These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

@ Hilmar and Zulu. Care to elaborate?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chancellor November
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2011-10-29 16:54:30 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
https://twitter.com/#!/ArnarHrafn/status/121939274303143936

Are you serious or just trolling?

Serioulsy hope you're trolling...

He wasn't trolling. I thought he was. He was offended that I thought he was.

https://twitter.com/#!/HilmarVeigar/status/122062994824900608

https://twitter.com/#!/HilmarVeigar/status/122073565842518017

My final two replies to him went unanswered:

https://twitter.com/#!/PoeticStanziel/status/122066794918854656

https://twitter.com/#!/PoeticStanziel/status/122166106629734400

God knows, this game needs smarter NPC's... if (finally) getting around to doing that means that Concord gets cleverer, then what the hell's the problem? It's Eve... you adapt, or you don't... big deal.

In other threads we have (and have had - for years) people whining about how much Isk 'carebears' make from level 4's... do I think Level 4's pay out too much? No, not at all... I think they pay out a good amount -- I just think they're far too bloody easy. Far too predictable --- like Concord.

Bring in something new to the mix. Why not?
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#22 - 2011-10-29 16:55:10 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
https://twitter.com/#!/ArnarHrafn/status/121939274303143936

Are you serious or just trolling?

Serioulsy hope you're trolling...

He wasn't trolling. I thought he was. He was offended that I thought he was.

https://twitter.com/#!/HilmarVeigar/status/122062994824900608

https://twitter.com/#!/HilmarVeigar/status/122073565842518017

My final two replies to him went unanswered:

https://twitter.com/#!/PoeticStanziel/status/122066794918854656

https://twitter.com/#!/PoeticStanziel/status/122166106629734400



How about now they blow you up before they show up? Lol


ROFL.. +1
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-10-29 16:57:30 UTC
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
holy crap... goons actually caused a flood of tears that got CCP to act.
just Amazing...



Sigh...

Look at the date. This twit is from october 6. Back then, the goon campaign was barely starting and the whining wasn't much.


I'm all for suicide ganking, but I'm also in favor of decisions having consequences. And when some random use a disposable alt with a thrasher or brutix to do a gank, where is the consequence? The sec statut loss isn't a big deal, and the isk loss is pathetic. 10 minutes worth of farming.

Let's be honest, it is currently far to cheap to gank someone. You should need hours of farming or sec statut grinding to recover from a gank.

But that is an issue that predate the Goon campaign.


In fact, I suspect one of the following scenarios:

- Mittani was informed about CCP wanting to do something about suicide ganks, and decided to do it all-out while it was still there.
- Mittani was informed about CCP blabla, and saw the opportunity to anticipate and make it look like he was the one forcing CCP to change game mechanics. Ego stroking on a massive scale.
- Mittani blabla, and saw an opportunity to get even richer, speculating on oxytopes and creating this "protection fee" scheme.
- All of the above.
Cunane Jeran
#24 - 2011-10-29 17:03:17 UTC
It's a fair shout, I just say have concord kill outlaws when they enter a system like they use to instead of the faction navies. Job done.
Feilamya
#25 - 2011-10-29 17:06:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Feilamya
The roots of the ganking problem are clearly CONCORD and lack of consequences.

1. Let's have a look at CONCORD first. Mining barges are weak, untankable ships. So what can we do to protect them? Bring a strong force of PVP ships, camp the gates, guard the hulks and macks and shoot everything that even remotely looks like a goon. But wait, this isn't possible, because everytime a security ship opens fire on a goon, CONCORD shoots the security ship, NOT the goon. Is this what an effective and lawful internet spaceship police force should do?

SOLUTION: Remove CONCORD!


2.Now let's talk about consequences. I see people talking about sec status loss, CONCORD intevention and no insurance for ships involved in criminal activity. You call THAT consequences? SRSLY? The only force in this game which is strong, determined and (to some extent) smart enough to provide consequences are the players. But once again, they can't. And why? You guessed right: It's because of CONCORD!

SOLUTION: Remove CONCORD!


The more hardcore a PVP system is, the less "ganking just for lulz" there will be. This is a fact that only few people have realized, because it is counter-intuitive. The truth is that gankers and griefers need safe zones and other PVP-preventing game mechanics much more than carebears do, because everyone hates them, so they usually have less friends to protect them. This doesn't mean that gankers wouldn't be able to survive in an EVE without highsec. COMPETENT and profit-oriented gankers could! However, these are much less numerous than the average griefers who currently are enjoying the safety provided by a game mechanic that, ironically, was designed to protect the carebears and can never be made powerful enough to do so.
Kalicor Lightwind
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-29 17:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalicor Lightwind
The only force which is going to be a reliable deterrent is NPCs because players don't actually live in this game.

Concord being gone would be okay if it wasn't like 75% of this game's job to just make other peoples' lives harder =P
Comy 1
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2011-10-29 17:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Comy 1
If they change anything I would assume that it is a way to either:

1) Make it alot harder for outlaws to keep ganking.

2) Prevent people from pulling Concord away from a spot with a noob alt/ship

This will not stop people from alpha killing a ship though, nor is there a way to stop a player with sufficient security status from suiciding unless they completely break the game.
luZk
Fivrelde Corp
#28 - 2011-10-29 17:16:21 UTC
"CCP Engineering Alliance surrenders to Goonswarm Federation"

http://i.imgur.com/1dl4DM6.jpg
Feilamya
#29 - 2011-10-29 17:20:11 UTC
Comy 1 wrote:
If they change anything I would assume that it is a way to either:

1) Make it alot harder for outlaws to keep ganking.

2) Prevent people from pulling Concord away from a spot with a noob alt/ship

This will not stop people from alpha killing a ship though, nor is there a way to stop a player with sufficient security status from suiciding unless they completely break the game.

It will only make alt-recycling more common.

Yes I know this is a punishable exploit, but we already know that CCP don't have the resources to police wardec mechanics, so why would they be policing alt-recycling?

Gankers will always find a way.
Carebears on the other hand will always cry for CCP to adapt the game for them.
In the end, this becomes a game of gankers vs. CCP.
Is this what you think a sandbox should be like?

If gankers can adapt, so can carebears. Give them a chance!
Give carebears the tools to adapt to the situation!
Remove highsec!
Put balancing in the hands of the players!
trexinatux
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-10-29 17:28:45 UTC
Goons say this. CCP says that. Trolls call trolls. Still my POS has NO FUEL!

Helpless people on subway trains...
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2011-10-29 17:29:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
CCP is considering upping the current Mickey Mouse consequences on hi sec suicide gankers?

Brace yourselves. Massive goon/gankbear tear flood incoming!

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#32 - 2011-10-29 17:32:28 UTC
"deal with it!" .. Noooooooooo .. that is the leet high-sec PvP'ers line .. not fair using it against them!!!!11111
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#33 - 2011-10-29 17:34:23 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:
- Mittani was informed about CCP blabla, and saw the opportunity to anticipate and make it look like he was the one forcing CCP to change game mechanics. Ego stroking on a massive scale.

- Mittani blabla, and saw an opportunity to get even richer, speculating on oxytopes and creating this "protection fee" scheme.


I'd choose these two tbh.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#34 - 2011-10-29 17:38:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Teamosil
Feilamya wrote:
Mining barges are weak, untankable ships. So what can we do to protect them? Bring a strong force of PVP ships, camp the gates, guard the hulks and macks and shoot everything that even remotely looks like a goon.


You seem to be assuming that every player is (or wants to be) a member of a hardcore alliance potentially capable of fielding a large number of coordinated pilots dedicated to security duty 23/7. That isn't the case though. For many veteran players being in an alliance like that is unappealing and for most less experienced players it isn't really even an option. And for those who do find that appealing and who are experienced enough to actually get into such an alliance, they already are able to do that out in null sec, low sec or wormholes anyways.
Marcus Janus
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2011-10-29 17:38:40 UTC
Feilamya wrote:
Comy 1 wrote:
If they change anything I would assume that it is a way to either:

1) Make it alot harder for outlaws to keep ganking.

2) Prevent people from pulling Concord away from a spot with a noob alt/ship

This will not stop people from alpha killing a ship though, nor is there a way to stop a player with sufficient security status from suiciding unless they completely break the game.

It will only make alt-recycling more common.

Yes I know this is a punishable exploit, but we already know that CCP don't have the resources to police wardec mechanics, so why would they be policing alt-recycling?

Gankers will always find a way.
Carebears on the other hand will always cry for CCP to adapt the game for them.
In the end, this becomes a game of gankers vs. CCP.
Is this what you think a sandbox should be like?

If gankers can adapt, so can carebears. Give them a chance!
Give carebears the tools to adapt to the situation!
Remove highsec!
Put balancing in the hands of the players!




TLDR version

PEOPLE DONT PLAY LIKE I DO WAAAAAAAAAAAH
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-10-29 17:41:28 UTC
Personally I think that players should have to call the police themselves.

Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.  Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2011-10-29 17:45:19 UTC
"We need to look at it"

I can totally see how such a statement means the game is going down the toilet, that the devs are horrible people, that you actually needed to create yet another whine thread on a forum that is already full of them from people crying over NOTHING.

People are seriously pathetic.
Lil' Miss Sunshine
Doomheim
#38 - 2011-10-29 17:53:14 UTC
What is this game coming to when you cannot grief high sec players in peace anymore :(
Feilamya
#39 - 2011-10-29 17:57:05 UTC
Marcus Janus wrote:
PEOPLE DONT PLAY LIKE I DO WAAAAAAAAAAAH

On the contrary: People DO play the way I do: They hide behind the safety of highsec when they need to. The only difference between me and John Q. Carebear is that I know better than to fully rely on CONCORD to provide safety, so I take the necessary precautions. This, however, is nothing I need to be griefing about. If carebears are incompetent, it is their problem, not mine.

With the changes I proposed, people would have the opportunity NOT to play like I do. They would be able to take their safety into their own hands, rather than rely on CONCORD. It would open up for different styles of gameplay which are not possible at this time.

Embrace the sandbox!
Remove highsec! Remove CONCORD!
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
#40 - 2011-10-29 17:57:45 UTC
Feilamya wrote:
Mining barges are weak, untankable ships. So what can we do to protect them? Bring a strong force of PVP ships, camp the gates, guard the hulks and macks and shoot everything that even remotely looks like a goon.


Teamosil wrote:
You seem to be assuming that every player is (or wants to be) a member of a hardcore alliance potentially capable of fielding a large number of coordinated pilots dedicated to security duty 23/7.


Yeah, I agree. EVE as it is makes it impossible to properly guard ships. You might be able to use remote repair modules on ships that are already strong, but with their cycle time protecting a weak barge or more than one is a game of chance and dice.
Defending a system is not really possible either since you cannot aggress people without a sec hit or CONCORD action if you are in high sec. We tried that for a while in low sec and all we got was flooded by cheap alts forcing us to approach outlaw status.

Besides, mining already is one of the most boring activities in the game. Defending miners is that and more - by the time an aggressor shows up your brain cells have already left the building.

I'm not really up to current events with ganks and all. I think it is good that they are possible, but they should have some consequences besides "Oh, I need to roll up a new alt". Especiallly since it's a very one-sided affair - the miner has no choice except not to undock. That makes the choices for the miner very unattractive: either don't play at all, or play and risk losing a lot of money without proper chance of retaliation. Being ganked over and over might be hurting the EVE subscribers more than the Day of the Monocle. Look at it from a miner's perspective: he makes some pittance with a mind-numbing activity, and suddenly his ship is blown up in ten seconds or less.
And don't tell me "tank your ship", I have an alt in a wormhole who flies barges, and those things lack everything to mount a decent defence. Even with a command ship booster there's always something that can easily kill it.

Alternatively give miners something to work with. I have no idea what though. I think just boosting CONCORD or increasing sec level loss is boring and would not help much. If the miner could do anything - and if it's only a popup "XYZ is trying to gank you. Allow it? Yes/No" Lol things might be a bit better. I don't feel bad if my light tank gets blown up in WoT because I always have some options, and if it's only to locate enemy tanks. If I only were fodder I'd quit fast.