These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Eve is not IKEA - deal with it

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#41 - 2012-10-10 05:28:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
The ganker CAN still gank. The miner CAN still die.

The GankerMan whine because he CAN'T make a PROFIT in HIGHSEC.

THAT is the entire argument in a nutshell.
And it's good argument. They should be able to. There's no reason why highsec should automatically make it impossible.

lolz. Vitriolic at best.

He CAN profit. It's just been made harder is all.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#42 - 2012-10-10 05:32:16 UTC
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:

The ganker CAN still gank. The miner CAN still die.

The GankerMan whine because he CAN'T make a PROFIT in HIGHSEC.

THAT is the entire argument in a nutshell.


No it isn't.


They've effectively eliminated ganking by the amount if EHP they gave to miners. And they eliminated it on the behalf of players who never tried eliminating it themselves when they had the power to do so. I don't play EVE for profit, i play EVE for entertainment and that's where your argument has holes.

What could have been avoided in the old system by fitting extenders/hardners and staying aligned has been replaced by a system were anything short or mass suicide won't kill a miner anymore.

Ganking has NOT been eliminated. Never was.

And this. "I don't play EVE for profit, i play EVE for entertainment"

As it bloody well should be - and that should INCLUDE the miners ability to do same.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-10-10 05:34:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Did all the replies just vanish?


It's not like most forumgoers contributions are in any way intelligent or constructive. Threads in eveonline.com are generally more intelligent the less posts they have.

I can guess, they were: "Go back to wow and various curse words"

I am in support of the topic.

Bloodpetal wrote:

PVP in EVE is about non-consentual PVP.

You totally neglect this. And hi-sec should be no different.



How is that in any way related to exhumer buffs? Roll

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-10-10 05:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Touval Lysander wrote:
He CAN profit. It's just been made harder is all.
No. If the combination of inherent, unavoidable HP and time available ensures that enough oomph is required to get the kill in time, then it is not just “harder”, but impossible.

This is a bad thing.
Quote:
And this. "I don't play EVE for profit, i play EVE for entertainment"

As it bloody well should be - and that should INCLUDE the miners ability to do same.
…and they could. They just chose not to by using fits that made them profitable when they could just as easily have chosen fits that made them unprofitable.

The difference is that now they no longer have to make that choice — they are inherently unprofitable unless they actively load up their ships with bait goods. This is a bad thing.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#45 - 2012-10-10 06:25:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:

The difference is that now they no longer have to make that choice — they are inherently unprofitable unless they actively load up their ships with bait goods. This is a bad thing.

wtf u on about? The logic in this debate is absolutely fn mind-boggling.

Ganking IS still possible. Period.
It CAN be done profitably. Period.
They can't be f'd. Period.

The measure is in the level of profitability. That IS in the hands of the ganker, it's his choice to gank. It's NOT the miners choice to be ganked. C'mon, what, miners should be made to park their Hulks out front of station and just wait for the gank to make it PROFITABLE by n measure so the ganker feels good about himself.

ffs. Blaming the miner or CCP because the GANKER can't profit in easymode is absolute BS!

By your definition, I should be able to drive my hauler into 0.0 and steal all the tech in a POS and fly off - because I SHOULD be able to because that's what I want to do and your shield, your fleet should NOT be allowed to stop me.

And guess what.

I COULD steal the tech if I turn up with 500b worth of ships. I DON'T because it just wouldn't be - you guessed it - PROFITABLE.

And one thing is absolute - I don't blame the guys who own the POS because ***I*** can't do it profitably. (and I certainly don't blame CCP for it either).

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#46 - 2012-10-10 06:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Touval Lysander wrote:
wtf u on about?
I'm on about how before the patch, ganking miners for profit was possible if the miners chose to; impossible if they chose not to. After the patch, it's impossible regardless because the inherent HP means you have to use a sledge that is more expensive than the loot.

The only way for it to be profitable now is if the miner chooses to bling his ship up with equipment and cargo that has no purpose being on that ship — i.e. if he willingly baits the ganker.

Quote:
Blaming the miner or CCP because the GANKER can't profit in easymode is absolute BS!
No, it really isn't, because those were the ones who decided whether the miner were a profitable target or not. The ganker had very little say in the matter.

Pre-patch, the miner decided whether he put a tank on the ship or not — if he did, the cost of the gank increased massively and the profit margin quickly shrunk and easily went into the red.
Post-patch, CCP decided that the miner didn't need to tank the ship — the cost of the gank was automatically increased massively to the point where the profit margin was gone even before a tank was added.

The only thing the ganker can do to affect the profit once those decisions are made by the other parties involved is to use cheaper gank ships, but that generally also equates to “not getting the kill to begin with”.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#47 - 2012-10-10 06:57:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
wtf u on about?
I'm on about how before the patch, ganking miners for profit was possible if the miners chose to; impossible if they chose not to. After the patch, it's impossible regardless because the inherent HP means you have to use a sledge that is more expensive than the loot.

The only way for it to be profitable now is if the miner chooses to bling his ship up with equipment and cargo that has no purpose being on that ship — i.e. if he willingly baits the ganker.

Quote:
Blaming the miner or CCP because the GANKER can't profit in easymode is absolute BS!
No, it really isn't, because those were the ones who decided whether the miner were a profitable target or not. The ganker had very little say in the matter.

Pre-patch, the miner decided whether he put a tank on the ship or not — if he did, the cost of the gank increased massively and the profit margin quickly shrunk and easily went into the red.
Post-patch, CCP decided that the miner didn't need to tank the ship — the cost of the gank was automatically increased massively to the point where the profit margin was gone even before a tank was added.

The only thing the ganker can do to affect the profit once those decisions are made by the other parties involved is to use cheaper gank ships, but that generally also equates to “not getting the kill to begin with”.

So you resent change?

C'mon Tippia - change in Eve has been in the hundreds, thousands - and every single one of them have been FOR one party and conversely AGAINST another party.

If CCP seriously see justification for the neccessity of ganks, I'm pretty sure a way to do it will be worked out. Because Johnny Reb can't make a "sizeable profit on easymode" just ain't gonna be enough.

His reason for WHY he needs to gank for profit needs to answered. Because "he should be able to" is BS.

If that were true, I SHOULD be able to steal all the Tech in a POS profitably as a solo pilot because, yes, that's what I want...

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-10-10 07:03:27 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
So you resent change?
Nope. I resent unnecessary attempts at rescuing people from their own stupidity. I also resent gameplay being removed for no good reason.

Quote:
His reason for WHY he needs to gank for profit needs to answered. Because "he should be able to" is BS.
No, it really isn't. It's a valid game style and a coherent profession, and there were plenty of mechanics in place to counter it for those who wanted to avoid it. As such, there was no reason to remove it other than because the targets were being stupid and as reasons go, that's a very very bad one — their being stupid is not a game design flaw that needs to be “fixed”.

Quote:
If that were true, I SHOULD be able to steal all the Tech in a POS profitably as a solo pilot because, yes, that's what I want...
…and guess what? You can. Other players my try to stop you and put obstacles in your way, but the game doesn't automatically make it impossible.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#49 - 2012-10-10 07:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Tippia wrote:


Touval Lysander wrote:

If that were true, I SHOULD be able to steal all the Tech in a POS profitably as a solo pilot because, yes, that's what I want...


…and guess what? You can. Other players my try to stop you and put obstacles in your way, but the game doesn't automatically make it impossible.


Absolute correct. Now read that out aloud to yourself.

Then repeat after me.

Ganking is NOT impossible.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2012-10-10 07:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Touval Lysander wrote:
Ganking is NOT impossible.
…but doing it for profit is not, and the problem is that this isn't because the players choose to make it so but because CCP took away the choice since the players in question refused to make good decisions.
pussnheels
Viziam
#51 - 2012-10-10 07:22:54 UTC
EvE is about competition is a much better phrase

on every level and on every scale , and when this means blowing up your competitors ships than yes this is PvP

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#52 - 2012-10-10 07:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Ganking is NOT impossible.
…but doing it for profit is not, and the problem is that this isn't because the players choose to make it so but because CCP took away the choice because the players in question refused to make good decisions.

So it's my fault for not putting on a raincoat when it rained and I got wet. OK. I got that.

100% correct.

But it's not my fault it rained.

Consider

If Miners tanked
- Ganking unprofitable

If Miners didn't tank
- Gankers ganked.
- CCP made change.
- Ganking unprofitable.

Ya sorta think that ganking would inevitably have been unprofitable ANYWAY.

The rain cloud was the t3 BC's. Inadvertent, intended, I have no idea but CCP ultimately handed miners a better rain coat.

Musta had a really good reason.

(I gtg - food o'clock. - l8r - o7)

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2012-10-10 07:36:39 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
So it's my fault for not putting on a raincoat when it rained and I got wet. OK. I got that.

100% correct.

But it's not my fault it rained.
…and that's the problem: CCP removed the chance of rain (because under this model, the clouds really are those malicious things that only come out when you forgot your umbrella).

Quote:
Ya sorta think that ganking would inevitably have been unprofitable ANYWAY.
Sure, if the player chose to. And that's all good an proper: one set of players come up with a tactic to make hay of other players' decisions; that other set make different decisions that completely invalidate the tactic chosen by the first set; life goes on. The players have dynamically changed and adapted to their environment.

The bad thing is when the second set refuse to make any decision, and then CCP comes in and ensure that they will no longer have to make it. The developers have made a static change to the environment.

Quote:
Musta had a really good reason.
They had a reason. It wasn't a good one, though.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2012-10-10 07:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Interesting thing.
As OP mentioned possibility of ganking wars between indys via mercs, things suddenly were made clear for me.
I was wondering, why the hell Exhumers should be ISK tanked like they are? Shame that I didn't realized that it's still cheaper to blap most of them than they cost themselves (correct me if I'm wrong). Want profitable gank? Find someone who is willing to pay for destroying assets. If you compare this to "blap, loot, salvage, rinse and repeat" ganking scheme, what we got is the opposite of "dumbing down". C&P suggests that hisec merc market exists already, even though it's kinda small.

I don't know what should happen to make this aspect of indy wars commonplace tbh, reasons should be part economical part having something to do with people's attitude here, but idea is set.

Fake edit: we need much better bounty/kill contract system, or at least a reliable middleman who could play this role, that would be a good place to start.
Interesting, would Chribba agree to be a middleman for mining gang blowing operation "contract"? Twisted

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-10-10 11:48:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
He CAN profit. It's just been made harder is all.
No. If the combination of inherent, unavoidable HP and time available ensures that enough oomph is required to get the kill in time, then it is not just “harder”, but impossible.

This is a bad thing.
Quote:
And this. "I don't play EVE for profit, i play EVE for entertainment"

As it bloody well should be - and that should INCLUDE the miners ability to do same.
…and they could. They just chose not to by using fits that made them profitable when they could just as easily have chosen fits that made them unprofitable.

The difference is that now they no longer have to make that choice — they are inherently unprofitable unless they actively load up their ships with bait goods. This is a bad thing.



but i remember all those Hulkageddon threads/posts

Quote:
Ganker post #1278645: it's not about the profits, it's about the lulz


now your saying CCP have removed the profit aspect, and i can't play anymore.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#56 - 2012-10-10 15:18:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
4) Highsec should be no different....... to what - the other sectors? It's HIGH SECURITY.

dict' def of high:

Quote:
exceeding the common degree or measure; strong; intense
Notice how your definition does not include any of the words “complete”, “total”, or “absolute”. So yes, highsec should be no different than the other sec levels in terms of what PvP dangers you might face.


It is. You never know when some neutral/s will simply blow you up in pieces just because they can.

But the irony in ganker tears is some asking Concord to notify or some other tool so they know who got the kill rights because they don't feel it's fair they can't know who and when they're going to get blown up.

Now this is top of top, should I say the caviare of hypocrisy from risk averse players. This is really awesome, I can't wait to get a bounty on my main, and hope it's going to be a very high one.

brb
ctx2007
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2012-10-10 17:15:14 UTC
Looking at the furniture in CQ, CCP have been to Ikea for the designs.

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.
Emo Dodo
Assault Opera
#58 - 2012-10-10 18:49:20 UTC
IKEA has great swedish meatballs.
EVE has Chribba.
Chribba is a great swedish meatball?
D-Mob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-10-10 19:08:34 UTC
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
TLDR: Read the title.

In recent days, I am seeing a belligerent POV (from only a few it must be said) that CCP is dumbing down Eve, turning it into a carebear heaven yaddy ya.



The schism in EVE can be roughly boiled down into this. Some players believe in Darwinian gameplay and some believe in Socialist gameplay.

In Darwinian style the weak get weeded out early and (hopefully) never come back. This has been more or less EVEish since its debut but less and less so every year. We are now trending towards a more (for lack of a better term) socialist gameplay. Don't let the unfit unsubscribe lets coddle them and help them for better or worse. Neither version by your definition has less PVP but the socialist style requires gameplay changes instead of player adaptation.

This is the best I can do to try and describe the hatred in my eve online heart when players call for change based on player ineptitude.







People like you are very sad.

You hope the "weak" get "weeded out" and "never comeback"...

This coming from a pimple-faced ginger who's probably about 115 pounds soaking wet IRL.

This is a firggin' game dude. That Elitist crap in where you actually hope to stunt EvE's growth because you perceive players who aren't "on your level" to be weak and thus seek to scare them away is what's killing this game. You WANT a SMALL community?

Of course you don't. It's "hardcorez Pee Vee Pee'ers" like you who constantly ***** about how the targets are dwindling.

If carebears don't want to PvP, they shouldn't have to. WHat I find hilarious is how you talk about how weak" others are but you're bitching because you can't one shot f**kin Miners. Why aren't you fighting other SUPELEETS bro??? Why are you wanting such easy targets mister tough guy??

F**k out of here man,PvPers tend to be the BIGGEST goddamned carebears from my view.
Hestia Mar
Calmaretto
#60 - 2012-10-10 20:02:05 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
TLDR: Read the title.

Quote:
Everything in EVE is PVP. Deal with it.

This is a comment I gleaned from a "click here to read my blog" thread which is, as much as it might hurt some to hear, the crux, the POINT of Eve. I totally agree.

In the context of the thread it came from however, PvP is being coralled into a singular "ship v ship" argument. This is where it's wrong.

- Johnny Reb orbiting MaverickMan firing lasers is PvPíng.
- Nullseccer A taking sov from Nullseccer B for the purpose of having more T-Moons is PvPíng.

However,
- Miner X, racing to get his minerals to market and under-cutting Miner Y is PvP'ing.
- Indy C, researching a BPO to be a better ME than Indy D is PvP'ing.

i.e. PvP is NOT restricted to ship v ship - it's relative to the individual. As it should be.

In recent days, I am seeing a belligerent POV (from only a few it must be said) that CCP is dumbing down Eve, turning it into a carebear heaven yaddy ya. I am even seeing fairly strong reactions from CCP locking threads against this belligerence and getting pretty pointed as to why.

Eve-O modding seems to be shifting stance from being fairly apolitical to fairly pointed - perhaps defensively - perhaps they are calling BS for BS when it is - a good thing too imho.

And really, it is all getting a bit stupid. CCP, is, from my where I stand, simply quantifying what PvP should be in highsec, the "safer environment". They are putting some wrappers around some rather confusing aggression mechanics in highsec that for mine, have been stumbling blocks to inject and RETAIN noobs into the game.

HS is MEANT to be safer. The angst against changes to make HS rules clearer and perhaps, more consensually based is keeping me quite bemused. Why?

Reality check: The person paying the sub that presses F1 to add a mark to his KB pays exactly the same amount of money as the person who presses F1 to kill a roid or an NPC.

If a miner for example strips every belt and dumps to market, other miners pay the price - that's THEIR problem. They can outstrip him, cut the price, whatever. He's PvP'ing. He can in fact, kill him or hire someone to do so.

Put bluntly, "Everything in Eve is PvP" as meaning "you HAVE to asplode" is plain and simply wrong.

Eve as a whole is not an IKEA store where you can expect every item in every store to be exactly the same. It's NOT a convenience store where you, the ganker, the PvP'er, use the safety of Concord so YOU can move around "safely" and then bemoan the user who stays in HS, also using Concord to "safely" move around.

As much as anyone has the right to say "FITE MY FRIG NOOB", MinerMan, MissionMan and IndyMan have the rght to say "NO, SORRY, I'M BUSY UNDERCUTTING PLAYER X".

Who said YOU decide?


And really, trying to make HS as "dangerous" and as "PvP centric" (by the incorrect definition) as LS and 0.0 would turn Eve into an IKEA store where everything is the same.

If that isn't "dumbing it down" then what the hell is?


Sorry but once again someone is mixing up pvp - ship fighting - with market competition. Its like confusing the activities of the Free Syrian Army with those of investment bankers, but you might need to wait until you get to be an adult to realise the difference.

No-one dies in EVE market competition, you plonker.

Ho Hum, posting in another "where's my pvp game wah wah wah thread"