These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fanfest: Crimewatch

First post First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#381 - 2012-03-23 12:41:21 UTC
Ferocious FeAr wrote:
[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty?
…in the roundtable.
Diva Ex Machina
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#382 - 2012-03-23 12:44:29 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
This game has a rich and full content for players who do not want to interact with others, why should they be forced to interact beyond the limit they desire? There is no single player version of the game, yet.


There is a test server (Sisi) where you can mine in totally empty systems to your heart's content and nobody will shoot, canflip or otherwise harass you. If that's what you really want then it's already there.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#383 - 2012-03-23 12:44:39 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
There is no single player version of the game

Gee, that kind of tells you something, doesn't it?

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

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#384 - 2012-03-23 12:45:32 UTC
If miners have such a problem with losing their multi-hundred million vessels, and it's a 'problem' they cannot anchor GSC in the highest security space, how about we just set a limit on where mining vessels can mine.

0.9-1.0 mining frigates and rookie vessels
0.7-0.8 mining cruisers, frigates and rookie vessels
0.5-0.6 mining barges, cruisers, frigates and rookie vessels
low + null - anything

I mean, it's a "problem" for them they can't mine in peace/without interruption, and it's a "problem" to anchor cans, it's a "problem" to use lower highsec, it's a "problem" their extremely powerful endgame mining vessels with big cargo have to warp to stations when they are full (if they jetcan), it's a "problem" they have to bring friends in orca and/or haulers, etc.

I seem to remember when miners thought it was a problem that I stole from their can in highsec back in the day, so CCP gave them the right to attack me when I stole. They already had their boost/"fix" then. Twisted

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#385 - 2012-03-23 12:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Misanth of rabble rabble rabble - ok!

My corp has no problem mining in the rare times when the market - which some have not noticed is really absent in Sisi - demands we have more raw materials.

We have high volume miners with orca and transport support. We are not the targets of the griefers who want to prey on the helpless noobs who haven't struggled through a sea of A-holes - who have brought their need to bully from the playground into a game - to be where we are in the game's social structure.
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
#386 - 2012-03-23 12:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: prolix travail
I understand you're looking at this from a coding point of view, but could you also keep in mind that the changes you are making will affect a core part of EvE online: player responsibilty.

Individuals and corps have recourses against thieves, as they are flagged and can be shot. There are ways of preventing theft also, and If they choose to ignore the use of secured cans, friends in haulers and other such things there should be risks associated with that choice.

High-security space is a place for new players to learn about EvE, and pvp in whatever form is part of that, you could say the fundamental element which seems to have been missed by what some people call 'carebears'.

The most obvious proposal that goes against this nature is a suspect being flagged to everyone, for stealing from one person/corp. Are you saying that anything in wrecks or cans is the personal property of everyone? Concord isn't there to enforce socially acceptable behavior but to blow up those who unlawfully blow up someone else. Everything else is the responsibility of the players. Also why should the suspect be penalized for defending themselves from any consensual pvp that comes from that flag? the other guy has the choice to shoot, he isn't forced.

This proposed flagging game mechanic while easier for you to code will reduce pvp outside of wardecs, which at present can be avoided completely anyway, and so drastically reducing all pvp in highsec. This kind of environment wouldn't be a fair reflection for new players of EvE as it stands now. Can you tell me, us (those who think this way) what you are doing with the sandbox of new eden, will the ability to pvp wherever and whenever be protected? or are you going to eventually dictate where it's allowed to happen?
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#387 - 2012-03-23 12:52:48 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
rabble rabble rabble - ok!
I'm beginning to see why you might have problems finding that friend to haul for you that doesn't grief you right off the bat.... just saying. Ugh
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND
The Final Stand.
#388 - 2012-03-23 12:55:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ferocious FeAr wrote:
[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty?
…in the roundtable.


Which was your subjective interpretation of what was said around a table and not put in writing... Unlike here. I watched the Presentation myself and quite frankly theres still nothing that has been said that has suggested eve will be broken beyond repair and the sandbox has all of a sudden become WoW (some of you should actually play wow first before comparing the two games)

Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped.

This imo is just a very welcome balance, action=consequence = far more pvp options = win.

If you don't like it, don't flip the switch, the choice will always be yours.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#389 - 2012-03-23 13:01:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Seems like the RP aspect demands that 20 thousand years into the future, we can expect to have laws enforced in some parts of space without relying on vigilante justice.

And no, I have not had trouble finding friends who I could trust - it just was a little difficult for the first few months.- far more A-holes, than trustworthy players.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#390 - 2012-03-23 13:04:45 UTC
Ferocious FeAr wrote:
Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped.
mmm.... Reckon that depends on how it is done.

In extreme cases where douchebags flip a can, pull aggro, have all their douche friends warp in and start RRing, and then Orcaswap to a combat ship, yeah... yeah that is unbalanced.

But there is also the situation where the guy flips the can, and then the victim and his entire corp stand-up to the flipper and deliver a beatdown. Which tends to be a relatively fair consequence.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#391 - 2012-03-23 13:07:33 UTC
Ferocious FeAr wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Ferocious FeAr wrote:
[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty?
…in the roundtable.


Which was your subjective interpretation of what was said around a table and not put in writing... Unlike here. I watched the Presentation myself and quite frankly theres still nothing that has been said that has suggested eve will be broken beyond repair and the sandbox has all of a sudden become WoW (some of you should actually play wow first before comparing the two games)

Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped.

This imo is just a very welcome balance, action=consequence = far more pvp options = win.

If you don't like it, don't flip the switch, the choice will always be yours.


+1

Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just sayingBlink

For every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about?
Alua Oresson
Immortal Lunatics
Ministry of Aggressive Destruction
#392 - 2012-03-23 13:10:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Psychotic Monk wrote:
I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this.


Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.


Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat.

http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#393 - 2012-03-23 13:12:55 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just sayingBlink

For every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about?

So you're saying that being flagged to the person you stole from, and his entire corporation, isn't a reaction?

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

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#394 - 2012-03-23 13:20:04 UTC
Alua Oresson wrote:
Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat.
Indeed. Nor would an entire corp/alliance dedicated to suicide ganking all create -10 alts and then take turns popping each alt til their sec status is fixed. That simply would not happen in our EvE.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:
Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just sayingBlinkFor every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about?

So you're saying that being flagged to the person you stole from, and his entire corporation, isn't a reaction?
No, I think the subtext of what he is saying is that he is intrinsically a better player and PvPer cuz he doesn't can-flip. Which is a cool opinion and all. Hell, maybe he is right. *shrug*
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#395 - 2012-03-23 13:20:05 UTC
Good citizens are now forced to stand by and helplessly watch innocents be preyed upon by far more experienced and better equipped players.

The changes I see on the horizon are the real world equivalent of a good citizen holding down a pickpocket until the police arrive.

Now go ahead and ignore the magic of clones and start talking about deadly force is more than holding down a perp.
Adunh Slavy
#396 - 2012-03-23 13:36:37 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets.



It's pretty smart. Puts the law in the hands of the players at large, not those who can best abuse the mechanics.

If you want to go in this direction, I'll oblige.

Launching cans is abandonment, no different from throwing an empty cup out into the highway. High-sec is empire space; it doesn't belong to the pod-pilot launching the can. Therefore, all cans should be considered garbage. Unless of course the pilot jettisoning a can buys licenses from the empires that specifically allow him to secure his jettisoned property. CCP can decide what the fee should be, but I propose a simple X ISK per Y cubic meters system.

Oh, and in line with these rules, all NPC cans belong strictly to the NPC faction they originated from. Anyone taking from NPC cans should be subject to the same "suspicion" flag. Property rules are property rules, after all.



I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#397 - 2012-03-23 13:42:37 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges.

And how exactly are my semi-RP responses that concern player interaction with NPC entities irrelevant to a mechanics discussion in the context of an MMORPG?

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#398 - 2012-03-23 13:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bump Tremor wrote:
Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order?
Because it fundamentally breaks the game in a number of ways and will be abused to hell and back.

Ferocious FeAr wrote:
Which was your subjective interpretation of what was said around a table and not put in writing...
No. It was his explicit and repeated explanation and clarification of what he was saying. If you want to reject that then nothing he said in the presentation you saw has any value whatsoever either.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#399 - 2012-03-23 13:55:43 UTC
I'm just missing how this whole can flipping change will really benefit anyone but the most vulnerable players who are still struggling to establish themselves in the game. It is a logical next step in the very important restriction of poaching newbs in a starter system. As soon as they have enough time to train up and enough resources to obtain decent gear, they can decide if they want to fight or not

The only players who will lose anything are the butts who want to prey on the inexperienced, the as yet insufficently trained, and the least invested in remaining in the game. Very important demographic to a company that wants to retain paying subs, the least invested in remaining in the game! Say it again,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THE LEAST INVESTED IN REMAINING IN THE GAME PAYING FOR THEIR SUBS! $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Let these players stay in the minor leagues for a while without having to face major league interference. Why is that such a bad thing or hard to understand, or even harder to realize it is something you are going to have to accept. CCP can stand the loss a few thousand hard core griefers better than the tens of thousands of newbs who leave in the first few months - some of whom return, but most don't

Quite frankly, you are pissing up a rope as Greyscale has stated that can baiting is over.

What I am hearing from most of the butts is the same thing they should be hearing from the newbs - "I can't fare well in null, where I'll get blobbed by large alliances!" Well, if you want to fight, you have to pick your fights. If you don't want to fight, you should not have to dance around to keep playing the part of the game you want to play or be forced out of it.

There are plenty of other players who are where you are - unable to fit in with large groups and wanting a fight. Oh, wait - I forgot, you don't want a FAIR fight, you just want to slaughter the helpless! Ok, I get it, now. The bully desire. Now tell me the fairy tale about how a corp which cannot afford an orca is going to be able to muster enough strength to fight off the griefers who are flagged to just them.
Terazul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#400 - 2012-03-23 13:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Terazul
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:

The whole reason for me is to get small scale PvP. One opponent. Two. Maybe three or four. And unfortunately that's not something I generally find in lowsec, nullsec, FW, or from observation of RvB. People just seem to be too risk adverse. It's usually blobtastic gangs and gatecamps looking for easy kills. And since I don't use an alt (link or scouting) that's generally not something I can take on with even a slim chance of winning.

Hmmmm, maybe this should tell you something...

To paraphrase an earlier poster, everyone in EVE is risk-averse and everyone in EVE is a hypocrite.
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Also, the best part of the can-flipping aggro is that it is completely voluntary. You cannot force them to fight. You cannot make it non-consensual. You provoke them, but they have the choice to fight or walk away. So when you get a fight, you know that they want to PvP.

You know, I find it somewhat amusing that people are focusing on the cans. Miners aren't the only ones affected by this, believe it or not.

As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks.

I'm sure this will prompt the inevitable anti-carebear comments, but seriously? Should people be able to just steal from mission wrecks without consequence like that? Millions and millions of isk, just like that? No effort at all? How does that make any bloody sense!?

Mind you, this goes hand-in-hand with the problem that mission fits are completely incompatible with PvP. If they could fix that, I wouldn't be concerned about this. As it is, it's just stupidly one-sided. I'll also note that this is obviously not so much of a problem outside the most crowded mission hubs, but it is still a glaring logical error that can adversely affect the income of dedicated mission runners. I hear people harping about "risk vs. reward" all the time, but where's the risk in going in a tiny frigate and speeding around grabbing tags from wrecks? That's almost no risk at all (when the mission runner had to tank and kill those ships in the first place, while also taking a standing hit with the faction they're killing) with a HUGE reward as tags are worth a lot in level 4 missions.

So yes, I am in favor of wreck-stealing being highly and obviously illegal. Let's face it, it makes little difference even as proposed since they're running in tiny frigates anyway, but at least there's a chance someone will catch the bastard before they sneak away to sell their stolen goods.

(Edit: I am open to the possibility that can-flipping can be separate from wreck-stealing in their legal consequences - however, that just makes things more complicated than they already are, which is what CCP is trying to avoid in the first place. YMMV.)

Annnnd let the anti-carebear rebuttals begin!