These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#41 - 2011-10-29 18:05:39 UTC
How about this? Make it so you can't biomass an alt with a negative security status and you can't shoot anybody in high sec on a trial account. Would that be a change everybody could live with?
Lil' Miss Sunshine
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-10-29 18:08:58 UTC
Feilamya wrote:
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!


What this would do is force people to join big alliances for protection, become pets and drones and pretty much do what the almighty emperor desires you to do. If I wanted to play this playstyle I would have already been in null sec.
Houseki Shoujo
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2011-10-29 18:13:00 UTC
What if there was a distress call? one that if someone was in the system they could click the button and be warped in to help out. Just an idea to throw out.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#44 - 2011-10-29 18:15:15 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


Im rather amazed and scared that he would think that poetic stanza's comments are apparently the voice of the community with that "So I should think this is not wanted" thing O.o

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#45 - 2011-10-29 18:21:09 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
But best to assume they are acting upon that conversation unless they confirm otherwise.


I like this part best.
"best to panic now and if the dont do it we can be relieved later"

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Comy 1
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2011-10-29 18:24:38 UTC
Teamosil wrote:
How about this? Make it so you can't biomass an alt with a negative security status and you can't shoot anybody in high sec on a trial account. Would that be a change everybody could live with?


This might help a bit, but in the end I think it will only end up as limitations in the game since there will still be alot of people using other ways to exploit. I'm not gonna describe exactly how they do it, but haven't you seen all of the 3 weeks or so old amarr characters in noob corps sitting in apocs suicide ganking?

These rules will not stop them.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#47 - 2011-10-29 18:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Hammond II
Chancellor November wrote:

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?


cant you read? The gankers want the MINERS to adapt. Not the gankers to have to adapt

lol

Shadowsword wrote:
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.


A.) wouldnt any mittens being advised anything in the first place then be a NDA breach?
B.) recycling alts (and CCP's lack of manpower/impossibility to report this) fixes sec loss.

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#48 - 2011-10-29 18:27:13 UTC
For the record i don't care either way.. but serioulsy bro?! You give with one hand (Tier 3 bc's) and take with another (apparently).


Come to think off souds fair,.. but meh.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#49 - 2011-10-29 18:34:37 UTC
Comy 1 wrote:
Teamosil wrote:
How about this? Make it so you can't biomass an alt with a negative security status and you can't shoot anybody in high sec on a trial account. Would that be a change everybody could live with?


This might help a bit, but in the end I think it will only end up as limitations in the game since there will still be alot of people using other ways to exploit. I'm not gonna describe exactly how they do it, but haven't you seen all of the 3 weeks or so old amarr characters in noob corps sitting in apocs suicide ganking?

These rules will not stop them.


Maybe I'm missing something, but I would think that would be exactly what it would stop. I'm assuming that they just use those characters for however long they can before their security status drops too low, biomass, and roll new ones. Is that not true?

But, IMO the goal with that kind of approach wouldn't be to prevent suicide ganking. Just to make the people doing it face the consequences. They'd either have to grind their security status back up periodically or do the orca trick. Either way, that seems more like a fair fight to me. If they're grinding security status up, they're certainly putting in the effort and deserve the reward. If they're using an orca then the person getting ganked gets a lot of warning and it limits their options pretty dramatically since that approach doesn't really work for gate and station camping. Plus it means they have a little skin in the game since people could actually set them back a bit by suicide ganking their orca.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#50 - 2011-10-29 18:36:25 UTC
I don't see the problem with updating CONCORD.

First: Gankers cried for years about unprobable ships until CCP relented and let them have their way.
Second: Risk and reward people. Remember. Gankers have no risk. Zero. That is NOT Eve.

Stronger exumers tanks, remove insurance payouts for ganker ships, and have all gankers immediently teleported to some remote corner of nul-sec (or WH) with each gank.

Solved.

DI

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#51 - 2011-10-29 18:37:06 UTC
we should get poetic stanza to tell Hilmar to remove concord and high sec. He'll think its the whole playerbase talking and do it

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-10-29 18:37:54 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
we should get poetic stanza to tell Hilmar to remove concord and high sec.
I don't want that.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#53 - 2011-10-29 18:40:01 UTC
Houseki Shoujo wrote:
What if there was a distress call? one that if someone was in the system they could click the button and be warped in to help out. Just an idea to throw out.


except that by the time they warp to you you are dead lol

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#54 - 2011-10-29 18:41:06 UTC
CCP Trollmar hits conspiracy theorists for wrecking damage!

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#55 - 2011-10-29 18:43:21 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
CCP Trollmar hits conspiracy theorists for wrecking damage!


what took you guys so long O.o

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Houseki Shoujo
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2011-10-29 18:47:38 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Houseki Shoujo wrote:
What if there was a distress call? one that if someone was in the system they could click the button and be warped in to help out. Just an idea to throw out.


except that by the time they warp to you you are dead lol


guess that would be true. All well.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#57 - 2011-10-29 18:48:55 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Houseki Shoujo wrote:
What if there was a distress call? one that if someone was in the system they could click the button and be warped in to help out. Just an idea to throw out.


except that by the time they warp to you you are dead lol


Yeah, that's true, but I do like the premise. If there is a way for players to solve the issue that doesn't require like setting up a huge corporation and organizing everything in advance that certainly would be appealing. Like maybe they set it up so that if you get shot first in hi sec you can hit a distress button. It immobilizes you, cancels CONCORDE, prevents you from doing anything at all, but makes you invulnerable for 90 seconds and sends out a distress call to local that people can click on to warp to you.

I haven't thought that through, but you get my drift I think. Something where the players could protect one another would be cool.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#58 - 2011-10-29 18:59:50 UTC
Teamosil wrote:
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Houseki Shoujo wrote:
What if there was a distress call? one that if someone was in the system they could click the button and be warped in to help out. Just an idea to throw out.


except that by the time they warp to you you are dead lol


Yeah, that's true, but I do like the premise. If there is a way for players to solve the issue that doesn't require like setting up a huge corporation and organizing everything in advance that certainly would be appealing. Like maybe they set it up so that if you get shot first in hi sec you can hit a distress button. It immobilizes you, cancels CONCORDE, prevents you from doing anything at all, but makes you invulnerable for 90 seconds and sends out a distress call to local that people can click on to warp to you.

I haven't thought that through, but you get my drift I think. Something where the players could protect one another would be cool.


Yeah I dont think making the miners invulnerable goes along with the whole "no safety in space" thing

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#59 - 2011-10-29 19:11:32 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Yeah I dont think making the miners invulnerable goes along with the whole "no safety in space" thing


It isn't so much "making the miners invulnerable" as it is giving the miner the option of having 90 seconds to try to pull together their own defense instead of relying on CONCORDE.

It's a pretty even tradeoff I think. Keep in mind that I said it would cancel the call to CONCORDE. WIthout CONCORDE coming to your rescue you're relying on whatever pilots are in space in combat ships that are willing to come help you out putting their own ships at risk in the process. Could be some times you hit the button nobody comes, other times 10 people come. Since you cancelled CONCORDE, if the ganker survives those 90 seconds they can pop you without losing their own ship, so they're something more in it for them too. Probably a lot of times, only one ship would show up to rescue you and the gankers could just blow them up easily too and double their kills. And it would be converting PvHelplessMiner into PvP, which seems a lot more fun to me...
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2011-10-29 19:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Sentient Blade wrote:
What gets me is why they don't up the defences on the mining barges and other exhumers. ORE needs to get their ass in gear. If I was designing ships that kept getting blown up I'd see to it that they got more armour slapped on them.

As for CONCORD -- an increasing % of security status loss would probably be in order. For example, if you repeatedly gank you should suffer a greater security status penalty each time than if you do it rarely. This log should probably run for 3 to 6 months.



I would gather the reason goes something like this: Mining barges appeal to a specific portion of the game's populace. Ganking affects anyone in hisec. Therefore, Concord gets the buff because ganking to the extent that it has become is a detriment to the game's overall health. By buffing one you bascially buff every other ship in hisec indirectly.

I suspect there is a certain amount of resistance to buffing the barges themselves due to RMT's reliance on them. CCP wants barges to be ganked, just not in hisec where most of the beginning players are located?

Don't ban me, bro!