These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Prevent players from activating their weapons on other players in highsec unless not in war
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Francisco Bizzaro
#61 - 2012-04-01 13:12:51 UTC
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

I don't know what sec status my home town has, but Concord respond a hell of a lot quicker than the local cops and have a better success record at catching the bad guys. What more do you want from a police force? Seems pretty high-security to me.

Thats because your local police don't have SPACESHIPS with WARP DRIVE duhhh!

Indeed. I'm glad you agree that Concord are already a very effective police force and do not need to be buffed further.

High-sec is very (but not absolutely) safe, at least until they introduce doughnut shops to incarna. After that ... doughnut shops will be safe.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#62 - 2012-04-01 13:15:00 UTC
Zaaark Quasar wrote:
Stop suicide ganking

It´s totally out of balance, there isn´t any other counter on it than not logging in or sitting in station. It doesn´t add anything in the sandbox, it just makes CCP lose subscriptions

Suicide ganking is not pvp content, it´s just griefing

Pilots that don´f have balls, should grow a pair and go to 0.0 or lowsec, or drop a war declaration. Those are good for the game

One reason for EVE online low subscription number is the fact that this game is ******** towards new players and pve players

PVE players do bring the same cash flow to CCP and if someone wants to spend 15$ montly just for shooting npc´s then so what? It doesn´t take anything away from 'pvp' pilots

Suicide ganking doesn´t have any valid reasoning behind it, it´s just seriously bad game design

CCP should really show some respect on all those players who pays their paychecks.


This post is out of control in both fallacy and misinformation

If pilots that "dont have balls" should grow a pair and move out of hi, then where are all the gankee's coming from

I did a dozen ganks last month. Every single killmail could have been avoided if the pilot would have tanked

Suicide ganking is quite profitable

Removing something completely isn't balancing, its removing completely

I mine in the same belts I gank in and dont get ganked, and other people gank there. This game is all about intel. Learn to use it or learn to be a killmail

There is nothing anyone can do about getting alpha'd, which makes it fair. The trick is to make the juice not worth the squeeze

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2012-04-01 13:17:00 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
OP has a valid point, suicide attacks are slowly chasing away new subscription revenue that CCP is trying to gain.
Lol no.
Suicide attacks are not hurting new subscriptions in the slightest. New players have nothing worth losing a ship over.


Quote:
Heh, high security, now that's definitely the biggest misrepresentation in use within this game.
So you think highsec is less secure than lowsec and nullsec? One thing is for sure, over the the next couple of years, we'll see it become a bit more dangerous, since that's where their marketing is going and since that's where the market as a whole is going: difficulty is back in style.
Black Dranzer
#64 - 2012-04-01 13:18:32 UTC
A handful of semi-decent responses upon a sea of drooling retards spouting negations without any actual refuting arguments. Oh Eve Forums, how I missed you.

So, suicide ganking. Why is it here?

"Because Sandbox" isn't really an answer.
"Eve is a big manly game for big manly men with big manly balls" isn't really an answer either.
The isk sink created by suicide gankers is probably insignificant, and suicide ganking isn't that big of a profession.
It certainly wouldn't be that hard to disable suicide ganking on a technical level.

So why?

Well, my best bet would be tension and atmosphere.

When you fly around in highsec, there's always that lingering feeling of unease. You know you're probably safe. But there's always that tiny little bit of tension, because you know that if somebody really wanted to, they could have a go at you. If you're hauling expensive cargo, you probably feel just a little bit paranoid. I think the designers wanted to create that sense of slight lawlessness, of a harsher and less friendly world.

The fact that suicide gankers are often assholes is true, but also besides the point. Suicide ganking exists not to make them feel good, but to make you feel uneasy. The fact that they derive joy from it is probably incidental more than anything else.

You can take preventative measures to protect yourself. But ultimately, they're there because some designer wants them there, and he's probably got a good reason for it.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
Pillowtalk
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2012-04-01 13:19:17 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Pillowtalk wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I'll admit to being a complete carebear who doesn't indulge in PVP as such, yeah I screw people on the markets etc but I don't shoot at anything that isn't a red cross. With the amount of shiptoasting that's been spewing out of the "I'm a carebear and PVP'rs are doing it wrong crowd" I'm seriously considering buying up a ton of disposable ships and collecting me some tears Pirate.

I used to get annoyed at the HTFU attitude of the PVP folks, after a couple of years in game I'm beginning to agree with them and rapidly beginning to see why they enjoy taunting us poor bears, some people just don't deserve to be in the same universe as the rest of us and I'm not talking about the PVP crowd.



Oh Gawd, bittervet syndrome is setting in. Quick, go mine something!


Don't have enough time behind me for bittervet syndrome Straight, although I am a member of Failheap so I'm slowly heading down that road Cool

and ugh mining, I'd rather flay myself and rub salt into the wounds than do that again



Oh come on! Let me set the mood...

You're in a backwoods dead end system, 1.0, no stations. Only one other mission runner in the system with you. Your home base in one jump over. 10 belts in the system, all are pristine and juicy to the point of bursting. You warp in with your two accounts, one in a hulk, the other in a maxed out orca. You put on some "insert favorite soothing music here", and listen to the rythmic hum of the mining lasers as you lean back and take a long drag from your pipe (yes, you smoke a pipe). As you leisurely drag your ore from your hold to the jetcan you quietly wonder how many miners were ganked down in 0.5 since you lit your pipe.

Don't violence me bro!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2012-04-01 13:21:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Black Dranzer wrote:
So, suicide ganking. Why is it here?
To ensure that you are never safe.

Next!

Oh, and suicide ganking is an ISK faucet, not a sink.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#67 - 2012-04-01 13:22:41 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
"Because Sandbox" isn't really an answer.
"Eve is a big manly game for big manly men with big manly balls" isn't really an answer either.
The isk sink created by suicide gankers is probably insignificant, and suicide ganking isn't that big of a profession.
It certainly wouldn't be that hard to disable suicide ganking on a technical level.

So why?

Well, my best bet would be tension and atmosphere.

Pretty much this, is my guess. CCP markets EVE as a game where you can never completely opt out of PvP, and where nowhere is completely safe. It's not really the sandbox aspect that requires high-sec ganking, but the "feeling" of the game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2012-04-01 13:25:47 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
It's not really the sandbox aspect that requires high-sec ganking, but the "feeling" of the game.
Actually, the sandbox pretty much demands that it's there, otherwise we wouldn't have a full set of tools at our disposal to get rid of other people.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#69 - 2012-04-01 13:27:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Pillowtalk wrote:



Oh come on! Let me set the mood...

You're in a backwoods dead end system, 1.0, no stations. Only one other mission runner in the system with you. Your home base in one jump over. 10 belts in the system, all are pristine and juicy to the point of bursting. You warp in with your two accounts, one in a hulk, the other in a maxed out orca. You put on some "insert favorite soothing music here", and listen to the rythmic hum of the mining lasers as you lean back and take a long drag from your pipe (yes, you smoke a pipe). As you leisurely drag your ore from your hold to the jetcan you quietly wonder how many miners were ganked down in 0.5 since you lit your pipe.




you're doing it wrong, you're better off with 2 hulks than 1 hulk and an orca, an orca doesn't become viable in yield terms unless you have 3 or more hulks in my experience, I used to mine with gangs a lot in wormholes, plenty of time to play with spreadsheets and figure out how to mine in an extremely efficient manner, was also very very boring unless you got visitors. The possibility of visitors also meant that we fitted tanks which were also needed to mine in clouds that deal damage every 30 seconds or so. Never ever fit an exhumer for max yield, they're built from lollysticks, paper and sellotape must have had a minmatar on the design team :D

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-04-01 13:27:26 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Wow, quite the collection of 'DEAL WITH IT' wanna be's posting in this thread.

OP has a valid point, suicide attacks are slowly chasing away new subscription revenue that CCP is trying to gain. As long as the Bounty system remains broken with no viable Bountyhunter mechanic available in this game, suicide attacks will continue to dominate high security unchecked.

Heh, high security, now that's definitely the biggest misrepresentation in use within this game.

Anyway, I'm sure within the next couple of years, this game will see some drastic changes made to the game mechanics to resolve that problem, especially with little ole CCP now teaming up with big brother Sony.


Denial, its a helluva drug. It's becoming more hardcore and visceral. By all means tell yourself repeating your demand in the form of inevitability controls this community.

CCP could have sold out a long time ago when things were really bad. Subs were minimum. They have built up a revenue with players who love hardcore gameplay. The carrot and stick routine the PVE crowd dangle with the promise of subs and good times mean jack **** at this point. They don't need your money. If however you care for EVE's style of gameplay your money is absolutely welcome.

<--- Will play EVE until the day he dies or no longer can as long as the game remains violent and visceral. Doesn't require scripted raids or content either just death and new ways of bringing it to other players. Is loyal to a company that remains loyal to its self and stated goal. Can't be lured away by eye candy and promises. Will spend money regularly in game happily for more ISK to bring death to other players. Doesn't whine nor cry nor beg for mercy and changes when things do not go his way. Represents a solid portion of EVEs playerbase.



Hahaha, wow, nice attack. Why so mad?

I must say your mastery of the English language is amazing and your logic is completely astounding. Especially when all you did was make some vague reference that I'm in denial and demanding something while you go off on a tangent posting a bunch of vindictive hypocritical mantra and obsolete meme's. How about contributing some worthwhile discussion to the topic instead of getting all hostile?

Actually nevermind. I've already reached my quota of dealing with sarcastic pompous egomaniacs during this past week so go ahead and get bent.

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Valek Noor
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2012-04-01 13:27:53 UTC
This sadens me deeply.

ok lets use an analogy from where i work (cause i work with kids a little)

i am the adult in charge of the sandbox and the kids are at play.

your a small child and are building a sandcastle and having a grand old time when little timmy comes along and stamps right in the middle of it making you cry

As the adult (concord in this instance ) i tell little tommy off who also is now very upset. you feel the winner despite loosing your sandcastle and little timmy now has the ump with you and will bully you for life.....

so the castle was destroyed, both of you are upset and niether of you won.

Now lets try this......

Same senario your building a sandcastle in the sun and suddenly little timmy comes screaming at you heading for your castle, this time however cause your aware he MIGHT do it your armed with a fat water pistol and shoot him as he comes close this time, thus protecting your sandcastle.

This starts a totally new game of war in the process with timmy, who you end up becoming best friends with and marrying his sister.........

CCP has this exactly how it should be - grow some and get a water pistol

WTB Rifter with big fat waterpistol :)
Pillowtalk
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-04-01 13:30:02 UTC
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

I don't know what sec status my home town has, but Concord respond a hell of a lot quicker than the local cops and have a better success record at catching the bad guys. What more do you want from a police force? Seems pretty high-security to me.

Thats because your local police don't have SPACESHIPS with WARP DRIVE duhhh!

Indeed. I'm glad you agree that Concord are already a very effective police force and do not need to be buffed further.

High-sec is very (but not absolutely) safe, at least until they introduce doughnut shops to incarna. After that ... doughnut shops will be safe.



Actually I want an Eve PvE server. I've mentioned it several times before. It wouldn't be difficult to do (relatively speaking). Just replace what pirates and enemies do with NPCs. Within 6 months its population would greatly exceed that of TQ.

I don't think very many people understand that a TON of people in this game love the GAME, but not so much the agressive people in it. Also I don't think people realize how much less it irritates you when a computer blows you up as opposed to another human. I'm a science nerd, hence I naturally love Eve. But as a science nerd I don't particularly get any big thrills by "HAHA I blowed up ur ship!", whether I'm the one doing the blowing up, or if I am on the receiving end.

I mean lets look at the parts of Eve that are completely independent of PvP.

1) Phenomenol graphics.
2) Sci-Fi environment with good back story.
3) Rich and in depth player manufacturing.
4) Almost fully player driven economy.
5) Non cookie cutter approach to game design with almost infinite possibilites.


And then, PvP.

Yeah yeah, I know markets and manufacturing and all that are dependent on PvP you are going to say. Well, NPC's can be programmed to blow up a lot more stuff a lot faster then any human player or alliance ever could. And its a lot easier to tweak the rate at which they do when they are NPC's as opposed to humans.

Don't violence me bro!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2012-04-01 13:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
How about contributing some worthwhile discussion to the topic instead of getting all hostile? […]

so go ahead and get bent.
Lol Riiiight.

Pillowtalk wrote:
I mean lets look at the parts of Eve that are completely independent of PvP.

1) Phenomenol graphics.
2) Sci-Fi environment with good back story.
3) Rich and in depth player manufacturing.
4) Almost fully player driven economy.
5) Non cookie cutter approach to game design with almost infinite possibilites.
The game design is entirely done with PvP in mind, and it's the player competition that gives rise to the “infinite possibilities”. The other two would not exist without PvP. If you want to play the game you just described, go to Sisi. It's all there. You'll notice that it's not nearly as popular as you're expecting it to be.
Shukuzen Kiraa
F4G Wild Weasel
#74 - 2012-04-01 13:33:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Shukuzen Kiraa
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

OP has a valid point, suicide attacks are slowly chasing away new subscription revenue that CCP is trying to gain.

What are these new subscribers flying that are so gank-worthy?



You can be in a Hulk in a few months after starting Eve..... you can solo gank a Hulk with a Catalyst with very little skills in under a week of playing.
Not saying they should remove suicide ganking, but that is a serious balancing issue imo. Give Hulks better tanks or make another tier of mining ships that don't completely friggin suck.
Francisco Bizzaro
#75 - 2012-04-01 13:35:03 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:

So, suicide ganking. Why is it here?
...
Well, my best bet would be tension and atmosphere.
...
You can take preventative measures to protect yourself. But ultimately, they're there because some designer wants them there, and he's probably got a good reason for it.

Ding, we have a winner.

Without some type of threat, you would have no decisions to make in high-sec. You fit the fattest cargo-hold (or best mining mods, or whatever), click auto-pilot-shortest-route, and wait. Every time. Same thing. Again and again.

The compromises that keep you safe (which route to take, how much can I afford to carry and possibly lose, should I wait until the destination is quieter, etc), plus the fact that you have to keep your eyes open sometimes, are the only thing that make the high sec game at all interesting. Take that away and it becomes simply "optimise and click". The gameplay of Eve is not compelling enough to make that interesting over the long run, so despite the fears of driving away noobs, a bit of risk actually keeps the prolonged interest.
Valek Noor
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2012-04-01 13:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Valek Noor
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

I don't know what sec status my home town has, but Concord respond a hell of a lot quicker than the local cops and have a better success record at catching the bad guys. What more do you want from a police force? Seems pretty high-security to me.

Thats because your local police don't have SPACESHIPS with WARP DRIVE duhhh!

Indeed. I'm glad you agree that Concord are already a very effective police force and do not need to be buffed further.

High-sec is very (but not absolutely) safe, at least until they introduce doughnut shops to incarna. After that ... doughnut shops will be safe.



Actually I want an Eve PvE server. I've mentioned it several times before. It wouldn't be difficult to do (relatively speaking). Just replace what pirates and enemies do with NPCs. Within 6 months its population would greatly exceed that of TQ.

I don't think very many people understand that a TON of people in this game love the GAME, but not so much the agressive people in it. Also I don't think people realize how much less it irritates you when a computer blows you up as opposed to another human. I'm a science nerd, hence I naturally love Eve. But as a science nerd I don't particularly get any big thrills by "HAHA I blowed up ur ship!", whether I'm the one doing the blowing up, or if I am on the receiving end.

I mean lets look at the parts of Eve that are completely independent of PvP.

1) Phenomenol graphics.
2) Sci-Fi environment with good back story.
3) Rich and in depth player manufacturing.
4) Almost fully player driven economy.
5) Non cookie cutter approach to game design with almost infinite possibilites.


And then, PvP.

Yeah yeah, I know markets and manufacturing and all that are dependent on PvP you are going to say. Well, NPC's can be programmed to blow up a lot more stuff a lot faster then any human player or alliance ever could. And its a lot easier to tweak the rate at which they do when they are NPC's as opposed to humans.



Dude please go back to WOW and stop trying to ruin eve for those of us who have played it for 7+ years

Its clear you have not tried any combat of any kind, you wont belive me but COMBAT IS WHAT THIS GAME IS ABOUT all the stuff your going on about was added to pad out the combat, nothing more.

you may have missed all the whooha last year about this, we dont want barbies and the sims in space, this is about combat, conquest and politics.

Please re read the manual about GETTING FRIENDS and playing with them

your missing 95% of what eve has to offer and the part your asking to keep aint all that great!


Edit :spelling is terribad first thing in morning
Pillowtalk
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2012-04-01 13:37:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
How about contributing some worthwhile discussion to the topic instead of getting all hostile? […]

so go ahead and get bent.
Lol Riiiight.

Pillowtalk wrote:
I mean lets look at the parts of Eve that are completely independent of PvP.

1) Phenomenol graphics.
2) Sci-Fi environment with good back story.
3) Rich and in depth player manufacturing.
4) Almost fully player driven economy.
5) Non cookie cutter approach to game design with almost infinite possibilites.
The game design is entirely done with PvP in mind, and it's the player competition that gives rise to the “infinite possibilities”. The other two would not exist without PvP. If you want to play the game you just described, go to Sisi. It's all there. You'll notice that it's not nearly as popular as you're expecting it to be.



Tippia, there is a line in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" about where the pulse is, and how far from it you are. I've learned my lesson from my interactions with you. I won't even try to have a rational debate.

You just keep being angry honey.

Don't violence me bro!
Pillowtalk
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-04-01 13:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Pillowtalk
Valek Noor wrote:
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
Pillowtalk wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

I don't know what sec status my home town has, but Concord respond a hell of a lot quicker than the local cops and have a better success record at catching the bad guys. What more do you want from a police force? Seems pretty high-security to me.

Thats because your local police don't have SPACESHIPS with WARP DRIVE duhhh!

Indeed. I'm glad you agree that Concord are already a very effective police force and do not need to be buffed further.

High-sec is very (but not absolutely) safe, at least until they introduce doughnut shops to incarna. After that ... doughnut shops will be safe.



Actually I want an Eve PvE server. I've mentioned it several times before. It wouldn't be difficult to do (relatively speaking). Just replace what pirates and enemies do with NPCs. Within 6 months its population would greatly exceed that of TQ.

I don't think very many people understand that a TON of people in this game love the GAME, but not so much the agressive people in it. Also I don't think people realize how much less it irritates you when a computer blows you up as opposed to another human. I'm a science nerd, hence I naturally love Eve. But as a science nerd I don't particularly get any big thrills by "HAHA I blowed up ur ship!", whether I'm the one doing the blowing up, or if I am on the receiving end.

I mean lets look at the parts of Eve that are completely independent of PvP.

1) Phenomenol graphics.
2) Sci-Fi environment with good back story.
3) Rich and in depth player manufacturing.
4) Almost fully player driven economy.
5) Non cookie cutter approach to game design with almost infinite possibilites.


And then, PvP.

Yeah yeah, I know markets and manufacturing and all that are dependent on PvP you are going to say. Well, NPC's can be programmed to blow up a lot more stuff a lot faster then any human player or alliance ever could. And its a lot easier to tweak the rate at which they do when they are NPC's as opposed to humans.



Dude please go back to WOW and stop trying to ruin eve for those of us who have played it for 7+ years

Its clear you have not tried any combat of any kind, you wont belive me but COMBAT IS WHAT THIS GAME IS ABOUT all the stuff your going on about was added to pad out the combat, nothing more.

you may have missed all the whooha last year about this, we dont want barbies and the sims in space, this is about combat, conquest and politics.

Please re read the manual about GETTING FRIENDS and playing with them

your missing 95% of what eve has to offer and the part your asking to keep and that great!



How would having a PvE server in addition to TQ ruin Eve? lol

Man you guys are fanatical zealots.

And no, I'm not "missing" anything that I actually want to do. In fact I'm enjoying Eve a lot by doing what I do. But I don't PvP. I don't want to. If I wanna go kill someone in a video game I'll go play black ops where the only penalty I have from death is a couple second re-spawn time. Not hours of real life time lost.

You also used the word "we". Who is this "we" you speak of? Its impossible that you would be so pompous to actually think you could speak for everyone who plays Eve, so I must assume you have a mouse in your pocket.

Don't violence me bro!
Ur235
Appetite 4 Destruction
#79 - 2012-04-01 13:38:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ur235
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

OP has a valid point, suicide attacks are slowly chasing away new subscription revenue that CCP is trying to gain.

What are these new subscribers flying that are so gank-worthy?



You can be in a Hulk in a few months after starting Eve..... you can solo gank a Hulk with a Catalyst with very little skills in under a week of playing.
Not saying they should remove suicide ganking, but that is a serious balancing issue imo. Give Hulks better tanks or make another tier of mining ships that don't completely friggin suck.


This is completley not true I can get 20k ehp out of a hulk with just best named modules you have to sacrifice cargohold and mining yield for it yes but you literally have 0 chance of being suicide ganked and therefore you wont loost it that often if at all. The only problem is when multiple people try to suicide gank you. But tbf if I jump my 120 mill megathron into a camp of 10 or more rifters with 2mill fits or less each (and there half decent and know how to pvp) thats 20mill isk in total for all of them im still going to die.

When im pvpving if I want to fit a armour tank I have to sacrifice dps and speed, and if I want to shield tank I have to sacrifice sig radius and and tackle slots, and if I want to go pure dps im going to have next to 0 tank at all. We all have to sacrifice something its the way Eve is and I dont see how you miners should have it different

The only thing I would see as acceptable is increasing the CPU and PG amounts slightly for a bit more room for fits

hmm
Valek Noor
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2012-04-01 13:42:40 UTC
Pillowtalk wrote:


How would having a PvE server in addition to TQ ruin Eve? lol

Man you guys are fanatical zealots.



because its one universe and one war - idiot, not the fighting server and the carebear server how crap would that be!

you clearly dont get what makes eve great and i dont know why i am talking with you