These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Getting Rid of the Undesirables (for good this time)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
#681 - 2012-10-16 21:39:28 UTC
Last I checked I wasn't that much of an armchair pilot. Just because I'm not -10 anymore doesn't mean I'm not killing the crap out of people. Also, I'm in the process of making half a dozen thrasher alts just to get around this. Thrasherfleet ho!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#682 - 2012-10-16 22:10:18 UTC
Korinne wrote:
Last I checked I wasn't that much of an armchair pilot. Just because I'm not -10 anymore doesn't mean I'm not killing the crap out of people. Also, I'm in the process of making half a dozen thrasher alts just to get around this. Thrasherfleet ho!

op success.

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 ?
Maraner
The Executioners
Capital Punishment.
#683 - 2012-10-16 22:18:54 UTC
Gotta say that you could hand most of high sec a nuke pistol and they would still not be able to hit ****. I'm gonna get as many kills rights on me as I can, then fly around with a fleet behind me that includes more than one logi and some lads that don't mind losing the occasional tornado to volley people.

If high sec bears think that PVPers are going to be worried about these changes and the possibility that some one might activate their kill rights and take a shot at them then they have a fun awakening coming to them.

Yes the high sec merc corps will enjoy this (as will we), but to think that it will cause us too much of an issue...not sure (read highly doubtful). Most bears wont activate the kill rights. I guess some people may not want to fly afk in their freighters anymore with kill rights. Yes CCP are making life harder for pirates and gankers... just adapt and overcome.
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#684 - 2012-10-16 22:26:29 UTC
Darius III wrote:
I am already assembling a crew to exploit this new system and use the mechanics to kill even more bears than before.
X

Who put the goat in there?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#685 - 2012-10-16 22:38:39 UTC
Maraner wrote:
If high sec bears think that PVPers are going to be worried about these changes and the possibility that some one might activate their kill rights and take a shot at them then they have a fun awakening coming to them.

The problem has never been with changes, but with changes that come after the changes.

We're not afraid of what's happening today, but we are afraid of what's happening tomorrow, because the logical conclusion of this direction in development is the removal of aggression in its entire form.

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
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#686 - 2012-10-16 22:47:20 UTC
Darius III wrote:
Just to clarify: By exploit-I do not mean the type of exploit that is contra-EULA. I mean exploit in the classic sense, like exploiting resources.

The plan is to have bait suspects with logis to keep him repped while the pilot kills anyone who fires at him. Then have the logi pilots that get shot at swap ships, to shoot more people that shot at the logi as they got flagged. As people tried to shoot suspects, and the suspects shot back, it would come down to who has more people/better tactics.

the end result would be a spider tanking group of outlaws shooting any SOB do gooders that would attempt to kill outlaws. if it was done properly-these bears would know better than to fire at any suspect at any time.

Remember the original plan CCP had in their finite wisdom was to make it so you wouldn't be able to shoot back as a suspect. Thank goodness they shut down the guy who came up with that particular brilliant idea. we can turn this into lulz and kills-just be patient, assemble your crew and make it work. D3

This is exactly how it should work, and hopefully will.

Hopefully some of those bears will work together to get rid of the bad guys.
Being a criminal in high sec will have some weight to it, and the victims have a worthwhile means of getting more involved in, durp, retribution.

I do think that this:
Quote:
The plan is to have bait suspects with logis to keep him repped while the pilot kills anyone who fires at him. Then have the logi pilots that get shot at swap ships, to shoot more people that shot at the logi as they got flagged. As people tried to shoot suspects, and the suspects shot back, it would come down to who has more people/better tactics.

Should result in the logi getting a suspect flag, which I'm assuming is why you would have the logi swap ships?

If so I think the logi shouldn't be able to dock if they have a suspect flag to swap into a different ship.
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#687 - 2012-10-16 23:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Shederov Blood
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Should result in the logi getting a suspect flag, which I'm assuming is why you would have the logi swap ships?

If so I think the logi shouldn't be able to dock if they have a suspect flag to swap into a different ship.
Is that your understanding of the new mechanics, or how you personally feel it should work? The logistics will inherit both the suspect flag and the weapons flag, the latter being the one that will prevent docking or ship-swapping for 1 minute.

Edit: Also, they won't be trying to swap ships when they get a suspect flag. Almost everyone in the fleet will have one of those. Blink

Who put the goat in there?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#688 - 2012-10-16 23:12:29 UTC
Korinne wrote:
Last I checked I wasn't that much of an armchair pilot. Just because I'm not -10 anymore doesn't mean I'm not killing the crap out of people. Also, I'm in the process of making half a dozen thrasher alts just to get around this. Thrasherfleet ho!

Don't forget recycling alts is bannable.Blink
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#689 - 2012-10-16 23:12:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Maraner wrote:
If high sec bears think that PVPers are going to be worried about these changes and the possibility that some one might activate their kill rights and take a shot at them then they have a fun awakening coming to them.

The problem has never been with changes, but with changes that come after the changes.

We're not afraid of what's happening today, but we are afraid of what's happening tomorrow, because the logical conclusion of this direction in development is the removal of aggression in its entire form.

How? The number of situations where someone can engage someone else is greatly increasing. Any decrease in PvP isn't necessitated by CCP's new rules but rather because those that performed certain acts no longer see them as being as advantageous as before. This isn't the same as having an on/off switch for aggressing someone.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#690 - 2012-10-16 23:24:05 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Maraner wrote:
If high sec bears think that PVPers are going to be worried about these changes and the possibility that some one might activate their kill rights and take a shot at them then they have a fun awakening coming to them.

The problem has never been with changes, but with changes that come after the changes.

We're not afraid of what's happening today, but we are afraid of what's happening tomorrow, because the logical conclusion of this direction in development is the removal of aggression in its entire form.

How? The number of situations where someone can engage someone else is greatly increasing. Any decrease in PvP isn't necessitated by CCP's new rules but rather because those that performed certain acts no longer see them as being as advantageous as before. This isn't the same as having an on/off switch for aggressing someone.

This is a videogame. Remove the incentive, and you remove the action.

Yesterday we had removal of CONCORD insurance (not necessarily a bad change, but I am stating it nonetheless), etc etc. Today we have Crimewatch 2.0, with all of its proposed "features." Tomorrow we might have Crimelook 3.0, the centerpiece of which is removing two ISK from the wallet of any aggressor for every one ISK done in damage against an unwilling target, and giving it to the target. Will it still be possible to gank with Crimelook 3.0? Certainly. Will people still gank with Crimelook 3.0? I don't think so. And CCP doesn't even need to make a pvp on/off switch!

By the way, I'm just making an example. I'm not saying they're going to introduce a change like that. Well, they might, but I'm not going to speculate that far into the future.

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
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#691 - 2012-10-16 23:26:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
See my sig. The game was stupid easy for aggressors before, the risk vs reward didn't even factor into it. Now it does. Cry more.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#692 - 2012-10-16 23:27:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Read the thread more.

Edit: Actually I'll take the high road. Can you tell me where that quote is from? I don't recognize 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
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#693 - 2012-10-16 23:29:03 UTC
People hate change, MMO's are about change. Either you adapt or die (leave).

We will see which way this change pushes the game.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#694 - 2012-10-16 23:29:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Read the thread more.

Edit: Actually I'll take the high road. Can you tell me where that quote is from? I don't recognize it.


also, you assume a lot.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#695 - 2012-10-16 23:31:41 UTC
Just to reiterate another time (it's something I need to get used to doing):

These proposed changes won't affect the risk/reward equation for -10 gank alts.

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
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#696 - 2012-10-16 23:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Vigilant wrote:
Either you adapt or die (leave).

We will see which way this change pushes the game.


well said. These are great changes too. Get **** on crybabies.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#697 - 2012-10-16 23:33:36 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
This is a videogame. Remove the incentive, and you remove the action.

Yesterday we had removal of CONCORD insurance (not necessarily a bad change, but I am stating it nonetheless), etc etc. Today we have Crimewatch 2.0, with all of its proposed "features." Tomorrow we might have Crimelook 3.0, the centerpiece of which is removing two ISK from the wallet of any aggressor for every one ISK done in damage against an unwilling target, and giving it to the target. Will it still be possible to gank with Crimelook 3.0? Certainly. Will people still gank with Crimelook 3.0? I don't think so. And CCP doesn't even need to make a pvp on/off switch!

By the way, I'm just making an example. I'm not saying they're going to introduce a change like that. Well, they might, but I'm not going to speculate that far into the future.

We have nothing of the severity or even general direction of your crimewatch 3.0 suggestion. If we saw gankers and criminals start to have some sort of automated loss according to damage they inflict sure. But we don't. We simply have more people being able to shoot you as the primary difference.

So basically carebear entitlement to choose their engagements vs criminal entitlement to do the same. In the end carebears aren't getting their "entitlement" of being able to opt out. I'm only seeing that same entitlement being removed for criminals. If everyone is right about the probable responses of vigilantes, nothing changes. If they are wrong it was because those vigilantes proved to be a formidable force and the decrease in crime was player enfoced.
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
#698 - 2012-10-16 23:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Korinne
Vigilant wrote:
People hate change, MMO's are about change. Either you adapt or die (leave).

We will see which way this change pushes the game.


With an attitude like that, it's no wonder most mmo's flop over so early. If it's not broken don't fix it. MMO's are NOT about change, they're about engaging gameplay involving other players and their interactions with each other towards common or opposing goals; as opposed to interaction with an AI, thus any change that removes levels of player interaction, or otherwise deters it on a large scale is questionable at best

Edit: ""I think we’re just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that it’s okay to lose."
-Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer" <- that sounds great and all, but where do you draw the line with that? It's only a few steps from accepting loss to just outright removing people and gamestyles you don't approve of, and then what's left?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#699 - 2012-10-16 23:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
We have nothing of the severity or even general direction of your crimewatch 3.0 suggestion. If we saw gankers and criminals start to have some sort of automated loss according to damage they inflict sure. But we don't. We simply have more people being able to shoot you as the primary difference.

When I look at the changes made from when I started playing up to today, the whole picture looks entirely different when comparing it to just the changes made in the last year or so.

If we were playing 2004 EVE with a 2012 server population and player mindset, the grand majority of people wouldn't be able to undock. In 1.0 systems even.

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
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#700 - 2012-10-16 23:39:04 UTC
Korinne wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
People hate change, MMO's are about change. Either you adapt or die (leave).

We will see which way this change pushes the game.


With an attitude like that, it's no wonder most mmo's flop over so early. If it's not broken don't fix it. MMO's are NOT about change, they're about engaging gameplay involving other players and their interactions with each other towards common or opposing goals; as opposed to interaction with an AI, thus any change that removes levels of player interaction, or otherwise deters it on a large scale is questionable at best.


If that was the case we would still be flying Battle Ships and no T2/T3/Cap Ships/Sov/FW/ and should go on?

Fixing a bugs is different than adding content to make the game better or more fun Shocked

MMO's are about change....and making us want to keep paying to play with those changes.