These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Velicitia
XS Tech
#201 - 2012-04-02 13:59:46 UTC
Roime wrote:
**** this ******* **** faggotry

I want CCP to put this in on their ******* front page in HUGE BOLD LETTERS:

NOTE: EVE Online is NOT a ******* PVE game - go play solitaire or tetris is you don't want to play with other humans, wanker



(I'm okay with the Marketing dpt making some minor tweaks to the wording)



I'm pretty sure marketing went the other route

proof

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#202 - 2012-04-02 14:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
Vila eNorvic wrote:
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:
In my case, apparently, a shuttle with a Tracking Computer I in its hold.

How did a suicide ganker in high-sec even manage to lock your shuttle before you were away? Were you flying afk? (If you were, tough, and there's your counter.)

The question is, why did he shoot? The suggestion seems to be that this stuff is a form of legitimate gameplay to achieve a gain of some sort, but it seems to me that much of it just plain griefing and some of it is done purely for the hell of it.

It is legitimate gameplay. You do not have to like it, but the guys who actually make the rules (you might know them as CCP) have repeatedly and explicitly said they do not want to completely stop people from shooting other people in high-sec, as long as it results in suitably balanced "CONCORDsequences". They have also repeatedly and explicitly said in various contexts that their idea of EVE is a game where people can shoot other people just for the hell of it, if that's what rocks their boat - they do not require that you have any reason they think should be a game goal, as long as it makes sense you you.

You can of course argue that it should not be legitimate gameplay, but as long as it, trying to imply it isn't won't take this discussion to anywhere.

Quote:
I have no idea how he managed to lock me, but he did it as I landed on the gate - I was hit just as I jumped. He didn't even kill me, I survived by the skin of my teeth - presumably he didn't survive Concord, I didn't jump back through to find out. All I remember is something red in my overview as I came out of warp, which I immediately clicked and had a look at. I got a brief glimpse of a Thrasher firing and then I was through, with my shield and almost all my armour gone. And before anyone asks - no, I wasn't aggro'd to anyone.

So, to be exact. you weren't even ganked. Your case can hardly be used as a proof that suicide ganking is unbalanced; quite the opposite it proves that even though you took some time to take a look around you survived. In a very flimsy ship.

By the way, there are explanations other than an attempt to suicide gank to what happened. My guess would actually be that the guy who shot at you was trying to get a war target on the same gate, botched his targeting, hit you instead and got CONCORDokkened for it. Happens way more regularly than someone trying to suicide gank a shuttle in a thrasher.
Zaaark Quasar
Doomheim
#203 - 2012-04-02 17:20:27 UTC
Loss of cheap poorly fitted ship and negative sec status is not enough as punishment.

Concord should be able to charge gankers account with -500 million isk from each attempt.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#204 - 2012-04-02 17:28:43 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:
In my case, apparently, a shuttle with a Tracking Computer I in its hold.

How did a suicide ganker in high-sec even manage to lock your shuttle before you were away? Were you flying afk? (If you were, tough, and there's your counter.)

The question is, why did he shoot? The suggestion seems to be that this stuff is a form of legitimate gameplay to achieve a gain of some sort, but it seems to me that much of it just plain griefing and some of it is done purely for the hell of it.

It is legitimate gameplay. You do not have to like it, but the guys who actually make the rules (you might know them as CCP) have repeatedly and explicitly said they do not want to completely stop people from shooting other people in high-sec, as long as it results in suitably balanced "CONCORDsequences". They have also repeatedly and explicitly said in various contexts that their idea of EVE is a game where people can shoot other people just for the hell of it, if that's what rocks their boat - they do not require that you have any reason they think should be a game goal, as long as it makes sense you you.

You can of course argue that it should not be legitimate gameplay, but as long as it, trying to imply it isn't won't take this discussion to anywhere.

Quote:
I have no idea how he managed to lock me, but he did it as I landed on the gate - I was hit just as I jumped. He didn't even kill me, I survived by the skin of my teeth - presumably he didn't survive Concord, I didn't jump back through to find out. All I remember is something red in my overview as I came out of warp, which I immediately clicked and had a look at. I got a brief glimpse of a Thrasher firing and then I was through, with my shield and almost all my armour gone. And before anyone asks - no, I wasn't aggro'd to anyone.

So, to be exact. you weren't even ganked. Your case can hardly be used as a proof that suicide ganking is unbalanced; quite the opposite it proves that even though you took some time to take a look around you survived. In a very flimsy ship.

By the way, there are explanations other than an attempt to suicide gank to what happened. My guess would actually be that the guy who shot at you was trying to get a war target on the same gate, botched his targeting, hit you instead and got CONCORDokkened for it. Happens way more regularly than someone trying to suicide gank a shuttle in a thrasher.


though dropping out of warp, seeing a red, and losing a lot of health all at once almost sounds like SBs. Alternatively, the main (assuming OP is a forum alt) is at war with some other corp and ran into a legitimate violencing of his boat (not that suicide ganks aren't legitimate ... but the other guy wouldn't have gotten CONCORDOKKEN'd).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Vila eNorvic
#205 - 2012-04-02 19:29:00 UTC
Virgil Travis wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:
Katarina Reid wrote:
If i can kill u for cheaper than my loss then my fun money will still be used for tears. Even if i lost more money to gank you it would still be ok if the loss ment more to you.

This guy gets it!

Yep, that sounds pretty close to a definition of griefing.

No, I believe it's your definition of griefing, not the one that CCP uses, sorry.

Nope, it's the one CCP uses, sorry:
Quote:
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way.
Vila eNorvic
#206 - 2012-04-02 19:31:57 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
It is legitimate gameplay.
It can be legitimate gameplay, but often it isn't, i.e. when it falls within CCP's griefing definition (see above).

Quote:
So, to be exact. you weren't even ganked. Your case can hardly be used as a proof that suicide ganking is unbalanced; quite the opposite it proves that even though you took some time to take a look around you survived. In a very flimsy ship.
How exactly do you measure time? I alt-clicked an item in my overview and got a split-second glimpse of a ship. Roll

Quote:
By the way, there are explanations other than an attempt to suicide gank to what happened. My guess would actually be that the guy who shot at you was trying to get a war target on the same gate, botched his targeting, hit you instead and got CONCORDokkened for it. Happens way more regularly than someone trying to suicide gank a shuttle in a thrasher.

Yes, I'm willing to accept that it could have been something like that, but I'm inclined to believe he was firing at me as he appeared to be using only one turret. I think the fact that it was a laser on a Thrasher speaks volumes about the player in question.
Vila eNorvic
#207 - 2012-04-02 19:33:30 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
though dropping out of warp, seeing a red, and losing a lot of health all at once almost sounds like SBs. Alternatively, the main (assuming OP is a forum alt) is at war with some other corp and ran into a legitimate violencing of his boat (not that suicide ganks aren't legitimate ... but the other guy wouldn't have gotten CONCORDOKKEN'd).
This is my main and, as I said, I wasn't aggro'd to anyone.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#208 - 2012-04-02 19:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
Vila eNorvic wrote:

Nope, it's the one CCP uses, sorry:
Quote:
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way.

Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

The crucial thing here is that (my guess is that) most suicide gankers are actually not out there to grief you or make your life miserable. They might enjoy and gloat if you throw a tantrum (which I do not commend them for, mind you), because it proves to them that they won, but they mostly are just fine with you continuing your journey on without it, as long as they get the kill. They are out primarily for seeing the pretty explosions and possibly getting some juicy loot - doing it "just because they can", rather than "just to make your life miserable while not profiting about it in any other way".

The whole tear-harvesting thing goons and allies do is mostly bravado and trying to make themselves sound tougher than they are. Most of the time they don't really care if it is you they kill or someone else, and if you do not react it by any particular way they are just as happy and go gank the next guy.

If you think someone is actually griefing - if they e.g. say something to that effect - petition them. Do not try and stop all high-sec ganking as a solution.

Quote:
I think the fact that it was a laser on a Thrasher speaks volumes about the player in question.

Maybe he wasn't trying to gank you, maybe he was just utterly clueless and thought he can pvp on a gate in hisec without consequence? I actually met someone in a rookie system like that before. Shot at someone and then went wahwah I thought EVE is pvp free for all.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#209 - 2012-04-02 20:02:06 UTC
Vila eNorvic wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
though dropping out of warp, seeing a red, and losing a lot of health all at once almost sounds like SBs. Alternatively, the main (assuming OP is a forum alt) is at war with some other corp and ran into a legitimate violencing of his boat (not that suicide ganks aren't legitimate ... but the other guy wouldn't have gotten CONCORDOKKEN'd).
This is my main and, as I said, I wasn't aggro'd to anyone.



sounds like smartbombs then. There's no way if you landed at zero someone could lock you and get a salvo off ... I don't care how many sebos they had.

now, if you were in a hauler (sorry, don't remember the situation), and using autopilot, then you landed 15km away, and slowboated the rest of the distance. More than enough time for someone to cargo scan you, decide you had juicy loot, and open fire (i.e. they wanted to profit off you dropping the loot).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#210 - 2012-04-02 21:12:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Zaaark Quasar wrote:
go to 0.0 or lowsec
.....Where you don't live

Zaaark Quasar wrote:
drop a war declaration.
.....So you have 24 hours to drop corp, or safe up all your assets.

Zaaark Quasar wrote:
One reason for EVE online low subscription number is the fact that this game is ******** towards new players
Suicide gankers don't' go after new players. They aren't going after the noob who is learning how the game works running level 1, 2, and 3 missions in a T1 cruiser. They don't go after someone mining veldspar in an imicus.

They go after the faction fit macharael running incursions at 200 mil an hour. They go after the 20+ hulks all owned by the same dude mining in tandem. They go after the freighter full of plex and monocles.

I swear Eve is the only MMO where people can spend their entire lives never leaving the starting zone and somehow think that's ok.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Vila eNorvic
#211 - 2012-04-02 21:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vila eNorvic
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:

Nope, it's the one CCP uses, sorry:
Quote:
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way.

Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

The crucial thing here is that (my guess is that) most suicide gankers are actually not out there to grief you or make your life miserable.

I wasn't referring to most suicide gankers, I was citing the post that was quoted. Here it is again, with my emphasis:
Katarina Reid wrote:
If i can kill u for cheaper than my loss then my fun money will still be used for tears. Even if i lost more money to gank you it would still be ok if the loss ment more to you.

The clear purpose there is to derive enjoyment from causing misery no matter what the cost, and I fail to see how you can think that doesn't qualify as "deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way".

There is nothing in CCP's definition to suggest that the action has to be deliberate victimisation of a particular individual, it just refers to "others".

Quote:
Do not try and stop all high-sec ganking as a solution.
I haven't suggested that. I'm just pointing out that this thread's general portrayal of suiciding as a business tactic isn't strictly accurate. Making it more expensive (e.g. as per the hefty fine suggested previously) would go a long way towards reducing the petty griefer stuff while at the same time making it a more thoughtful decision for the 'business gankers'.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#212 - 2012-04-02 21:40:53 UTC
Zaaark Quasar wrote:
Loss of cheap poorly fitted ship and negative sec status is not enough as punishment.

Concord should be able to charge gankers account with -500 million isk from each attempt.


There would be some gankers with VERY negative accounts then.

- Eject ship from orca
- Gank target
- Have accomplice scoop loot
- Die to Concord
- Get fined against an empty wallet
- Accomplice sells loot, buys new gank ship, and stows it in the Orca.

I don't understand why so few people grasp the fact that it's impossible to enforce ideas like this.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#213 - 2012-04-02 21:43:55 UTC
Vila eNorvic wrote:
I'm just pointing out that this thread's general portrayal of suiciding as a business tactic isn't strictly accurate.

I've ganked shuttles that were carrying DG Invulns on autopilot. 500 million isk in exchange for a gank thrasher is good business in my book.

And the idiot who lost the invuln should never have been transporting it that way. It's like leaving your car unlocked with your wallet sitting on the seat. Yeah they guy who stole it did a bad thing, but you did a dumb thing that allowed him to do so.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Jhone Cahos
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#214 - 2012-04-03 00:05:52 UTC
juste request from ccp an anti warp jammer equipment !
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#215 - 2012-04-03 05:08:39 UTC
Stop paying your paychecks. We won't miss you.
Maginica
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2012-04-03 08:11:34 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Vila eNorvic wrote:
I'm just pointing out that this thread's general portrayal of suiciding as a business tactic isn't strictly accurate.

I've ganked shuttles that were carrying DG Invulns on autopilot. 500 million isk in exchange for a gank thrasher is good business in my book.

And the idiot who lost the invuln should never have been transporting it that way. It's like leaving your car unlocked with your wallet sitting on the seat. Yeah they guy who stole it did a bad thing, but you did a dumb thing that allowed him to do so.


who's the most idiot ! the gankers or the afk carry !!! should mind about !

goons lol !
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#217 - 2012-04-03 14:02:56 UTC
Vila eNorvic wrote:
Quote:
Do not try and stop all high-sec ganking as a solution.
I haven't suggested that. I'm just pointing out that this thread's general portrayal of suiciding as a business tactic isn't strictly accurate. Making it more expensive (e.g. as per the hefty fine suggested previously) would go a long way towards reducing the petty griefer stuff while at the same time making it a more thoughtful decision for the 'business gankers'.

Ah, sorry; I misunderstood your point completely then. And yes, CCP also wants to balance the ganking. They seem to have a different idea than you where the balance should be, but .e.g. the recent patch was pretty much about removing some opportunities of making it too cheap. I happen to agree with them about where to draw the balance (for the record).
Niko DelValle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2012-04-04 14:14:47 UTC
+1

I'm seriously tired of being forced to participate in a part of the game I am not interested in. Although I do think a PvE exclusive server is a better solution.
This is not the signature you're looking for. / This is not the signature I'm looking for. /    You will search for other signatures. / I will search for other signatures. /
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#219 - 2012-04-04 14:24:24 UTC
Ok, I'll bite, though I am not sure this is not trolling.

What would people do on a PVE only server? After all, in the long run, there is nothing much in EVE to do if there is no PVP. Pretty much all industry and trade is in the end fed by ships that exploded needing to be replaced. PVE without the risk of other players interfering will only lead into so many losses and most of those in cheap ships by rookies, as it is easy to optimize for PVE if you have any clue of what you are doing. Running missions to get isk? To do what with? Once you have your mission fleet in place, you are not going to need more isk really. There are not regular updates with the new bling of the month you can then grind for, unlike in W... some other games.

Even if you do not do PVP yourself, without it, would you not run out of stuff to do pretty fast? Industry and trade are only fun if you can sell stuff to people, right? ISK only matters, if there's things it makes sense to use it for?

Anyhow, you are not forced to participate in any part of EVE. Playing it is a choice. CCP has pretty explicitly said they do not want to make high-sec completely safe, and a lot of the playerbase supports them in that - and not just the goons, mind you, but also a lot of high-sec traders and missioners and industrialists that goons specialize in trying to blow up. I know it is not a very nice thing to hear, but when the game masters say that something you do not want to be part of is an integral part of the game, it might be time to consider if you want to play something else instead.
Niko DelValle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2012-04-04 14:29:54 UTC
I didn't say it was a huge problem, I just really don't feel like playing PvP. If it's better for game stability with it, then I can handle that. It just kind of annoys me how PvE pilots have to get forced into participating in a part of the game they don't want to.

Because I really like the PvE parts of EVE.
This is not the signature you're looking for. / This is not the signature I'm looking for. /    You will search for other signatures. / I will search for other signatures. /