These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Mittani's Presumption of Safety

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#61 - 2012-05-30 07:01:56 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
It is now on CCP to act , either they take action to avoid a large number of subcribers to leave or allow their own game to die a slow death with lower and lower subscriptions each quarter

Yep, I've heard this argument somewhere before.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-05-30 07:03:20 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
nat longshot wrote:
Mittani's lucky they did not permaban his sry butt months ago. keep push ccp and beat it will happen.
But for now ill sit back and get a tub of popcorn and watch.

Mittani's times is comeing i can feel it. So is goons.


If CCP was to take a step in that direction I think we'd have no further interest in this game, bans or otherwise.

There IS a GOD!! On your way out...don't let the door hit yah where the good Lord split yah!


Even if CCP perma banned mittens, I highly doubt any goon would quit the game over it. Goons need EVE to survive.
Lexmana
#63 - 2012-05-30 07:05:03 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
It is now on CCP to act , either they take action to avoid a large number of subcribers to leave or allow their own game to die a slow death with lower and lower subscriptions each quarter

Subscribers have been leaving EVE for for a decade and yet it has been growing every single year. I wonder why.
seany1212
M Y S T
#64 - 2012-05-30 07:07:37 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
For those bleeting that suicide ganking is easy, its only easy because you make it so.


Suicide ganking is easy, because it is EASY. Please don't try to make it sound like it is some complex and compelling game play, because it isn't. Simply fit T1 ship with cookie cutter T1 mods. Warp in at optimal range. Push button and receive bacon. It is very easy bro.

seany1212 wrote:
As for the reprocusions i went from practically 0 security status to -4.2 for 2 hulks, a retriever and a pod in 0.5 and 0.6 spaces. I now can only go in 0.5 and below and if i dipped below -5 im shootable anywhere in space. I fail to see how that isnt just rewards. Then again there are people bleeting to ban others for not playing to their gamestyle... Roll


Don't pod and you can stretch out that sec status much farther before retreating back to your null space to work that sec status off. You know that part of the game where you get paid to work it off. That part of the game where Concord gives no fucks about who you shoot, but for some strange reason keeps tabs on how many red crosses you pop?

Every step of suicide ganking is a profit. That is why it is so popular. Big smile


Except this works for the most part as at least half of the hulks in eve have no mids and only mining modules in the lows. I reckon if someone used the 22k ehp T2 shield fit thats floating around and used ECM drones rather than trying to pop you with hammers i'd like to bet they'd stop 2 or 3 catalysts attempting to gank. Yes they could bring more numbers after that and anything can be popped given enough numbers but it'd depend on either hos stupid your miner was or how afk.

Also i dont live in null, bro
Baby ChuChu
Ice Cream Asylum
#65 - 2012-05-30 07:09:02 UTC
One half crying. The other half whining about the first half crying.

Eve, where dreams come true.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#66 - 2012-05-30 07:11:14 UTC
Baby ChuChu wrote:
One half crying. The other half whining about the first half crying.

Eve, where dreams come true.

It's beautiful, isn't it.

Even the forums are part of this sandbox it's so ... breathtaking in the completeness of the game.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-05-30 07:11:15 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Suicide ganking is easy, because it is EASY.


It's a lot harder when the targets aren't botserrr AFK miners.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#68 - 2012-05-30 07:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Yet there are still camps, blobs, bubbles, suicide ganks... or is it not easy enough?

I certainly can say a lot of things on the subject, but to a person who cannot differentiate difficulty created by player actions that can be countered by player reactions of the same degree, and difficulty created by artificial ceilings hard-coded into the game's core structure, the words would be lost to the wind.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who really wants the game to be easy?

...

I'm sorry, I can't do this anymore. I know that like all players, you have your own agenda when it comes to the direction of this game, and I can respect that. But I don't have children, and this degree of spoon-feeding is simply beyond my capabilities.

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
Spurty
#69 - 2012-05-30 07:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Spurty
There was a time when battleships went faster than a dramiel, fast enough to have drones and missiles flying in knotts.

Ships had only 50% the hit points they do now and no one warped to zero anywhere (except corp mates and book marks, you could always warp to those at zero).

A Titan could destroy an infinite amount of un-tanked ships, remotely (not even on grid).

It (the game) really has been made a lot easier and that's exactly why there's more than 10,000 people logged in at peak hours.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-05-30 07:33:24 UTC
Spurty wrote:
There was a time when battleships went faster than a dramiel, fast enough to have drones and missiles flying in knotts.

Ships had only 50% the hit points they do now and no one warped to zero anywhere (except corp mates and book marks, you could always warp to those at zero).

A Titan could destroy an infinite amount of un-tanked ships, remotely (not even on grid).

It (the game) really has been made a lot easier and that's exactly why there's more than 10,000 people logged in at peak hours.


Only two of the examples you mentioned made the game "harder," and the warp-to-zero thing was needed IIRC because of the insane amount of bookmarks being copied that generated massive server load. AoE doomsdays brought 0.0 warfare to a halt considering that taking down a jammer meant soaking multiple doomsdays from titans only poking out of the POS shields momentarily, not nearly long enough to be destroyed. I wasn't around for the nano nerf, but 800 m/s Titans sound absolutely and undoubtedly broken.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#71 - 2012-05-30 07:39:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
stoicfaux wrote:
Eh, I was under the impression that the problem is suicide ganking in hi-sec is a little too one-sided in favor of the ganker. Meaning, it's too "safe" of an activity with its mostly predictable bring-X-firepower, you have X seconds before concord arrives, you lose X standings, etc.. Or maybe high-sec ganking is "easy" because it's impractical for the victims to fight back.

High-sec would be safer if gankers were actually treated as outlaws (i.e. shoot on sight for players and sentry guns) after their first criminal act, and the outlaw flag wasn't removed until after the criminal paid restitution to the victim (which with the war tracking feature should be relatively easy to implement.)

Anyway, if you want to curb hi-sec suicide ganking, try giving the high-sec players the tools to enforce the peace themselves.



The mechanisms are adequate for defending, but you really need to be able to fly a couple of races ships, have good combat skills and store them in the ops orca, as well as make the right split second decision ship and engagement choice, and you need your miners to have actually fitted the right tank, and turned it on!

This generally precludes a player without multiple years of training, or requires the defender to not have trained mining skills, and thus to not be in a hulk waiting for the ganker to switch. This is the kind of thing you'd imagine a mining corp could do, but of course a mining corp will just get wardecced.

It will also take endless years of ganking before that will ever be perceived as necessary by a miner, and as a combat player, I can't see me being remotely interested in sitting around in a highsec belt for 2 hours waiting for the gankers to show.

The nature of highsec PVE and PVA (player vs asteroid) would have to be seriously reconsidered and remade to provoke an environment where cooperation was rewarded more, and solo play was reduced.
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#72 - 2012-05-30 07:40:42 UTC


Oddball Six wrote:
The article appears to completely skip over the fact that not every player is a super fan. Sorry bubba, welcome to the world where people have more to do than read all of the wonderful text and podcasts, and places like this. For every superfan going to all of these outlets, ...


Well, for a casual player that is blatant ignorant about the eve community you seam pretty dedicated to change the game. You should really ask yourself if you are in the right place, maybe a single player simulation where you don't have to interact with other players would suit your needs much better.

Oddball Six wrote:
Rather, I think the problem is that people are pointing to controls that are already there, being violated in new ways and manipulated by larger scale metagaming and saying "whats the deal CCP, is this a game design element or not? Do you have a policy on this or not?" If CCP wants to allow the behavior, then there need to be the discussion about balance and intent.


Why don't you try to find out? The answer is out there!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2012-05-30 07:43:44 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Eh, I was under the impression that the problem is suicide ganking in hi-sec is a little too one-sided in favor of the ganker. Meaning, it's too "safe" of an activity with its mostly predictable bring-X-firepower, you have X seconds before concord arrives, you lose X standings, etc.. Or maybe high-sec ganking is "easy" because it's impractical for the victims to fight back.

High-sec would be safer if gankers were actually treated as outlaws (i.e. shoot on sight for players and sentry guns) after their first criminal act, and the outlaw flag wasn't removed until after the criminal paid restitution to the victim (which with the war tracking feature should be relatively easy to implement.)

Anyway, if you want to curb hi-sec suicide ganking, try giving the high-sec players the tools to enforce the peace themselves.



See, you had me until you mentioned "sentry guns." Stop encouraging more dependence on NPCs.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-05-30 07:44:22 UTC
Entered thread expecting either random pubbie psychopath making death threat against Mittani or at least someone suggesting the pubbies rise up and attack VFK, or even suggestions that CCP break the rules of the sandbox to prevent Goons from doing something legal under the EULA/TOS and/or directly harass Mittani.

Turns out it was #3: Clueless morons trying to blackmail CCP via unsubs (when in reality Goon's antics drive player subscriptions) into somehow singling out Goonswarm for harassment.

Thread does not disappoint.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#75 - 2012-05-30 07:47:20 UTC
Karak Terrel wrote:
Oddball Six wrote:
Rather, I think the problem is that people are pointing to controls that are already there, being violated in new ways and manipulated by larger scale metagaming and saying "whats the deal CCP, is this a game design element or not? Do you have a policy on this or not?" If CCP wants to allow the behavior, then there need to be the discussion about balance and intent.

Why don't you try to find out? The answer is out there!

I like the way he uses the word "violate".

In his mind it's already an exploit. There's no real question in his mind - he's already decided. Maybe it should be a bannable exploit.


Of course CCP might think otherwise, but they haven't had the time to agree with him yet. But they will surely ~~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#76 - 2012-05-30 07:49:34 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Eh, I was under the impression that the problem is suicide ganking in hi-sec is a little too one-sided in favor of the ganker. Meaning, it's too "safe" of an activity with its mostly predictable bring-X-firepower, you have X seconds before concord arrives, you lose X standings, etc.. Or maybe high-sec ganking is "easy" because it's impractical for the victims to fight back.

High-sec would be safer if gankers were actually treated as outlaws (i.e. shoot on sight for players and sentry guns) after their first criminal act, and the outlaw flag wasn't removed until after the criminal paid restitution to the victim (which with the war tracking feature should be relatively easy to implement.)

Anyway, if you want to curb hi-sec suicide ganking, try giving the high-sec players the tools to enforce the peace themselves.



See, you had me until you mentioned "sentry guns." Stop encouraging more dependence on NPCs.

Player-owned sentry guns, you mean. Right? That IS what you meant, isn't it?

That's not a bad idea, a small POS-like gun thing you can deploy (put some ammo in it) and it covers you. Of course, you have to remember to pick it back up or something afterwards.


How does a nice fancy T2 sentry gun sound?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-05-30 07:50:43 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Player-owned sentry guns, you mean. Right? That IS what you meant, isn't it?

That's not a bad idea, a small POS-like gun thing you can deploy (put some ammo in it) and it covers you. Of course, you have to remember to pick it back up or something afterwards.


How does a nice fancy T2 sentry gun sound?


I have some of those, they're called "Garde II" and "Bouncer II"

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-05-30 07:52:09 UTC
WHAT?! HUH?!!?! GOONs are going to Biomass!!!

HTFU!!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-05-30 07:53:47 UTC
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:
WHAT?! HUH?!!?! GOONs are going to Biomass!!!

HTFU!!!


You've never made sense hope this helps

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#80 - 2012-05-30 07:56:13 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Yet there are still camps, blobs, bubbles, suicide ganks... or is it not easy enough?

I certainly can say a lot of things on the subject, but to a person who cannot differentiate difficulty created by player actions that can be countered by player reactions of the same degree, and difficulty created by artificial ceilings hard-coded into the game's core structure, the words would be lost to the wind.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who really wants the game to be easy?

...

I'm sorry, I can't do this anymore. I know that like all players, you have your own agenda when it comes to the direction of this game, and I can respect that. But I don't have children, and this degree of spoon-feeding is simply beyond my capabilities.



You are doing what Mitt does. Presuming there is something to fight against, while acting like the thing you are fighting against is so horrible, that you will not even work on it except for some heavy handed solution. Are you always this dramatic?

All I see is a game, a game where there are challenges. I am sorry that seems to bug you so much. As for my agenda, I play alone, a style that CCP hates the most. I have posted many times that the only way they are going to nerf me is to create an " explode on undock of not a member of major alliance" mechanic. I always say "bring the pain" because they can make more challenges for the same price of a sub. That's like a free expansion.

People like you are no better then the people you claim to be against. You want it just as easy as the so-called carebears, except your kind of easy. I get enough of this dealing with politics, people wanting "the system" to boost them and screw people they don't like, without any adapting or effort. This is a bad habit that infests the western cultures, a sense of entitlement born of complaining. I see it from Hulk pilots and those who want to destroy them. This is why I play alone, no matter how many times I get run off of juicy radar sites by both NPC and the SOV holders alike.

Sad. Better check the news. There are better things to be so dramatic about. I envy you in a way. You probably think you zinged me while I feel like I am trying to win the Special Olympics just by responding to you.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!