These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No Eve Player Should Miss This Article
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#381 - 2012-08-29 18:50:24 UTC
The bounty system should work like the faction warfare system. Everything including you ship has a value. If you kill a target wtih a bounty on him you get what ever the ship and fittings are worth from the bounty pool. It shouldn't be that hard to implement and that way the person with the bounty on his head can not abuse the system.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#382 - 2012-08-29 18:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Xercodo wrote:
I think the argument (that CCP used) wasn't so much that ganking was too easy, but that it was too cost effective. The main comparison being the 300 mill (+) hulk compared to the barely couple mill destroyer (only regarding hull prices). Even if you had 10 destroyers the costs were still way out of whack for the ISK that was destroyed.

Even if every destroyer cost 10 mill in hull and fittings you're just starting to reach something that might be acceptable with 1/3 ratio.

I think the solution to this argument's problem is that hulks cost too much, alchemy hopefully reliving that a little. And the biggest indicator that this is what CCP was thinking (that ganking was too cost effective) was that they also increased the materials cost of building the new mining barges, thus showing that they wanted the HP buffed to be tied into the value of the barges.


The argument was that the the ganker should ALWAYS lose more than the gankee. This is a moronic argument that does not allow for consequences and decreases choice. CCP learned that cost should not EVER be used as a balancing factor before with super caps and are making the same mistake again.

For those that don't believe, source:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1698762#post1698762

For those that are lazy and/or unintelligent (hint its the bold part, that's the important one):
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Josef Djugashvilis
#383 - 2012-08-29 18:57:36 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
I like how all of the arguments coming out of the people that want highsec to be aggression free never take into account the consequences of fitting a ship poorly.


A lie does not become the truth by endlessly repeating it.

No one (apart from ganker alts) has seriously suggested that Hi-sec be aggression free.

CCP have decided that ganking miners should cost the ganker more isk.

Deal with it.

This is not a signature.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2012-08-29 19:00:01 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
I like how all of the arguments coming out of the people that want highsec to be aggression free never take into account the consequences of fitting a ship poorly.


A lie does not become the truth by endlessly repeating it.

No one (apart from ganker alts) has seriously suggested that Hi-sec be aggression free.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahah

oh irony you amuse me

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#385 - 2012-08-29 19:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
I like how all of the arguments coming out of the people that want highsec to be aggression free never take into account the consequences of fitting a ship poorly.


A lie does not become the truth by endlessly repeating it.

No one (apart from ganker alts) has seriously suggested that Hi-sec be aggression free.

CCP have decided that ganking miners should cost the ganker more isk.

Deal with it.


We have. The only thing saving miners from yet another lesson from Bat Country is the fact that freighter pilots are worth a lot more. But don't get too comfy in your poorly tanked macks, we will not leave you alone for long.

Mallak Azaria wrote:


Fixed that for you.


Nice.
Josef Djugashvilis
#386 - 2012-08-29 19:06:15 UTC
I do not mine.

I think I have a Retriever somewhere or other, unless I sold it years ago.

If gankers cannot afford to gank miners anymore, perhaps they should do some mining to earn the required isk to do so.

This is not a signature.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#387 - 2012-08-29 19:07:03 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
CCP have decided that ganking miners should cost the ganker more isk.

Deal with it.

We have demonstrated, ad nauseum, that this is a flawed argument.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2012-08-29 19:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
To all the morons who claim its time to adapt for pvpers:

Herr Wilkus wrote:

Step 1: Halve Concord Response time, triple the sec status penalty. (ganker nerf)

Step 2: Create the Noctis - destroying ninja income by crashing the value of salvage.

Step 3: Kill the LVL 4 Loot, while leaving 'unstealable' bounties untouched. (ninja nerf)

Step 4: Two stealth nerfs of the Orca's abilities, specifically so ninjas cannot benefit from them. (ninja nerf)

Step 5: End enforcement of alliance hopping exploits. (merc nerf)

Step 6: Remove insurance, but only for gankers, while leaving it in place for self-destruction. (ganker nerf)

Step 7: Screw up RR and aggression flags, then provide helpful popups so nobody can hurt an Incursion bear. (Skunkworks)

Step 8: Dramatically reduce the time and effort it takes to set-up or break-down a POS. (merc nerf)

Step 9: Buff Concord by preventing pirates from boarding or bailing out of ships while GCC'd. (Smodab Ongalot nerf)

Step 10: Buff Concord again, by making them appear instantly to prevent warping while GCC'd. (Herr Wilkus nerf)

Step 11: Huge increase of wardec costs, while allowing free allies and unrestrained corp-dropping to the defender. (mercs)

Step 12: Insane barge buff. (ganker nerf)

Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas)

Step 14: Who knows? Instant Concord death ray? Quoting some fool in FF 2012: "Pewww!"

And thats just high-sec.....I'm not even going to start a list of punitive measures taken against a certain nul-sec Alliance that will remain nameless.

Factor in statements from DEVS, on this very thread: Quotable Winners like "Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable", or "Gankers are expected to lose more than the victim..."

Its pretty clear where these steps are taking us.........


Pvpers adapted to every highsec aggression nerf listed above, yet the ONE thing you all had to adapt to, by fitting your ships properly was met by such forum howling you would think it involved slicing off a limb with a blunt instrument.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#389 - 2012-08-29 19:12:33 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
MIrple wrote:
Yes that might be the dumbest thing I have heard. If a war ship got even close to the coast of the US that was not an American or Allied ship it would be blown to hell.

So what your saying is no warships in empire I could get behind this.


I really don't know how you got that from what he said.


Seems like the standard "throw illogical bullcrap and hope it sticks" defense.

It was not well played lol.
kurg
Order of the Divine Shadow
#390 - 2012-08-29 19:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: kurg
William Walker wrote:
What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them?


What good is a game that has no population to shoot at?

Like it or not, the only way Eve will continue to grow is to add new players, unfortunately those *new* players (at least the majority) are not in-tune with Eve's unforgiving PvP death system and most quit before giving the game a solid chance or joining a good corp. Eitherway, i can remember back in 2003 how TINY the population was (roughly 2-4k total!) and how much *we* back then complained about *new* players and new changes .. Yet here we are 2012 with over 300K subs!!! ... <<< Like it or not change will come!
Dajli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#391 - 2012-08-29 19:17:14 UTC
TL;DR:

CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.


Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2012-08-29 19:19:59 UTC
kurg wrote:
William Walker wrote:
What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them?


What good is a game that has no population to shoot at?

Like it or not, the only way Eve will continue to grow is to add new players, unfortunately those *new* players (at least the majority) are not in-tune with Eve's unforgiving PvP death system and most quit before giving the game a solid chance or joining a good corp. Eitherway, i can remember back in 2003 how TINY the population was (roughly 2-4k total!) and how much *we* back then complained about *new* players and new changes .. Yet here we are 2012 with over 300K subs!!! ... <<< Like it or not change will come!


See this could be solved with new player retention initiatives instead of moronic things like nerfing highsec aggression.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#393 - 2012-08-29 19:21:11 UTC
Dajli wrote:
TL;DR:

CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.


Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls.

CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2012-08-29 19:23:13 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dajli wrote:
TL;DR:

CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.


Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls.

CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.


Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#395 - 2012-08-29 19:29:55 UTC
kurg wrote:
William Walker wrote:
What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them?


What good is a game that has no population to shoot at?

Like it or not, the only way Eve will continue to grow is to add new players, unfortunately those *new* players (at least the majority) are not in-tune with Eve's unforgiving PvP death system and most quit before giving the game a solid chance or joining a good corp. Eitherway, i can remember back in 2003 how TINY the population was (roughly 2-4k total!) and how much *we* back then complained about *new* players and new changes .. Yet here we are 2012 with over 300K subs!!! ... <<< Like it or not change will come!


9 years on nothing but year on year growth says the game is fine with people getting ganked in highsec space.
Agreh Tensenn
Tensenn Industries
#396 - 2012-08-29 20:13:05 UTC
In the matter of suicide ganking the math definitely did not add upp. Mining barges was, fitted with standard non-pimped modules suited for the task at hand without factoring in suicide ganking, profitable, or almost profitable to suicide gank in high-security space. Now suicide ganking is something that i definitely enjoy myself, and that I definitely think there is place for, I do not see why it has to be easy and profitable to suicide gank everything there is? Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.

The problem becomes even bigger when the mining ships (or ship, namely the hulk) also is damn expensive. Especially considering the actual isk earn per hour mining. While being so cheap to gank while fitted for yield, so that the miner lose up to 25 times the loss of the ganker(s) the ratio is scewed far away from any other ship in the game. And for that, the ganker may even turn a profit from the gank. The hulk must be one of the very few ships in the game that could possibly be ganked for a profit, undocked naked with only it's highslots fitted with t2 modules and some "ammo". Thats while costing 200+ million.

All values above here are pre-buff values.

Speaking of making suicide ganking harder in general I would like to direct you to Red Frog Freight. Their maximum collateral has stayed at 1Bil and their prices has gone up for the following reason:
Quote:
"even with the insurance removal on concorded ship, it require now less Tornado then Typhoon to gank a freighter. as low as 9 if you got a really skilled crew, where it was 12 or 13 typhoon before.

at some point in january, we should have reduced that to 700 or 800m, but it would have upset a lot of people. now with the price raise on the module (tornado didn't changed much) it bring back the break even at 1b."

Even if I cannot find the post right now i think that early summer one guy from RFF said that they lost 1 freighter in 2011, and had lost 4 this far in 2012. That should at least be an indication that High-sec has not been made safer for anyone but miners. And frankly, i dont think it's too safe for them. Please also remember that one of the main ways to kill people in high-sec is meant to be by declaring war on them. If you feel that mechanic is lacking, don't blame that on suicide ganking!
Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#397 - 2012-08-29 20:26:08 UTC
Which statement do you agree with most?

A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid
B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid
C) Old Maid > *

If you answered A - goto low sec
If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec
If you answered C - stay in high sec
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#398 - 2012-08-29 20:27:36 UTC
Clystan wrote:
Which statement do you agree with most?

A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid
B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid
C) Old Maid > *

If you answered A - goto low sec
If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec
If you answered C - stay in high sec




D) Russian Roulette

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
#399 - 2012-08-29 20:34:23 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Clystan wrote:
Which statement do you agree with most?

A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid
B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid
C) Old Maid > *

If you answered A - goto low sec
If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec
If you answered C - stay in high sec




D) Russian Roulette


If you answered D - Start a corporation
Zanarkand
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#400 - 2012-08-29 20:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Zanarkand
La Nariz wrote:


Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.


James Amril-Kesh wrote:

CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.


Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs?