These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where's Red Frog an Push on this nerf NPC thing?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#41 - 2013-02-04 19:54:26 UTC
Mutnin wrote:
I agree easy solution is to remove Concord..


Leave hi-sec and you have what you asked for. Wow that was easy.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-02-04 20:03:06 UTC
i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#43 - 2013-02-04 20:04:12 UTC
Vexen Lyre wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Again, a solution is to disallow the accepting of courier contracts by players in NPC corps. To freighter contracts, freighter pilots would have to be in player run corps.


Anyone can pick up a public contract though. Are you going to wardec every single courier you see?

that could get very expensive and also doesn't stop them delivering as it takes 24 hours for them to become a target.


It still removes the element of npc corp freighter pilots running contracts for player corps. At least then, the pilots corp can be war decced, where now an npc corp cannot. So to me thats a better solution than some are proposing for the removal of npc corps, or allow npc corps to be decced, which will never happen because ccp wont do it. So im trying to keep my idea in the scope of something ccp would actually go for, not the fantasy that we will ever get to attack npc corps without concord response in highsec.
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#44 - 2013-02-04 20:08:29 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical

Like ccp will ever remove concord or allow us to dec npc corps and gank anyone with no loss to our own ship. We can wish all we want, but goodluck convincing ccp.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#45 - 2013-02-04 20:09:06 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Fey Ivory wrote:
Eve is a alive universe, its set up with a high secutiry space, low security space, and null security... where each of these areas have rules that aply to them, high security space is soosed to be safer... looking at the rules that is in place, i can either yoin a player corp, or make my own corp, and be open to wardecs, considering the costs for wardecs, wich is a joke, i CHOOSE to be employed by the gallente corp CAS, all acording to the rules and how the Eve universe is set up... i want the high sec to be high security, if i want danger ill go to low sec and null...
Right, highsec was intended to be safer, not "safe". It was never intended to be based around a "PVP/danger optional" design. This is why corphopping and wardec evasion were for the majority of EVE history considered an exploit, before relatively recently being declared 'no longer an exploit' by GM Homonoia. Homonoia did this presumably because wardec evasion was the only way for PvErs in highsec to stay competitive against each other in the pursuit of ISK (danger and loss being unneccessary overhead), and its use was spiralling out of control and no longer enforceable by the GMs. It was never an intended 'feature' of highsec. Now players such as yourself have been raised on the status quo and believe that this is what it was meant to be. I'd say highsec's original design was best where players still had recourse to compete directly as well as indirectly through the market, and that allowing such to happen (by puttin in place corphop timers and making NPC corps individually deccable) would result in better gameplay for everyone.



Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?

Wardecs are one thing. You know pvp could be possible so you could be semi prepared or base your activities off that wardec.

Ganking is another matter. Either miner or freighter both are set up to acomplish their mission or goal. They get ganked people scream htfu should have went tank bla bla bla.

Ganking is nothing but a form of griefing. The frieghter or miner only has concord. Gankers can bring more dps than the ganked could ever hope to tank. Niether can fight back, yet you call it pvp, but it is not.


There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp. The problem is gankers dont want this because those people might shoot back and they could die to somone besides concord.

Keep clubing those baby seals on the beach and call it sport (pvp).
ashley Eoner
#46 - 2013-02-04 20:18:03 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Part of the problem is that wardecs themselves are too expensive, wide-encompassing and don't actually resolve the ostensible reason for their existence - resource/access contention.

I mean it's not like under the current system if you're in a mining corp that grew claws and camped the small ganker corp into a station that you're going to disband half your fleet and go back to belt mining or whatever. And at the end of the day if the defender or aggressor chooses not to engage and really forfeit the war, there's no negative consequences for not doing so.

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.
2) There should be some sort of tracking system to see who is winning a war, either through a FW-style control point system or isk ratio or whatever
3) There should be consequences for coming out of a war as a loser over small-scale objectives, such as generating a criminal flag for entering a 'lost' belt, or being unable to use the station services (but still dock) over a 'lost' contested station.

There is already a tracking system for wars...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2013-02-04 20:20:38 UTC
But it doesn't resolve a 'winner' in the case of a war where 0 combat was had because one side didn't undock, which is what I was looking to address.
Vexen Lyre
Doomheim
#48 - 2013-02-04 20:21:58 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical


this must be the better troll a bit just in case people think i'm taking my posts too seriously post.

Docked in Jita - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-02-04 20:24:07 UTC
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?
Any ship is profitable to gank if it has expensive modules in it and no tank modules of any kind fitted. And yes that's how it is designed - otherwise loot wouldn't drop on kills. What you and your kind seem to have done is taken that system and expanded it to some sort of interpretation of EVE as a PvP-optional game where you are entitled to failfit your ships.

Quote:
There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp. The problem is gankers dont want this because those people might shoot back and they could die to somone besides concord.
I've heard of it.
Vexen Lyre
Doomheim
#50 - 2013-02-04 20:25:08 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Vexen Lyre wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Again, a solution is to disallow the accepting of courier contracts by players in NPC corps. To freighter contracts, freighter pilots would have to be in player run corps.


Anyone can pick up a public contract though. Are you going to wardec every single courier you see?

that could get very expensive and also doesn't stop them delivering as it takes 24 hours for them to become a target.


It still removes the element of npc corp freighter pilots running contracts for player corps. At least then, the pilots corp can be war decced, where now an npc corp cannot. So to me thats a better solution than some are proposing for the removal of npc corps, or allow npc corps to be decced, which will never happen because ccp wont do it. So im trying to keep my idea in the scope of something ccp would actually go for, not the fantasy that we will ever get to attack npc corps without concord response in highsec.


would it not be better to limit capital ships to player corps? courier is a noob career afterall.

Docked in Jita - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-02-04 20:26:45 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.


OK, this is honestly the point where I just say no. You don't own anything in high sec. You hold no claim to anything in high sec beyond what's in your hangars, and your high sec structures and PIs. Now perhaps you could argue for kill rights on trespassers into the territory of your POS regardless of their corp status, or against those who are impeding on PI resources you claimed first in a way to "encourage" them to back off and as part of the DUST system where you and others could be fighting someone in an effort to claim the skies to help your dustbunny mercs, but beyond that? Yeah, no, there are places to hold those kind of claims. High sec isn't it.
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#52 - 2013-02-04 20:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: XxRTEKxX
Vexen Lyre wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Vexen Lyre wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Again, a solution is to disallow the accepting of courier contracts by players in NPC corps. To freighter contracts, freighter pilots would have to be in player run corps.


Anyone can pick up a public contract though. Are you going to wardec every single courier you see?

that could get very expensive and also doesn't stop them delivering as it takes 24 hours for them to become a target.


It still removes the element of npc corp freighter pilots running contracts for player corps. At least then, the pilots corp can be war decced, where now an npc corp cannot. So to me thats a better solution than some are proposing for the removal of npc corps, or allow npc corps to be decced, which will never happen because ccp wont do it. So im trying to keep my idea in the scope of something ccp would actually go for, not the fantasy that we will ever get to attack npc corps without concord response in highsec.


would it not be better to limit capital ships to player corps? courier is a noob career afterall.


Why not both? Courier contract and use of capital ships be prohibited unlesz you are in a player corp. I dont have any problems with either. Or courier contracts that require use of a capital ship be restricted to player corps. Then it allows noobs to do lower level courier contract while preventing use of capital ships, orcas included.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-02-04 20:29:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.


OK, this is honestly the point where I just say no. You don't own anything in high sec. You hold no claim to anything in high sec beyond what's in your hangars, and your high sec structures and PIs. Now perhaps you could argue for kill rights on trespassers into the territory of your POS regardless of their corp status, or against those who are impeding on PI resources you claimed first in a way to "encourage" them to back off and as part of the DUST system where you and others could be fighting someone in an effort to claim the skies to help your dustbunny mercs, but beyond that? Yeah, no, there are places to hold those kind of claims. High sec isn't it.

It's funny because your alliance leader Kelduum advocated a very similar system, except in his system someone would anchor a "0.0 bubble" in highsec where wardecs would be fought out.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-02-04 20:38:24 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.


OK, this is honestly the point where I just say no. You don't own anything in high sec. You hold no claim to anything in high sec beyond what's in your hangars, and your high sec structures and PIs. Now perhaps you could argue for kill rights on trespassers into the territory of your POS regardless of their corp status, or against those who are impeding on PI resources you claimed first in a way to "encourage" them to back off and as part of the DUST system where you and others could be fighting someone in an effort to claim the skies to help your dustbunny mercs, but beyond that? Yeah, no, there are places to hold those kind of claims. High sec isn't it.

It's funny because your alliance leader Kelduum advocated a very similar system, except in his system someone would anchor a "0.0 bubble" in highsec where wardecs would be fought out.


And what's your point? People have differing viewpoints, even within the same corp. Why should corp ever be indicative of someone opinion on something unless that corp is focused entirely on that subject? If people only joined corps where they agreed with the leaders on EVERYTHING, you wouldn't have corps with more than like... five people. If that.
Dr No Game
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#55 - 2013-02-04 20:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr No Game
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?

"Not for profit" - So, CCP has said it's ok to blow people up under the current mechanics, just not if they make a profit doing so? How much is considered a profit, specifically? What if my only profit is your tears, how many tears must be shed before it's no longer OK? Also, feel free to link one of these "previous posts".

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Wardecs are one thing. You know pvp could be possible so you could be semi prepared or base your activities off that wardec.

Yes PvP is possible in Eve (*gasp*) and you should be acknowledging and preparing for this every time you log in. In fact, you should prepare for this when you move goods from one location to another!

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

Ganking is nothing but a form of griefing. The frieghter or miner only has concord. Gankers can bring more dps than the ganked could ever hope to tank. Niether can fight back, yet you call it pvp, but it is not.

Really, it is numerically impossible to tank your freighter enough to make the ISK to gank it not worth the profit? Ever considered alternatives like, I dunno, Scouting? Or perhaps taking a different route? Maybe hauling less goods at once?

HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:

There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Vexen Lyre
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-02-04 20:40:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vexen Lyre
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Why not both? Courier contract and use of capital ships be prohibited unlesz you are in a player corp. I dont have any problems with either.


because noobs won't be able to access a career. as it is they can't trial industrials.

what's the max expanded indy anyway, like 45Km3 or thereabouts? bet that pops easy too!

I have an idea which might work - you can't wardec any player corp under 10 members. However, you need at least 10 members to have a POS/capitals all that good stuff.

that needs at least 4 accounts to set up a playercorp and you back out all your toons then you lose the ability to fly capitals. make corp hopping an exploit or have a timer that lasts... a week, same as the wardec.

should solve NPC corp 'problems' and solo corp problems.

i just made mine for ***** and giggles. it took 8 minutes of training lol.

EDIT: inb4 your edits.

Docked in Jita - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#57 - 2013-02-04 20:48:55 UTC  |  Edited by: EI Digin
If you want highsec to be the training ground, you have to get players to make friends so they can work together to have fun playing the game and to defeat people who harass them. Training players to drop to an NPC corp or to make their own 1 man corp for optimal profit is detrimental to the game, because you are limiting their play experience and removing them from combat, a major part of the game, almost entirely. You shouldn't allow players to bury their heads into the sandbox, which is what wardec dodging allows players to do.

You will see wardecs, hiring mercenaries, and fighting back become more viable if corporations are willing to shell out some money and have enough players for defense purposes. And of course, if you and your group of players pick a good secluded spot in highsec to live in, you'd probably never have to worry about safety because you can scout out potential hostiles (including gankers!) easily.

There's plenty of ways to stay safe if you are a target, people just don't even try to fight back because they simply don't need to, or because they don't have the human/isk resources that a player group has.
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#58 - 2013-02-04 20:49:21 UTC
Vexen Lyre wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Why not both? Courier contract and use of capital ships be prohibited unlesz you are in a player corp. I dont have any problems with either.


because noobs won't be able to access a career. as it is they can't trial industrials.

what's the max expanded indy anyway, like 45Km3 or thereabouts? bet that pops easy too!

I have an idea which might work - you can't wardec any player corp under 10 members. However, you need at least 10 members to have a POS/capitals all that good stuff.

that needs at least 4 accounts to set up a playercorp and you back out all your toons then you lose the ability to fly capitals. make corp hopping an exploit or have a timer that lasts... a week, same as the wardec.

should solve NPC corp 'problems' and solo corp problems.

i just made mine for ***** and giggles. it took 8 minutes of training lol.

EDIT: inb4 your edits.


Keeping it simple will have a higher chance of ccp implementing into the game. If we propose too many rules, restrictions and prerequisites, ccp will overlook it all.

Im sticking with pushing for any courier contract requiring use of a capital ship can only be accepted by a non-npc corp entity. As well as capital ships can only undock in high sec if the pilot is in a player corp.
Vexen Lyre
Doomheim
#59 - 2013-02-04 21:14:20 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
[quote=Vexen Lyre]Keeping it simple will have a higher chance of ccp implementing into the game. If we propose too many rules, restrictions and prerequisites, ccp will overlook it all.

Im sticking with pushing for any courier contract requiring use of a capital ship can only be accepted by a non-npc corp entity. As well as capital ships can only undock in high sec if the pilot is in a player corp.


it seems a little redundant though as (afaik) you can't split courier packages after they've been contracted so only a player character is ever going to take a freighter sized contract.

Docked in Jita - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-02-04 21:24:33 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Keeping it simple will have a higher chance of ccp implementing into the game. If we propose too many rules, restrictions and prerequisites, ccp will overlook it all.

Im sticking with pushing for any courier contract requiring use of a capital ship can only be accepted by a non-npc corp entity. As well as capital ships can only undock in high sec if the pilot is in a player corp.


Could make it more where capital sized courier jobs require only one or the other to be non-NPC corped, and any wardecs temporarily transfer over to someone with the contract... and limit the number of contracts you can accept from a single person at a time so it doesn't instead end up being a bunch of small orders being transferred instead. Even that could be a bit shaky though. Flat out taking away content is rarely a good idea. Would have been an effective idea in the early stages of the system, but now its an incredibly dangerous concept.