These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 people assume how we play the game reflects us in real life?

First post
Author
oiukhp Muvila
Doomheim
#541 - 2016-09-17 09:21:15 UTC
Lacori wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If their"victims" put in even half the effort gankers put in then they would never be ganked.
Sure, but being that most of them are newbies and rookies, they don't. And if they did, code would still pick the easiest targets. I'm of the opinion that the game should encourage veterans to take a challenge not encourage them to go for easy marks.


But veterans do. What about veterans in sov alliances?

You contradict yourself. You keep saying 'it's a sandbox, we should be able to play how we like'. These people killing new players in high sec are playing the game their way, their victims are playing it their way, you are playing it your way, etc. I don't understand your point.

There are safe areas for new players, in their starter systems where CCP will take action if anyone tries to hurt them. Whilst they're there, they can fly tutorial missions, learn about the game, meet friends in their starter corp, fleet up with them, try out missions and mining, and then maybe read some third party information sites about the nuances of the game.

But that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You want 0.5 systems to be the same as those starter systems, thereby forcing pirates who operate in those areas to change the way they play the game.



I created a noob char awhile back and dared to mine 1 jump out of my starter system and within a couple days CODE tried to gank it like 6 times.

I'm not sure that is a good signal to new players.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#542 - 2016-09-17 09:23:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
I'll skip over much of the repetition here.

Teckos Pech wrote:
This game exists for players to compete against one another in a variety of ways. That much is well understood. Further it is a sandbox, so this notion of "balanced and fair competition" when it comes to player actions is not really relevant. We are not here for some sort of Marquess of Queensberry Rules to this competition.
ROFL, so when they were nerfing the hell out of force projection to break up the null blocks, I take it you were there saying "the game shouldn't be balanced because it's not relevant in a sandbox", right?

Teckos Pech wrote:
And you have literally no data. Yes, ships that are capable of being flown by 8 day old pilots die all the time, how well that correlates to the age of the player is completely missing. For example, how many are cyno ships? How many are people in shuttles? What about the fitting? Sure might be a T1 frig...with a complete T2 fitting? You have nothing here.

As for firms and honesty try google. Firms play plenty to protect, enhance and repair their reputations.
I don't have hard data because I don't have access to CCPs databases, but I can make an educated guess and I've laid out my reasoning. We make plenty of judgements based on no data and logical reasoning every single day.

And yup, plenty of firm pay to protect their reputations, and still Rockstar don't seem to care even remotely about getting rid of the scum from their community, and they are rolling around in money, so they are making the right decisions there.

Teckos Pech wrote:
As for ganking yes, that is exactly risk/reward. The problem is one of the parties was completely an totally foolish and imprudent. He took a significant risk with with substantial downside losses for a pathetic reward. And the other party came along and imposed that downside on him. The freighter pilot...I have no sympathy for. None. He should have known better.

And yes, the gankers have minimized their risk, good on them! That is called being smart and prudent. There is literally nothing wrong with that.
ROFL, it's not risk reward if someone else takes a risk and you get a reward. The whole concept of risk reward balance is to stop people dogpiling onto easy tasks for massive rewards. That's broken, in most case directly reversed, for highsec aggression. I too have no sympathy for the freighter pilot, but that doesn't stop me thinking that taking a bigger risk should attract the most reward.

Goons minimised their risk and the majority of the community came together to get CCP to change the game to stop them being able to hold their space and stop them being able to rapidly deploy on attacks. If CCP simply let veterans reduce their risk and refine their gameplay and never balance them out, the game breaks. They have to ensure that they are always trying to bring that balance in, and that's what they are doing with recent changes.

Edit: Also, while you're banging on about you're twisted views on risk reward and how much risk a freighter pilot takes, consider how much a highsec freighter makes. It's one of the lowest forms of income and they have to take some risks. They fly a capital ship around that is easily disabled by a handful of alts and their only defense is to bring more pilots and split their already pathetic income down further. Honestly, I'm still surprised there's people actually doing it. Bring on NPC haulers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rain6637
NulzSec
#543 - 2016-09-17 09:28:55 UTC
Lacori wrote:
I've seen this countless times, and I've been playing for over a decade...

Which is probably why I draw the line at certain activities, even though I condone those activities by others who chose to do them. Case in point, scamming your own corp or being a long-term spy, and by that I mean not a couple of weeks here and there. I mean actually going to the trouble of befriending the people you intend to scam, including knowing them outside of the game, having meet-ups in real life, hell even driving across states and meeting their wives and kids. I've seen this happen, very rarely, but it does happen. I question the mental state of such people, but Eve is a sandbox, and who are we to judge?

Even though I wouldn't go that far, I've done my fair share of piracy, high sec ganking, made a few newbs cry when I used to FC, and I did run with CODE for a short spell. The smack talk I've received is far worse than any I've dished out, I've had miners whose ship I've just popped talking about raping my mom, whereas all I've done is engaged in perfectly legit tactics within an open world space sandbox. I question the mental state of these people even more, as clearly the line between fiction and reality is well and truly blurred.

People also make the assumption that if you have a leaning toward a PvP playstyle, then you must have no life outside of the game. I could say the same about industrialists, but why would I? I have a wife and kids, I do stuff with them, I play ball with my friends and I work (hard) to provide for my family....and in my spare time I occasionally grief pixel spaceships from my desk.

TL;DR Confused why so many people assume that pirates/griefers are assholes IRL.

Why would you do anything other than what provides you enjoyment naturally.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#544 - 2016-09-17 09:33:12 UTC
Lacori wrote:
But veterans do. What about veterans in sov alliances?
Same problem, and that's why I supported MASSIVE nerfs to sov gameplay mechanics.

Lacori wrote:
You contradict yourself. You keep saying 'it's a sandbox, we should be able to play how we like'. These people killing new players in high sec are playing the game their way, their victims are playing it their way, you are playing it your way, etc. I don't understand your point.
Sure but there's a balance between how people want to play and what is good for the game. That's why they balance mechanics and nerf gameplay for some people.

Lacori wrote:
There are safe areas for new players, in their starter systems where CCP will take action if anyone tries to hurt them. Whilst they're there, they can fly tutorial missions, learn about the game, meet friends in their starter corp, fleet up with them, try out missions and mining, and then maybe read some third party information sites about the nuances of the game.
Sure, they can fly in one system and as long as they don't look at a chat channel and get baited out and know not to use stargate, they'll be fine.

Lacori wrote:
But that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You want 0.5 systems to be the same as those starter systems, thereby forcing pirates who operate in those areas to change the way they play the game.
No I don't and I've never stated as much.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#545 - 2016-09-17 10:00:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If their"victims" put in even half the effort gankers put in then they would never be ganked.
Sure, but being that most of them are newbies and rookies, they don't. And if they did, code would still pick the easiest targets. I'm of the opinion that the game should encourage veterans to take a challenge not encourage them to go for easy marks.


Its not the gankers fault the "victims" make themselves easy to kill.
Lacori
Doomheim
#546 - 2016-09-17 10:04:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If their"victims" put in even half the effort gankers put in then they would never be ganked.
Sure, but being that most of them are newbies and rookies, they don't. And if they did, code would still pick the easiest targets. I'm of the opinion that the game should encourage veterans to take a challenge not encourage them to go for easy marks.


Its not the gankers fault the "victims" make themselves easy to kill.


^this
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#547 - 2016-09-17 10:34:04 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

Does a fool knows he's a fool?

Yes. Don't ask me how I know.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#548 - 2016-09-17 10:42:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
CCP has simply got the balance wrong in terms of Gankers, a point that Lucas Kell made very well. Lucas seems to see some movement on this front, I don't, which is why I am not putting my money where my mouth is and de-subbing. I would be interested Lucas if you could let me know what you actually see as movement here.

Lucas Kell has also correctly pointed out the gamers assumptions of what EVE is and why people say it is not for them.

Also Lucas Kell has pointed out the low level of risk and massive reward that gankers get and that they do this against those players who often have the lowest level of returns in the game. Gankers have no risk and massive rewards and they are based in hisec, while I can respect the organisation of the gankers, they are still using mechanics and consequences heavily in their favour which is due to CCP's chronic mismanagement in terms of balance in this area.

At a strategic point CODE is aimed at CCP, the objective of CODE is to punish CCP for removing can flipping by targeting new and fairly new casual players. They have been successful there, while other choices that CCP made have also affected player retention, such as Dominion sov, which Lucas Kell also correctly picked up on and supported a move away from.

It does amaze me just how unaware CCP are about their game at times. Shocked

Lucas I hope you can keep at it, posting on these forums is painful but you do it so well. Respect to you and keep up the good fight mate.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#549 - 2016-09-17 10:57:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Its not the gankers fault the "victims" make themselves easy to kill.
So be cause it's not the gankers fault that newbies are new, game mechanics shouldn't be balanced to push people toward risk/reward balance? I'll remember that next time you ***** about carebears getting an easy ride.

Dracvlad wrote:
CCP has simply got the balance wrong in terms of Gankers, a point that Lucas Kell made very well. Lucas seems to see some movement on this front, I don't, which is why I am not putting my money where my mouth is and de-subbing. I would be interested Lucas if you could let me know what you actually see as movement here.
The bumping changes are a step in the right direction, and I think the overall shift towards a free to play game with more focus on microtransactions shows an effort to move towards the mainstream. While I prefer the niche game to retain it's unique appeal, appealing to mass markets will naturally push CCP towards making the experience better for newer players, and if the community has no interest in allowing newbies some level of fun then I see very few alternatives, so I support their moves in that direction.

Dracvlad wrote:
Lucas I hope you can keep at it, posting on these forums is painful but you do it so well. Respect to you and keep up the good fight mate.
Thanks. Big smile

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#550 - 2016-09-17 11:09:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So be cause it's not the gankers fault that newbies are new, game mechanics shouldn't be balanced to push people toward risk/reward balance? I'll remember that next time you ***** about carebears getting an easy ride.



Got any evidence its new players getting ganked?
Lacori
Doomheim
#551 - 2016-09-17 11:13:52 UTC


Dracvlad wrote:
appealing to mass markets will naturally push CCP towards making the experience better for newer players, and if the community has no interest in allowing newbies some level of fun then I see very few alternatives, so I support their moves in that direction.


Well if they do this, they will lose a great majority of their existing playerbase.Evil

Just how many noobies do you expect to join exactly? Goons are 15,000 strong. You think CCP are gonna risk losing all those players? It would be suicide for the game if they made it more noob-friendly, as it's one of the main tenets of Eve differing to other sandbox MMOs.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#552 - 2016-09-17 11:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Lacori wrote:


Dracvlad wrote:
appealing to mass markets will naturally push CCP towards making the experience better for newer players, and if the community has no interest in allowing newbies some level of fun then I see very few alternatives, so I support their moves in that direction.


Well if they do this, they will lose a great majority of their existing playerbase.Evil

Just how many noobies do you expect to join exactly? Goons are 15,000 strong. You think CCP are gonna risk losing all those players? It would be suicide for the game if they made it more noob-friendly, as it's one of the main tenets of Eve differing to other sandbox MMOs.


I think you got confused with your quotes...

But I will answer it from my prespective, first of all what we are talking about is a group of veteran players getting a very easy ride off of the back of other players, with no risk and massive reward, their activities are focused on the players who are most vulnerable. I do not think that this would have the impact that you say.

I am on record as saying that the mining ships with the procurer and skiff as they are is balanced, people have choices for less yield and more tank if they want to, the issue was before when that choice was not there. People now make choices to go with yield and ease of use, they get ganked, fair do's. What I find annoying is the amount of gankers trying to get the Skiff nerfed and I give CCP some credit for not falling for that.

I am on record as saying that the consequences for gankers in hisec are laughable, I would at this point do something about docking rights in NPC statons once a player is -10. Force use of a Citadel, so perhaps people can see a value in blowing them up to get back at gankers, there is none now...

The Bumping change is good, however easy to get around, what it will impact is ransom bumping, which is a good thing. In terms of ganking freighters it will have a slight affect on that. While some gankers seem to think them getting around it will be a massive surprise to AG players, I know differently, AG expect it to have minimal impact. It will however force gankers to be a bit more selective. Still bumping is no consequence for the bumper itself which should not be forgotten.

The loot scooping via DST's is a major benefit which allows the gankers to move consequences onto an alt with a noob ship, therefore making the loot scooping risk free.

So if we were to see CCP pull their heads out of the ass and do something along these issues then I think the balance will be healthy, gankers can get around the inability of NPC stations, they will get around the bumping, they just need noob ships to re-set the timer and they will have to work out ways to scoop the loot when people are protecting them, they are pretty good at that sort of thing anyway. If those gankers leave the game over what I have suggested then they are not really going to be missed are they?

My focus is to add challenge to the gankers, not make Eve more noob friendly.

In terms of alpha clones, I am not keen, just adding more cannon fodder to be easily killed will not change the perception of the gaming world about Eve, it will reinforce it, for me killing an alpha clone 1v1 has no value to me at all, it is a certain victory, it devalues playing eve to me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#553 - 2016-09-17 11:54:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Lacori wrote:


Dracvlad wrote:
appealing to mass markets will naturally push CCP towards making the experience better for newer players, and if the community has no interest in allowing newbies some level of fun then I see very few alternatives, so I support their moves in that direction.


Well if they do this, they will lose a great majority of their existing playerbase.Evil

Just how many noobies do you expect to join exactly? Goons are 15,000 strong. You think CCP are gonna risk losing all those players? It would be suicide for the game if they made it more noob-friendly, as it's one of the main tenets of Eve differing to other sandbox MMOs.


I think you got confused with your quotes...

But I will answer it from my prespective, first of all what we are talking about is a group of veteran players getting a very easy ride off of the back of other players, with no risk and massive reward, their activities is focused on the players who are most vulnerable. I do not think that this would have the impact that you say.

I am on record as saying that the mining ships with the procurer and skiff as they are is balanced, people have choices for less yield and more tank if they want to, the issue was before when that choice was not there. People now make choices to go with yield and ease of use, they get ganked, fair do's. What I find annoying is the amount of gankers trying to get the Skiff nerfed and I give CCP some credit for not falling for that.

I am on record as saying that the consequences in hisec are laughable, I would at this point do something about docking rights in NPC statons once a player is -10. Force use of a Citadel, so perhaps people can see a value in blowing them up to get back at gankers, there is none now...

The Bumping change is good, however easy to get around, what it will impact is ransom bumping, which is a good thing. In terms of ganking freighters it will have a slight affect on that. While some gankers seem to think them getting around it will be a massive surprise to AG players, I know differently, AG expect it to have minimal impact. It will however force gankers to be a bit more selective. Still bumping is no consequence for the bumper itself which should not be forgotten.

The loot scooping via DST's is a major benefit which allows the gankers to move consequences onto an alt with a noob ship, therefore making the loot scooping risk free.

So if we were to see CCP pull their heads out of the ass and do something along these issues then I think the balance will be healthy, gankers can get around the inability of NPC stations, they will get around the bumping, they just need noob ships to re-set the timer and they will have to work out ways to scoop the loot when people are protecting them, they are pretty good at that sort of thing anyway. If those gankers leave the game over what I have suggested then they are not really going to be missed are they?

My focus is to add challenge to the gankers, not make it more noob friendly.

In terms of alpha clones, I am not keen, just adding more cannon fodder to be easily killed will not change the perception of the gaming world about Eve, it will reinforce it, for me killing an alpha clone 1v1 has no value to me at all, it is a certain victory, it devalues playing eve to me.


If the consequences are laughable and its so easy then why are you not ganking the gankers? Their ships are profitable to gank.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#554 - 2016-09-17 11:56:02 UTC
The OP was about whether what we do in game reflect our RL selves. Now we talking whether high sec ganking is good/bad for the game and the good old risk vs reward argument.

As for OP's question I've already stated that what we do in game is an expression of out desires. Whether having certain desires make you 'bad person' or not is not my concern (as I personally think most people have desires they do not talk abouy IRL or even admit to themselves)

As for risk/reward, HS mining is just silly. If you want to be 'safe' in high sec, you actually need to take same precautions as people do in low/null (WH is at even more different level of paranoia).

The thing is that, if you are going to do this, you may as well mine in low/null/wh where 'reward' is greater.

If there were no suicide gankers in HS, then yes it would be low reward and low risk. But with CODE. rampant in high sec, it's just high risk low reward. Presence and activities of CODE. forces you to take precautions you would during war time in high sec. While I do not support CODE., this is pretty much what EVE is about. Always be vigilant, and be suspicious and paranoid.

From what I see, the rise of CODE. has got to do with the fact that this core theme of EVE has become so diluted. You don't have to literally buy their RP 'reasons' at face value, buy it is true that in 'function' they achieve what they claim to seek. It doesn't mean their 'reasons' are genuine, but in effect what they say they want is working.

You can grrr all you want, but that is just he way things are now. If you don't like it, you will need to find better ways than proposinh game mechanic changes or plea to CCP for help.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#555 - 2016-09-17 12:01:47 UTC
Toobo wrote:
The OP was about whether what we do in game reflect our RL selves. Now we talking whether high sec ganking is good/bad for the game and the good old risk vs reward argument.

As for OP's question I've already stated that what we do in game is an expression of out desires. Whether having certain desires make you 'bad person' or not is not my concern (as I personally think most people have desires they do not talk abouy IRL or even admit to themselves)

As for risk/reward, HS mining is just silly. If you want to be 'safe' in high sec, you actually need to take same precautions as people do in low/null (WH is at even more different level of paranoia).

The thing is that, if you are going to do this, you may as well mine in low/null/wh where 'reward' is greater.

If there were no suicide gankers in HS, then yes it would be low reward and low risk. But with CODE. rampant in high sec, it's just high risk low reward. Presence and activities of CODE. forces you to take precautions you would during war time in high sec. While I do not support CODE., this is pretty much what EVE is about. Always be vigilant, and be suspicious and paranoid.

From what I see, the rise of CODE. has got to do with the fact that this core theme of EVE has become so diluted. You don't have to literally buy their RP 'reasons' at face value, buy it is true that in 'function' they achieve what they claim to seek. It doesn't mean their 'reasons' are genuine, but in effect what they say they want is working.

You can grrr all you want, but that is just he way things are now. If you don't like it, you will need to find better ways than proposinh game mechanic changes or plea to CCP for help.


So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#556 - 2016-09-17 12:06:29 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.


Given that said risk and reward is dependent upon the target being incredibly daft, yes.
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#557 - 2016-09-17 12:12:56 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
..., a point that Lucas Kell made very well.... Lucas ....Lucas ....

Lucas Kell has also correctly pointed out .....Also Lucas Kell ....which Lucas Kell also correctly picked up on ....
Lucas I hope you can keep at it...



Allow me to kindly lend you my handkerchief to clean that brown off of your nose.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#558 - 2016-09-17 12:21:49 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Toobo wrote:
The OP was about whether what we do in game reflect our RL selves. Now we talking whether high sec ganking is good/bad for the game and the good old risk vs reward argument.

As for OP's question I've already stated that what we do in game is an expression of out desires. Whether having certain desires make you 'bad person' or not is not my concern (as I personally think most people have desires they do not talk abouy IRL or even admit to themselves)

As for risk/reward, HS mining is just silly. If you want to be 'safe' in high sec, you actually need to take same precautions as people do in low/null (WH is at even more different level of paranoia).

The thing is that, if you are going to do this, you may as well mine in low/null/wh where 'reward' is greater.

If there were no suicide gankers in HS, then yes it would be low reward and low risk. But with CODE. rampant in high sec, it's just high risk low reward. Presence and activities of CODE. forces you to take precautions you would during war time in high sec. While I do not support CODE., this is pretty much what EVE is about. Always be vigilant, and be suspicious and paranoid.

From what I see, the rise of CODE. has got to do with the fact that this core theme of EVE has become so diluted. You don't have to literally buy their RP 'reasons' at face value, buy it is true that in 'function' they achieve what they claim to seek. It doesn't mean their 'reasons' are genuine, but in effect what they say they want is working.

You can grrr all you want, but that is just he way things are now. If you don't like it, you will need to find better ways than proposinh game mechanic changes or plea to CCP for help.


So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.


Why complain about the levels of risk gankers run when the level of risk their targets run is so low that it's not worth taking even minimal precations to avoid or mitigate the gankers?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#559 - 2016-09-17 12:45:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.


Why complain about the levels of risk gankers run when the level of risk their targets run is so low that it's not worth taking even minimal precations to avoid or mitigate the gankers?


It is rather amusing to see the reaction to the point made about no risk and massive reward for hisec ganking. There is no doubt that this is massively out of balance with the concept of risk and reward in Eve, rather amusingly so.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#560 - 2016-09-17 12:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Dracvlad wrote:
So you are happy with the insane level of low risk vs massive reward in terms of gankers in hisec, so much for risk and reward Shocked.
The risk is low because people aren't generally willing to do anything to stop them, the reward is high because their victims often indulge in excessive stupidity and expect to get away with it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack