These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So CCP, when are you fixing the idiotic station Whack-a-mole "PVP"ing?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pipa Porto
#81 - 2012-07-31 02:37:13 UTC
Conrad Makbure wrote:
It's kinda odd how Concord allows all this violence right outside the station, regardless if the fight is sanctioned or not. What about a stray projectile round into a children's school module? Then there's merchant ships near by, all the other traffic. I always wondered about it.

Fighting by a station should be further away from the station.


CONCORD doesn't allow unsanctioned violence anywhere in HS. And Sanctioned Violence is, y'know, sanctioned.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#82 - 2012-07-31 03:36:43 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
How does CCP justify that stations allow you to dock in them WHEN YOU ARE BEING ACTIVELY SHOT AT?


The only real question here is, why CCP aloud any one to use/abuse, exploit openly every game mechanic just to pave stupid unbrained risk aversion pussies kill board with station undocking kills?

CCP should by now be able to state, despite your crocodile tears, whenever you commit a single empire crime you should be kicked in to low then null and never be able to come back, just enough years so you understand actions have consequences and you either take responsibilities or you just go play wow and STFU.


Cry me a river


This +1

Station camping is the terrible mechanic, not the fact that you can jump back into station when griefers are trying to kill you before you can hit warp.


Makkz
Lamorei Prosapia Vexillum
#83 - 2012-07-31 04:52:32 UTC
The undock redock thing.

Its the game mechanic version of looking out the station window.

There used to be a longer redock period, it was reduced.

As for them docking up and hiding, well done, you won the engagement, now take part in proper warfare which involves guarding/patrolling to keep your advantage. Or simply don't engage on a station to allow it in the first place, you engage on a station and someone will dock.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-07-31 05:29:54 UTC
Neutral RR is being taken care of with the crimewatch changes (although if they go full ****** with most of their ideas for the "suspect" system, I will be very angry).

The redock timer needs to be lengthened/re-introduced.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#85 - 2012-07-31 06:08:08 UTC


The problem with docking games is that you are sitting outside their station camping them in.

Stop doing it and you won't deal with station games.

Simple solution really.


I refuse to engage near stations unless it's 100% to my advantage and I will guarantee a kill (i.e. they engaged, i have enough DPS to kill in 60 seconds.)

And guess what? I don't deal with station games.

Where I am.
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#86 - 2012-07-31 08:18:38 UTC
The problem with most conversation is that Eve players seem entitled and speak with a factual presumptions in their writing when they speak of "griefers".

If you took all accounts of a type of play style being labeled griefer in this game, every single person in Eve Online is a griefer.

Hence a conversation about this or any other topic is impossible unless people are ready to accept that

1. Pirates are not griefers
2. People who War Dec you are not griefers
3. Suicide Gankers are not griefers
4. Can flippers are no griefers
5. Someone who blows you up or scams you in any way at any point in the game is not a griefer


Since no one will ever concent to agree to that, this problem will never be resolved by CCP because no matter what change they make, everyone will be pissed about it. This is why this mechanic and many like it have remained unchanged for years. We are used to this one, so there is less bitching. Change it and the **** will hit the fan.

My opinion however is that there should be a module called "communication jammer" that should function like a warp scrambler except what it does is jam communication so that you cannot dock at stations. There should be a module like a warp stabilizer for making jamming your communications harder to counter it.

I believe that all mechanic "flaws" in this game can be solved by creating interesting "gameplay" mechanics, rather than "rules" mechanics (aka you either can dock or you cannot dock, but as a player you cant change the rule).

thats my two cents.

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2012-07-31 09:01:07 UTC
El Cid Campeador wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
El Cid Campeador wrote:
What you are asking for would cripple small corps. Bigger corps always wardeccing them. They know where the smaller corps mainly stay, sit camp, kill after kill after kill. small corps can only lose from this.


If by small corps you mean one ******* and his 5 alts making his griefing corp just to wardec people because he is being paid to do so, then good.

If you ask me, corps that have under 10 members should be automatically disbanded after a week or two to avoid the creation of such corps.
Also, the character that started said corp should be put on a 1-6 month "new corporation creation" cooldown.

If you don't get enough members to make a proper corp within the first 1-4 weeks, then it should just die.

We have way too many 1-5-10 man corps in this game whose only purpose is tax evasion and griefing war decs.


So what you're saying is those small corps are better than your large ones. Reminds me of the guy whose 1000 man corp is scared of 1 guy.


I dont think you read that.... If a fairly new corp of about 50 players, who can only field a fleet of 20 at any given time, and another more experienced corp of about 50 players who can also only field about 20 players at any time. Who wins? Most of the time, the more experienced. In no area did I say small corps were 1000 people vs 1 experienced person....


I seem to have missed the part where your post was directly quoted & not 3 posts deep.

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.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#88 - 2012-07-31 09:39:52 UTC
unfortunately CCP seem to be heading down the hello kitty hand-holding wowscrub road. Any "fix" to docking games will be awful ones, such as people being invulnerable for 37 minutes after undocking.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-07-31 09:58:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Station camps are being done for two reasons:

1) To prevent the enemy from undocking and doing something else (defending a strategic objective, reinforcing a fleet, running missions, ...)
2) To generate rage and tears from the enemy.

Notice that neither necessarily requires killing anything. If the attacker's goal was to kill stuff, they would set their fleet in a place where it is possible to kill stuff - such as on a gate.

I don't know who wardecced you, but they seem to be pretty successful at achieving #2.
Lord LazyGhost
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2012-07-31 10:22:37 UTC
Hows about this insted of clicking dock and being instantly teleported into the dock like happens now. How about say a 5-10 secs mooring time. logicaly this is what would happen IRL. the time it takes for the doors to open you to slow boat in and park up your ship moor it to its docking stage and doors to close. that would allow 5-10secs off time for agressing pilots to still fire upon you....?
Arec Bardwin
#91 - 2012-07-31 10:32:47 UTC
Freezehunter wrote:

A year ago, a guy was paid by another guy to wardec every corp I joined for 3 months in a row, and guess what, I could not do jack **** about it because every time I went after the bastard, he would just play ******** undock games with me for hours on end until I got so bored of not being to do anything about it that I just quit the game for 6 months out of frustration, because I cannot justify paying for a game that I cannot defend myself from assholes in because they are exploiting a dumb game mechanic.

You could have:
- joined a lowsec corporation
- joined a nullsec corporation
- joined a wormhole corporation
- ragequit (this is what you did)
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-07-31 10:59:02 UTC
It's high sec, there will always be flaws in mechanics and there will always be people who exploit said flaws. Be creative, there are mechanics that can help you too. Have you ever thought about smacking a cloaking device on your missioning ship? Sure, you get a scan resolution penalty, but that's a small price to pay if you're nearly immune to enemy attacks.

Also, as Bloodpetal said, if you don't like station games, don't play station games. There are ways around it, both as attacker and as attackee. Use your imagination :)
Freezehunter
#93 - 2012-07-31 11:07:09 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
Seriously, imagine a frigate IRL being under fire from another frigate, and then it decides that it should go to a ship yard and close the hangar doors behind it to save its ass. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE???


Ever heard the Phrase "A ship is safe in Harbor..." the hangar is the Harbor.


Ever heard of Pearl Harbor?

Yeah, they were REALLY safe that day.

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.
Freezehunter
#94 - 2012-07-31 11:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Freezehunter
Conrad Makbure wrote:
It's kinda odd how Concord allows all this violence right outside the station, regardless if the fight is sanctioned or not. What about a stray projectile round into a children's school module? Then there's merchant ships near by, all the other traffic. I always wondered about it.

Fighting by a station should be further away from the station.


I've always thought about this as well.

There should be a 50 KM radius no combat zone in high sec on stations.

If you attack anyone under that range you start getting shot at by the station guns even if you are at war with them, and they get shot too if they attack within under 50 KM of the station.

As an example:
Imagine someone mugging you close to a building full of people, and with people coming in and out of said building (the station).

Just because you have a pistol for personal protection doesn't mean that you can automatically start shooting at the thief while he runs in the building and not worry about getting other people hit/causing property damage or having the police shoot both of you to protect others.

Sure, in Eve other people can't get hit by stray fire, but allowing combat freely in high sec right in front of stations is stupid to begin with.

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.
Doddy
Excidium.
#95 - 2012-07-31 11:35:25 UTC
Freezehunter wrote:
El Cid Campeador wrote:
What you are asking for would cripple small corps. Bigger corps always wardeccing them. They know where the smaller corps mainly stay, sit camp, kill after kill after kill. small corps can only lose from this.


If by small corps you mean one ******* and his 5 alts making his griefing corp just to wardec people because he is being paid to do so, then good.

If you ask me, corps that have under 10 members should be automatically disbanded after a week or two to avoid the creation of such corps.
Also, the character that started said corp should be put on a 1-6 month "new corporation creation" cooldown.

If you don't get enough members to make a proper corp within the first 1-4 weeks, then it should just die.

We have way too many 1-5-10 man corps in this game whose only purpose is tax evasion and griefing war decs.


Why exactly is this a bad thing?
Freezehunter
#96 - 2012-07-31 11:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Freezehunter
Doddy wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
El Cid Campeador wrote:
What you are asking for would cripple small corps. Bigger corps always wardeccing them. They know where the smaller corps mainly stay, sit camp, kill after kill after kill. small corps can only lose from this.


If by small corps you mean one ******* and his 5 alts making his griefing corp just to wardec people because he is being paid to do so, then good.

If you ask me, corps that have under 10 members should be automatically disbanded after a week or two to avoid the creation of such corps.
Also, the character that started said corp should be put on a 1-6 month "new corporation creation" cooldown.

If you don't get enough members to make a proper corp within the first 1-4 weeks, then it should just die.

We have way too many 1-5-10 man corps in this game whose only purpose is tax evasion and griefing war decs.


Why exactly is this a bad thing?


It's a bad thing because in reality NO CORPORATION would last past their initial set-up money buffer if it only has under 10 members in it, it would go bankrupt and die in a fire.

Another system they could implement as an ISK sink is a corp tax that needs to be paid monthly, this tax increases over time to ridiculous levels if your corp has under a certain amount of members, say.... 10 or 15 past the first month or 2.

If you can afford it fine, if you can't, well you're just going to have to go bankrupt after a while and the corp closes unless you get enough members to cover with their taxes, aren't you?

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.
The Djentleman Paulson
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#97 - 2012-07-31 11:55:50 UTC
lol yea separate the entrance and exit, not like i have half a dozen tacticals on whatever station i'm ******* up

you guys are dumb
Freezehunter
#98 - 2012-07-31 11:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Freezehunter
The Djentleman Paulson wrote:
lol yea separate the entrance and exit, not like i have half a dozen tacticals on whatever station i'm ******* up

you guys are dumb


What part of "if you warp to the station grid you get warped to the entrance automatically" don't you understand?

That includes your tactical bookmarks.

Learn to read.

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-07-31 15:06:16 UTC
Freezehunter wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
You're not going to force people to be less risk averse or play the game how you want them to. There is always the option to not undock or not log in. If you leave them only those options they will take them. How does that help anyone?

That being said highsec wars are generally lame. Excepting RvB of course, who are awesome.


I agree.
RVB is indeed awesome because they have it in their rules that station camping bullshit is not allowed.



What are you talking about

2. Camping Enemy HQs.
Do it as much as you want. However, the defenders may undock anything they want to drive you from the grid. Don’t complain about it when it happens. If your presence on the HQ prevents fights from happening, your team leader may request that you stop camping; ignore this request at your own risk.

RVB does not nor has it ever had a rule against station games. If it weren't for station games I'd have about half the kills I do today. Because outside of strategic fights in null there are really only two places that PVP take place. Stations and gates.

They do have rules against neutral RR but honestly most of the complaints people have about neutral RR applies equally to non-neutral since they can still dock up the instant you target them, so even that doesn't really help your argument.

In fact if you want to learn how to play station games effectively RVB is probably the best place to do it.

Honestly if you can't handle a war target when he can dock how the hell do you think you'll fare against them if YOU CAN'T either.

Freezehunter wrote:

Ever heard of Pearl Harbor?

Yeah, they were REALLY safe that day.


That's SOV warfare and would be the equivalent to conquering a station revoking clone/docking rights and shutting down station services. Can't do that in high because CCP won't let us attack the NPC empires.
Freezehunter
#100 - 2012-07-31 15:23:37 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
You're not going to force people to be less risk averse or play the game how you want them to. There is always the option to not undock or not log in. If you leave them only those options they will take them. How does that help anyone?

That being said highsec wars are generally lame. Excepting RvB of course, who are awesome.


I agree.
RVB is indeed awesome because they have it in their rules that station camping bullshit is not allowed.



What are you talking about

2. Camping Enemy HQs.
Do it as much as you want. However, the defenders may undock anything they want to drive you from the grid. Don’t complain about it when it happens. If your presence on the HQ prevents fights from happening, your team leader may request that you stop camping; ignore this request at your own risk.

RVB does not nor has it ever had a rule against station games. If it weren't for station games I'd have about half the kills I do today. Because outside of strategic fights in null there are really only two places that PVP take place. Stations and gates.

They do have rules against neutral RR but honestly most of the complaints people have about neutral RR applies equally to non-neutral since they can still dock up the instant you target them, so even that doesn't really help your argument.

In fact if you want to learn how to play station games effectively RVB is probably the best place to do it.

Honestly if you can't handle a war target when he can dock how the hell do you think you'll fare against them if YOU CAN'T either.

Freezehunter wrote:

Ever heard of Pearl Harbor?

Yeah, they were REALLY safe that day.


That's SOV warfare and would be the equivalent to conquering a station revoking clone/docking rights and shutting down station services. Can't do that in high because CCP won't let us attack the NPC empires.


By enemy they mean third party war targets.

I was talking about Red VS Blue PVP exclusively.

Not purple PVP.

Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom.