These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

This is wrong

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#21 - 2016-07-26 10:09:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
The consequences are insufficient in the view of a significant number of players, at one point I floated this idea myself, but thought it was too draconian, but with the arrival of citadels the idea has merit. Because what it does is force the gankers to have skin in the game, something that can be attacked or the owner told to stop them from docking. There is a consequence, this is what Eve is all about.

I agreed that the player should have learnt from that loss, though I pointed out the issues that a new player has compared to an old salt like me and that the player had a choice on whether to suck it or find another game.

But this issue is all about challenging game play and consequences.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2016-07-26 10:12:28 UTC
For what I saw so far there are two "factions"

- Who thinks suicidal gankers gain too much money too easily and wardecs are exploited (the ganked / wardecced ones)

-Who thinks suicidal ganking is good and wardecs are good too ( gankers / wardeccers )

If you see how much gankers gain and how much wardeccers wardec I'm for giving reason to the first group.

The latter has much to lose so they are strongly against any change...


Developers tend to close every discussion regarding the topic.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#23 - 2016-07-26 10:13:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dibz wrote:
To be honest, it doesn't really make sense that a criminal can use all of the services offered in high security space. Why should they be able to? It's a good question. So far I've not seen anyone provide a reasonable answer.


The empires don't care about what us pod pilots get up to against eachother.

Plus it would kill most piracy in highsec, mightily damage lowsec pvp and severely hamper null and wormhole players.


So what is a security status for if they are not bothered?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dibz
Doomheim
#24 - 2016-07-26 10:13:56 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Dibz wrote:
To be honest, it doesn't really make sense that a criminal can use all of the services offered in high security space. Why should they be able to? It's a good question. So far I've not seen anyone provide a reasonable answer.

Sure, there is no real reason. Just like there is no real reason for why people can so easily dodge a wardec. Or no reason to why highsec stations cannot be blown up.

But you know what, I'll gladly take all the penalties you guys are promoting, if we in turn get rid of many of the safety mechanics you already have.

I suppose that is fair, no?


Well, I personally think that the wardec and bounty systems be rolled into one system, whereby both individuals and corporations can be subjected to a wardec, even individuals in an NPC corporation. With reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse of the system.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#25 - 2016-07-26 10:15:00 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
For what I saw so far there are two "factions"

- Who thinks suicidal gankers gain too much money too easily and wardecs are exploited (the ganked / wardecced ones)

-Who thinks suicidal ganking is good and wardecs are good too ( gankers / wardeccers )

If you see how much gankers gain and how much wardeccers wardec I'm for giving reason to the first group.

The latter has much to lose so they are strongly against any change...


Developers tend to close every discussion regarding the topic.


But not everyone is so black and white, I for one accept ganking and war decs, my focus is on the fun part and game balance.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Maekchu
Doomheim
#26 - 2016-07-26 10:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Dracvlad wrote:
But this issue is all about challenging game play and consequences.

So more safety, is challenging gameplay and consequences for haulers?

Let's not forget, that the original locked thread was all about a T1 industrial flying around with way too much cargo. So how is removing gankers, adding consequence to the hauler for their actions?

Again, I think most gankers are willing to take bigger restrictions to their gameplay, if you in turn provide with a viable solution to the problem of highsec having no consequence and no risk. If you remove gankers, what consequence should there be for taking a T1 industrial out with 1B in cargo? Currently, it makes sense cause the hunt for profit creates at least some risk to hauling with too much cargo, but remove that factor and what do you have left?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#27 - 2016-07-26 10:16:44 UTC
Citadels are not the only conciquence in the game, nor are they the only skin,
not that the bears would be organised to atteck one and see it through, this would be followed by a "gankers citadels should be attackable any time" demand.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Eladanus
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#28 - 2016-07-26 10:18:42 UTC
Can you imagine the outrage if those calling for harsher punishment for criminals had joined a game where ganking was outlawed, but some people were asking for punishments to be relaxed?

The simple fact is that we all joined a game where we knew the rules, we knew what it was that separated EVE from the other risk-free MMOs. Getting ganked is frustrating, I know, but theirs is just as legitimate a playstyle as yours, and trying to squeeze out an important part of the game's culture and economy wouldn't have a good effect.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#29 - 2016-07-26 10:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Citadels are not the only conciquence in the game, nor are they the only skin,
not that the bears would be organised to atteck one and see it through, this would be followed by a "gankers citadels should be attackable any time" demand.


Don't be silly, that is a ridiculous suggestion, I will just have to watch the guys see what they use and tell the player who owns it no access to these people and if they did not comply, bang Citadel gets taken out. The current setup is pretty fine in my view for great content.

EDIT: What other consequence, I have hunted gankers, I can perhaps catch them if I am lucky in a Catalyst, big deal, seriously, its just a pain with instra warps and the like, I have done it. Also they use lag when jumping a fleet, I have been amazed at times not being able to lock anything even BC's as they jump in at gates before they warp out and it has happened to me numerous times.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#30 - 2016-07-26 10:19:54 UTC
Eladanus wrote:
Can you imagine the outrage if those calling for harsher punishment for criminals had joined a game where ganking was outlawed, but some people were asking for punishments to be relaxed?

The simple fact is that we all joined a game where we knew the rules, we knew what it was that separated EVE from the other risk-free MMOs. Getting ganked is frustrating, I know, but theirs is just as legitimate a playstyle as yours, and trying to squeeze out an important part of the game's culture and economy wouldn't have a good effect.


LOL, I stopped playing Elite Dangerous because police ships flew in front of my guns and I got blown up for it... Do you want to try again?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#31 - 2016-07-26 10:21:03 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:

Developers tend to close every discussion regarding the topic.

Those are two different topics and the only threads that get closed are the ones wherby people get irate and call others "racist" or whatever buzzword you fancy to take it too far with.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#32 - 2016-07-26 10:21:22 UTC
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
For what I saw so far there are two "factions"

- Who thinks suicidal gankers gain too much money too easily and wardecs are exploited (the ganked / wardecced ones)

-Who thinks suicidal ganking is good and wardecs are good too ( gankers / wardeccers )

If you see how much gankers gain and how much wardeccers wardec I'm for giving reason to the first group.

The latter has much to lose so they are strongly against any change...


Developers tend to close every discussion regarding the topic.

This brings questions about balance of ISK, and that brings questions about PvE in general, how it should look.

Game would need a serious shift, probably not what CCP would like to do, maybe only when things became critical, but how critical?

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#33 - 2016-07-26 10:21:43 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
But this issue is all about challenging game play and consequences.

So more safety, is challenging gameplay and consequences for haulers?

Let's not forget, that the original locked thread was all about a T1 industrial flying around with way too much cargo. So how is removing gankers, adding consequence to the hauler for their actions?

Again, I think most gankers are willing to take bigger restrictions to their gameplay, if you in turn provide with a viable solution to the problem of highsec having no consequence and no risk. If you remove gankers, what consequence should there be for taking a T1 industrial out with 1B in cargo? Currently, it makes sense cause the hunt for profit creates at least some risk to hauling with too much cargo, but remove that factor and what do you have left?


The second thread was asking for a consequence which makes sense. It is not my fault that CCP Falcon made such an ill advised post.

There is no way I want to see ganking removed, however the consequences are pathetic, its akin to 15 minutes community service for a RL murder.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Maekchu
Doomheim
#34 - 2016-07-26 10:21:47 UTC
Dibz wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Dibz wrote:
To be honest, it doesn't really make sense that a criminal can use all of the services offered in high security space. Why should they be able to? It's a good question. So far I've not seen anyone provide a reasonable answer.

Sure, there is no real reason. Just like there is no real reason for why people can so easily dodge a wardec. Or no reason to why highsec stations cannot be blown up.

But you know what, I'll gladly take all the penalties you guys are promoting, if we in turn get rid of many of the safety mechanics you already have.

I suppose that is fair, no?


Well, I personally think that the wardec and bounty systems be rolled into one system, whereby both individuals and corporations can be subjected to a wardec, even individuals in an NPC corporation. With reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse of the system.

And once we see some changes favoring mercs and gankers, I am sure they will in turn be more accepting of more restrictions to their gameplay. But as it currently stands, ganking has become way harder, while all the issues favoring "carebears" have not been fixed.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#35 - 2016-07-26 10:26:17 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
But this issue is all about challenging game play and consequences.

So more safety, is challenging gameplay and consequences for haulers?

Let's not forget, that the original locked thread was all about a T1 industrial flying around with way too much cargo. So how is removing gankers, adding consequence to the hauler for their actions?

Again, I think most gankers are willing to take bigger restrictions to their gameplay, if you in turn provide with a viable solution to the problem of highsec having no consequence and no risk. If you remove gankers, what consequence should there be for taking a T1 industrial out with 1B in cargo? Currently, it makes sense cause the hunt for profit creates at least some risk to hauling with too much cargo, but remove that factor and what do you have left?


The second thread was asking for a consequence which makes sense. It is not my fault that CCP Falcon made such an ill advised post.

There is no way I want to see ganking removed, however the consequences are pathetic, its akin to 15 minutes community service for a RL murder.

Just like the consequences of hauling with too much cargo or creating a corp you can't defend. Gankers have taken all the nerfs in recent years. I understand, why some people might think it's time to fix some of the "carebears" issues.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#36 - 2016-07-26 10:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Maekchu wrote:
Dibz wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Dibz wrote:
To be honest, it doesn't really make sense that a criminal can use all of the services offered in high security space. Why should they be able to? It's a good question. So far I've not seen anyone provide a reasonable answer.

Sure, there is no real reason. Just like there is no real reason for why people can so easily dodge a wardec. Or no reason to why highsec stations cannot be blown up.

But you know what, I'll gladly take all the penalties you guys are promoting, if we in turn get rid of many of the safety mechanics you already have.

I suppose that is fair, no?


Well, I personally think that the wardec and bounty systems be rolled into one system, whereby both individuals and corporations can be subjected to a wardec, even individuals in an NPC corporation. With reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse of the system.

And once we see some changes favoring mercs and gankers, I am sure they will in turn be more accepting of more restrictions to their gameplay. But as it currently stands, ganking has become way harder, while all the issues favoring "carebears" have not been fixed.


Where has it become harder?

EDIT: In terms of your postas above, you are talking to someone who wants to drop war dec fees, who will accept that a player leaving a war decked corp would have the war dec follow him to whatever corp he joined within 7 days. Seriously, get out of this black and white rubbish and start thinking it through.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Yarosara Ruil
#37 - 2016-07-26 10:28:28 UTC
As long as killing is its own reward, and we reward the sadistic and genocidal with killmails and killmarks, people will continue to kill each other for no rhyme or reason.

CCP is cool with this. Yet on the same breath, they lament the dwindling of a player base, crippled by the lack of rules skewed in favor towards the aggressor, who has nothing to lose and everything to win.

It's the aggressor who has the upper hand in EVE. If he kills, he is rewarded. If he dies, he tries again and again until he kills.
CCP Falcon
#38 - 2016-07-26 10:31:55 UTC
Again, topic closed.

Don't re-open locked topics. There's a reason they're closed, and in this instance, it's because this subject has been discussed to death on the forums, and it's to the point where it only leads to trolling, flaming and personal attacks.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Previous page12