These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP please reduce GANKING!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#21 - 2012-07-11 16:16:29 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Someone pulls out a gun in a mall and a cop is there, he hopefully will not wait until the person shoots a kid. He will warn him, then put him down.


IF the cop is there to begin with. Remember, CONCORD does not know your intentions until the first shot is fired. Targeting is not a punishable offense. If it were, imagine how many neutral remote-reppers would die every day...

Like I said, the first line of defense is YOU. That's what CCP did designing EVE. This is not an NPC-driven game, it is a player-driven sandbox. Whatever YOU put in is what YOU get out. If you put in unwillingness to defend your own ships, be proactive against getting nuked by a gang of gankers, then...sucks to be you.





Exactly! So put some cops there in a HIGH sec rated area. Why would you need neutral remote rep in a HIGH sec area?

It doesnt take a gang of gankers...it takes one.



Putting the reactive NPCs in a belt won't help keep you alive. I refer to, once again, the freighter gank. CONCORD was already there from the first shots fired, but the gank-squad persisted through the ship losses until the target was dead. That's what they do. They blow you up because they can. And they can because they'll do whatever it takes to do.


ya they persisted through numerous losses. Not just 1 ship. THis is what gankers do. No planning, no skill just exploitation. Your example is not even remotely on the same subject as what I am saying.


So, if CONCORD is sitting on top of your ship as you mine, and the gank-squad shows up...and they really want you dead...what is CONCORD going to do? Pre-emptively blow them up when no crime has yet been committed? Or once again wait for them to shoot you first. And what then stops them from bringing a swarm of people in to simply alpha your hull into dust? They wait to lock until everyone's in position, insta-lock through sensor-boosters and hit the weapon-groupings all at once.

You get ganked in ungankable space.
Vellen Thoss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-07-11 16:19:39 UTC


In this thread:

"I dont want to take responsibility for learning how to play this game, so I want CCP to change it so I can play without any risk"
Tony Asanari
#23 - 2012-07-11 16:21:17 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Andy DelGardo wrote:
I think OP is a troll, but if not, u might as well realize that games and game mechanics are not rationalized by real world examples? The game company mainly wants to make profit, so as long as they do they do something right :p



True, but my point is they would make much more if they were to consider this possibility. When you are new to a game, you want some reward for your time.... Not the potential to lose it in a heartbeat. I guarantee lots of people quit because they get ganked one too many times and get fed up with the BS.

Why stay in highsec with all your skills and awesome ships to pick on the vulnerable and new folks. Exploit them. That really shows how awesome you are at the game. Makes you so much better than the new guy.

They pay their money the same as you do, they should have a voice too.


U have clearly no clue about the current MMO market, nearly every themepark MMO out there is going free-to-play after they failed horrible. So tell me why would CCP change a system that granted them a very solid income source for the last 10 years?
U might not like the setup and "promoted" gameplay mechanics, but CCP is anything but stupid enough to change there holy money cow. They rather lunch a FPS on PS3 :p

bye
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#24 - 2012-07-11 16:21:58 UTC
Vellen Thoss wrote:
This game is not for people who expect to PVE without any risk. Sorry, its been made clear on thousands of occasions. You will get ganked, you will lose your ships, you will probably get podded at times.

This is a game where you have to play smart and adapt.

Don't like it? There's the door. No one will hold your hand and say "We are sorry, those big bad meanies in highsec killed you because you were watching the first two seasons of adventure time and eating hot pockets while mining and not paying attention to who warps into your belt, we will get right on it and make it so no one can attack you because you cant learn to pay attention to the overview and watch out for players in combat ships who warp into your belt"



Then why label the security status that way then?

I have no problem adapting, but that still does not mean that i do not have a valid point.

I dont like it, and that doesnt mean i have to quit does it? No, but I can say I dont like it last time I checked and thats what I am saying. Who are you to tell me I have to quit if I dont like it?

You have no idea how I play or what I do while i play so you are being quite judgmental and presumptuous. Someone warps on me and insta-locks me, it matters not if I am the best player in the world. I will lose my ship.
Vellen Thoss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-07-11 16:24:35 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Vellen Thoss wrote:
This game is not for people who expect to PVE without any risk. Sorry, its been made clear on thousands of occasions. You will get ganked, you will lose your ships, you will probably get podded at times.

This is a game where you have to play smart and adapt.

Don't like it? There's the door. No one will hold your hand and say "We are sorry, those big bad meanies in highsec killed you because you were watching the first two seasons of adventure time and eating hot pockets while mining and not paying attention to who warps into your belt, we will get right on it and make it so no one can attack you because you cant learn to pay attention to the overview and watch out for players in combat ships who warp into your belt"



Then why label the security status that way then?

I have no problem adapting, but that still does not mean that i do not have a valid point.

I dont like it, and that doesnt mean i have to quit does it? No, but I can say I dont like it last time I checked and thats what I am saying. Who are you to tell me I have to quit if I dont like it?

You have no idea how I play or what I do while i play so you are being quite judgmental and presumptuous. Someone warps on me and insta-locks me, it matters not if I am the best player in the world. I will lose my ship.



Security status only means its not a free for all, that there are penalties for aggressing there. The penalty being a quick CONCORDOKKEN.

High security status doesn't mean nothing bad will ever happen. It never has.

And again, if you see someone warp into your belt, warp away to a safe spot. Last I checked your mining lasers were turrets and you could still be aligned to safe spot or station.

Again, why should CCP change game mechanics when every single damn tool you could ask for to survive has been provided for you, you just have to think.
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#26 - 2012-07-11 16:24:58 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Vellen Thoss wrote:
This game is not for people who expect to PVE without any risk. Sorry, its been made clear on thousands of occasions. You will get ganked, you will lose your ships, you will probably get podded at times.

This is a game where you have to play smart and adapt.

Don't like it? There's the door. No one will hold your hand and say "We are sorry, those big bad meanies in highsec killed you because you were watching the first two seasons of adventure time and eating hot pockets while mining and not paying attention to who warps into your belt, we will get right on it and make it so no one can attack you because you cant learn to pay attention to the overview and watch out for players in combat ships who warp into your belt"



Then why label the security status that way then?

I have no problem adapting, but that still does not mean that i do not have a valid point.

I dont like it, and that doesnt mean i have to quit does it? No, but I can say I dont like it last time I checked and thats what I am saying. Who are you to tell me I have to quit if I dont like it?

You have no idea how I play or what I do while i play so you are being quite judgmental and presumptuous. Someone warps on me and insta-locks me, it matters not if I am the best player in the world. I will lose my ship.


The security statuses impact many things. Anchoring POSes, exploration and DED sites, the belt rats, ore availability, CONCORD reaction times (it's listed somewhere, I'll search for the post). As they get lower, they also impact gate/station gun presence and so on. The sec-status also impacts what players (security status) can enter and travel freely through the system.

Or...did I totally misunderstand sec status and it really means nothing like you say?
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#27 - 2012-07-11 16:25:33 UTC
Tony Asanari wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Andy DelGardo wrote:
I think OP is a troll, but if not, u might as well realize that games and game mechanics are not rationalized by real world examples? The game company mainly wants to make profit, so as long as they do they do something right :p



True, but my point is they would make much more if they were to consider this possibility. When you are new to a game, you want some reward for your time.... Not the potential to lose it in a heartbeat. I guarantee lots of people quit because they get ganked one too many times and get fed up with the BS.

Why stay in highsec with all your skills and awesome ships to pick on the vulnerable and new folks. Exploit them. That really shows how awesome you are at the game. Makes you so much better than the new guy.

They pay their money the same as you do, they should have a voice too.


U have clearly no clue about the current MMO market, nearly every themepark MMO out there is going free-to-play after they failed horrible. So tell me why would CCP change a system that granted them a very solid income source for the last 10 years?
U might not like the setup and "promoted" gameplay mechanics, but CCP is anything but stupid enough to change there holy money cow. They rather lunch a FPS on PS3 :p

bye



I have played most popular MMO's out there and I love playing EVE. Just because I point out something negative, dont presume that I hate the game.

You and I both know that you would not quit if you couldn't gank someone in 1.0 space. You would just move into 0.7 and gank them. What is so horrible about that? Because you like griefing low level vulnerable players that's why! You cant actually survive in a real fight, so you resort to picking on the defenseless.
Sweaty Bear Father
Bear Sanctuary 05
#28 - 2012-07-11 16:26:30 UTC
the more CCP listens to stuff like this the worse the game gets....

you think:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you more ISK as you will pull in more ore
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let you mine longer, therefore making you more ISK

the truth:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you less ISK as more people will be doing it
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let everyone mine longer, therefore making you less ISK

your mineral values will be so bad mining wont be worth the effort
Vellen Thoss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-07-11 16:27:47 UTC
CorInaXeraL wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Vellen Thoss wrote:
This game is not for people who expect to PVE without any risk. Sorry, its been made clear on thousands of occasions. You will get ganked, you will lose your ships, you will probably get podded at times.

This is a game where you have to play smart and adapt.

Don't like it? There's the door. No one will hold your hand and say "We are sorry, those big bad meanies in highsec killed you because you were watching the first two seasons of adventure time and eating hot pockets while mining and not paying attention to who warps into your belt, we will get right on it and make it so no one can attack you because you cant learn to pay attention to the overview and watch out for players in combat ships who warp into your belt"



Then why label the security status that way then?

I have no problem adapting, but that still does not mean that i do not have a valid point.

I dont like it, and that doesnt mean i have to quit does it? No, but I can say I dont like it last time I checked and thats what I am saying. Who are you to tell me I have to quit if I dont like it?

You have no idea how I play or what I do while i play so you are being quite judgmental and presumptuous. Someone warps on me and insta-locks me, it matters not if I am the best player in the world. I will lose my ship.


The security statuses impact many things. Anchoring POSes, exploration and DED sites, the belt rats, ore availability, CONCORD reaction times (it's listed somewhere, I'll search for the post). As they get lower, they also impact gate/station gun presence and so on. The sec-status also impacts what players (security status) can enter and travel freely through the system.

Or...did I totally misunderstand sec status and it really means nothing like you say?


To further elaborate to the OP, a 1.0 system is no safer than a 0.5 system.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-07-11 16:28:38 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
I would suggest a slight modification to the current security status levels.


That wasn't a slight modification you suggested. You suggested that CCP change the way the entire game works. If you don't like EVE the way it is, play something else.

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.
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#31 - 2012-07-11 16:30:07 UTC
CorInaXeraL wrote:
So, if CONCORD is sitting on top of your ship as you mine, and the gank-squad shows up...and they really want you dead...what is CONCORD going to do? Pre-emptively blow them up when no crime has yet been committed? Or once again wait for them to shoot you first. And what then stops them from bringing a swarm of people in to simply alpha your hull into dust? They wait to lock until everyone's in position, insta-lock through sensor-boosters and hit the weapon-groupings all at once.

You get ganked in ungankable space.


That would at least require more than a single ship with no planning at all. It would encourage teamwork! You again prove my point about not being able to warp away in time due to Insta-lock. All this, just pay attention and warp away is hogswollap.
jimmyjam
Fire Mandrill
#32 - 2012-07-11 16:30:14 UTC
I got a simple for answer for you NO.
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#33 - 2012-07-11 16:31:50 UTC
jimmyjam wrote:
I got a simple for answer for you NO.



I have a simple reply. YES!
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#34 - 2012-07-11 16:32:47 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:


That would at least require more than a single ship with no planning at all. It would encourage teamwork! You again prove my point about not being able to warp away in time due to Insta-lock. All this, just pay attention and warp away is hogswollap.



Do you read Daemon Ceed's posts? An untanked HULK will die quick. A properly fitted HULK they bring multiple ships in and, as a team, kill it.

tl;dr?
Lazy fail-fit = effortless shank
Tanked fit = make them work.

Pilot paying attention to local / scanners / belts / traffic = HA HA I docked!
Vellen Thoss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-07-11 16:33:01 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
So, if CONCORD is sitting on top of your ship as you mine, and the gank-squad shows up...and they really want you dead...what is CONCORD going to do? Pre-emptively blow them up when no crime has yet been committed? Or once again wait for them to shoot you first. And what then stops them from bringing a swarm of people in to simply alpha your hull into dust? They wait to lock until everyone's in position, insta-lock through sensor-boosters and hit the weapon-groupings all at once.

You get ganked in ungankable space.


That would at least require more than a single ship with no planning at all. It would encourage teamwork! You again prove my point about not being able to warp away in time due to Insta-lock. All this, just pay attention and warp away is hogswollap.



I have never been insta-locked.

If you're being locked, its because you aren't watching your overview and seeing ships warp into your belt. If you're not seeing ships warp into your belt its because you're not paying attention, otherwise known as AFK mining.

If you want a game that plays itself for you, I suggest one of the many facebook games where you can acquire wealth without any modicum or input or risk.
Osirus Bayne
Sunrise Donkey
#36 - 2012-07-11 16:35:54 UTC
Sweaty Bear Father wrote:
the more CCP listens to stuff like this the worse the game gets....

you think:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you more ISK as you will pull in more ore
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let you mine longer, therefore making you more ISK

the truth:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you less ISK as more people will be doing it
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let everyone mine longer, therefore making you less ISK

your mineral values will be so bad mining wont be worth the effort



There is still only so much ore to mine in those systems. Your arguement is flawed. I would rather be rid of the gankers. And why does this only apply to miners? Why only gank miners? Easy targets thats why. It's pathetic. Again, my proposal just requires you gank in a lower sec system than 1.0-0.8.

You could gank all you want in a lower sec system.
Firebolt145
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#37 - 2012-07-11 16:39:30 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Vellen Thoss wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
You miss my point. I am merely stating that COPS/SECURITY or whatever are there to prevent crimes just as much as arrest the perp of that crime.

I am sure they are not sitting around hoping someone will die so they can then react. Someone pulls out a gun in a mall and a cop is there, he hopefully will not wait until the person shoots a kid. He will warn him, then put him down.



CONCORD are not flown by people. CONCORD is an AI reaction to aggression in high sec. They are not there to patrol the beat and make sure everyone is safe and sound and tucked in tight.

Empire/Highsec =/= free from risk.

Instead of changing the way the game works, why not improve the way you play and get smart about these things. No one ever wants to take responsibility for their own actions, everyone wants to blame something else.



I know what they are. I am not denying that fact. That's why I am proposing a change.

So you agree that 1.0 and 0.5 are the same when it comes to ganking a Hulk then.....

I dunno, when I gank hulks in 1.0 I die after the first shot, whereas in 0.5 I can almost always get a second shot off.

I like killing hulks ~
Nayl Mkoll
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-07-11 16:40:50 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
CorInaXeraL wrote:
So, if CONCORD is sitting on top of your ship as you mine, and the gank-squad shows up...and they really want you dead...what is CONCORD going to do? Pre-emptively blow them up when no crime has yet been committed? Or once again wait for them to shoot you first. And what then stops them from bringing a swarm of people in to simply alpha your hull into dust? They wait to lock until everyone's in position, insta-lock through sensor-boosters and hit the weapon-groupings all at once.

You get ganked in ungankable space.


That would at least require more than a single ship with no planning at all. It would encourage teamwork! You again prove my point about not being able to warp away in time due to Insta-lock. All this, just pay attention and warp away is hogswollap.



Why dont you learn teamwork and mine in groups with protection so you dont get ganked. eve is a community sandbox game. get friends and stop crying. stop relating concord to real life police. learn the game mechanics and how to play in them dont demand the game change to cater to your needs cause your to soft to grow a pair.
Nayl Mkoll
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-07-11 16:43:06 UTC
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Sweaty Bear Father wrote:
the more CCP listens to stuff like this the worse the game gets....

you think:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you more ISK as you will pull in more ore
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let you mine longer, therefore making you more ISK

the truth:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you less ISK as more people will be doing it
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let everyone mine longer, therefore making you less ISK

your mineral values will be so bad mining wont be worth the effort



There is still only so much ore to mine in those systems. Your arguement is flawed. I would rather be rid of the gankers. And why does this only apply to miners? Why only gank miners? Easy targets thats why. It's pathetic. Again, my proposal just requires you gank in a lower sec system than 1.0-0.8.

You could gank all you want in a lower sec system.


come out from under the rock you miners arnt the only one ganked. and their a plenty of miners who know how to mine with out getting ganked....


TLDR YOUR DOING IT WRONG
Vellen Thoss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-07-11 16:44:33 UTC
Nayl Mkoll wrote:
Osirus Bayne wrote:
Sweaty Bear Father wrote:
the more CCP listens to stuff like this the worse the game gets....

you think:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you more ISK as you will pull in more ore
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let you mine longer, therefore making you more ISK

the truth:

- being able to mine with less tank mods will make you less ISK as more people will be doing it
- mining afk safely as no-one can gank you will let everyone mine longer, therefore making you less ISK

your mineral values will be so bad mining wont be worth the effort



There is still only so much ore to mine in those systems. Your arguement is flawed. I would rather be rid of the gankers. And why does this only apply to miners? Why only gank miners? Easy targets thats why. It's pathetic. Again, my proposal just requires you gank in a lower sec system than 1.0-0.8.

You could gank all you want in a lower sec system.


come out from under the rock you miners arnt the only one ganked. and their a plenty of miners who know how to mine with out getting ganked....


TLDR YOUR DOING IT WRONG



Meh, I am done in this thread, its like arguing with a brick wall, which does an injustice to brick walls everywhere.