These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

Forum Index

EVE Forums » Council of Stellar Management » Assembly Hall » Greifers vs CCP, Hulkageddon is winning. Time for CCP t...

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Greifers vs CCP, Hulkageddon is winning. Time for CCP to code changes.
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#301 - 2012-07-20 12:48:28 UTC

Lady Flute wrote:

No, it is not how it is today. That is why CCP is changing it. Properly fit T2 defences only modules + rigs on a hulk will still lose to a ganker squad who are vaguely competent

And they will keep on losing their ship to "a ganker squad who are vaguely competent", because no ship is ever going to be safe, ever, all it'll take is bigger numbers.

What you aren't seeing is that there are a ton of things which can be done, today, to make hulks etc hard to kill as it is. Various fit options exist, you can implement constant repping, you can keep constantly moving around so you constantly go out of blaster range, etc etc etc. But no, way too many people aren't adapting to the reality that is today's hisec (and not totalsec), which means that CCP have to make changes to force them to fit their ships properly by design so they can fit their precious cargo expanders, cargohold optimizations and MLU2's to get more yield.

Lady Flute wrote:

because the gankers have had 5 years of damage upgrades.

Horseshit.

Lady Flute wrote:

The current Alpha levels are simply too high, making combat frequently too short and hence boring. The quintisential fight in EVE is about two different ships using all of the tactical tools in the game to fight each other, in essence like a fencing duel with reposte, parry, counterthrust etc. Currently we have uncloak or warp in, instant lock and instant melt tactics, mainly due to overheating being radically too effective.

I guess you don't really understand the fight dynamics in today's EVE. The only reason why alpha is such a big deal in normal fights these days, is because logistics are pretty powerful and you basically have to either alpha through someone's buffer, or you have to field so much damage that no matter how much repping power they have, you field more incoming damage.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Takara Mora

University of Caille

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 85

#302 - 2012-07-20 17:22:18 UTC | Edited by: Takara Mora

Xorv wrote:

Lady Flute wrote:

[...]The critical issue is that with the current game mechanics, it is simply not possible to prevent someone killing a mining ship. You literally cannot stop them, as discussed above "it is too easy". Conceptually, miners should be able to have pvpers guard them if they want to: but that is not actually a valid tactic in highsec, until the greifers fire, there is no right to fire upon them. And the new ships and power of alpha strikes now means that it is simply not possible to stop the kill.

That's broken.[...]

You're quite right it is broken, but you fail to see why, even after spelling out most of the relevant facts yourself in your own posts..

Simply in game like EVE, the farms and fields which includes mining shouldn't be in what is High sec to begin with. It's because you can gather resources under the protection of CONCORD/Crimewatch that players resort to suicide ganking, and it's because of those same CONCORD/Crimewatch mechanics that player guards as you suggested simply don't work,

It isn't CCP failing to deal with Highsec "Griefers" that has been holding back this game, most of those players are better thought of as part of the immune system response of the Sandbox to unhealthy anti-sandbox gameplay. What's holding back EVE from it's real potential is the Themepark-ish game mechanics found in Highsec, and CCP's unwillingness to really address that problem.

Xorv ... I don't have time to go play every game out there, but sounds like you have a lot of experience around sandbox vs. non-sandbox games ... please elaborate on whether it's possible for a "pure sandbox game" to successfully exist ... are there any real life examples of pure sandbox games that are as successful as EVE (a niche, highly but not purely sandbox game) or even other mainstream MMO's?

IMO, sandboxes (real or virtual), have a big problem to deal with ... they always get taken over by a few bullies, then everyone else goes home. EVE needs to cater to a wider spectrum of players in order to survive, and to do so, they hybridize the sandbox ... I'd really like to hear more about how this supposedly does so much harm to the game ... How does a pure sandbox automatically equate to a better game experience (except for the predators of course)? I don't log into a game just so I can deal with the same *ss hats I have to fend off in real life, nor do want to have to become an *ss hat just to play the game effectively ... EVE's got room for a full spectrum so why not make the most of it?

Xavier Saraki

Saraki Brothers

Likes received: 1

#303 - 2012-07-22 05:59:31 UTC | Edited by: Xavier Saraki

Simple solution: Remove agression timers. If he/she decides to become a global criminal, he should be a global criminal until he has increased his/her "standing". He/she should not be able to be destroyed by CONCORD, and run to the nearest station to wait out an agression timer. If the "killer" can be podded by anyone, then maybe they will think twice about it. But if they have enough ISK it won't make a difference. But at least people getting griefed can pod them out of the system.

Asuka Solo

I N E X T R E M I S

Tactical Narcotics Team

Likes received: 3,024

#304 - 2012-07-23 04:09:16 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

Lady Flute wrote:

Stuff

But no, way too many people aren't adapting to the reality that is today's hisec (and not totalsec), which means that CCP have to make changes to force them to fit their ships properly by design so they can fit their precious cargo expanders, cargohold optimizations and MLU2's to get more yield.

Cargo expanders to miners are like Magstabs/Heatsinks/gyrostabs to gankers.

Imagine a New Eden were CCP forced you to not fit those to do what you prefer doing....

Food for thought.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Saithe

Caldari Provisions

Caldari State

Likes received: 113

#305 - 2012-07-23 05:42:52 UTC

Oh look, its _this_ thread again.

You know of hulkageddon, yet continue to mine in .7 and lower space.
You know of hulkageddon, yet fail to watch local.
You know of hulkageddon, yet fail to properly prepare your ship.
You know of hulkageddon, yet fail to.. you know what theres just to many things to list.

The only ships with larger cargoholds than exhumers are haulers, freighters, and capitals. The largest cargohold otherwise is the Marauders, with what, 1km3 space? Then BS's w/ 625 m3 space?

Don't want to lose your ship? Fit a tank. Yea, you'll lose your precious MLU's, but let me ask you: Would you rather lose a 300mil ship to get a slightly faster return rate? Or would you rather spend a whopping 20 minutes extra a day mining with a tank.

Every time I see a miner cry, I think of this video.

TL;DR
Learn to fit your ship for combat you know about, grow up, and shut up.

Takara Mora

University of Caille

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 85

#306 - 2012-07-27 23:32:17 UTC

There's no such thing as Hulkageddon anymore, right? --> It's just Business as Usual permanent Hulkageddon from now on corrrect?

Anyway, let's just all give in already and admit ... CCP wants everyone to become a Greifer .... it's really the way they intend the game to be played, right?

That being the case, most of us should really just quit since we don't like playing that way ...

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#307 - 2012-07-28 00:22:23 UTC

Asuka Solo wrote:

Cargo expanders to miners are like Magstabs/Heatsinks/gyrostabs to gankers.

Imagine a New Eden were CCP forced you to not fit those to do what you prefer doing....

Food for thought.

Then they'd bring more people or a shiptype with more inherent dps given the time constraints available, like they do when they go after T1 mining barges vs T2 mining barges, or orcas etc etc etc. Just like they did during burn jita, the ships going after freighters were setup for ganking, whereas the ships going after the wartargets weren't setup for ganking.

This analogy of yours would've worked only if miners as a whole had actually been tanking their ships, instead of just fitting for yield or going "abloo bloo bloo it's impossible!"

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Lady Flute

Ilmarinen Group

Likes received: 33

#308 - 2012-08-01 06:05:29 UTC | Edited by: Lady Flute

Saithe wrote:

This is precisely what all this is about. Someone who preaches the same old boring and WRONG message. The ships I and my friends lost WERE tanked (T2 total defence fit with ECM drones), we WERE watchig local, we DID d-scan, we WERE flying with others ... and still lost ships in 0.7 systems to alpha strike destoyers.

Lord Zim wrote:

This analogy of yours would've worked only if miners as a whole had actually been tanking their ships, instead of just fitting for yield or going "abloo bloo bloo it's impossible!"

Go look at the killboards, you troll. No wait, CCP already did that - and realised that tanked exhumers were going down all over the place and that the risk/reward/cost ratios were totally off, and they have responded by making major changes to mining ships.

Aslo Zim, you say Alpha needed to be made so strong because logistics have become so strong. That shows precisely the kind of bad design calls CCP has been making over the past few years. I agree, logistics can be insane. But I didn't add rigs to the game, or make T2 rigs combined faction gear rediculously overpowered. None of the rubish changes to combat over the past few years is my fualt whatsoever - but it is the fault of people like you, 'lord zim", for not giving CCP timely and accurate feedback on issues, and generating better options on how to fix emerging issues. I love new mods. Are they balanced? No, the latest ones lead to some rediculous outcomes from a game design point of view - but I am not venturing into saying how pvp between combat ships should be balanced, that is not an area I honestly care much about.

I do however care when bad design calls lead to gameplay that makes my friends quit EVE (and they have over hulkageddon) and I applaud CCP for fronting up with new ship designs. Now I would love to see them send out a "Come back to EVE, get a free exhumer" e-mail to everyone who unsubbed and who has an exhumer loss on thier account from the past 3 months. End of the day this is about paying customers playing and enjoying the game - stop being so livid that just for once CCP is paying attention to miners rather than listening to the flawed rantings of the pvp / pro greifing crowds.

So CCP ... how about adding that gas mining ship next?

Velicitia

XS Tech

Likes received: 2,802

#309 - 2012-08-01 13:32:44 UTC

Asuka Solo wrote:

Cargo expanders to miners are like Magstabs/Heatsinks/gyrostabs to gankers.

Imagine a New Eden were CCP forced you to not fit those to do what you prefer doing....

Food for thought.

Uh, no. My "Magstabs" happen to be 2x MLU II for higher M3/min (aka, DPS).

Granted, this is primarily used in quiet systems. Anywhere with neutrals gets "Tank" over "Gank" (I.E. mining yield)...

... though it doesn't stop me from losing hulks to stupid reasons ... like the POS getting 'sploded Oops

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

First pagePrevious page141516