These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP needs to take a hard look at Goonswarm and Hulkageddon to save EVE.

Author
Knus'lar
Wormbro
The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
#121 - 2012-05-30 22:43:56 UTC
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Alia Gon'die wrote:
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Quote:
I know this is a sandbox, but if the the sandbox fills up with **** you need to throw it out and get new sand.


Its a sandbox where only bullies are allowed to play, everyone else gets told to "adapt" to their way. The irony of it being "the sandbox" game.


No, everyone is allowed to play, but everyone plays in the same sandbox, and the strong dictate how things work, because they are able to enforce it. If a big enough group of peaceniks were to take power, they could try to enforce a ban on ganking.


Thank you for proving my "adapt" point. It's not a sandbox if WE can't play as WE like. Hell, i don't even mine but i feel sorry for those who do. CCP needs to edit their sign up page "By clicking REGISTER NOW you agree that you are a real **** to those who don't share the same interest or have fun in the same way that you do"


So...uh, where is the sandbox ?


Its a sandbox. And... wait a second... yes.. Oh yes.. you are actually ALLOWED to kick over someone else's castle! Im sorry if you dont understand that. Just because it is a sandbox does not mean you are free from adaptation. Other people will do what they will, and if you arent going to defend yourself, stop whining. kthx
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-05-30 22:44:28 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
If CCP comes out and says that they aren't going to "fix" it. then great, we all move on..


You seem to have missed the 'Suicide ganking works as intended' posts by Devs over the years.


That was before it started to became a profession and greifing seemed to become an accepted thing, and the risk (no risk) is completely out of kilter with reward.

Tal






Suicide ganking has been a profession for many years, regardless of whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2012-05-30 22:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiteo Hatto
Natsett Amuinn wrote:


I've never played a FFA pvp game were greifing existed.

Lineage 2, no rule against greifing.
Mortal Online, no rule against greifing.
Darkfall, no rule against greifing.
Face of mankind, no rule against greifing.

EVE, no rule against greifing.

Greifing is only greifing, when the rules say it's not allowed. Training mobs onto another player in an MMO that doesn't allow for PvP is usually considered greifing and can be punished. CCP says suicide ganking is allowed, and therefore it's not greifing.

Suicide ganking may be the lowest form of PvP, but it's still PvP, and you can't call PvP greifing in a game that encourages you to actually blow each others ships up.

I'm kind of dissapointed that you're using the term greifing Tal. I feel like it's kind of a cheap tactic to imply that people are doing things they shouldn't be doing. I read a lot of the things you post, and while I don't agree with everything, I respect that you have a tendency to express your opinion in an intelligent manner.

But come on man. Greifing? I mean, that's a little extreme, don't you think?


Add ultima online to the list

People wouldn't be suicide ganking(at least not anywhere as much) if it weren't for the 100mil reward.
To everyone else who quoted the things i said, sorry, but Im just too tired to argue now, even though i see some of your points as valid.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#124 - 2012-05-30 22:48:00 UTC
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:


I've never played a FFA pvp game were greifing existed.

Lineage 2, no rule against greifing.
Mortal Online, no rule against greifing.
Darkfall, no rule against greifing.
Face of mankind, no rule against greifing.

EVE, no rule against greifing.

Greifing is only greifing, when the rules say it's not allowed. Training mobs onto another player in an MMO that doesn't allow for PvP is usually considered greifing and can be punished. CCP says suicide ganking is allowed, and therefore it's not greifing.

Suicide ganking may be the lowest form of PvP, but it's still PvP, and you can't call PvP greifing in a game that encourages you to actually blow each others ships up.

I'm kind of dissapointed that you're using the term greifing Tal. I feel like it's kind of a cheap tactic to imply that people are doing things they shouldn't be doing. I read a lot of the things you post, and while I don't agree with everything, I respect that you have a tendency to express your opinion in an intelligent manner.

But come on man. Greifing? I mean, that's a little extreme, don't you think?


Add ultima online to the list

People wouldn't be suicide ganking(at least not anywhere as much) if it weren't for the 100mil reward.

That is true, both points.

But I didn't play UO pre Trammell; so I didn't include it.
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#125 - 2012-05-30 22:52:30 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
Yeah, i suppose it may be a long road if hi sec ganking were to be "fixed". But these "extended" events are going to further increase the number of people speaking out about them. Which will essentially drive the idea of CCP looking into it.

If CCP comes out and says that they aren't going to "fix" it. then great, we all move on.


It's never going to be "fixed" because it's not actually a problem. Well, it is to SOME people, but that's the nature of the beast in any PVP game (or even PVP segment of a game). Events like this might, yet this event is far smaller in scope (it's just the 100mil/10 kill payout, not the bulk prizes for top scorers after a month or anything) and its indefinite nature will lead to boredom and stagnation, especially as more and more Hulk pilots silently change their ways, be it battleship mining, lowsec mining, staying out of major systems, etc etc. Either way, I promise you that "fixing" ganking (i.e. getting rid of it) would anger far more players than allowing it would, since the change is a philosophical one, rather than just a mechanics one.

As for CCP coming out and saying what they will/won't do, they already have, really. The article I linked about Burn Jita reactions speaks pretty loudly about what they think of ganking and its applications, and yet we still had people screaming and crying about it the whole time, threatening mass unsubs, etc etc. Hulkageddon was more of the same (not only in tone but in people - who knew ABLOO BLOO I UNSUB FIX THIS NOW OR ELSE types were full of it?). Them coming out now and saying anything would either (a) change nothing, as it'd be them affirming what we all know or (b) them annoucning they're going to remove ganking which would be followed up by a tidal wave of unsubs from people seeing which way the wind is blowing now. It's lose-lose for them to even bother.


Talon SilverHawk wrote:
That was before it started to became a profession and greifing seemed to become an accepted thing, and the risk (no risk) is completely out of kilter with reward.


How much do you think an average Hulk gank yields for its gankers, isk-wise?


Some people?

How come the majority of the post on the forums now consist of the "problem" of suicide ganking?

This game is not a completely PvP game, I have said it many times. There is a ton more PvE content in this game than you can shake a PvP stick at.

People make mistakes and enact things in real life that people realize was a bad thing. Then people look to fix the problem that was created.

CCP may have said that ganking is intended, but that was before the larger amounts of people have started to speak out against it.

I'd be amazed to see a tidal wave of subs to be cancelled because of not being able to suicide gank. I can't imagine there are numbers that huge that depend entirely on the ability to suicide gank in hi-sec space.

Though I guess there must be a lot more people dependant on suicide ganking than there are people who play the PvE aspects of eve.
Axel Wolfstar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2012-05-30 22:57:20 UTC
I like this change. Mining in high sec is something I do while I run missions with an alt. It's not exciting. Now low sec mining on the other hand... that's fun. Dodging pirates, scouting ahead, and when my crew gets lazy and secure here comes a rifter to tackle us for his pirate buddies.

Problem with low sec mining is it's poor risk to reward balance. I'd love to see that change and if permanent Hulkagedon can do that, I'm all for it.
Wezn Arareb
Doomheim
#127 - 2012-05-30 23:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Wezn Arareb
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Quote:
I know this is a sandbox, but if the the sandbox fills up with **** you need to throw it out and get new sand.


Its a sandbox where only bullies are allowed to play, everyone else gets told to "adapt" to their way. The irony of it being "the sandbox" game.

You can only build your sandcastles by being a bigger bully it seems.


Joined this game when the community was mature and helpful, its a different game apart from core story now.


People are just mad because the Goons brought their own sand to the sandbox. Now they want to share it with everyone else.
Durgain
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-05-30 23:03:01 UTC
Best solution: Get alot of the little and big corps to ally together. setup a staging area. and spend the next month or 2 beating goonswarm into the dirt.

If they don't have funds, because there losing ships and stations enmasse, they can't pay bounties.


If CCP has to take a stand, 1 of 2 things will probably happen (honestly high sec should be for the carebears anyhow):

Armed mining ships (with hulk model): I'd love to see this if done right, surprise the snot outta a ganker.

Smartbombs not allowed to be used in highsec (which they kinda shouldn't be anyhow)

Quartzlight Evenstar Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Operations
#129 - 2012-05-30 23:04:01 UTC
Unleash the Jove on Null. In waves of their Battleships. When they arrive, no gate jumping from system. JB's neutralized as well.

PLEASE.

***

Johnny Rook
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#130 - 2012-05-30 23:04:53 UTC
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Johnny Rook wrote:
Kiteo Hatto wrote:


I must be a morally nice person then.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Q79cIRGek




Except the blacksmith is an NPC. Yeah, your video is so vaild.

These "pvpers" are so up their own arse they cant see the whole picture of right and wrong. Never mind the "too far" border.


pixels is pixels.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2012-05-30 23:05:24 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Some people?

How come the majority of the post on the forums now consist of the "problem" of suicide ganking?


Spamming forum threads is not a representation of anything, and besides, the threads are full of back and forth about the issue. Trying to say "THERE'S LOTS GOING ON ABOUT IT, EVERYONE MUST BE AGAINST IT" is as disingenuous as it gets.

Spikeflach wrote:
This game is not a completely PvP game, I have said it many times. There is a ton more PvE content in this game than you can shake a PvP stick at.


This makes no sense whatsoever. PvE "content" is represented by static things - missions, mining, incursions, anomalies, etc. PVP "content" is as simple as "I found a ship, I'm going to shoot it". You can't compare the numbers on things like that and draw conclusions.

What you CAN do, however, is look at what game mechanics allow, and they allow the killing of players in every single region in the game, just in different ways, Guess what that means? Eve is completely a PVP game!


Spikeflach wrote:
People make mistakes and enact things in real life that people realize was a bad thing. Then people look to fix the problem that was created.


The only mistake in any of this nonsense is believing that a small minority of whining babies who scream about unsubbing and then never actually do is representative of anything at all.

Spikeflach wrote:
CCP may have said that ganking is intended, but that was before the larger amounts of people have started to speak out against it.


Larger? Than what? 0? Do you have any actual numbers of any actual value?

Spikeflach wrote:
I'd be amazed to see a tidal wave of subs to be cancelled because of not being able to suicide gank. I can't imagine there are numbers that huge that depend entirely on the ability to suicide gank in hi-sec space.

Though I guess there must be a lot more people dependant on suicide ganking than there are people who play the PvE aspects of eve.


Nobody will unsub because they can't suicide gank. They'd unsub because of what removing it represents - a sea change in CCP's philosophy and vision of the game. A change that moves away from Eve being a rather unforgiving universe without safety towards a game that actually allows it. This is unobjectively a Very Bad Thing.

Seriously, you need to stop thinking of this as just about suicide ganking in a vacuum - that might be what the current issue is, but what's as stake is something far larger. The movement against ganking is driven by wanting highsec to be 100% safe, and the backlash is from people who see what that would lead to and object to it. Suicide ganking is just a small (yet necessary) part of that.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Durgain
State War Academy
Caldari State
#132 - 2012-05-30 23:13:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Seriously, you need to stop thinking of this as just about suicide ganking in a vacuum - that might be what the current issue is, but what's as stake is something far larger. The movement against ganking is driven by wanting highsec to be 100% safe, and the backlash is from people who see what that would lead to and object to it. Suicide ganking is just a small (yet necessary) part of that.


What's fundementally wrong with highsec being 100% safe? or at least 1.0 and 0.9? Question

Low sec players already have a ton of advantages over us players that will never see .5 or lower (I admit to being one of those players since i have a complete dislike of pvp in general) and generally just want to be left alone to do whatever I want to do at the time.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2012-05-30 23:20:32 UTC
Durgain wrote:
[What's fundementally wrong with highsec being 100% safe? or at least 1.0 and 0.9? Question

Low sec players already have a ton of advantages over us players that will never see .5 or lower (I admit to being one of those players since i have a complete dislike of pvp in general) and generally just want to be left alone to do whatever I want to do at the time.


Remind me again what advantages people in lowsec have? Lowsec is one of the most fundamentally broken areas in the game - it needs love more than anything else.

As for why it's bad - Highsec is already rife with advantages - market hubs allow for the buying of anything you may need, tons of stations for production, RELATIVELY safe travel and life thanks to CONCORD, and one of the best isk/hr sources in the game (Level 4 missions). There HAS to be a downside somewhere, and that downside is CONCORD being not-perfect at their job. If you removed the downside, literally EVERYONE would live in highsec. There'd be no reason at all to even attempt to live in low or null. Anyone going out there would just be daytrippers, and with no actual residents, targets would be scarce to non-existent. No null population also means no high end minerals, certainly not enough to keep production running. This would only matter for a short while though, as the lack of population in null and low would see PVP drop like a stone, which means far fewer lost ships and modules, which means less people buying.

In short, the game would become stagnant in the worst way. Nothing would ever be contested (since you can just drop corp to avoid wardecs, which is the only way you'd be hurt in highsec after this change), nothing would ever be risked, and everyone would just get bored and move on. That's the last thing CCP (or any MMO game developer) wants - boredom. Boredom leads to indifference which leads to cancelled subs.

THAT'S what's fundamentally wrong with highsec being 100% safe.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#134 - 2012-05-30 23:26:10 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
EVE, no rule against greifing.
Incorrect. Griefing is not allowed in EVE per EULA ยง7g.
Durgain
State War Academy
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-05-30 23:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Durgain
Snow Axe wrote:
Durgain wrote:
[What's fundementally wrong with highsec being 100% safe? or at least 1.0 and 0.9? Question

Low sec players already have a ton of advantages over us players that will never see .5 or lower (I admit to being one of those players since i have a complete dislike of pvp in general) and generally just want to be left alone to do whatever I want to do at the time.


Remind me again what advantages people in lowsec have? Lowsec is one of the most fundamentally broken areas in the game - it needs love more than anything else.

As for why it's bad - Highsec is already rife with advantages - market hubs allow for the buying of anything you may need, tons of stations for production, RELATIVELY safe travel and life thanks to CONCORD, and one of the best isk/hr sources in the game (Level 4 missions). There HAS to be a downside somewhere, and that downside is CONCORD being not-perfect at their job. If you removed the downside, literally EVERYONE would live in highsec. There'd be no reason at all to even attempt to live in low or null. Anyone going out there would just be daytrippers, and with no actual residents, targets would be scarce to non-existent. No null population also means no high end minerals, certainly not enough to keep production running. This would only matter for a short while though, as the lack of population in null and low would see PVP drop like a stone, which means far fewer lost ships and modules, which means less people buying.

In short, the game would become stagnant in the worst way. Nothing would ever be contested (since you can just drop corp to avoid wardecs, which is the only way you'd be hurt in highsec after this change), nothing would ever be risked, and everyone would just get bored and move on. That's the last thing CCP (or any MMO game developer) wants - boredom. Boredom leads to indifference which leads to cancelled subs.

THAT'S what's fundamentally wrong with highsec being 100% safe.


Better deadspace pockets, only source of higher tier ore, only drops of highend faction equipment, access to tier 5 missions (although apparently payout on those is terrible) and the only place in game you can build and use the endgame ships. There's more, but i think that's the main points.

And, from what your describing, having highsec be "safe" would only hurt "your" gameplay (as a pvper). As it stands right now (if you didn't notice by my post) I'm a very low risk player. As a matter of fact, the only time I've ever been pvp'd was by a gank camp when I was trying to do a mission that took me into low sec. Some of the player base (believe it or not) doesn't play this game for the risks involved in pvp, but get there enjoyment out of running incursions, mining, industry, missioning, or other factors, and the pvp aspect will actually drive those people away if they got involved in it.

So I still don't see how having highsec, or at least 1 and .9 space being 100% safe, would effect the game overall.
HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2012-05-30 23:31:09 UTC
Durgain wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Seriously, you need to stop thinking of this as just about suicide ganking in a vacuum - that might be what the current issue is, but what's as stake is something far larger. The movement against ganking is driven by wanting highsec to be 100% safe, and the backlash is from people who see what that would lead to and object to it. Suicide ganking is just a small (yet necessary) part of that.


What's fundementally wrong with highsec being 100% safe? or at least 1.0 and 0.9? Question

Low sec players already have a ton of advantages over us players that will never see .5 or lower (I admit to being one of those players since i have a complete dislike of pvp in general) and generally just want to be left alone to do whatever I want to do at the time.
EVE is a hard game. CCP isn't going to dumb it down and make changes to the core gameplay. In fact, go watch the fanfest video where the head marketing guy is giving his presentation -- he essentially said there what we're saying right now. You can't have a sense of achievement without risk
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#137 - 2012-05-30 23:33:54 UTC
Quartzlight Evenstar Icefluxor wrote:
Unleash the Jove on Null. In waves of their Battleships. When they arrive, no gate jumping from system. JB's neutralized as well.

PLEASE.

that's fine, we have jump drives

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.

Durgain
State War Academy
Caldari State
#138 - 2012-05-30 23:35:42 UTC
HVAC Repairman wrote:
EVE is a hard game. CCP isn't going to dumb it down and make changes to the core gameplay. In fact, go watch the fanfest video where the head marketing guy is giving his presentation -- he essentially said there what we're saying right now. You can't have a sense of achievement without risk


That's true, but you do also need to relise that there are different levels of risk vs reward, and that there are different aspects to that that effect the players involved. Some people don't want to see pvp as a risk in areas of the game it shouldn't be and pvp doesn't haveta be part of a risk equation on a well thought out game.

That's already been proven based on the current and past sales of the most PvE based mmo out there :P
Haldor Rune
State War Academy
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-05-30 23:40:15 UTC
Goonswarm Federation vs. the Jovian Empire.

Too... epic...
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2012-05-30 23:40:24 UTC
Durgain wrote:
Better deadspace pockets, only source of higher tier ore, only drops of highend faction equipment, access to tier 5 missions (although apparently payout on those is terrible) and the only place in game you can build and use the endgame ships. There's more, but i think that's the main points.


Null has all of these things (save L5 missions) and in many of them (deadspace pockets, highend ores) is an order of magnitude better than Lowsec, without any of the complications provided by lowsec (gate guns, sec status hits, no bubbles/bombs). That's why lowsec needs serious love, outside of Faction Warfare, there's barely any reason at all to be there unless you're either hunting people or on your way to null.

Durgain wrote:
And, from what your describing, having highsec be "safe" would only hurt "your" gameplay (as a pvper). As it stands right now (if you didn't notice by my post) I'm a very low risk player. As a matter of fact, the only time I've ever been pvp'd was by a gank camp when I was trying to do a mission that took me into low sec. Some of the player base (believe it or not) doesn't play this game for the risks involved in pvp, but get there enjoyment out of running incursions, mining, industry, missioning, or other factors, and the pvp aspect will actually drive those people away if they got involved in it.

So I still don't see how having highsec, or at least 1 and .9 space being 100% safe, would effect the game overall.


Here's what you fail to understand: your game (low risk highsec) DEPENDS on my game (PVP wherever) to function. Are you mining? You need demand for ores, and if we're not blowing up ships fighting each other (or losing them to CONCORD), nobody's buying ships or modules, which means nobody will be producing them, which means nobody is buying your ores. That's bad, and also affects anyone else on the chain - moon miners (the low and null variety), T1 producers, T2 producers, blueprint researchers, market dabblers/speculators, people who haul for money (sup Red Frog/Black Frog). Without us losing ships, the game grinds to a halt.

To sum it up, you can choose not to participate in shooting other players (though beware, those same players might not grant you the same mercy), but you can never truly separate yourself from PVP. You're a part of it, whether you like it or not. The entirey of Eve *IS* PVP. It's not opt-out, and it never will be.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["