These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

(Moderators, Please Lock Thread) To those miners and missioners who wish to be left alone.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#181 - 2011-11-01 16:40:03 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:


I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.


Most likely this.
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#182 - 2011-11-01 16:47:46 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
There needs to be a threat to high sec miners, belt rats are not one. So leave suiciding the way it is or up belt rats to the point where you need a fitted tank to survive. Up mining ship tanks across the board to compensate for these stronger belt rats so miners aren't gimped but restrict drones on mining ships to mining drones only. These spawns will also escalate in damage eventually to the point where no mining ships should be able to survive without external support. Two options, get support from others or warp to a different belt and wait for despawn.

Mining needs to be more dangerous, the occasional gank outside of the goon blue ice fun is not dangerous, a minor nuisance perhaps. Belt rats need buff (in damage, not in ISK, no one farms belt rats in high-sec anyway and there is no reason to add incentive). Starter systems can be the exception to the rule for these belt rats with weak belt rats spawning there but there should be a large reduction in the asteroids in these systems.


Belt rats in a 0.5 system can barely scratch the paint on my hulk, but they used to rip me a new one in a retriever, so be careful what you wish for here.
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#183 - 2011-11-01 17:44:15 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:

I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.


This is actually something I'd be curious about. Not the forum posts, but what would actually happen to New Eden's economy if one day the miners all went on strike (bots included.) I'm sure there are stockpiles of minerals, so it would take a while for the impact, but still...

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#184 - 2011-11-01 17:49:53 UTC
More chaos is needed in high sec !

Invite each and every -10 and gank everything from 1.0 to 0.5

Kill haulers, missioners, miners, passers, noobs, everything on your overview just gank it!

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#185 - 2011-11-01 17:52:53 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
This is actually something I'd be curious about. Not the forum posts, but what would actually happen to New Eden's economy if one day the miners all went on strike (bots included.) I'm sure there are stockpiles of minerals, so it would take a while for the impact, but still...


For this to ever happen all the big alliances should kill or stop their own bots, wich will never happen.

Would like to see if they were ever capable of stop their own, or by any chance CCP just clean them up (and all related accounts) what would happen.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#186 - 2011-11-01 18:11:38 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
More chaos is needed in high sec !

Invite each and every -10 and gank everything from 1.0 to 0.5

Kill haulers, missioners, miners, passers, noobs, everything on your overview just gank it!

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.


Undock anywhere in high sec.

Now go sit on a busy gate.

Count the time it takes for someone to kill you and count the number of people who just fly right past you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#187 - 2011-11-01 18:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Tanya Powers wrote:
More chaos is needed in high sec !

[…]

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.
Agreed. The sooner CCP realises that highsec has turned into “complete sec” and dial back on the safety to only make it high security, the better.
The Apostle wrote:
I already said 1500+ kills to Goons and climbing in the ice interdiction!!! Go look at Goons kb ffs. What other stats do you need that says ganking is ****-easy?!
A point of comparison. Just saying they've destroyed 1500+ of them could mean that they're about as sturdy as a fleet battleship.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#188 - 2011-11-01 19:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teamosil
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Tanya Powers]The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.


IMO people who argue that we need to make sov 0.0 more profitable or high sec less safe are kind of missing the ball.

Seems to me that both sov 0.0 and hi sec are about equally secure, and both those are radically less secure than low sec, wormholes or NPC 0.0. Both hi sec and sov 0.0 have some danger, but not a lot. The reality is that pretty much every player spends at least some of their time in a "safe" environment, be that their corp's 0.0 or hi sec. Nobody actually plays being in danger 100% of the time. In my view, the goal should not be to remove those safer areas. In reality, we need to have a place to retreat to. You need to be able to perform humdrum logistical tasks, you have days where you just feel like being kind of chill, you need a base to regroup after a big loss, etc. Having to constantly be "on" just isn't really all that fun. What I think the goal should be is to encourage the people living both in sov 0.0 and hi sec to venture out from their relative safety into dangerous space more often. Increase the rewards in NPC 0.0 relative to sov 0.0, increase rewards in wormholes, and my personal favorite- increase the rewards in low sec. Better yet, make things you can only do in one of those three types of space. Maybe make incursions a low sec and NPC 0.0 only phenomenon. Introduce level 5 pirate faction missions in NPC 0.0. Whatever the next content is they have in the queue, make that take place in one of those types of space.
gALAXYgUY
Texas Mining and Industry
#189 - 2011-11-01 19:40:47 UTC
The question I have to pose on all of these threads is fairly simple.....

I will try to make this as logical as possible. I did train logic once upon a time to 5.


For an example..

If someone were to get on the forums and start a large threadnaught about how to bot. They would be breaking the EULA and TOS and would more than likely get a swift ban from CCP for their admission.

Now lets put that in a new perspective.

For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?

It is just my thoughts.

By The Way... I am a miner. And I moved my Hulk to the Ice just to watch a few Brutix crash and burn. Then I swapped out the Hulk to a cheap barge as they came back and they had to expend an alpha BS on a mack. PRICELESS!!!!!! It made mining in high sec just a little interesting.

Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#190 - 2011-11-01 20:06:30 UTC


Quote:
For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?


This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#191 - 2011-11-01 20:15:32 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:


Quote:
For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?


This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...


Both of you should go to crime and punishment and read the thread CCP made dedicated to tears. There is nothing against ganking or tear collecting in the EULA
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#192 - 2011-11-01 20:17:08 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:


Quote:
For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?


This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...


If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.

I don't know how CCP views their EULA, but that's how I'd see it if I were in their shoes.

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#193 - 2011-11-01 20:20:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Both of you should go to crime and punishment and read the thread CCP made dedicated to tears. There is nothing against ganking or tear collecting in the EULA


Huh, never even noticed that thread... good too know.

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2011-11-01 20:25:55 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.
…and even then, it's iffy whether it's actually griefing or not — the guy might just be killing anyone who shows up in the belt, and “anyone” accidentally happens to be the same one guy over and over. It's when the ganker starts to follow that one player around and gank him no matter where he goes and no matter what he does (because he tries to get away from the ganks by not mining any more) that we're properly edging into the griefing à l'EVE territory.
Jita Alt666
#195 - 2011-11-01 20:27:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jita Alt666
Vricrolatious wrote:
Justin Credulent wrote:


Quote:
For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?


This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...


If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.

I don't know how CCP views their EULA, but that's how I'd see it if I were in their shoes.


Wrong.
If you follow a player across the universe and repeatedly (10 times +) attempt to disrupt said player's game play by destroying said player's ships while not employing an active wardec - that is griefing, that is against the EULA

If you repeateldy kill ships in one system with the very clear and well stated objective of limiting the extraction or production of a certain item - that is attempted market manipulation - it is not griefing and it is not against the EULA

If the same pilot chooses to undock the same ship and fly to the same belt knowing that you are there attempting to kill that ship type in that belt - that pilot is truly stupid.
Mittani's Baby
Doomheim
#196 - 2011-11-01 20:34:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vricrolatious wrote:
If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.
…and even then, it's iffy whether it's actually griefing or not — the guy might just be killing anyone who shows up in the belt, and “anyone” accidentally happens to be the same one guy over and over. It's when the ganker starts to follow that one player around and gank him no matter where he goes and no matter what he does (because he tries to get away from the ganks by not mining any more) that we're properly edging into the griefing à l'EVE territory.

im doing a exam that dad gave me. i like your advise cos 1 of my qestions is how to mess up sumeons game and not get cort. +1 tipia

I am not short. Dad cut my legs off so I could not run away when he beat me.
Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#197 - 2011-11-01 20:45:41 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
There is nothing against ganking or tear collecting in the EULA


Classic example of how CCP is selective in how they enforce their EULA. In this case, they use equivocation to selectively interpret and apply the term "griefing".

Quote:
Wrong.
If you follow a player across the universe and repeatedly (10 times +) attempt to disrupt said players game play by destroying said players ships while not employing an active wardec, - that is griefing, that is against the EULA


Oh it has to be 10 times to one person? What if they do it once to 10 people? What if they're in the same systeme very day harassing anyone who happens to be in there? What if it's not just blowing up ships, what if it's flipping cans, "bumping" them away fromt he asteroids, or otherwise harassing players? There is clearly no profit in any of this for the griefer, and that is how CCP defines griefplay.

Quote:
If you repeateldy kill ships in one system with the very clear wand well stated objective of limiting the extraction or production of a certain product - that is attempted market manipulation. - it is not griefing and it is not against the EULA


Except that doesn't describe even a minority of suicide gankers or canflippers. Most gankers admittedly do it for the "tear factor", not to manipulate the market. Nice try, though?

Quote:
If the same pilot chooses to undock the same ship and fly to the same belt knowing that you are there attempting to kill that ship type in that belt - that pilot is truly stupid.


Well most gankers don't sit at 1 belt. They move between belts in 1 or 2 systems. Of course, the miners could always "move to a new system", but that is now in the realm of disrupting their gameplay, and there could just as easily be griefers in that system. (Actually, there are griefers in just about every system...)

And in most cases, it's 1 or just a few players (the griefers) disrupting many players' gameplay. When does it stop being "legitimate gameplay" and start becoming "griefplay"? My guess is, CCP will again be very selective in their interpretion, and that their interpretion will be the one that requires the least amount of response (read: work) on CCP's part.

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
gfldex
#198 - 2011-11-01 20:49:05 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
Justin Credulent wrote:

I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.


This is actually something I'd be curious about. Not the forum posts, but what would actually happen to New Eden's economy if one day the miners all went on strike (bots included.) I'm sure there are stockpiles of minerals, so it would take a while for the impact, but still...


Belt ratting in 0.0 would become very popular.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#199 - 2011-11-01 20:49:57 UTC
I don't know what game you are playing but I hardly ever got ganked. I've played a lot teh past 2 years but my missioner got ganked only once and my miner survived every Hulkageddon (before she quit mining and turned to be a fulltime manufacturer).

Ganking is really overrated. In my experience, highsec is rather safe as it is.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#200 - 2011-11-01 21:03:29 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:
Classic example of how CCP is selective in how they enforce their EULA. In this case, they use equivocation to selectively interpret and apply the term "griefing".
The term griefing does not even appear in the EULA. They just mention in the ban policy as something they can use as a reason to give you a perma-ban.
Quote:
Oh it has to be 10 times to one person? What if they do it once to 10 people? What if they're in the same systeme very day harassing anyone who happens to be in there? What if it's not just blowing up ships, what if it's flipping cans, "bumping" them away fromt he asteroids, or otherwise harassing players? There is clearly no profit in any of this for the griefer, and that is how CCP defines griefplay.
There is no numerical definition. Nor is it nearly as “clear“ as you say it is. All of that could clearly be done for profit.

What you're describing is not a harassment of players — it's an attempt to claim a system. If they players can go elsewhere and are left alone if they do, they are not being harassed.
Quote:
Except that doesn't describe even a minority of suicide gankers or canflippers.
…which is appropriate since most suicide gankers and can-flippers are not griefing.
Quote:
Well most gankers don't sit at 1 belt. They move between belts in 1 or 2 systems. Of course, the miners could always "move to a new system", but that is now in the realm of disrupting their gameplay
It's not even close to disrupting their gameplay: they can move and they can keep doing what they're doing. They just lost their favourite hunting ground, that is all.
Quote:
and there could just as easily be griefers in that system.
…who then aren't griefers either since they are attacking the system, not the players, and since the people who tried to move there are not being targeted specifically.