These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Griefing CCP - Bounties for E-Uni Ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#41 - 2011-11-13 13:00:14 UTC
Aren Dar wrote:
Fighting only in safe situations with no chance of loss is pretty much the definition of a carebear, isn't it ?

Actually, refusing to fight even in safe situations with no chance of loss is the definition of a carebear.

I like this idea. As to the naysayers, well, if we're given the choice of stopping ganks on our own volition or having the game mechanics forcefully changed to the same end, might as well go out shooting. At least we'll be able to say "told you so" when the game stagnates and dies.

EVE without non-consensual pvp...lol. Good luck making that work for longer than a year.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-11-13 15:14:28 UTC
Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.
Mrs Sooperdudespaceman
Doomheim
#43 - 2011-11-13 15:25:06 UTC
PROTECTING 1500 MAN ALLIANCES IS FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.
Greasy Meat Curtains
#44 - 2011-11-13 16:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Greasy Meat Curtains
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.



So based on your logic: what if my interest is ganking carebears? Wouldn't removing that ability be forcing me to do something else I'm not interested in? Further, why the f should I care that some carebear paying for the game does not want to get ganked?
thrulinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2011-11-13 16:56:51 UTC
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.


Wild guess here, but look at all the other MMO game's out there, or coming out. Not one have PVP every ware. Not one has the ability to greaf/gank other player just because a few think its fun.
In all my years playing different games, I have only seen one with this type of content, and that one change its style after a few years.
As someone else said PVP is not for everyone, and I do see this game changing to meet/ attract new paying players. It been this way for what 10 years? give or take.
The changes to high-sec grieffing in the last few week's lead's my self, and every one who starts a thread about WHY we need PVP, or let's grief so and so, say's this game might no longer be able to say as is, and CCP know's it, but will not admit it. They wan't to stay in business, attract new players, and they only have a few places to attract them.
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2011-11-13 19:39:38 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE without non-consensual pvp...lol. Good luck making that work for longer than a year.

i agree. but nobody is talking about wanting to take anyone the ability to attack anyone anywhere. non-consensual pvp is essential. furthermore, there are already places like low, null and wormholes where this is possible even without retribution through concord.
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.

how would you define ganking? if i tried a definition i would say "killing a target in the shortest amount of time using high alpha or maxed dps, possibly taking the own death into account (possibly through concord), usually not giving the victim any chance to fight back". - this is just a style of fighting, fitting and tactics. you cannot remove that from the game if the game opens up the possibility. BUT, you CAN change the factors involved, thus making ganking harder or something to consider more carefully.

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#47 - 2011-11-13 23:09:27 UTC
el alasar wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
EVE without non-consensual pvp...lol. Good luck making that work for longer than a year.

i agree. but nobody is talking about wanting to take anyone the ability to attack anyone anywhere.

Look up like three posts bro. You even quoted him.

Juicy Chanlin wrote:
I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in.

el alasar wrote:
furthermore, there are already places like low, null and wormholes where this is possible even without retribution through concord.

With a few rare, particular exceptions, not one of the three areas you mentioned constitute non-consensual pvp. One could say that a carebear stumbling into a wormholes and getting his spaceboat violenced would be one such exception, for example.

I would also like to go on and add that in the past few years, low/null pvp has been all but extinguished. Sometimes you see big blobs and supercapitals, but even that is rare nowadays. People have vested interests in their ISK farms and prefer to keep the peace. How about you ask CCP to address this before asking CCP to remove our one final avenue for enjoyment in this game?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2011-11-13 23:22:34 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

el alasar wrote:
furthermore, there are already places like low, null and wormholes where this is possible even without retribution through concord.

With a few rare, particular exceptions, not one of the three areas you mentioned constitute non-consensual pvp. One could say that a carebear stumbling into a wormholes and getting his spaceboat violenced would be one such exception, for example.

I would also like to go on and add that in the past few years, low/null pvp has been all but extinguished. Sometimes you see big blobs and supercapitals, but even that is rare nowadays. People have vested interests in their ISK farms and prefer to keep the peace. How about you ask CCP to address this before asking CCP to remove our one final avenue for enjoyment in this game?

so if i go into low pirates will not start to attack me? gate camps? waiting outside station for people undocking? probe out a mission runner's site? sounds very non-consensual to me...

so what are you saying?
- people come to highsec to have pvp because they cant outside highsec?
- they gank in highsec because they currently can, it is so easy and people there seldom fit buffers?

otherwise, i think you are saying all those places except highsec needs to be fixed...

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#49 - 2011-11-13 23:31:55 UTC
Greasy Meat Curtains wrote:
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.



So based on your logic: what if my interest is ganking carebears? Wouldn't removing that ability be forcing me to do something else I'm not interested in? Further, why the f should I care that some carebear paying for the game does not want to get ganked?



Except that I'd argue that your interests are an exploit of the game mechanics.. After all. if player 1 wanted to PVP he'd go into low/null/WH space. Now. The fact that you have let's say 20-30 seconds of free time before concord shows up in HS due to non-instant response times I would say are not the intention of the game. Sure you'll die. However, it's not at the hands of the person you're attacking, therefore, you're not really in the position to loose anything, thus, it's not a real PVP environment but a glitch in the system.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2011-11-13 23:37:44 UTC
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
The fact that you have let's say 20-30 seconds of free time before concord shows up in HS due to non-instant response times I would say are not the intention of the game.

What? The non-instant response times are completely the intention of the game, which is why response times vary depending on the security level of the system (e.g, faster in 1.0, much slower in 0.5). The game was coded purposefully in that manner, which makes it the intent of the designers.
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#51 - 2011-11-13 23:37:53 UTC
el alasar wrote:


so what are you saying?
- people come to highsec to have pvp because they cant outside highsec?
- they gank in highsec because they currently can, it is so easy and people there seldom fit buffers?

otherwise, i think you are saying all those places except highsec needs to be fixed...


I'd say that those that gank in high sec.. do if for exactly those reasons.

I consider ganking to be attacking someone knowing that they don't stand a chance and that it'll be concord thats going to kill you, strictly for the enjoyment of watching someone else's hard work go to waste. Whether it's the miner in the belt, or the guy heading to jita to sell his goods, he/she has NO control over the engagement since by the time he'd be able to react, the engagement is over. Sure, you get your ship blown up, but your target did not stand a fighting chance. So if you don't give your opponent a fighting chance, how could you claim to have skills if you're only engaging in 1 sided battles.
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#52 - 2011-11-13 23:38:58 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
The fact that you have let's say 20-30 seconds of free time before concord shows up in HS due to non-instant response times I would say are not the intention of the game.

What? The non-instant response times are completely the intention of the game, which is why response times vary depending on the security level of the system (e.g, faster in 1.0, much slower in 0.5). The game was coded purposefully in that manner, which makes it the intent of the designers.



You're probably right on that respect, however, I really doubt that when it was coded in originally, it was done to allow players to suicide gank others.
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#53 - 2011-11-13 23:40:08 UTC
Hey Kelduum.. did you get paid yet?
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2011-11-13 23:43:14 UTC
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
The fact that you have let's say 20-30 seconds of free time before concord shows up in HS due to non-instant response times I would say are not the intention of the game.

What? The non-instant response times are completely the intention of the game, which is why response times vary depending on the security level of the system (e.g, faster in 1.0, much slower in 0.5). The game was coded purposefully in that manner, which makes it the intent of the designers.
You're probably right on that respect, however, I really doubt that when it was coded in originally, it was done to allow players to suicide gank others.

Ganking has always been apart of this game. WTF? This game was a lot more dangerous in the old days. CONCORD was made untankable and insta-gib, because in the old days you could tank them and escape them. They changed CONCORD to make ganking tougher, but not to eliminate it.

Do you think the designers wear bell-bottom jeans and flower petals in their hair? This is supposed to be a tough-ass game ... this isn't Star Trek Online.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2011-11-13 23:44:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
So if you don't give your opponent a fighting chance, how could you claim to have skills if you're only engaging in 1 sided battles.

Ganking requires skill and coordination.

Guide to Highsec Ganking

You seriously need to get a clue about this game. You are sadly making assumptions based on your own personal prejudices.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#56 - 2011-11-14 00:01:06 UTC
el alasar wrote:
so if i go into low pirates will not start to attack me? gate camps? waiting outside station for people undocking? probe out a mission runner's site? sounds very non-consensual to me...

The majority of low-sec is empty. And yes, pvp in low can be quite non-consensual. You know you can be attacked at any time, and that the aggressor will go unpunished (aside from sec loss). The same goes for null, wormholes, and even high. There is plenty of people in each of the four categories who do not want to be killed. The question is, should they be exposed anyway, even if they want to have no part of it?

el alasar wrote:
so what are you saying?
- people come to highsec to have pvp because they cant outside highsec?
- they gank in highsec because they currently can, it is so easy and people there seldom fit buffers?

otherwise, i think you are saying all those places except highsec needs to be fixed...

A resounding "yes" on the first point. Not much a single person or a small gang/corporation can do nowadays what with the tendency to get a single T1 cruiser hot-dropped by two dozen supercaps. An exception can be made for wormholes, but wormholes are limited in the amount of residents/visitiors they have to be a true pvp environment.

Another yes for the second point. And whose fault is it that people there seldom fit buffers? They certainly can,, so why don't they?

I am indeed saying that those places need to be fixed. However, they need to be fixed before high-sec is fixed in any form (and any high-sec fixes must definitely not include the removal of non-consensual pvp).

Oh and, a big LOL at everything Juicy Chanlin says. Especially the claims of non-instant CONCORD response times being a "glitch in the system" and an "exploit of the game mechanics."

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2011-11-14 00:10:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Oh and, a big LOL at everything Juicy Chanlin says. Especially the claims of non-instant CONCORD response times being a "glitch in the system" and an "exploit of the game mechanics."

This needs to be re-iterated.
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-11-14 00:43:56 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
There is plenty of people in each of the four categories who do not want to be killed. The question is, should they be exposed anyway, even if they want to have no part of it?

sorry, what do you mean? how do you think it should be?
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A resounding "yes" on the first point. Not much a single person or a small gang/corporation can do nowadays what with the tendency to get a single T1 cruiser hot-dropped by two dozen supercaps. An exception can be made for wormholes, but wormholes are limited in the amount of residents/visitiors they have to be a true pvp environment.

uhm... what do you suggest? ideas? i havent really thought about that yet...
concord in lowsec? no supercaps in low? both sound very undesirable?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I am indeed saying that those places need to be fixed. However, they need to be fixed before high-sec is fixed in any form (and any high-sec fixes must definitely not include the removal of non-consensual pvp).

Oh and, a big LOL at everything Juicy Chanlin says. Especially the claims of non-instant CONCORD response times being a "glitch in the system" and an "exploit of the game mechanics."

agreed. but not sure why "before" is needed. CCP decides in its own non-predictable ways anyway ;)

currently, system security status being the only determining factor for concord response time seems dreary. why not factor in the victim's sec status? maybe also the aggressor's? and why is system sec status (even in highsec) static first place? shouldnt it depend on how "secure" (how many combats / non-consensual pvp) there has been recently? maybe you could also pay concord a weekly fee for faster response time? maybe you could bribe concord to arrive a little later?

still, even with fitted buffers, i honestly feel ganking is too easily done - with too few isk invested (even if insurance payout was removed). look at how easily and often freighters are taken down, and ganking some pve BS is just scary easy to do. if a freighter having a break-even of about 1 bil at around 170k EHP, what are you "allowed" to fit on a pve-fit BS having around 60-140k EHP??? sure, you could say "dont fit those mods" and "prices are just market driven"...

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#59 - 2011-11-14 00:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cerulean Ice
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
... The Uni removes anyone from the roster if they have been inactive for at least 3 months ...

If you're going to claim nonsense, at least get the facts right.
In quite plain English, for those who are interested, here is the EVE University Inactive Member Policy.
Uni Wiki wrote:
"members who have been inactive (not logged in) for 1 calendar month are removed from the corp"


Edit: Kelduum, have you been paid yet? Can I kill a few directors and collect on this too? :D

Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2011-11-14 01:05:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
... The Uni removes anyone from the roster if they have been inactive for at least 3 months ...

If you're going to claim nonsense, at least get the facts right.
In quite plain English, for those who are interested, here is the EVE University Inactive Member Policy.
Uni Wiki wrote:
"members who have been inactive (not logged in) for 1 calendar month are removed from the corp"
Whatever. My point was that the list did not consist of any characters who have been languishing in the Uni for years. You remove 'em after a month. Great. Even better than the the three months I thought it was. The list is super fresh then.