These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#221 - 2012-10-09 16:57:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Plaude Pollard wrote:

I agree with pretty much all of these points. Anchored cans are completely useless now, due to the Mining Barge-buff, and since they're friggin' ugly, they should be legal targets to anyone. It would also solve the problem with people littering stargates and stations with those ugly things (seriously. Occasionally, my computer takes up to 10 seconds to load a system because of the stupid cans, and that's with a very high-speed internet connection). Let players destroy the cans without being CONCORDed.


Someone tossed around the idea of them costing isk to keep them in space. Personally I think they should half the time they sit in space and at the end of that time if the owner does not pay the fee to upkeep it then it turns neutral, the PW is removed and anyone can open it, loot it and pack it up and scoop it.

Easier just to let us smartbomb the useless junk I think than to tie ISK or fuel costs to anchoring them.

Also, allowing us to smartbomb them makes sense based on the role they fill. The containers can be physically shot with other weapons, but not by smartbombs.

It makes no sense at all.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#222 - 2012-10-09 17:00:05 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Easier just to let us smartbomb the useless junk I think than to tie ISK or fuel costs to anchoring them.

Also, allowing us to smartbomb them makes sense based on the role they fill. The containers can be physically shot with other weapons, but not by smartbombs.

It makes no sense at all.


Naturally smartbombs should work with them around.
Pipa Porto
#223 - 2012-10-09 17:09:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Caldari fuel has lost almost half of its value after the barge changes.


Good I moved away from Caldari space a long time ago.


What's your point? You keep arguing random and contradictory things (mostly false). What are you trying to prove?


Nothing, its just to derail threads.


Of course, he'll never get banned because he only derails threads sympathetic to EvE as the cold, harsh place it's advertised as.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#224 - 2012-10-09 17:13:02 UTC
I support dam near any proposal that impacts (negatively) botting.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#225 - 2012-10-09 17:19:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Pipa Porto wrote:
Of course, he'll never get banned because he only derails threads sympathetic to EvE as the cold, harsh place it's advertised as.


Where did I say ganking should be removed?

Mining barges are still gankable. Main problem is that most of the gankers refuse to do it because they feel they're entitled to get paid doing it. That and "EVE needs me so I must do it".
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#226 - 2012-10-09 17:22:34 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Of course, he'll never get banned because he only derails threads sympathetic to EvE as the cold, harsh place it's advertised as.


Where did I say ganking should be removed?

Mining barges are still gankable. Main problem is that most of the gankers refuse to do it because they feel they're entitled to get paid doing it. That and "EVE needs me so I must do it".

Value = Supply / Demand, so your final statement is actually quite true.

Whether barges and exhumers are gankable or not has no bearing on whether more risk needs to be introduced, since any incentive for ganking other than social has been removed.

The changes proposed introduce a new degree of risk which will benefit successful miners.

How is this difficult to see?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Pipa Porto
#227 - 2012-10-09 17:23:50 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Of course, he'll never get banned because he only derails threads sympathetic to EvE as the cold, harsh place it's advertised as.


Where did I say ganking should be removed?


Didn't say you did.

Quote:
Mining barges are still gankable. Main problem is that most of the gankers refuse to do it because they feel they're entitled to get paid doing it. That and "EVE needs me so I must do it".


Why else would we do it? Again, gankers are not randomly vindictive, nor do they like throwing ISK away for no reason.

Not everyone is going to put 1000 units of Destroyers up at 1/5 their market price (oh wait, you lied about that, too) just to be contrary.

So, back to your claim that we ignore killmails of tanked hulks. Show us the killmail you claim we ignore.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2012-10-09 17:26:37 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
How is this difficult to see?


Are you sure I'm against "more risk to hisec"?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2022364#post2022364
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#229 - 2012-10-09 17:44:43 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
How is this difficult to see?


Are you sure I'm against "more risk to hisec"?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2022364#post2022364

I espeically like that that's the only issue you wish to clarify, if we're being honest. +1.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Ginger Barbarella
#230 - 2012-10-09 17:49:38 UTC
Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.

That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#231 - 2012-10-09 17:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
baltec1 wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

Well when they were getting ganked miners also enjoyed the best profits they have ever seen which is a rather nice thing. It also removed a great deal of bots which is also great for everyone.

But risk for miners doesnt have to be only from pvp.


I'm touched.

In a topic hoping to come up with solid ideas to add risk to and ruin a profession many of the participants in here shun or wouldn't be caught dead doing anyway... always demanding that hi-sec mining profits get nerfed in accordance with its lack of risk... we have gems who care about the profit of said profession.

/sarcasm.

And all the bots was actually grand... more minerals on the supply side of the market, lower prices... cheaper ships, cheaper pew pew... so again.... I'm not seeing the bright side of changing that....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#232 - 2012-10-09 17:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.

That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.

I'm not sure anybody in this thread is an "anti-mining loser."

I, for one, enjoy seeing successful miners earn the increased rewards that come along with integral risk inherent in their profession. It can be clearly demonstrated that prices are higher when less people succeed. Therefore, I would say I'm actually "pro-miner" in a more honest way than, well, Issler Dainze for example, who believes the well-being of the market is tertiary to a "miner happiness" factor.

Value = Demand / Supply. That should be the miner's mantra.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#233 - 2012-10-09 17:57:26 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

Well when they were getting ganked miners also enjoyed the best profits they have ever seen which is a rather nice thing. It also removed a great deal of bots which is also great for everyone.

But risk for miners doesnt have to be only from pvp.


I'm touched.

In a topic hoping to come up with solid ideas to add risk to and ruin a profession many of the participants in here shun or wouldn't be caught dead doing anyway... always demanding that hi-sec mining profits get nerfed in accordance with its lack of risk... we have gems who care about the profit of said profession.

/sarcasm.

And all the bots was actually grand... more minerals on the supply side of the market, lower prices... cheaper ships, cheaper pew pew... so again.... I'm not seeing the bright side of changing that....

I'm not sure it would be conducive to your cause to continue along this line of reasoning.

You don't want miners to be directly associated with actually supporting botting, do you? Besides, you must realize the havoc bots wreak on the economy.

Value = Demand / Supply. As supply goes up, value goes down. Bots relentlessly contribute to supply in a way designed specifically to mininimize demand.

Give that some thought, please.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#234 - 2012-10-09 18:01:52 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:


I'm touched.

In a topic hoping to come up with solid ideas to add risk to and ruin a profession many of the participants in here shun or wouldn't be caught dead doing anyway... always demanding that hi-sec mining profits get nerfed in accordance with its lack of risk... we have gems who care about the profit of said profession.

/sarcasm.

And all the bots was actually grand... more minerals on the supply side of the market, lower prices... cheaper ships, cheaper pew pew... so again.... I'm not seeing the bright side of changing that....


So you dedicate half your post to atacking me most likely because I am an "evil ganker" and then say you love miners earning less. My irony gland is tingling.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#235 - 2012-10-09 18:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Darth Gustav wrote:
I espeically like that that's the only issue you wish to clarify, if we're being honest. +1.


I can't say no to more entertainment during mining. Currently belt rats in hisec are in class "belt rats, yaaaawn".
I also can't say no to better loot/salvage. Especially if I have to change ship to deal with belt rats faster.

baltec1 wrote:
So you dedicate half your post to atacking me most likely because I am an "evil ganker" and then say you love miners earning less. My irony gland is tingling.


Some of us just don't want to pay 500M for T1 BS. Yeah, battleships should be more rare maybe but not that rare.
Donnerjack Wolfson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2012-10-09 18:14:24 UTC
Man, there's some serious strawman up in here.

Okay, highsec, lowsec, and nullsec are all connected. Removing all risk from miners/industrials is stupid - they affect you, you should be able to affect them.

However, making it so there is no CONCORD or other form of protection for carebears is not the only other option besides risk-free. There ARE happy mediums.


There are ways to influence them. Frankly, I think it's well-balanced now.

Though I would buff low-null-wh production.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#237 - 2012-10-09 18:16:30 UTC
Donnerjack Wolfson wrote:
Man, there's some serious strawman up in here.

Okay, highsec, lowsec, and nullsec are all connected. Removing all risk from miners/industrials is stupid - they affect you, you should be able to affect them.

However, making it so there is no CONCORD or other form of protection for carebears is not the only other option besides risk-free. There ARE happy mediums.


There are ways to influence them. Frankly, I think it's well-balanced now.

Though I would buff low-null-wh production.

Where in the OP is there mention of removing CONCORD?

That's pretty much miner reactionism, if you ask me.

I want to increase risk in a logical fashion in order to better reward successful miners. My desire is stemmed from a very mathematical root:

Value = Demand / Supply.

Thanks for your further thoughtful posting.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#238 - 2012-10-09 18:28:44 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

Well when they were getting ganked miners also enjoyed the best profits they have ever seen which is a rather nice thing. It also removed a great deal of bots which is also great for everyone.

But risk for miners doesnt have to be only from pvp.


I'm touched.

In a topic hoping to come up with solid ideas to add risk to and ruin a profession many of the participants in here shun or wouldn't be caught dead doing anyway... always demanding that hi-sec mining profits get nerfed in accordance with its lack of risk... we have gems who care about the profit of said profession.

/sarcasm.

And all the bots was actually grand... more minerals on the supply side of the market, lower prices... cheaper ships, cheaper pew pew... so again.... I'm not seeing the bright side of changing that....

I'm not sure it would be conducive to your cause to continue along this line of reasoning.

You don't want miners to be directly associated with actually supporting botting, do you? Besides, you must realize the havoc bots wreak on the economy.

Value = Demand / Supply. As supply goes up, value goes down. Bots relentlessly contribute to supply in a way designed specifically to mininimize demand.

Give that some thought, please.


My views are my own. Miners can speak for themselves if they are so inclined. Fools would take one opinion and try to extrapolate it to a population.

I'm not going to argue the de-merrits of bots. Why not? From a price perspective, I fully support the proliferation of minerals on the market by any and all means necessary. From a profit perspective, I object wholeheartedly to my previous statement. Then again, I'm a profiteering ho. So I will support both the reduction of costs of goods and the maximization of profit in the same breath.

Therefore I think you need to differentiate between your compulsion to remove the bot from mining that will in itself, to some extent, balance out your value = demand / supply equation by basing the equation on true player capacity instead of automated capacity with actual people supplimenting...... from your compulsion to ruin the mining game in the hope that the perceived solutions of a predominantly pro-ganking clique will make everyone happy.

If your entire justification for this whole debate is that bots devalue mining... then clearly adding risks will not solve the problem (As it didn't in the past when risk was abundant... in fact, I recall botting at its worst when you had soo much risk to play with in hi-sec, that you could agress somebody and profit from the gank or even prevent concord from getting sum back just for getting looked at the wrong way or minding their own business).

How bots are removed from Eve without touching risk, is a different animal all together... one I think this topic doesn't cover at all.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#239 - 2012-10-09 18:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
baltec1 wrote:

So you dedicate half your post to atacking me most likely because I am an "evil ganker" and then say you love miners earning less. My irony gland is tingling.


Yup.

Any man who doesn't claim to have double standards is either a liar or trying to sell you something.

And its not so much an attack... as it is an engagement a la a debate....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#240 - 2012-10-09 18:34:55 UTC
Eve is fine, stop it.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].