These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Greifers vs CCP, Hulkageddon is winning. Time for CCP to code changes.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grace Ishukone
Ishukone Advanced Research
#161 - 2012-05-30 11:34:09 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
Hi all,

you can tank a Hulk to 27K EHP (EFT warriors will know!) - it has the tech 2 resists and all that. With that much tank it would take ships with modules more than the cost of a Hulk to suicide it. In that regard the field is level.


No, because you have forgotten most suicide attacks on Hulks are not 1 ship vs 1 ship. It is multiple cheap destroyers vs hulk, and the attackers always win unless they are stupid.

Quite simply, we have GOONS encouraging bad game mechanics to be used to force new and social orientated players out of the game. Not good enough. Either the mining ships need to be toughened up so you need to actually have some brains to kill them, maybe 60% resist hull of 30,000 points on a Hulk etc, or even better if CCP can sort their crap out, the bounty system and security system being fixed. There is no real risk to gankers, that is the critical issue. People keep talking about risk vs reward ... but the gankers have no real risk, they only attack if they are certain of victory, and no-one can do anything about them.

The only thing that Hulkageddon has done so far is to encourage people to quit, and to see new things invented. Like suicide alts who summon Concord to the mining belt before the hulks come out, so that the CONCORD response is instant. Broken systems leading to near-exploits to counter the broken systems is simply rubbish - there need to be design fixes, fast.

And yes, if you don't provide good ideas, then I think CCP should go with the suggestion above:
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that".
Sinistersly
Meat Locker
#162 - 2012-05-30 12:19:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinistersly
I have to say I agree fully with Grace Ishukone. I usually run 3 accounts while mining, but for the last two months I've been only keeping my main online, and now that I want back into the game, I'm waiting til Hulkageddon is over. I've also noticed that since the last time I've played (I've been checking in alot lately, rather impatiently waiting for the end of this crap) that the avg number of players online appears to have dropped by about 25%. Used to be about 25 to 27 thousand online at any given time (except right after resets) now I rarely see more then 20k on. I have no doubt this is because of many of these issues. And just as Grace Ishukone said, what risk do gankers have? They complain about us HS players making bank running Incursion missions in which we could easily lose a 350 million dollar raven if support and repair doesnt back up our tank, a fight requiring teamwork just to stay alive, and then they turn around and use cheap ships to take out mostly helpless unarmed mining ships and reap the profit of work they didnt do. Or target supply ships going in and out of Jita carrying 100 times what there lil tin can is worth, with us shippers having really NO WAY WHATSOEVER to counter such tactics other then simply not flying at all. How's that a balanced risk vs reward ratio exactly?

Someone suicides a worthless ship over there, so a couple can suicide there worthless ships over here, pop a defenseless miner/transport and steal his valuable cargo . . . . this could be considered teamwork, but a ship meant to be lost, when it's lost, is not a loss! That's like counting a missile as a loss when it explodes! It's doing what it's supposed to, just like the suicide ships are doing what there supposed to. So ultimately, 0 risk + moderate to massive reward = ganking. Then they use these rewards to buy themselves ships to use in Null and WH space that nobody else can stand up to, why? Because we're busy replacing the hulks and orcas we lost trying to make enough money to buy our own T2 and T3 ships and equip them, which will never happen cus we keep getting ganked by suicide ships, or worse, the T3 super ships that are strong enough to pop you in 1 shot and then warp off just AS Concord shows up. Your an idiot if you think that's not possible. I've seen it done to my mining ops, and I think it's friggin bullshit.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#163 - 2012-05-30 13:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Claire Raynor
My post got messed up - I can't be bothered typing it all out again.
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
#164 - 2012-05-30 13:58:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Ha! Its oh so simple for all the Rich Btch (IRL) Players, with no life and their multi accounts to sit and say this is what you need to do to get along. But some of us don't just have money to throw away. And yes we can join a corp and team up, we do, but that only covers maybe 75% of game play at most. But there will always be times where e are left to our own devices.



what is the 25% that you can't do?


What???

I wish people would read and think before they pose weird questions and make points.

Im referring to Time not physical Activity. What only covers 75% of time playing is teaming up with people in a corp. You see its all there in that one sentance. "But there will always be times where we are left to our own devices" ergo refering to the remainder of the time spent playing, the 25% you question, as being solo play.

Ok, just to be clear:

  • 75% Team Play
    • -------------------------- = 100% of time spent playing.
  • 25% Solo Play
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2012-05-30 14:12:19 UTC
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Ha! Its oh so simple for all the Rich Btch (IRL) Players, with no life and their multi accounts to sit and say this is what you need to do to get along. But some of us don't just have money to throw away. And yes we can join a corp and team up, we do, but that only covers maybe 75% of game play at most. But there will always be times where e are left to our own devices.



what is the 25% that you can't do?


What???

I wish people would read and think before they pose weird questions and make points.

Im referring to Time not physical Activity. What only covers 75% of time playing is teaming up with people in a corp. You see its all there in that one sentance. "But there will always be times where we are left to our own devices" ergo refering to the remainder of the time spent playing, the 25% you question, as being solo play.

Ok, just to be clear:

  • 75% Team Play
    • -------------------------- = 100% of time spent playing.
  • 25% Solo Play

Maybe you should pay better attention to just who posted said question.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#166 - 2012-05-30 14:19:50 UTC
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Ha! Its oh so simple for all the Rich Btch (IRL) Players, with no life and their multi accounts to sit and say this is what you need to do to get along. But some of us don't just have money to throw away. And yes we can join a corp and team up, we do, but that only covers maybe 75% of game play at most. But there will always be times where e are left to our own devices.



what is the 25% that you can't do?


What???

I wish people would read and think before they pose weird questions and make points.

Im referring to Time not physical Activity. What only covers 75% of time playing is teaming up with people in a corp. You see its all there in that one sentance. "But there will always be times where we are left to our own devices" ergo refering to the remainder of the time spent playing, the 25% you question, as being solo play.

Ok, just to be clear:

  • 75% Team Play
    • -------------------------- = 100% of time spent playing.
  • 25% Solo Play



The way you phrased your OP made it sound like there where aspects of gameplay that could only be done with an alt. If you are finding that your corp has no-one online for large chunks of your play-time then that's a seperate issue.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#167 - 2012-05-30 14:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I'm starting to see people talking about this issue everywhere now. Its started leaking into other parts of the forum, in game local chat, and the Eve facebook page. This is obviously an issue people feel strongly about and I fear most are dismissing it for too readily. Yes, the ideas people are creating to reduce the amount of suicide ganking are frankly terrible, but you should be trying to think up more subtle changes that are more in tune with Eve, rather than just trolling. So far you guys have just been arguing in here about grammar, and petty comments made against each other. Not very productive I have to say.

Although I fear I'm repeating myself here, I think there is a relatively easy way to fix this as a problem. Not by removing suicide ganking, because I'm pro choice, but by creating greater consequences for suicide gankers.

During fanfest CCP mentioned that they are going to be changing the the way crimewatch and the security status system works. But more specifically they said they want players to only be able to go down to -5 for normal criminal acts, and only go below for suicide ganking or killing pods. There may also have been mention of not having police intervention for people entering highsec until below -5 as well. I propose the following 2 extra changes on top of the ones above that CCP have been talking about;

- Suicide ganking results in greater sec status loss.
- GCC and Outlaw flagged characters pods are destroyable without CONCORD intervention.

So now, suicide gankers can still gank if they wish. And they will still be able to gank in highsec near lowsec bounties (they have always been more dangerous, and frankly they should be.), but it restricts their movements deap into highsec. Because they can lose their ship, and then lose their pod and end up back in lowsec. Sure, they can use implantless clones, but it adds another level of subtle protection. And its not strictly molly-coddling miners, its just making the game harsher.

Eve isn't about protecting players, its about stealing other players cookies. I believe a change like this would be more of the latter than the former.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
#168 - 2012-05-30 14:22:29 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
My post got messed up - I can't be bothered typing it all out again.


Just for future, when you hit post and it goes blank go to the reply bit again it should pop up a little message saying it has this draft saved of your message :)

Grace Ishukone wrote:
There is no real risk to gankers, that is the critical issue. People keep talking about risk vs reward ...


Sinistersly wrote:
...us shippers having really NO WAY WHATSOEVER to counter such tactics other then simply not flying at all. How's that a balanced risk vs reward ratio exactly?


And as to the previouse two posts - THANK YOU - finally some sense being spoken. Not just Pew Pew guys coming in here ranting on trying to push us down to maintain there utterly gutless tactics.

What you guys have said is precisely the point i have been trying to get across to. Its supposed to be a sandbox game with many different roles and miners should be free to play a mining role without having to be military experts as well. As i have continually said CCP's main policy is balance and yet there is NO Balance for industrialists. We are being pushed out of the game by players who have no real interest in playing an RPG and Sandbox game for what it is and as it should be played.

I... Honestly i couldn't say any more. Again this is precisely what I've been trying to get across and i can only agree with everything that you both have said.
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
#169 - 2012-05-30 14:52:28 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
- Suicide ganking results in greater sec status loss.
- GCC flagged characters pods are destroyable without CONCORD intervention.


I like your ideas and perhaps it should be more subtle.

But the fact is High sec is supposed to be Low Risk... and before anyone starts crying i'm not asking for no risk but it SHOULD be low. Yes it should because other wise CCP would not have made a gradient of Sec statuses at all. The gradient from High to Low to Nul is supposed to indicate the varying levels of risk. But as it stands the risk in high sec is far too high.

The only suggestion i have made on this matter before was with regards to Can Flipping. That being that if a theft from you can be recognized, in order to flag another player, then it should not be a great leap to recognize those items as yours and allow you to take them with no consequence no matter where they reside so long as that place is accessible to you.

The entire point of this idea was simply to suggest something that would create more balance in game play. Those who want to steal would have to use the proper tools for the job, such as a hauler to grab a large amount, less i simply take my haul away before they get a hauler there. Yet as it currently stands they can leave our goods in their own cans for half hour while we are powerless to ever attempt to get them back. Furthermore to this point is that if they had to use proper tools in order to get away with stealing large worth while amounts they would now be in a hauler NOT an over the top fighting vessel. So solo or group miners would be afforded the opportunity to chase them down and destroy them while they are in a relatively defenseless ship, and with no consequence for doing so due to the aggression flag they picked up when stealing that players items. Now that would be true Risk Vs Reward and far more balanced game play.

Now i'm not saying this is a great idea and perhaps it is not truely workable, but at least it is in the right direction.
Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2012-05-30 14:55:55 UTC
A word about the new sec status system. All of you high sec miners will be happy:

When I understood right, when you shooting a flashy (-10) you will get some plus points like +5 or +10. So when you have a flashy low sp alt you shoot him twice and you will be cleaned for crimes.

This is going to be fun
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#171 - 2012-05-30 15:40:57 UTC
+1 to the OP.

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#172 - 2012-05-30 15:44:14 UTC
Sinistersly wrote:
I have to say I agree fully with Grace Ishukone. I usually run 3 accounts while mining, but for the last two months I've been only keeping my main online, and now that I want back into the game, I'm waiting til Hulkageddon is over.


Its not over m8. The official event is but goons have made a year around reward for people who kill hulks, transports, freighters, salvagers etc.

Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2012-05-30 16:18:36 UTC
Koreli Stelios wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
- Suicide ganking results in greater sec status loss.
- GCC flagged characters pods are destroyable without CONCORD intervention.


I like your ideas and perhaps it should be more subtle.

But the fact is High sec is supposed to be Low Risk... and before anyone starts crying i'm not asking for no risk but it SHOULD be low. Yes it should because other wise CCP would not have made a gradient of Sec statuses at all. The gradient from High to Low to Nul is supposed to indicate the varying levels of risk. But as it stands the risk in high sec is far too high.

The only suggestion i have made on this matter before was with regards to Can Flipping. That being that if a theft from you can be recognized, in order to flag another player, then it should not be a great leap to recognize those items as yours and allow you to take them with no consequence no matter where they reside so long as that place is accessible to you.

The entire point of this idea was simply to suggest something that would create more balance in game play. Those who want to steal would have to use the proper tools for the job, such as a hauler to grab a large amount, less i simply take my haul away before they get a hauler there. Yet as it currently stands they can leave our goods in their own cans for half hour while we are powerless to ever attempt to get them back. Furthermore to this point is that if they had to use proper tools in order to get away with stealing large worth while amounts they would now be in a hauler NOT an over the top fighting vessel. So solo or group miners would be afforded the opportunity to chase them down and destroy them while they are in a relatively defenseless ship, and with no consequence for doing so due to the aggression flag they picked up when stealing that players items. Now that would be true Risk Vs Reward and far more balanced game play.

Now i'm not saying this is a great idea and perhaps it is not truely workable, but at least it is in the right direction.


Your definition of high security space is incredabily delusional. I suspect someone will be along to prove that fact at this rate.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Koreli Stelios
Mining Manufacture and Muling
#174 - 2012-05-30 17:00:25 UTC
No i'm fully aware of what high sec space is like At the Moment. But my definition is based on what CCP and the tools they implement suggest it should be.

Ok Drake i'm going to spell it out for you nice and clear because you really need to stop acting as though people with the same sort of views as me are wrong.

Neither you Or I are wrong at this point.

What it comes down to is weather OVER ALL players decide they want a purely Pro friendly game with very few new players entering. (Which personally i only see leading to stagnation and collapse)

OR

Whether OVER ALL players decide they want a full Sandbox RPG that encompasses all levels of difficulty and security. As such providing a much more low risk high security areas that enable new players to grow more easily and so keeps the game fresh.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-05-30 17:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Koreli Stelios wrote:
No i'm fully aware of what high sec space is like At the Moment. But my definition is based on what CCP and the tools they implement suggest it should be.

Ok Drake i'm going to spell it out for you nice and clear because you really need to stop acting as though people with the same sort of views as me are wrong.

Neither you Or I are wrong at this point.

What it comes down to is weather OVER ALL players decide they want a purely Pro friendly game with very few new players entering. (Which personally i only see leading to stagnation and collapse)

OR

Whether OVER ALL players decide they want a full Sandbox RPG that encompasses all levels of difficulty and security. As such providing a much more low risk high security areas that enable new players to grow more easily and so keeps the game fresh.


You have only played this game for less than 3 months....and you think you have any relevant idea as to what its supposed to be?

Your the new kid...your the noob....you have only just begun your journey into the dark world of EVE and you think your an expert now?


Get this straight noob....High Security Space is supposed to be Safer.... NOT Safe.

It is not a place where you can prance around and mine without fear or concern.

When you have played for over a year...then you can make your arguments...not until then.

And I'm not talking in general... I'm talking about when you discover war decs....literal PVP....living in low sec and nullsec.

etc...etc..etc..

When you learn its not about fairness and a matter of tactics...practice...experince...then you will be a far better posisiton to discuss balance.

EVE Is not Fair.

EVE is EVE Online...period.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#176 - 2012-05-30 17:38:14 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Koreli Stelios wrote:
No i'm fully aware of what high sec space is like At the Moment. But my definition is based on what CCP and the tools they implement suggest it should be.

Ok Drake i'm going to spell it out for you nice and clear because you really need to stop acting as though people with the same sort of views as me are wrong.

Neither you Or I are wrong at this point.

What it comes down to is weather OVER ALL players decide they want a purely Pro friendly game with very few new players entering. (Which personally i only see leading to stagnation and collapse)

OR

Whether OVER ALL players decide they want a full Sandbox RPG that encompasses all levels of difficulty and security. As such providing a much more low risk high security areas that enable new players to grow more easily and so keeps the game fresh.


You have only played this game for less than 3 months....and you think you have any relevant idea as to what its supposed to be?

Your the new kid...your the noob....you have only just begun your journey into the dark world of EVE and you think your an expert now?


Get this straight noob....High Security Space is supposed to be Safer.... NOT Safe.

It is not a place where you can prance around and mine without fear or concern.

When you have played for over a year...then you can make your arguments...not until then.

And I'm not talking in general... I'm talking about when you discover war decs....literal PVP....living in low sec and nullsec.

etc...etc..etc..

When you learn its not about fairness and a matter of tactics...practice...experince...then you will be a far better posisiton to discuss balance.

EVE Is not Fair.

EVE is EVE Online...period.


Game age doesn't make anyone less or more privy to what EVE is or isn't. Trying to say someone has no right to make suggestions is like saying a person straight out of whatever school they were learning at has no right to work as whatever they were learning to be until they worked as what they were for a year.

There is all kinds of content in eve, and just because PvP is part of the game doesn't mean PVP is the game.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#177 - 2012-05-30 18:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Spikeflach wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Koreli Stelios wrote:
No i'm fully aware of what high sec space is like At the Moment. But my definition is based on what CCP and the tools they implement suggest it should be.

Ok Drake i'm going to spell it out for you nice and clear because you really need to stop acting as though people with the same sort of views as me are wrong.

Neither you Or I are wrong at this point.

What it comes down to is weather OVER ALL players decide they want a purely Pro friendly game with very few new players entering. (Which personally i only see leading to stagnation and collapse)

OR

Whether OVER ALL players decide they want a full Sandbox RPG that encompasses all levels of difficulty and security. As such providing a much more low risk high security areas that enable new players to grow more easily and so keeps the game fresh.


You have only played this game for less than 3 months....and you think you have any relevant idea as to what its supposed to be?

Your the new kid...your the noob....you have only just begun your journey into the dark world of EVE and you think your an expert now?


Get this straight noob....High Security Space is supposed to be Safer.... NOT Safe.

It is not a place where you can prance around and mine without fear or concern.

When you have played for over a year...then you can make your arguments...not until then.

And I'm not talking in general... I'm talking about when you discover war decs....literal PVP....living in low sec and nullsec.

etc...etc..etc..

When you learn its not about fairness and a matter of tactics...practice...experince...then you will be a far better posisiton to discuss balance.

EVE Is not Fair.

EVE is EVE Online...period.


Game age doesn't make anyone less or more privy to what EVE is or isn't. Trying to say someone has no right to make suggestions is like saying a person straight out of whatever school they were learning at has no right to work as whatever they were learning to be until they worked as what they were for a year.

There is all kinds of content in eve, and just because PvP is part of the game doesn't mean PVP is the game.



I disagree....EVE Online takes at least 6 months at best to at least get a good understanding of many basic concepts...people assume after playing a mount or two they know everything and how it works...this isn't the case. Arguably longer.

I'm not saying I won't hear good ideas....but I have yet to see one bloody good thing from this noob ever since he started prattleing off about can flippers and "fair fight".

Am I being prejudiced? Yes until such time he actually has a rational sane point that doesn't break game mechanics.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Amun Khonsu
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#178 - 2012-05-30 18:28:06 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:



Game age doesn't make anyone less or more privy to what EVE is or isn't. Trying to say someone has no right to make suggestions is like saying a person straight out of whatever school they were learning at has no right to work as whatever they were learning to be until they worked as what they were for a year.

There is all kinds of content in eve, and just because PvP is part of the game doesn't mean PVP is the game.


+1 here. Ofc you know you are talking to a rock when you are trying to explain this to them


Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. www.ross-fw.net
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#179 - 2012-05-30 19:20:14 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:


Game age doesn't make anyone less or more privy to what EVE is or isn't. Trying to say someone has no right to make suggestions is like saying a person straight out of whatever school they were learning at has no right to work as whatever they were learning to be until they worked as what they were for a year.

There is all kinds of content in eve, and just because PvP is part of the game doesn't mean PVP is the game.



I disagree....EVE Online takes at least 6 months at best to at least get a good understanding of many basic concepts...people assume after playing a mount or two they know everything and how it works...this isn't the case. Arguably longer.

I'm not saying I won't hear good ideas....but I have yet to see one bloody good thing from this noob ever since he started prattleing off about can flippers and "fair fight".

Am I being prejudiced? Yes until such time he actually has a rational sane point that doesn't break game mechanics.


What other mechanics are there to learn? Taken that the 3 month character or 6 month character, however old he was had a hulk, and had the notion of being able to fly the ship out to the belt and mine, and also most likely ability use drones to shoot at the tiny belt rats. which would indicate his ability to target things hostile.

Yet players with even greater game experience think up even dumber ideas, at least in your eyes.

People know PVP exists in this game. It isn't the end all be all of this game. There's an overwhelming amount of PvE content in eve which amazingly enough people get their kicks out of.

1. anomolies
2. DED sites
3. Wormhole sites
4. Mining
5. Manufacturing
6. Hacking sites
7. Incursions
8. Missions
9. Cosmos missions
10. Salvaging
11. Sites with Escalations
12. Incursions
13. Epic Arcs

Playing the market, i think is suggested as a PvP activity, so not sure if that would be included as a PvE aspect.

Heck, even "PvP" content is PvE.

1. Shooting POS
2. Shooting IHUBs or SBUs
3. Shooting Stations
4. Shooting POCOs

Heck, its not really PvP unless you got an actual person shooting back...

PvE activities that can become group activities should be catered to in some way as much as PvP is catered to.

Ok, maybe I digressed a bit, but just because someone has less gametime than you, and that they choose not to spend their time in the hell hole known as 0.0 space, doesn't make them any less qualified than you to make suggestions to the game. A game which people people say is 90% PvP and argue that any suggestions that cater to PvE gameplay will break the game.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#180 - 2012-05-30 19:27:04 UTC
Get used to this **** because apparently Hulkageddon is here to stay. Like Mittens announced it being indefinite.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||