship too! Even if I don't give a f*** of it...!"
PvEr: "Huh, no, I'd rather hit you where it hurts you, for a change. So say good bye to Small Hybrid Weapons IV for the next few days (or anything equally annoying)"
Different mindsets, one sees ships as disposable tools, the other sees them as valuable objects but for the most part fails to take steps to protect them.

Your mindset only matters to you. Result is what matters at the end. Does it hurt? Or no one even noticed?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#891 - 2015-05-22 13:59:09 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Ying and Yang.


You mean Yin of course.
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#892 - 2015-05-22 13:59:22 UTC

People who identify with their crap in a game ...
... will always cry and rage about losing it.

As they identify with their crap they take it personally !
Personally ! They rage, because it's PERSONAL for them !

They want the game to accomodate their psychological issues.

Who in his right mind would want that ??
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#893 - 2015-05-22 14:04:44 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
yeah, mission runners have to occasionally reject two missions in a row for being anti-empire

now try and tell me there's no consequences to mission running D:

Let me tell you about standing loss from killing NPCs in missions.
Let me tell you about relations between empires.


Not an issue with SOE missions.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#894 - 2015-05-22 14:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
March rabbit wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The difference being that destroyed ships can be replaced, instantly.

wrong. You need ISK, time and market.
Does it take the 15 and a bit days it takes to to reacquire 1 million SP at 2700 SP/hr? No it does not.

The SP removal suggestion is not in any way approaching balanced.

Quote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Different mindsets, one sees ships as disposable tools, the other sees them as valuable objects but for the most part fails to take steps to protect them.

Your mindset only matters to you. Result is what matters at the end. Does it hurt? Or no one even noticed?
Watâ„¢?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#895 - 2015-05-22 19:52:31 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The difference being that destroyed ships can be replaced, instantly.

Also Rule #1: Don't fly anything you're not comfortable with losing.


Instantly? LOL, I've bought exactly ONE freighter in 6 years of playing. Had to mine for SIX WEEKS to save that money, even as I wasn't plexing my account, and ice price was way better than it is now... that's how "instantly" can be replaced a freighter.

Quote:
Quote:
The exact mechanics could be worked out. Even "peacedecs" would work!

As the core of the concept it's about forcing other players to play in a way they don't want... unconsensually. There's nothing more EVE than that.
So do something instead of asking CCP to do it for you, that's kind of the point of playing a sandbox game.


OK, I will use that agent I've got at 10.0 quality in order to mess with any potential ganker... oh wait. Looks like I can't do that without CCP. Roll

Quote:
Quote:
PvPr: "But, but, you can destroy my ship too! Even if I don't give a f*** of it...!"
PvEr: "Huh, no, I'd rather hit you where it hurts you, for a change. So say good bye to Small Hybrid Weapons IV for the next few days (or anything equally annoying)"
Different mindsets, one sees ships as disposable tools and uses them as such; the other sees them as valuable objects, but for the most part fails to take steps to protect them.

You can't justify penalising people for treating their ships as the tools they are.


If losing a ship is unconsequential to them, then please oh please tell me: what risk there is in their actions? None? Because if there's no risk in their playstyle, that must be fixed ASAP. You're apologizing the existence of riskless rewards in EVE, shame on you! Evil

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Melissa Redoran
#896 - 2015-05-22 20:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Melissa Redoran
Eve Solecist wrote:

People who identify with their crap in a game ...
... will always cry and rage about losing it.

As they identify with their crap they take it personally !
Personally ! They rage, because it's PERSONAL for them !

They want the game to accomodate their psychological issues.

Who in his right mind would want that ??


People identifiying with crap
... cover this world in war
Because they take countries, thoughts, believes for real and personal
so they rage, murder, lie, steal...

They want RL to accomodate their psychological issues

And think they are right minded.

Ask yourself: Are you someone else when playing this game? Instantly benefittet from higher consciousness or more alerted thoughts after login? Or are you aware like some sort of buddah whole day long, not suffering from such conditions?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#897 - 2015-05-22 20:16:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Instantly? LOL, I've bought exactly ONE freighter in 6 years of playing. Had to mine for SIX WEEKS to save that money, even as I wasn't plexing my account, and ice price was way better than it is now... that's how "instantly" can be replaced a freighter.
If you aren't comfortable with losing it, or can't afford to; you shouldn't fly it.

Quote:
OK, I will use that agent I've got at 10.0 quality in order to mess with any potential ganker... oh wait. Looks like I can't do that without CCP. Roll
You don't need to use an agent to mess with a ganker, fitting a tank and being at the keyboard does a fairly good job of messing with them attempting to mess with you.

Quote:
If losing a ship is unconsequential to them, then please oh please tell me: what risk there is in their actions? None? Because if there's no risk in their playstyle, that must be fixed ASAP. You're apologizing the existence of riskless rewards in EVE, shame on you! Evil
The risk is still there.

The fact that they've accepted the risk as part of their game doesn't mean that the risk is gone, as evidenced by the amount of people that aren't ganking because they can't accept the risk you claim doesn't exist.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#898 - 2015-05-22 21:04:07 UTC
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marsha Mallow
#899 - 2015-05-22 21:44:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Melissa Redoran wrote:
Eve Solecist wrote:

People who identify with their crap in a game ...
... will always cry and rage about losing it.

As they identify with their crap they take it personally !
Personally ! They rage, because it's PERSONAL for them !

They want the game to accomodate their psychological issues.

Who in his right mind would want that ??


People identifiying with crap
... cover this world in war
Because they take countries, thoughts, believes for real and personal
so they rage, murder, lie, steal...

They want RL to accomodate their psychological issues

And think they are right minded.

Ask yourself: Are you someone else when playing this game? Instantly benefittet from higher consciousness or more alerted thoughts after login? Or are you aware like some sort of buddah whole day long, not suffering from such conditions?

Emotions are not 'psychological issues.' Avarice, lust, wrath, vanity, hubris, poor hygiene and silly hair may well be sins, but experiencing them doesn't make someone a psycho or sociopath. A lack of emotion is actually an indicator of a personality disorder. When making those sorts of attack - which is directed at the person, not the player - it's you who is crossing the line (both of you), and transferring your issues onto us.

Interaction in an online war game with a dystopian theme, where assets which have a measurable value vs real life currency, which requires significant time, effort and energy, is an emotional investment. When people lose - whether a ship, pod, assets, space, friends - it's entirely human (and irrational) to register an emotional response. The point about the learning curve is that this response diminishes over time, in the same way people getting the shakes does when they PvP, because we're smart monkeys and we learn from our mistakes. You have to accept they are your own mistakes in the first place, and it's noticeable that some either can't, or won't, and it's not our problem. Transferring the blame to the community or CCP is a lot easier than admitting you ****** up. Muttering about real wars, atrocities and human nature just indicates the kind of victim mentality that can never be cured.

People who rage over a loss a few weeks in are entitled to. It's bizarre, and pretty rare in modern MMOs to experience significant perma death mechanics. There's no reason to slap newbies about for being annoyed, it shows they are engaged enough to rant. Those who have been whining for years and are still raging about broken mechanics and griefers are beyond saving, and nobody cares. As long as CCP ignore their gibbering, we should too.

tl;dr There's nothing wrong with feeling an emotion when your space chariot explodes, but direct it into something useful. Like not losing the next one.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#900 - 2015-05-22 21:45:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
People who claim that there's no risk, cost, difficulty or downside to suicide ganking have never managed to satisfactorily explain to me why they can't suicide gankers.


While I don't much care about this issue either way, I think "why don't you gank the gankers" is a bit disingenuous.

A freighter with 1 billion in goods is worth about 2 billion total. Killing that, and then getting concorded for that kill, would be considered worthwhile by many.

A catalyst, gank fit, is somewhere on the order of 1-2 million. Very few people would consider that a "wothwhile" kill, or a worthwhile use of their time.



I think that, for a lot of people, the issue comes down to risk/reward. A small handful of million isk boats risked to destroy (typically) 2 billion or more in assets may seem unbalanced to the casual observer.