These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How to Boil a Frog

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-10-08 23:22:51 UTC
Two step wrote:
You seem to be forgetting all the stuff CCP did that helped suicide gankers, like Tier 3 BCs, the destroyer buffs, etc.
And then rolled them all back with the barge buff.

Like I said, I would not be surprised to see some sort of freighter ganking nerf in 2013. Gotta roll back the stuff that helped ganking in stages. Can't do it all at once.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#42 - 2012-10-08 23:24:15 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
TL;DR Gaining new players is good, losing old players is not.
Agreed.

So far the changes are worrying, but not game breaking. The question remains "How far does CCP intend to go with the highsec molly coddling?"

Probably "more than they've done so far". Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of: Highsec, Home is where it's safe.

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
#43 - 2012-10-08 23:30:03 UTC
Maybe if null sec had a real sov system that encouraged null residents to actually live in and use the space, they would not bother with hanging out in high sec ganking your ****. So you see, even though you think whatever happens in null, stays in null, is completely false.

We are all part of the same Eco system. Take a dump in one part and eventually the rest will have to deal with the smell.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#44 - 2012-10-08 23:39:15 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Maybe if null sec had a real sov system that encouraged null residents to actually live in and use the space, they would not bother with hanging out in high sec ganking your ****. So you see, even though you think whatever happens in null, stays in null, is completely false.

We are all part of the same Eco system. Take a dump in one part and eventually the rest will have to deal with the smell.

Well, you see... ganking is more exciting then shooting structures so ...

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 ?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#45 - 2012-10-08 23:46:11 UTC
I don't care about nullsec gameplay at all. I just think that the most effective way to kill a carebear in highsec shouldn't be to join their corp with my awoxing alt. There should be some kind of sane, working, properly implemented mechanic that I can use to do that.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-10-08 23:48:43 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Maybe if null sec had a real sov system that encouraged null residents to actually live in and use the space, they would not bother with hanging out in high sec ganking your ****.

shouldn't using nullsec space be its own reward?
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#47 - 2012-10-08 23:50:26 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Maybe if null sec had a real sov system that encouraged null residents to actually live in and use the space, they would not bother with hanging out in high sec ganking your ****.

shouldn't using nullsec space be its own reward?

Mostly can't use it any better than other sec if you don't own it. Lots of space is owned for the sake of owning it, not for using it, which leads to large swathes of "dead" nullsec.

Insert whine about power projection here.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-10-08 23:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Karrl Tian
Wait, if we can set the game to automatically block suspect/criminal actions, does that mean we can go the other direction so no more "Are you sure you want to attack?" box pops up when I'm trying to suicide someone? That would be sweet.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't care about nullsec gameplay at all. I just think that the most effective way to kill a carebear in highsec shouldn't be to join their corp with my awoxing alt. There should be some kind of sane, working, properly implemented mechanic that I can use to do that.


Awoxing is probably next on the slab, once all the suicide gankers/flippers/ninjas start looking for a new profession. It's so much more lucrative anyway: no CONCORD and mission bear ships can be worth billions compared to miners and if you time it right, the only guy who can stop your fun by kicking you will be offline or AFK..
Nikodiemus
Ganja Clade
Shadow Cartel
#49 - 2012-10-08 23:57:15 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/10/how-to-boil-frog.html

CCP feels they need to cater to the carebears, mollify their threats, but all the while they cannot do so in a way that will anger the PvPers. You can't toss in a tonne of changes that protect carebears all at once. That's tossing the frog into a boiling pot of water. CCP has to raise the temperature slowly.

[...]

Increasing the costs of wardecs. Buffing mining ships to an obscene, nearly ungankable level. Removing insurance if killed by CONCORD. The so-called idiot switch to protect players from their own stupidity. The removal of can-flipping.

(cont'd next post)


Can flipping, high-sec ganking and concord insurance huh..... I think you are referring to something other than PvPers. That, or you don't PvP much do you?

As someone that loves PvP I can say that I am insulted by your childish and amateur description of "PvPers".
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#50 - 2012-10-08 23:59:17 UTC
Came looking for cajun inspired boiled frog recipe, Leaving disappointed.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-10-09 00:16:26 UTC
Nikodiemus wrote:
Can flipping, high-sec ganking and concord insurance huh..... I think you are referring to something other than PvPers. That, or you don't PvP much do you?

As someone that loves PvP I can say that I am insulted by your childish and amateur description of "PvPers".
Non-consensual PvP is one segment of PvP.
stoicfaux
#52 - 2012-10-09 00:25:00 UTC
So if I understand the OP...

The frog (aka the high-sec ganker) is being slowly boiled in high-sec with the goal of getting the frog to jump into low and null sec, where the real gameplay is?

And instead of "manning up" and making the plunge to low/null, the frog/OP wants CCP to implement rules to protect frogs/gankers?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#53 - 2012-10-09 00:29:42 UTC


I agree I don't like the idiot switch.

I think your overall vision is dramatized, but accurate enough to build an argument as to where we are headed from here.

Where I am.
Zixie Draco
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2012-10-09 00:38:13 UTC


..if a frog had wings, his butt wouldn't hit the ground.

Would you like a kitten?

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-10-09 00:45:03 UTC
Zixie Draco wrote:


..if a frog had wings, his butt wouldn't hit the ground.


and if dragonflies had doorgunners birds wouldn't eat them Big smile

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Hrothgar Nilsson
#56 - 2012-10-09 00:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrothgar Nilsson
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
\Increasing the costs of wardecs.

I think the multiplier for wardecs definitely needs to be adjusted. 2x per ally is pretty obscene, something like 1.5x would be a lot more reasonable.

e.g.

2x

  1. 500
  2. 1000
  3. 2000
  4. 4000
  5. 8000
  6. 16,000
  7. 32,000
  8. 64,000
  9. 128,000
  10. 256,000


1.5x

  1. 500
  2. 750
  3. 1125
  4. 1688
  5. 2531
  6. 3797
  7. 5695
  8. 8543
  9. 12,814
  10. 19,222

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-10-09 01:10:58 UTC
Karrl Tian wrote:
Wait, if we can set the game to automatically block suspect/criminal actions, does that mean we can go the other direction so no more "Are you sure you want to attack?" box pops up when I'm trying to suicide someone? That would be sweet.

I believe this was the other half the point of the safety switch.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#58 - 2012-10-09 01:11:07 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't care about nullsec gameplay at all. I just think that the most effective way to kill a carebear in highsec shouldn't be to join their corp with my awoxing alt. There should be some kind of sane, working, properly implemented mechanic that I can use to do that.


LIke, say, the ability to set and collect bounties on upstanding high sec players... or perhaps transferable kill rights?

Now where did I recently hear about those very things.... Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#59 - 2012-10-09 01:12:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:
Wait, if we can set the game to automatically block suspect/criminal actions, does that mean we can go the other direction so no more "Are you sure you want to attack?" box pops up when I'm trying to suicide someone? That would be sweet.

I believe this was the other half the point of the safety switch.

Somehow I don't think it's going to be any more difficult to turn off the "safety" than it is to make those annoying pop up messages to go away.

But nobody EVER does that.....

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-10-09 01:17:15 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:
Wait, if we can set the game to automatically block suspect/criminal actions, does that mean we can go the other direction so no more "Are you sure you want to attack?" box pops up when I'm trying to suicide someone? That would be sweet.

I believe this was the other half the point of the safety switch.

Somehow I don't think it's going to be any more difficult to turn off the "safety" than it is to make those annoying pop up messages to go away.

But nobody EVER does that.....

IIRC it was mentioned earlier that one possibility was an on/off function where on made it impossible to commit crimes while off auto-suppressed all warnings including those that cannot be suppressed now such as the warnings for invoking successive GCC's.