These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2016-11-01 01:04:54 UTC
Why do carebears always want to punish gankers?

They're like that huge crowd in 'Hang'em High'... Roll

If anything, a mechanic that buffs carebears could make more sense. Like faster CONCORD response time for high standings.

Carebears love to grind, it would give them a goal to work towards. Also make things more interesting for gankers, I guess? Not knowing the exact CONCORD response time...

I'm sure the idea has come up several times, so I guess there are downsides to it.

So yeah, OP, no luck there, can't be a casual freighter pilot sorry. You can still be a casual mission runner, I guess.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Xander Jade
Navis Armis Pecuniis
#102 - 2016-11-01 03:56:53 UTC
Lasisha Mishi wrote:
Xander Jade wrote:
I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,

Change 1

Need: some type of real security in high security systems

Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.

Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this

since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)

Pilot X ES = 7.2 … Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4

if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be

7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36

this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.

Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security

lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.

make it even more complex… if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contribution… but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)

Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.

this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

sounds interesting.

it would also make ganking be a bit more lore themed. as gankers investigate their target first and then kill in certain space.


though the one issue i have is "all 4 empires" would be a bit overkill.
i'd say it would only really apply to the highest empire standing you have. as considering Gallente and Caldari relationships, i'd find it hard to believe they'd both like the same person.

but at the same time, caldari would probably be happy with gankers killing gallente alligned people in their own space (concord would be pissed.....but meh)

and eventually gallente would want to step in to protect people alligned to them in their own controlled space.



so 1 empire, not 4.

or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)



so 1 not 4... ok but have it be the territory you are currently in not the highest standing.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#103 - 2016-11-01 04:49:22 UTC
i am a casual player too and i DON'T support this crap because it promotes autopiloting.

all autopiloting ships should die. if something IMPORTANT came up IRL while freighting/playing, DOCK THE FCK UP.

Just Add Water

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#104 - 2016-11-01 06:32:41 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Steffles wrote:

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.

Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?

Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE.

Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"?
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#105 - 2016-11-01 06:44:11 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good.Twisted

Cool story bro. The wardec system can be dodged so easily it is completely useless if it comes to miners.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#106 - 2016-11-01 06:48:57 UTC
It's not completely useless, just mostly useless.

Sometimes you find an entire group of miners you're at war with sitting totally AFK in a belt and you showed up in a battleship to whack a POS but they're AFK so it doesn't matter and you kill them without them noticing.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2016-11-01 07:46:06 UTC
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.

It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!

Take that, logic!




As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.

You are just embarrassing yourself.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#108 - 2016-11-01 07:49:29 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.

It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!

Take that, logic!




As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.

You are just embarrassing yourself.


the irony, loooool. Lol

ive said this before, ill say it again. we get it dude, you hate the game, so please quit. it would be better for the rest of us. thank you.

Just Add Water

Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2016-11-01 07:55:51 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good.Twisted

Cool story bro. The wardec system can be dodged so easily it is completely useless if it comes to miners.



So you dont like effort for your PvP game, you much rather prefer an easyISK gankerWOW.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2016-11-01 07:58:14 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.

It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!

Take that, logic!




As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.

You are just embarrassing yourself.


the irony, loooool. Lol

ive said this before, ill say it again. we get it dude, you hate the game, so please quit. it would be better for the rest of us. thank you.

So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.

Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Vigirr
#111 - 2016-11-01 08:00:46 UTC
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2016-11-01 08:06:37 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

No actually I like PvP. Gankers themselves are very good for business.

However I don't like the overpower of the destroyers, nor do I like the lack of effects on for negative sec status and Crime watch and the destroyer rebalance actually killed off some fun things like can flipping, hunting criminals et al.

The destroyers are the biggest problem, not PvP if you need to use a cruiser or above to gank then it would be a lot better for the victims who would then also be more likely to include the gankers.

At the moment the gankers are just on easy isk and they don't want this to change. It is broken and needs fixing.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#113 - 2016-11-01 08:12:59 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:

So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.

Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.


game mechanics of course theres alot of changes, and there will be much more in the future.

but he's not pertaining to that, he's talking about EvE's core which is a PVP-oriented sandbox game and it hasn't changed since the beginning, but you can't obviously comprehend that, so ill just assume your d*mb. Smile

since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.

Just Add Water

Vigirr
#114 - 2016-11-01 08:14:33 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

No actually I like PvP. Gankers themselves are very good for business.

However I don't like the overpower of the destroyers, nor do I like the lack of effects on for negative sec status and Crime watch and the destroyer rebalance actually killed off some fun things like can flipping, hunting criminals et al.

The destroyers are the biggest problem, not PvP if you need to use a cruiser or above to gank then it would be a lot better for the victims who would then also be more likely to include the gankers.

At the moment the gankers are just on easy isk and they don't want this to change. It is broken and needs fixing.


Destroyers being silly, some of them anyway, is true and should be changed. This however does not explain your posting history.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2016-11-01 08:23:40 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.

Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.


game mechanics of course theres alot of changes, and there will be much more in the future.

but he's not pertaining to that, he's talking about EvE's core which is a PVP-oriented sandbox game and it hasn't changed since the beginning, but you can't obviously comprehend that, so ill just assume your d*mb. Smile

since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.

Oh look another emotive argument.

Of course EvE is a PvP orientated game but the point was specifically related to changes having occurred.

These forums have gotten very much like arguing with uneducated children. No ability to read or properly comprehend.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#116 - 2016-11-01 08:35:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.

We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2016-11-01 08:52:28 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.

We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.

Would you care to pull up this post.

Because it wasn't me.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#118 - 2016-11-01 09:17:47 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.

We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.

Would you care to pull up this post.

Because it wasn't me.

My apology if that's the case. I thought it was you that wrote it.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2016-11-01 17:35:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Steffles wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Steffles wrote:

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.

Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?

Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE.

Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"?

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


Nat Silverguard wrote:
since you're d*mb, your opinion that certain mechanics in EvE are 'imbalance' are also d*mb.

That logic is itself dumb. Just because someone is dumb doesn't mean an opinion they also hold is dumb. Many dumb people, such as yourself, probably hold the opinion that the sky is blue which is not a dumb opinion, even if it is wrong.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2016-11-01 17:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE Online is called New Eden, even the 16% of it known as 'High Security Space'.

Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that, thus CODE exists for them.