These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

@CCP time to modify ice roids so they expire

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adeleda Adoudel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-10-30 00:34:37 UTC
Nerf everything! Leave nothing!
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#42 - 2012-10-30 00:35:09 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Why would people play a game to do something they didn't enjoy?

Why are people concerned about people paying to play a game they don't enjoy?

What of it?

I care not for the "correctness" of either party tbh but these arguments ON BEHALF of other people are getting kind of tedious.


I don't care whether ice miners enjoy what they do. My point is that you cannot claim that the Ice Miner's lack of risk is balanced by their supposed lack of enjoyment.

This is a Multiplayer sandbox. You are free to do whatever you want to do. So is everyone else. Including "Screwing with what you want to do." Miners don't seem to understand the second part.

Nobody's saying mining should be eliminated, but miners are saying that people who mess with them (first it was canflippers, then it was suicide gankers, now it's bumpers) should have their options eliminated.

I gather you don't understand what I'm saying.

Yes. Fact. Miners are complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Fact (as evidenced within) - NON-miners are complaining and whining about miners complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Nobody is taking a step back and looking at first, the irony, secondly the hyprocrisy and then finally, at the stupidity of it all.

What are we ACTUALLY hoping to achieve in all this?
Is there an actual goal?

Perhaps everyone needs to start addressing this from a

THIS IS WHAT WE/I/US WANT DONE - put it up for discussion and debate the MERITS insofar as how to relates to ALL players in this, a single shard cold, dark and harsh universe.

And be cognizant of OTHER players in discussing the merits. Anything else is just accelerating climate change.

"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..."
Hypercake Mix
#43 - 2012-10-30 00:53:50 UTC
O.o That scale of botting/multi-boxing. Pretty impressive. Makes me wonder what kind of setup that person is using.

But, yeah. Infinite static ice is being abused pretty badly.
Sorlac
Cosmos Industrial
Cosmos Origins
#44 - 2012-10-30 00:54:11 UTC
NickyYo wrote:
and so they have to respawn.. look at this lolz
http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

IB4 tears.


Well so much for the New Order being the Saviors of Hi-Sec...Lol
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#45 - 2012-10-30 01:02:21 UTC
That's what we need.

Hold everyone to an OCD standard. That will save EVE.
Give your head a shake, Nick.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-10-30 01:06:29 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Why would people play a game to do something they didn't enjoy?

Why are people concerned about people paying to play a game they don't enjoy?

What of it?

I care not for the "correctness" of either party tbh but these arguments ON BEHALF of other people are getting kind of tedious.


I don't care whether ice miners enjoy what they do. My point is that you cannot claim that the Ice Miner's lack of risk is balanced by their supposed lack of enjoyment.

This is a Multiplayer sandbox. You are free to do whatever you want to do. So is everyone else. Including "Screwing with what you want to do." Miners don't seem to understand the second part.

Nobody's saying mining should be eliminated, but miners are saying that people who mess with them (first it was canflippers, then it was suicide gankers, now it's bumpers) should have their options eliminated.

I gather you don't understand what I'm saying.

Yes. Fact. Miners are complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Fact (as evidenced within) - NON-miners are complaining and whining about miners complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Nobody is taking a step back and looking at first, the irony, secondly the hyprocrisy and then finally, at the stupidity of it all.

What are we ACTUALLY hoping to achieve in all this?
Is there an actual goal?

Perhaps everyone needs to start addressing this from a

THIS IS WHAT WE/I/US WANT DONE - put it up for discussion and debate the MERITS insofar as how to relates to ALL players in this, a single shard cold, dark and harsh universe.

And be cognizant of OTHER players in discussing the merits. Anything else is just accelerating climate change.


Move all ICE into lowsec.

In a risky environment a human outperforms a bot.

The price rise will make protection rackets, er, I mean paying a guarding fleet, a viable profession - which it isn't currently.

Null bears will have to venture outside

general carnage


While we're there, get rid of all meta0 loot, take the nocx out of pyrox, stop all loot refining producing anything isogen or above, and double the megacyte requirements for all blueprints. :-)

This will fix everything.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#47 - 2012-10-30 01:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Touval Lysander wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Why would people play a game to do something they didn't enjoy?

Why are people concerned about people paying to play a game they don't enjoy?

What of it?

I care not for the "correctness" of either party tbh but these arguments ON BEHALF of other people are getting kind of tedious.


I don't care whether ice miners enjoy what they do. My point is that you cannot claim that the Ice Miner's lack of risk is balanced by their supposed lack of enjoyment.

This is a Multiplayer sandbox. You are free to do whatever you want to do. So is everyone else. Including "Screwing with what you want to do." Miners don't seem to understand the second part.

Nobody's saying mining should be eliminated, but miners are saying that people who mess with them (first it was canflippers, then it was suicide gankers, now it's bumpers) should have their options eliminated.

I gather you don't understand what I'm saying.

Yes. Fact. Miners are complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Fact (as evidenced within) - NON-miners are complaining and whining about miners complaining, whining, ad infinitum.

Nobody is taking a step back and looking at first, the irony, secondly the hyprocrisy and then finally, at the stupidity of it all.

What are we ACTUALLY hoping to achieve in all this?
Is there an actual goal?

Perhaps everyone needs to start addressing this from a

THIS IS WHAT WE/I/US WANT DONE - put it up for discussion and debate the MERITS insofar as how to relates to ALL players in this, a single shard cold, dark and harsh universe.

And be cognizant of OTHER players in discussing the merits. Anything else is just accelerating climate change.


Here's what I want. And I've been saying this since the barge buffs landed on SISI.

There should be a purpose to the Skiff's tank. That means that, the skiff should have the best yield and cargo of any Exhumer that cannot be profitably ganked. This essentially means that it should be the only one that cannot be profitably ganked.

The Mackinaw and Hulk should be very profitable to gank when they're untanked and barely profitable (or breakeven) when fully tanked (though the Skiff should simply be better at that because that's how roles work).

To keep the Mackinaw viable, the Skiff would end up with a smaller cargo hold.

The result is that miners have a real choice between the following:
Passive Safety (EHP)
Convenience (Cargo)
Yield (er... Yield)

Pick one.

Active safety is always an option. Keep a Mackinaw or Hulk aligned or pay attention to your d-Scan, and you can be safe from suicide ganking no matter how few EHP you have.


In the alternative, depleting ice roids would curb some of the more flagrant abuse of the Mackinaw's Safe AFK mining, as would fixing GSC shields.


Right now, the Mack is tied in first for Passive Safety*, has Convenience locked up, and is a strong second for Yield. All at once.

*Once you're unprofitable to gank, you're safe from ganks under normal conditions. Things like Ice Interdictions are not ganking events. They're market manipulation, so the profit/loss of an individual gank isn't particularly relevant.


What's your position? Your post seems to indicate that it is just "people disagreeing is bad."

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#48 - 2012-10-30 01:34:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
To TL:DR you and Betoli

1) Move ice to lowsec
2) (re)balance exhumers
3) remove GSC shields (which is strange when miners are told to "defend" themselves)

What's the objective? Higher ice prices? Is that good for Eve as a whole? It only affects jumpers and POS owners - which by and large is mostly 0.0.

Keep in mind that when exhumers were (more) easily ganked, the bottom line on ice was not much removed from what it is now. Both interdictions were more about manipulating profit temporaily imho.

Quote:
What's your position? Your post seems to indicate that it is just "people disagreeing is bad."

It is when it serves no purpose. And my position is one of trying to fathom the angst - I think we're making mountains out of molehills and taking our eye off the ball.

You have to ask why all this kerfuffle without a reason to do so. I'm befuddled on it.

"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..."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#49 - 2012-10-30 01:59:42 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
To TL:DR you and Betoli

1) Move ice to lowsec
2) (re)balance exhumers
3) remove GSC shields (which is strange when miners are told to "defend" themselves)

What's the objective? Higher ice prices? Is that good for Eve as a whole? It only affects jumpers and POS owners - which by and large is mostly 0.0.

Keep in mind that when exhumers were (more) easily ganked, the bottom line on ice was not much removed from what it is now. Both interdictions were more about manipulating profit temporaily imho.

Quote:
What's your position? Your post seems to indicate that it is just "people disagreeing is bad."

It is when it serves no purpose. And my position is one of trying to fathom the angst - I think we're making mountains out of molehills and taking our eye off the ball.

You have to ask why all this kerfuffle without a reason to do so. I'm befuddled on it.


First, never said anything about moving Ice.
Second, where did anyone say "defend yourself by abusing broken mechanics." We've said defend yourself by making some effort to adapt. The ability to make yourself immune to the consequences of clustering re: Smartbombs is pretty clearly a bug.

What's the objective? Removing sources of Risk and Effort free income. Making the Skiff a viable ship, so that miners have a real choice between 3 Exhumers.
Higher Ice/Ore prices are good for the intelligent and/or industrious miners able to take advantage of them (like the many miners who mined all the way through HAG and never got ganked because they did adapt).
Most importantly, nowhere and no one in EVE is meant to be safe. Miners are currently safe* without any effort on their part.

*I have math showing that the upper bound of risk is about 1 gank in 100hrs of mining (3m ISK/hr). And that assumes only 500 miners are mining at any given time.

Ice was in fact quite a bit more expensive while there was active ganking going on than there is now.


What ball is it that you think our eyes are off? You have still yet to take a position other than "arguments are bad."

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#50 - 2012-10-30 02:13:06 UTC
I'm gobsmacked, NickyYo has finally made a post that doesn't make my braincells wish they were extinct Shocked

Infinite resources are bad, even the moon goo farmers agree that they are bad.

Implement depletion on ice, then ask the members of OTEC how to fix tech.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-10-30 02:35:39 UTC
NickyYo wrote:
and so they have to respawn.. look at this lolz
http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

IB4 tears.




Resistance is futile P

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#52 - 2012-10-30 03:13:38 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I'm gobsmacked, NickyYo has finally made a post that doesn't make my braincells wish they were extinct Shocked

Infinite resources are bad, even the moon goo farmers agree that they are bad.

Implement depletion on ice, then ask the members of OTEC how to fix tech.


Infinite resources are fine (Good, even. CCP tried a closed economy before, it failed badly). Infinite, Static, Risk-Free resources that can't be significantly disrupted (the latest cry is about bumping, which costs yield equal to how long it takes for you to wander back to your computer) are the problem.


By the way, my favorite answer to fixing tech:

Roll back T2 component material requirements to what the were pre-R64 nerf. (Possibly nerfing R64 Alchemy a little bit, since you do want the moons to be valuable enough to be worth fighting over, and we don't know the true effects of R64 alchemy because CCP radically changed component material requirements at the same time).

Then you have bottleneck materials that are spread out in varying concentrations all over EVE. You would have to be able to take and hold all of EVE to support a strong monopoly. At which point, I think you've earned it.

You'll have regions with very little in the way of R64s that are remote enough that defense isn't super worthwhile, so a small new alliance may be able to take a few moons without drawing the full force of the defending alliance down upon their heads. And now you have a new, independent alliance with a foothold and some alliance-level income. (This part about new alliances and footholds is what I hope will happen, and what happened with R64s in the past. No guarantees, the metagame may have shifted in flight, and YMMV.)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-10-30 03:16:53 UTC
Here's a thought I've been having

Leave ice mining where it is, but make "mid-sec" space out of 0.5

> No CONCORD, but local easier-to-defeat police forces will respond to criminal activity

> No response to criminal presence, any low-security player can be present and will only be responded to if they engage in criminal activity

I'm sure we can mash out some other ideas for a mid-sec style of space, but those are just some basic thoughts I've had. Making it easier to engage in criminal activities in hi-sec space, however, defeats the purpose of having hi-sec space, and while many of you want to think that you should be able to do whatever you want without consequence, I think this belittles the entitlement that all players have to enjoy the game without having to do so at the expense of another player's enjoyment.

I think a mid-sec compromise idea would be worth compromising for.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#54 - 2012-10-30 03:44:37 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Infinite resources are fine (Good, even. CCP tried a closed economy before, it failed badly). Infinite, Static, Risk-Free resources that can't be significantly disrupted (the latest cry is about bumping, which costs yield equal to how long it takes for you to wander back to your computer) are the problem.


As always Ruby you make a compelling argument, I was unaware that CCP had tried a closed economy in the past and failed, my bad P

I completely agree that resources which are immune to disruption are a problem, especially infinite ones that are in relatively safe space, which encourages afk harvesting.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-10-30 03:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
NickyYo wrote:
and so they have to respawn.. look at this lolz
http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

IB4 tears.


Why would you complain about this? That setup is a dream for smartbomb gankers.

RubyPorto wrote:

= Error. Cannot activate Smartbomb in the presence of GSC.


Well that's pretty lame. Lets fix this first.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#56 - 2012-10-30 04:15:00 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having

Leave ice mining where it is, but make "mid-sec" space out of 0.5

> No CONCORD, but local easier-to-defeat police forces will respond to criminal activity

> No response to criminal presence, any low-security player can be present and will only be responded to if they engage in criminal activity

I'm sure we can mash out some other ideas for a mid-sec style of space, but those are just some basic thoughts I've had. Making it easier to engage in criminal activities in hi-sec space, however, defeats the purpose of having hi-sec space, and while many of you want to think that you should be able to do whatever you want without consequence, I think this belittles the entitlement that all players have to enjoy the game without having to do so at the expense of another player's enjoyment.

I think a mid-sec compromise idea would be worth compromising for.


There is a middle-sec. It's called Low Sec.

HighSec without Concord is largely Low Sec. If your "middle sec" has tankable/beatble semi-Concord, it's low sec with mandatory Logi.

Also, the issue is that Ice mining is an income source that cannot be effectively disrupted. How does your proposal do anything to solve the problem? There are Ice belts in systems of .6-.7(.8?) security. Your proposal doesn't affect those.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#57 - 2012-10-30 05:02:08 UTC
After seeing that photo i have the sudden urge to mount an abbadon with full smartbombs... just saying.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#58 - 2012-10-30 05:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
RubyPorto wrote:

Also, the issue is that Ice mining is an income source that cannot be effectively disrupted.

Ice is cheap. So what? Risk / reward ratio is probably commensurate with the price.

The people selling it direct pay the price for their greed.
Those that mine it for jump fuel or POS's don't care what the price is.
Those that buy it outright for jump fuel or POS's would be happy with the price.

Now if you want to make heads roll because you won't gank then you need to CONVINCE someone that ganking ice miners is actually NECCESSARY to require change.

That's the bit missing.

"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..."
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#59 - 2012-10-30 06:20:52 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Infinite resources are fine (Good, even. CCP tried a closed economy before, it failed badly). Infinite, Static, Risk-Free resources that can't be significantly disrupted (the latest cry is about bumping, which costs yield equal to how long it takes for you to wander back to your computer) are the problem.


As always Ruby you make a compelling argument, I was unaware that CCP had tried a closed economy in the past and failed, my bad P

I completely agree that resources which are immune to disruption are a problem, especially infinite ones that are in relatively safe space, which encourages afk harvesting.


I agree that nothing should be immune to disruption. And nothing is.

Ice mining is, however, now immune to risk averse gankers popping Exhumers at next to no cost to themselves.

And I'm fine with that. It keeps the forum lively, don't you think?

Mr Epeen Cool
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#60 - 2012-10-30 06:33:24 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Infinite resources are fine (Good, even. CCP tried a closed economy before, it failed badly). Infinite, Static, Risk-Free resources that can't be significantly disrupted (the latest cry is about bumping, which costs yield equal to how long it takes for you to wander back to your computer) are the problem.


As always Ruby you make a compelling argument, I was unaware that CCP had tried a closed economy in the past and failed, my bad P

I completely agree that resources which are immune to disruption are a problem, especially infinite ones that are in relatively safe space, which encourages afk harvesting.


I agree that nothing should be immune to disruption. And nothing is.

Ice mining is, however, now immune to risk averse gankers popping Exhumers at next to no cost to themselves.

And I'm fine with that. It keeps the forum lively, don't you think?

Mr Epeen Cool

Yes. If only we could move onto something, you know, important?

"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..."