These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Can we do something about the idiots in highsec already CCP?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#361 - 2013-11-06 15:48:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
They'll never cease to exist because people are people. Some peopel choose to see only those things that they want to while ignoring the rest, thinking that if "only those other things go away, things will be perfect". In this game as in real life, they are wrong.
Do you not see anything hypocritical in this at all?
Gankers are now considerably more common than when I started. So technically, the "carebears" actually want the game to stay the way it originally was. Sounds to me like you just want the easy kills. I personally enjoy EVE for support a broad spectrum of playstyles. If the whole game turned into pure pew pew, you can bet your ass my accounts would shut down.
And then even more dumb. WTF is wrong with you?
Are we really going down the "I have no response thus I must call you dumb" route?
I expected more from you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frozen Chief
Doomheim
#362 - 2013-11-06 16:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Frozen Chief
Hi-sec should not be "safe space" obviously and I have no issue with large BC fleet being able to gank a freighter or a few destroyers able to gank a barge. However if we look at the numbers - both # of ganks over time and DPS of common ganking ships vs tank of commonly ganked ships - we can see there is some level of imbalance. You can effectively setup shop in any travel chokepoint, gank anything indy or freighter that comes by with your fleet and by the end of a couple hours come out with enough profits to cover your losses with profit gained.

A balanced approach would be having it so only ganking very high value targets can cover the total losses - ship losses, tags and time spent - thus forcing ganking squads to properly scout out their targets and weigh the risks appropriately.

There are some ways this can be accomplished but they've been covered in the countless other threads on this topic. Stronger freighter would be one way, thus taking more organization and ISK involved in each gank. Harsher sec status loss penalties, people with -10 still are ganking with no issue. Force them out of hi-sec at that point, thus forcing them to strategize which ships are actually worth going after.

Looking at barges anything that isn't a Procurer and Skiff is pretty much impossible to protect with a solo account. You can do all the scouting in the world, miss one ganker and by the time he's in your belt it's too late. I don't think we need anything crazy done here but the end result should be you need more thank one ship worth a measly 3 million ISK to gank any barge. I'd be fine with 2 ships even.

Back to what I was saying about the numbers, go on EVE-Kill and look at CONCORD Police Captain's kill history. People are clearly catching on to the fact that the ganking mechanics right now are a bit unbalanced.
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#363 - 2013-11-06 16:50:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I expected more from you.

You really did, didn't you...? Blink

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#364 - 2013-11-06 17:21:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
They'll never cease to exist because people are people. Some peopel choose to see only those things that they want to while ignoring the rest, thinking that if "only those other things go away, things will be perfect". In this game as in real life, they are wrong.
Do you not see anything hypocritical in this at all?
Gankers are now considerably more common than when I started. So technically, the "carebears" actually want the game to stay the way it originally was. Sounds to me like you just want the easy kills. I personally enjoy EVE for support a broad spectrum of playstyles. If the whole game turned into pure pew pew, you can bet your ass my accounts would shut down.
And then even more dumb. WTF is wrong with you?
Are we really going down the "I have no response thus I must call you dumb" route?
I expected more from you.


BS, there's no response to it becuase what you're typing is even dumber than the GD standard, and I didn't know that's even possible.

I've learned not to spend to much time on people with your kind of extreme personality (ie people who take everything completely out of context, like imagining I said anyhting about EVe being about nothing but shooting). At the end of the day, people like you are too wrapped up in your own prejudices and assumptions to have an honest discussion.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#365 - 2013-11-06 17:35:50 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
BS, there's no response to it becuase what you're typing is even dumber than the GD standard, and I didn't know that's even possible.

I've learned not to spend to much time on people with your kind of extreme personality (ie people who take everything completely out of context, like imagining I said anyhting about EVe being about nothing but shooting). At the end of the day, people like you are too wrapped up in your own prejudices and assumptions to have an honest discussion.
Gee wizz, thanks for clarifying.
Any time you want to go ahead and make sense, that's fine with me, but at the moment all I'm seeing is you telling one group of players that they shouldn't be allowed to play the game their way because that conflicts with your way.

Please proceed to actually point out which part of my incredibly straightforward responses you seem to be struggling with. If not, then shush, stop acting like a child, and remove yourself from the discussion.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#366 - 2013-11-06 17:53:47 UTC
So how do you make High Sec safe even if you want to? I mean how would that game mechanic work?
You cant keeping allowing people just to be completely safe in large areas of high sec, they should move on eventually. However I also agree that if you want to kill something in high sec then risk should be greater than reward (as eve is)

Should you really be able to gank a freighter for 10bill and only lose 100mil of ships? The worse thing now is you can buy security tags to get your sec back up instantly. So rinse and repeat you can gank freighers all day long. Somethings a little unbalanced.


So perhaps the following suggestions might help for both sides

Make highsec smaller, a lot smaller, i mean a quarter of what it is now, which will deplete resources quicker, will only contain really low grade mins, missions should only be up to level 2, etc etc forcing people to move into low sec, but make the proportion of space completely safe. Highsec should be a place where you dont earn much at all for your efforts.

If people need to learn the game then create a proving grounds region which is effectively an high safe region seperate to normal highsec, once you get to say 5mill sp you are kicked out, if your higher than 5mill you cant get in either, then you enter into the big world.

Then change low sec a little - 0.4, 0.3 regions have level 3, 4 missions, with better mins and resources, 0.2, 0.1 have level 5 missions and much better resources and then out to null sec. this way the more reward to more risk and it gradually moves people up levels.

Each level should also give a reduction in sec status hit. So if you kill something in 0.1 sec you get a much lower hit than you would in a 0.4 system

This will help new players, pve and pvp alike. Pvpers can go hunt in low sec. if pvpers want easy kills well they can get them but they get a bit of an hit for an easy kill. Kill something in 0.1 say you get a bigger reward and less of a hit. bigger reward meaning level 5 mission runners, or people mining the good stuff.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#367 - 2013-11-06 18:34:37 UTC
yea this alt account ganking is crap, the only solution to that is ganking back, I'm at 4 billion gaking goon haulers and stuff... I would hope more high sec people would dedicate some time to this work, together we could make it impossible for the goons to do a thing up there, 50 claokers up there all day long and its over for them, no more ratting no more mining

Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
Jythier Smith
BGG Wolves
#368 - 2013-11-06 18:43:10 UTC
Yeah, let's make Hi-sec suck so nobody wants to be there... seriously? Why does everyone have to destroy things they don't like instead of living harmoniously with it?
Zheng'Yi Sao
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2013-11-06 19:18:44 UTC
Zappity wrote:
That's true. People do, however, suicide gank shuttles with pods in them.


Honestly, i don't bother with a shuttle. If I need to move that quick, I just zoom around in my pod.

Something satisfying about streaking through hi-sec yelling yeeeehaaaa in my pod.

Big smile

Is this thread going to end?

I tried reading it for another four or five pages, my brain hurts.

"It's funny the things you people think are mandatory for us, as if we don't do what we do because it's a hilarious good time in a space video game." - Johnny Marzetti
Zheng'Yi Sao
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#370 - 2013-11-06 19:24:22 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
yea this alt account ganking is crap, the only solution to that is ganking back, I'm at 4 billion gaking goon haulers and stuff... I would hope more high sec people would dedicate some time to this work, together we could make it impossible for the goons to do a thing up there, 50 claokers up there all day long and its over for them, no more ratting no more mining


Sir, you don't suggest we actually take matters in to our own hands?

Such lunacy, off with you...

"It's funny the things you people think are mandatory for us, as if we don't do what we do because it's a hilarious good time in a space video game." - Johnny Marzetti
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#371 - 2013-11-06 19:32:26 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
yea this alt account ganking is crap, the only solution to that is ganking back, I'm at 4 billion gaking goon haulers and stuff... I would hope more high sec people would dedicate some time to this work, together we could make it impossible for the goons to do a thing up there, 50 claokers up there all day long and its over for them, no more ratting no more mining


Harry what do I need to do to help you end the GOON menace for all time?

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Octoven
Stellar Production
#372 - 2013-11-06 19:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
I Love Boobies wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its getting old. Every second or third jump there are idiot alts in destroyers ganking people. My computer almost died yesterday loading hundreds of concord ships at a high sec gate. Spending weeks in null dodging Goons and then come back to supposedly safe space and its more of the same crap.

You guys changed siphons because they were too cheap and griefer like for the big alliances after their big whine fest. Man up and do something about the state of high sec and their alt gankers.

No I haven't been ganked but its annoying to have to make every single high sec jump and not be able to afk at all in "safe space" even in a crappy non faction fitted frigate and its annoying to see people killing other people in high sec with no risk in cheap lame ass destroyers - make them work for it, this is EvE Online, its not Counterstrike.

Killing other players should require skill, it should require brains, it should require risk and it should require a war dec or going to low sec or null sec.

At the moment all it requires is a cheap destroyer and a low skilled alt account.

This is not the game that you guys designed, I have been here since the beginning and when things did get to the point that this sort of rubbish was happening, you adjusted Concord or you adjusted DPS or EHP.

Time to fix your game in this respect, its crap and broken.



Your first wrong impression is to think Hi-Sec is supposedly safe. Your second is your assumption that this isn't the game CCP designed. It's exactly what they designed, and people are using as it is designed. Your final wrong assumption is you think the game is broke in this aspect of the game.


It isnt an assumption. Just to quote the message being displayed when you try to jump into low sec space, "You will be beyond CONCORD's protection" NOTretribution. This certainly implies CONCORD will protect you, the message may be changed in the future, BUT it shows what CCP intended high sec to be, an area of space that is relatively safe (aside from war decs). High sec space has always been a safe little area of space for players. The purpose of the wardec system is to allow fighting in high sec space...ganking is not fighting or pvping. To be honest I agree with the OP ganking is a nice facet of EVE but this has went from EVE Online to GANKING Online...it is a bit ridiculous. Ive ganked people before and I still say that. ganking overall doesnt bother me, its kind of exciting knowing if I will survive when i undock...but the massive increase in it just destroys the point of eve...to fight. A fleet of dessies sitting on a gate shooting indies is not fighting.
Project Paindora
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#373 - 2013-11-06 19:49:59 UTC
Fix Lag wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:
yea this alt account ganking is crap, the only solution to that is ganking back, I'm at 4 billion gaking goon haulers and stuff... I would hope more high sec people would dedicate some time to this work, together we could make it impossible for the goons to do a thing up there, 50 claokers up there all day long and its over for them, no more ratting no more mining


Harry what do I need to do to help you end the GOON menace for all time?


+1
Tiffany Kautsuo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#374 - 2013-11-06 19:55:20 UTC
Frozen Chief wrote:
Hi-sec should not be "safe space" obviously and I have no issue with large BC fleet being able to gank a freighter or a few destroyers able to gank a barge. However if we look at the numbers - both # of ganks over time and DPS of common ganking ships vs tank of commonly ganked ships - we can see there is some level of imbalance. You can effectively setup shop in any travel chokepoint, gank anything indy or freighter that comes by with your fleet and by the end of a couple hours come out with enough profits to cover your losses with profit gained.

A balanced approach would be having it so only ganking very high value targets can cover the total losses - ship losses, tags and time spent - thus forcing ganking squads to properly scout out their targets and weigh the risks appropriately.

There are some ways this can be accomplished but they've been covered in the countless other threads on this topic. Stronger freighter would be one way, thus taking more organization and ISK involved in each gank. Harsher sec status loss penalties, people with -10 still are ganking with no issue. Force them out of hi-sec at that point, thus forcing them to strategize which ships are actually worth going after.

Looking at barges anything that isn't a Procurer and Skiff is pretty much impossible to protect with a solo account. You can do all the scouting in the world, miss one ganker and by the time he's in your belt it's too late. I don't think we need anything crazy done here but the end result should be you need more thank one ship worth a measly 3 million ISK to gank any barge. I'd be fine with 2 ships even.

Back to what I was saying about the numbers, go on EVE-Kill and look at CONCORD Police Captain's kill history. People are clearly catching on to the fact that the ganking mechanics right now are a bit unbalanced.


Regarding dying in belt.
Set D-scan at 200,000 km 360 degree's, use it and you'll see the catalyst trying to Gank you, warp off and you won't be dead.
You'll only be caught by a cloaky ship, but if that's what they're ganking with then gankees should die
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#375 - 2013-11-06 22:46:21 UTC
Personal attack post removed.
Forum rule 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#376 - 2013-11-06 22:58:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
They'll never cease to exist because people are people. Some peopel choose to see only those things that they want to while ignoring the rest, thinking that if "only those other things go away, things will be perfect". In this game as in real life, they are wrong.
Do you not see anything hypocritical in this at all?
Gankers are now considerably more common than when I started. So technically, the "carebears" actually want the game to stay the way it originally was. Sounds to me like you just want the easy kills. I personally enjoy EVE for support a broad spectrum of playstyles. If the whole game turned into pure pew pew, you can bet your ass my accounts would shut down.


Heh, no. Idk what highsec you were hanging around in, but ganking is down lower than ever before. The thin skinned are just getting louder.

The carebears don't want the game back to what it originally was, because there was no CONCORD, no Crimewatch, barges were paper thin, and there was no warp to zero for gates.

They're the ones insisting the rules be changed to suit their inability to play the game correctly. There is NO moral equivalency here.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#377 - 2013-11-07 01:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Frozen Chief wrote:
Hi-sec should not be "safe space" obviously and I have no issue with large BC fleet being able to gank a freighter or a few destroyers able to gank a barge. However if we look at the numbers - both # of ganks over time and DPS of common ganking ships vs tank of commonly ganked ships - we can see there is some level of imbalance. You can effectively setup shop in any travel chokepoint, gank anything indy or freighter that comes by with your fleet and by the end of a couple hours come out with enough profits to cover your losses with profit gained.

A balanced approach would be having it so only ganking very high value targets can cover the total losses - ship losses, tags and time spent - thus forcing ganking squads to properly scout out their targets and weigh the risks appropriately.

There are some ways this can be accomplished but they've been covered in the countless other threads on this topic. Stronger freighter would be one way, thus taking more organization and ISK involved in each gank. Harsher sec status loss penalties, people with -10 still are ganking with no issue. Force them out of hi-sec at that point, thus forcing them to strategize which ships are actually worth going after.

Looking at barges anything that isn't a Procurer and Skiff is pretty much impossible to protect with a solo account. You can do all the scouting in the world, miss one ganker and by the time he's in your belt it's too late. I don't think we need anything crazy done here but the end result should be you need more thank one ship worth a measly 3 million ISK to gank any barge. I'd be fine with 2 ships even.

Back to what I was saying about the numbers, go on EVE-Kill and look at CONCORD Police Captain's kill history. People are clearly catching on to the fact that the ganking mechanics right now are a bit unbalanced.

Yeah this.

No one is suggesting ganking shouldn't be possible. Nor that there should be a weapons hold in empire. Not that you should be able to autopilot completely safely. Nor any of the other straw man arguments that the ganker supporters in this thread have raised.

The issue is one of balance. For a balanced game you need to have risk for both sides, the target and the attacker. If the target was completely immune from loss, or unable to be killed we would have the Jenn's and the Kalrusses incessently whinging and whining like little bitches.

Unfortunately, its the Jenns and Kalrusses that have no risk, and are immune from loss and the targets are the only ones risking anything. Its highly ironic that they call the targets carebear's while they hide behind their alts in highsec benefiting from the protection of Concord until they attack, scooping the loot with a npc alt and then go hide in a station till the timer runs out.

Anyone who thinks that is balanced or EvE-like, I just don't know, but I do thank you for increasing my overall IQ.

I think the main problem is with the destroyers which are putting out close to the DPS of my Ishtar with T2 Sentries or Ogres II. They put out more DPS than most cruisers, and a few BC. That's absurd for such a little ship with such little skill training time.

Another problem is the security rating, you lose the same security in a .1 as you do ganking someone in a .5. WTF is that? If I shoot someone in Afghanistan I'd probably not be arrested, I think Afghanistan would be pretty close to a 0.1. If I shoot someone here in Sydney I'd be crucified, spend 10 to 15 years in jail.

EvE has a lot of problems, most of them are caused by a small group of selfish players that CCP coddles. The other problems are caused by CCP itself, they're constantly reinventing EvE, every time they reinvent it they leave a little bit of the old EvE behind that greatly conflicts with the newer changes. EHP and destroyer dps are one such conflict that the small group of selfish players are exploiting at the moment.

It needs a fix.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#378 - 2013-11-07 01:29:53 UTC
Quote:
It needs a fix.


No, it does not.

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of result.

Everyone has an equal chance to do well at this game, the same tools are available to everyone, and barring some minor exceptions of market monopolies, the same items and ships as well. Obvious not everyone can have a Revenant.

The playing field is the same for everyone. What they choose to do with it, is not.

Some numbskull, afk, tankless miner has no right whatsoever to tell me, a real player, that I should have to have a higher isk loss to kill him. He's not actually playing the game, he has abdicated the ability to defend himself.

Quote:
Unfortunately, its the Jenns and Kalrusses that have no risk, and are immune from loss and the targets are the only ones risking anything.


That's called picking your targets. You will find that, by not doing incredibly stupid things like using autopilot in untanked ships, that you get blown up a lot less.
Quote:

think the main problem is with the destroyers which are putting out close to the DPS of my Ishtar with T2 Sentries or Ogres II. They put out more DPS than most cruisers, and a few BC. That's absurd for such a little ship with such little skill training time.


Yeah, you're wrong. The entire point of the destroyer ship class is that it punches above it's weight class. Otherwise a cruiser, which has more tank and typically the same or better speed, is automatically better.

So, should we remove destroyers now too, because you haven't yet realized that by using autopilot under any circumstances you deserve to get blown up?

Quote:
No one is suggesting ganking shouldn't be possible.


There are 3+ threads, per day in F&I, that pop up saying exactly that. People in this thread have said exactly that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#379 - 2013-11-07 01:33:50 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Frozen Chief wrote:
Hi-sec should not be "safe space" obviously and I have no issue with large BC fleet being able to gank a freighter or a few destroyers able to gank a barge. However if we look at the numbers - both # of ganks over time and DPS of common ganking ships vs tank of commonly ganked ships - we can see there is some level of imbalance. You can effectively setup shop in any travel chokepoint, gank anything indy or freighter that comes by with your fleet and by the end of a couple hours come out with enough profits to cover your losses with profit gained.

A balanced approach would be having it so only ganking very high value targets can cover the total losses - ship losses, tags and time spent - thus forcing ganking squads to properly scout out their targets and weigh the risks appropriately.

There are some ways this can be accomplished but they've been covered in the countless other threads on this topic. Stronger freighter would be one way, thus taking more organization and ISK involved in each gank. Harsher sec status loss penalties, people with -10 still are ganking with no issue. Force them out of hi-sec at that point, thus forcing them to strategize which ships are actually worth going after.

Looking at barges anything that isn't a Procurer and Skiff is pretty much impossible to protect with a solo account. You can do all the scouting in the world, miss one ganker and by the time he's in your belt it's too late. I don't think we need anything crazy done here but the end result should be you need more thank one ship worth a measly 3 million ISK to gank any barge. I'd be fine with 2 ships even.

Back to what I was saying about the numbers, go on EVE-Kill and look at CONCORD Police Captain's kill history. People are clearly catching on to the fact that the ganking mechanics right now are a bit unbalanced.

Yeah this.

No one is suggesting ganking shouldn't be possible. Nor that there should be a weapons hold in empire. Not that you should be able to autopilot completely safely. Nor any of the other straw man arguments that the ganker supporters in this thread have raised.

The issue is one of balance. For a balanced game you need to have risk for both sides, the target and the attacker. If the target was completely immune from loss, or unable to be killed we would have the Jenn's and the Kalrusses incessently whinging and whining like little bitches.

Unfortunately, its the Jenns and Kalrusses that have no risk, and are immune from loss and the targets are the only ones risking anything. Its highly ironic that they call the targets carebear's while they hide behind their alts in highsec benefiting from the protection of Concord until they attack, scooping the loot with a npc alt and then go hide in a station till the timer runs out.

Anyone who thinks that is balanced or EvE-like, I just don't know, but I do thank you for increasing my overall IQ.

I think the main problem is with the destroyers which are putting out close to the DPS of my Ishtar with T2 Sentries or Ogres II. They put out more DPS than most cruisers, and a few BC. That's absurd for such a little ship with such little skill training time.

Another problem is the security rating, you lose the same security in a .1 as you do ganking someone in a .5. WTF is that? If I shoot someone in Afghanistan I'd probably not be arrested, I think Afghanistan would be pretty close to a 0.1. If I shoot someone here in Sydney I'd be crucified, spend 10 to 15 years in jail.

EvE has a lot of problems, most of them are caused by a small group of selfish players that CCP coddles. The other problems are caused by CCP itself, they're constantly reinventing EvE, every time they reinvent it they leave a little bit of the old EvE behind that greatly conflicts with the newer changes. EHP and destroyer dps are one such conflict that the small group of selfish players are exploiting at the moment.

It needs a fix.


Page 19 and you are still mad.

Please go back to page 1 and re-read how to purchase a mining permit.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#380 - 2013-11-07 01:33:54 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
[...
It needs a fix.



No, as has been reasonably explained to you many times, it doesn't.
Do you not see the cognitive dissonance of calling something IMBALANCE! only when it bothers you? That's why you attract ridicule, these threads get into squabbles over details or opinions without a scrap of insight into game balance or any lack of it.



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.