EVE General Discussion

How are mining barge buffs and the removal of insurance "sandbox mechanics"? I for one count that against you because it was intended to directly nerf PvP conflict in highsec, and that's what it did. There is no "sandbox mechanic" in play with the many, many unreasonable buffs to highsec safety.

And you're sitting here crying about the Bowhead? You've chosen that rock to die on? You two are ridiculous.

It wasn't introduced as a buff to pvp. Full stop.

That it has any affect at all is because of smart use by players, not an inherent quality of the change. Other players are free to invent smart ways to counter and totally neutralise its use.

By the same argument, the Nereus was a buff to pvp because players use it with a battle Nereus fit. That would be equally unsystainable argument since it clearly wasn't introduced as a buff to pvp.

If you look at Feyd's chart and the reasons each aspect was introduced, everyone one of them was verifiably introduced as a nerf to aggressors and/or buff to aggressed characters, in CCPs own words:

Concord response times reduced
Devblog link

"CONCORD has some issues, mostly that pilots are killed long before CONCORD arrives. We have decreased the response time, meaning they will arrive quicker, and we should see a more helpful CONCORD aiding those in need.

We also changed the functionality and reduced the spawn. CONCORD now spawns in groups of 3 ships: 2 frigate sized vessels, which will lock the aggressor down in place, and a heavy hitting battleship to reduce his or her ship to metal scraps. The frigates will lock almost instantly while the battleship takes longer to lock, and the aggressor is made more aware of his or her impending doom."
"
Nerf or buff? Nerf to the aggressor and greater odds of survival for the player being ganked.

Security Status Penalties
(same devblog as above link)

"Through our research, we discovered that the balance between gaining standing and losing it was not in line with our intentions. It is too easy to gain back lost standing, taking only a few days to erase all the damage done by ganking. This is about to change.

We are increasing the security penalties throughout high-security space."

Nerf or buff? Nerf to the aggressor

Insurance removed from gankers
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=320187#post320187

"We took the insurance out because having it was silly... It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time."

Nerf or buff? Nerf to the aggressor

Exhumers base EHP Buff
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/72890

"Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them."

combined with the thread on the subject:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1698538#post1698538

"Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot."

Resulting in significant increase in base values:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ship-balancing-mining-barges/

Nerf or buff? Nerf to the aggressor

This post is getting long already, but I can keep going with the relevant CCP statements that relate to the introduction of something being specifically related to its impact on combat.

There is no equivalent statement for the bowhead. It was not introduced by CCP as a buff to PvP and it's no more a buff to PvP than it is a buff to PvE. It was a totally neutral introduction in relation to combat.

I'm happy to change my mind, but only where there is verifiable evidence that it was introduced as a buff to pvp.

I'm happy to look at that list.

Some of it is a bit crazy with a cursory glance (eg. fitting options for freighters is a buff to pvp?), but I'll look at the available data (eg. EFT fits, etc.) and information from CCP and see anyway. Won't ignore it, it'll just take a little bit of time to go through what's available.

Yeah I saw Tippia's response and the subsequent post too.

I'll just go and look for the evidence though, so it isn't simply my own opinion, but information that anyone can verify either way (buff or not).

For example, on the first statement (extremely overpowered Catalysts capable of pumping out dps beyond expected for their size and cost), in comparing it to other destroyers (ie. same size ships), the numbers aren't really showing that. But I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. I'll publish all the information and let anyone interested actually look at the numbers and verify it for themselves.

Then there's literally no point in furthering this discussion with you. If that's the only thing you take into account then emergent gameplay such as ganking, which CCP won't release a change with the intention of improving, by your definition will never be buffed, even though changes do make it significantly easier. In the same way though social corps are being added to aid people in making social contact, not in improving safety in highsec, so by your definition you've categorically proven that social corps are not a buff to highsec safety.

No, it's a classic example of a buff to a gameplay style which was implemented for another reason. Quite simply, if they did what I said in that example and added tat 100k dps ship with the intention of it improving burner missions, would you class that as a buff to ganking? Scipio it seems would not, even though the result would mean that gankers could solo gank a freighter in a 1.0. The point there is that a buff doesn't need to state in the patch notes that the reason for it being added is to improve that that particular style, what matters is the effect.

There won;t be one because it's emergent gameplay, not a gameplay style CCP directly supports. As far as I am aware CCP staff aren't even allowed to gank. I doubt we will see patches to directly affect it. That doesn't mean however that it doesn't receive favourable improvements from changes that CCP make, they simply don't add specific changes to improve it. Not to mention that ganking isn't the only form of highsec PvP, and there certain have been direct changes to buff wardec mechanics which once again are ignored.

At the end of the day you two are doing exactly what I described earlier. Whenever someone points out change which have decrease the safety in highsec, they never count because :reasons:. It's impossible to take you guys and people like Feyd seriously when you're so obviously biased and make wild claims like how there have been no changes to decrease safety like Feyds graph suggests.

All it all though, it's off topic and irrelevant. These social changes are coming so get over it.

I'll post it in the other thread better.

It makes it possible for one player to solo gank a freighter with a couple of alts, by allowing them to reship while still under a criminal timer. Freighter ganks generally require a larger umber of people coordinated at a single time. This removes that requirement.

Quite honestly I'm done arguing this. It's off topic, and clearly nothing anyone says will make a difference since you've already made up your mind. Obviously gankers just use bowheads because they are pretty or something and the fact that the enable a whole style of ganking which has been used quite effectively is irrelevant.

It can't be a buff to wardecs, they didn't state it was a buff to wardecs so it's obviously not. Seriously, you guys are obviously right, there's obviously been no buffs ever to conflict in highsec and obviously there have been milllions of buff to safety because buffs to safety happen even when they don't state them as such. The only conclusion is that CCP want EVE to be like WoW, so I guess that's it, let's get on with playing WoW in space. Thanks for making me understand the truth of the matter. *grabs pom poms* GO SPACE WOW GO! GO SPACE WOW GO!

There's no emotion about it, you've just convinced me, that's all. Feyd has been going on about how there are only buffs to safety, none to conflict. I've seen changes which boost conflict and have been mistakenly believing those to be buffs to conflict (stupid me, thinking that mechanics that improve a playstyle are buffs to that playstyle ) but obviously I was wrong, and you've convinced me of that. The only explanation is that CCP dont; support conflict and only support safety, making this space WoW. That leaves 2 choices:
1. Complain about the game we play while CCP removes all conflict.
2. Accept the fate of EVE and support the removal of all conflct.

Thanks to your guidance I am now able to accept EVE for what it obviously is, space WoW.

And WTF does the bowhead have to do with social corps?

We're on page 44 of this thread. It's been on and off topic many times as any thread in GD that goes beyond a few pages long often does.

I've already reported my own posts as off topic, so an ISD can come along and clean it up however they like. This current discussion of the bowhead, (there have been many since it's introduction, began a couple of pages ago on page 42 with this post:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5801085#post5801085