These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No Eve Player Should Miss This Article
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#301 - 2012-08-28 22:06:46 UTC
Ravyn Antollare wrote:
I fail to understand the argument in favor of more safety in EVE. Want more safety? I hear you can mine and salvage in Guild Wars 2. All on strict PVE servers, at that. So there you go - off with you now.

Risk is what makes EVE great. Real Risk, and real Loss. Without these two things, EVE is just another theme park MMO. With subpar missions/quests, at that. Without real risk, and real loss, EVE is just...lost in the crowd of aging - and dying - MMO's.

Now you can argue about there being a low/null sec for that, if we want to go there. And that's true, to an extent.

But capitalism drives EVE. With so much of EVE being safe space now, and resources in safe space being so plentiful, CCP have removed all incentive for going into low or null sec. When profit is the main motivator, you obtain it through the safest means available, logically. And with high sec plus huge ore bays on Retrievers and Mackinaws, well, safety is abundant.

What I would do differently, to fix this:

-Only Veldspar and Scordite appear in anything 0.5 or higher. Once or twice in an entire system, you MIGHT see Plagio.
-High sec mining belts respawn only once per week
-Variants of regular ore only appear in 0.4 or lower. Massive/Dense/Fiery/Silver/Gold variations - low sec only
-ALL mining belts outside of beginner systems are considered null sec. CONCORD has stations and gates to guard. They can't do that, and guard risky areas like sites and mining belts, that you voluntarily traveled to.
-Raise NPC corp taxes to 50% for players who have been on longer than 60 days

Doing this would force miners into riskier areas. It would also make all belts riskier by their new, null sec nature. The results would I think be something like the following:

-Miners would be forced to group. All of a sudden, remaining in NPC corps would cost you. Big. As would mining without guards.

-Ship prices would increase. Drastically. This would offset the dangers of low sec mining somewhat, as attacks on mining corps would cost down time, since ship prices would increase as this new system made ore more scarce.

-People would be forced to remain at the keyboard while mining. To actually play EVE, as opposed to turning it on and ignoring it. Its the AFK whiners having the biggest problem. Its also the 16hr a day AFK miners who are making everything so common in the game now. Since the mining boat rebalance I have watched the price of Gallente HAC's come down $50mil. That's too much, too quick, and its a direct result of the ease of obtaining many minerals.

All those changes would do is make droves of players leave eve. And you know what? Once they leave, you cannot shoot them. If your goal is more layoffs at CCP, a fine plan.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2012-08-28 22:08:46 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


This wouldn't be the first time CCP screwed up now would it?


Wouldn't be the first time some self important dips shiptoasted up GD thinking their ideas were the greatest thing in the game.

I'll even include myself in this one Blink


Yeah cause valuing risk:reward, attempting to avoid the trammelization of EVE and insulting moronic NPC alts are terrible ideas Roll.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#303 - 2012-08-28 22:09:01 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
All those changes would do is make droves of players leave eve. And you know what? Once they leave, you cannot shoot them. If your goal is more layoffs at CCP, a fine plan.


yeah suicide ganking has existed since the beginning and this game seems to be quite fine!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2012-08-28 22:10:35 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Sabrina Solette wrote:
Volar Kang wrote:
CCP didnt give in to "miner howling" they gave into the stupidity that was an making hulkaggeddon permanent.

Like most kids, you guys took it too far. Once a year for 30 days was fine and qualifies as an event. Making it permanent exploits a broken mechanic where ganking was too easy and profitable.

For all the supposed miner tears you guys talk about, you elite pvpers sure are making a pile of your own now that the easy, unarmed targets got a small buff.



Yeah, I agree with this.



But some people will take things too far and then wonder why things change.


So preying on the stupid and the lazy is a broken mechanic now?




I won't say that where this game is concerned.

But I've always seen it as a broken mechanic, but more so because of the way high-sec is structured. It's just part of the problem with trying to combine PvE elements with PvP elements.

Suicide pilots are protected by CONCORD up until the point they become aggressors, so they get first strike for free. The high-sec mechanics are not ideal by any means, but suicide ganking was profitable before and easy, and as a result was being done too frequently.

How many new people never really gave the game a try because of suicide gankers, who knows but makes you wonder.
Ravyn Antollare
Dead Space Continuum
#305 - 2012-08-28 22:12:10 UTC
The people who would leave EVE in droves, were my above changes implemented, are the same people who will eventually lead CCP to killing the game anyway. They are the AFK mining and strict Carebear crowd. They are the ones who are presiding over the complaints and the petitions that have lead CCP to gradually try "mainstreaming" EVE.

And mark me: EVE cannot compete with mainstream MMO games. Mainstream is the focus of those other games. Its their purpose. EVE cannot go up against those established, mainstream, risk-averse titles - many of which are Free to play - and win.

So let them leave. EVE - as it was intended to be - neither needs nor especially wants them anyway.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#306 - 2012-08-28 22:12:46 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
How many new people never really gave the game a try because of suicide gankers, who knows but makes you wonder.


I've never had any of my hisec alts suicide ganked, ever.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-08-28 22:15:23 UTC
Andski wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
All those changes would do is make droves of players leave eve. And you know what? Once they leave, you cannot shoot them. If your goal is more layoffs at CCP, a fine plan.


yeah suicide ganking has existed since the beginning and this game seems to be quite fine!


Except suicide ganking had vastly increased to what it used to be, certainly don't remember there being much back in 2005 especially against miners. Plus there was no Hulkageddon back then.
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#308 - 2012-08-28 22:15:29 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


This wouldn't be the first time CCP screwed up now would it?


Wouldn't be the first time some self important dips shiptoasted up GD thinking their ideas were the greatest thing in the game.

I'll even include myself in this one Blink


Yeah cause valuing risk:reward, attempting to avoid the trammelization of EVE and insulting moronic NPC alts are terrible ideas Roll.


Pity when CCP ran the numbers they decided against your favored risk:reward state of the mining profession. Blink

I go back to, you're irrelevant , all that matters is what CCP decides.
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#309 - 2012-08-28 22:16:44 UTC
Andski wrote:
Sabrina Solette wrote:
How many new people never really gave the game a try because of suicide gankers, who knows but makes you wonder.


I've never had any of my hisec alts suicide ganked, ever.




Really, I have but mine survived but mainly because the suicide pilots were a bit green.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2012-08-28 22:17:03 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:

I won't say that where this game is concerned.

But I've always seen it as a broken mechanic, but more so because of the way high-sec is structured. It's just part of the problem with trying to combine PvE elements with PvP elements.

Suicide pilots are protected by CONCORD up until the point they become aggressors, so they get first strike for free. The high-sec mechanics are not ideal by any means, but suicide ganking was profitable before and easy, and as a result was being done too frequently.

How many new people never really gave the game a try because of suicide gankers, who knows but makes you wonder.


The problem with that argument is that it was ONLY profitable because the targets were too lazy/stupid to tank their ships. New people cannot fly hulks so that point is moot. CONCORD is a punishment tool not a protector, their whole shitck is that they come and slap the person that hurt you. The best protections you can get in no particular order are, your attention, the tank mods you fit, and your friends.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#311 - 2012-08-28 22:18:38 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


This wouldn't be the first time CCP screwed up now would it?


Wouldn't be the first time some self important dips shiptoasted up GD thinking their ideas were the greatest thing in the game.

I'll even include myself in this one Blink


Yeah cause valuing risk:reward, attempting to avoid the trammelization of EVE and insulting moronic NPC alts are terrible ideas Roll.


Pity when CCP ran the numbers they decided against your favored risk:reward state of the mining profession. Blink

I go back to, you're irrelevant , all that matters is what CCP decides.



Since you have inside information on what CCP does you can clearly go and get all those statistics that would be required to prove your point Roll. You keep spewing the same drivel without providing any proof, your posts are a great example of why npc alts should be unable to post.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
#312 - 2012-08-28 22:27:12 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


Since you have inside information on what CCP does you can clearly go and get all those statistics that would be required to prove your point Roll. You keep spewing the same drivel without providing any proof, your posts are a great example of why npc alts should be unable to post.


We're running in circles here, man. I don't have to prove anything, as I am not attempting to make any point; I simply cited what CCP has said, and what changes CCP has implemented.

*shrug*

You say CCP was wrong, they disagree.

Write your effing Senator.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2012-08-28 22:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Jypsie wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


Since you have inside information on what CCP does you can clearly go and get all those statistics that would be required to prove your point Roll. You keep spewing the same drivel without providing any proof, your posts are a great example of why npc alts should be unable to post.


We're running in circles here, man. I don't have to prove anything, as I am not attempting to make any point; I simply cited what CCP has said, and what changes CCP has implemented.

*shrug*

You say CCP was wrong, they disagree.

Write your effing Senator.







Onus is still on you, put out or :frogout:.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Ginger Barbarella
#314 - 2012-08-28 23:02:44 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Sabrina Solette wrote:
most people can think for themselves.


Hahahahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious... Shocked



Of course I'm serious, well at least about those that can be bothered to think for themselves.


Dude, he's one of the monocled elites. That should tell you everything you need to know. P

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#315 - 2012-08-28 23:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Matriarch Prime
La Nariz wrote:
Sabrina Solette wrote:

I won't say that where this game is concerned.

But I've always seen it as a broken mechanic, but more so because of the way high-sec is structured. It's just part of the problem with trying to combine PvE elements with PvP elements.

Suicide pilots are protected by CONCORD up until the point they become aggressors, so they get first strike for free. The high-sec mechanics are not ideal by any means, but suicide ganking was profitable before and easy, and as a result was being done too frequently.

How many new people never really gave the game a try because of suicide gankers, who knows but makes you wonder.


The problem with that argument is that it was ONLY profitable because the targets were too lazy/stupid to tank their ships. New people cannot fly hulks so that point is moot. CONCORD is a punishment tool not a protector, their whole shitck is that they come and slap the person that hurt you. The best protections you can get in no particular order are, your attention, the tank mods you fit, and your friends.


I don't want to argue semantics, but the purpose of concord is as a deterrent and protection, however untimely it may be. The problem has always been the wonky aggression mechanics. And suicide ganking should have always been the least desirable option for player wishing to effect another player. But none this problem would have happened if the risk vs rewards weren't so asymmetric.

It astounding what people will accept as normal behavior if only because it always has been.

edit: For clarity's sake.

If a player wants the ability to engage in non-consentual pvp in high security. That is what that player should ask for. Not be asking for broken mechanics to maintained as status quo.

I like big guns. I can not lie. You other suckas can't deny. When I warp in, with an itty bity sig, with an arty in your face, you get sprung. You want to pull out your debuffs, 'cause you want to loot my stuff...deep, in a worm with nary, an escape but you can't stop staring. 'Cause, Oh crap!, Baby's got Point!
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#316 - 2012-08-28 23:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
MIrple wrote:
This right here is the point. You have people getting into exhumers that are unskilled to fly it properly. Its the same as getting into a battleship. You can do this is 15 days but you will not be able to do anything with it. Shield tanking skills are required to fly an Exhumer well but miners didnt train for it. If I sit AFK in an untanked Tech 3 ship and someone comes along and kills me should I demand a buff from CCP as the risk is not worth the reward for shooing an untanked ship?

Exhumers should have been changed but adding EHP should not have been done a simple addition of PG and CPU would have been enough.

Exactly. Tank vs. efficiency should always be a choice. Players like Sabrina claim that the game is better off because miners were given the option to fly properly-tanked barges, but that isn't even half-true. The tanks were forced down their hungry gullets because they refused to fit their barges properly, but never refused to whine about getting killed. A proper Hulk can have about 35,000 EHP. Sure, you need good skills for that, otherwise it would be closer to 29,000-30,000 EHP, but guess what: you need good skills to have more EHP on pvp-fit ships too. Claiming that miners should be entitled to maximum possible defenses from the second they get into exhumers is absolutely absurd. Train for them, just like I trained to put T2 energized adaptive nanos and PG-hungry 1600mm plates on my T3s and command ships.

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
Dessau
The Scope
#317 - 2012-08-28 23:45:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dessau
"Carebears" seem very eager to engage in forum antics, even instigating to a point. I feel that this is the perfect time for CCP to expand forum PvP: add the Dislike button.

Enough Dislikes and your post is hidden. Massive spikes in Dislikes could be assembled for forum ganking. Defenders can use Likes as forum RR, cancelling dislikes on a 1:1 basis. Once a post is hidden, it is gone, there is no Like-ing it back into visibility.

Carebears will actually engage, even initiate forum PvP, and the game gains a new market for Like exchange.

You guys can work out the finer points of the mechanics. Summer 2013?
Tesal
#318 - 2012-08-28 23:49:16 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
You keep spewing the same drivel without providing any proof, your posts are a great example of why npc alts should be unable to post.


They made NPC alt posting a rule on CAOD; its a wasteland now that nobody posts any information in except Makalu troll threads.

Also...

Posting in a "lets kill miners to save them from themselves and to keep them from destroying EvE" thread.
Zanarkand
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#319 - 2012-08-29 00:04:28 UTC
Another generic goon highsec thread.

I doubt any 0.0/lowsec player can deny that CCP has made various changes, that have lowered the risk in highsec. What the goons/james315/someone else fail to point out, is the fact that risk in 0.0 has lowered in almost every patch.

1. Standings in local.
2. D-scan nerf.
3. Capital Hauling.
4. Nanonerfs.
5. Jump Bridges.
6. Titan Bridges.
7. Local blink.
8. Farming moving from belts to Anomalies/sites.

Obviously, we can see a pattern of nerfs - CCP is ruining 0.0 to make room for more casual 0.0 bears. The trends towards null-risk-sec over null-sec is well-established. Yet, despite the obvious signs, I never saw any Goon threadnoughts about those 8 issues. Obviously, Goons/James/random person are all for non-consensual PVP, but only as long as it stays in highsec.

When the usual suspects talk about nerfing highsec, they speak only half of their story. Their vision of EVE sees no problem with npc corp/alt corp freighters, tech, carriers farming anoms, local. To be honest, I would support the generic "nerf highsec" ideas a lot more, if the forum warriors were also whining about nerfs to risk in 0.0.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2012-08-29 00:12:22 UTC
Andski wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
All those changes would do is make droves of players leave eve. And you know what? Once they leave, you cannot shoot them. If your goal is more layoffs at CCP, a fine plan.


yeah suicide ganking has existed since the beginning and this game seems to be quite fine!

The proposed solutions that were being responded to would remove concord protections from anything actually doable in space save station hugging. Suicide ganking would be removed as the removal of sure death from concord wouldn't make it suicidal to gank.