These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec v.s. Bot Miner Corp

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Whitehound
#161 - 2013-02-28 23:04:03 UTC
Lin Suizei wrote:
Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.

Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM.

In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him! Blink

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2013-02-28 23:06:31 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.

Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.

How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables.


Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much?
Whitehound
#163 - 2013-02-28 23:12:31 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much?

Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles.

Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ...

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Lin Suizei
#164 - 2013-02-28 23:14:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Lin Suizei wrote:
Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.

Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM.

In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him! Blink


Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic?

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#165 - 2013-02-28 23:21:38 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
With the new Wardec Pricing model, CCP has explicitly stated that wardecs are about buying targets.


explicit or implicit? but of an odd use of language there.

it's still the corp that you're paying to declare war upon, not the players. just because you pay extra because it's a larger corp with more members doesn't mean those members are going to stick around or that you have any rights on them, which you don't.


Explicit.
"The increased cost reflects the easier access to multiple targets"
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=42269

I didn't say you did. I am saying you should. Or at least that there should be some significant downside to having everyone drop corp and reform into a new, not-wardecced corp with the exact same name and ticker.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-02-28 23:23:06 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much?

Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles.

Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ...


You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint. There's two standpoints to look at it from... first off, if one logistics ship is by far completely above what all other logistics ships are capable of, performing so well that people call you an idiot if you use any other ship. Then there's the other standpoint. Which is a little tougher to explain. I suppose best I can think of if say spider tanking was so amazing that there was literally no other viable tactic from group fights. That's what balance is, it goes beyond being merely because a lot of people fly a certain ship. I mean, hell, in a well balanced game people could be flying it just because it looks the best appearence-wise. I highly doubt they would nerf a ship just because of that.
Whitehound
#167 - 2013-02-28 23:34:12 UTC
Lin Suizei wrote:
Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic?

Not really. He preaches ganking, too, but does he take part in it? No. So why there? Seems he is rather a practical man, who has found a way to let others do his bidding and also knows his way around mechanics.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#168 - 2013-02-28 23:38:13 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint.

No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2013-02-28 23:59:43 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint.

No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED.

And you'd be full of it because I'm looking at it from the standpoint actually used. Popularity of a ship has nothing to do with why balance changes are made. Its the reason why the ship is popular that gets looked at.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2013-02-28 23:59:44 UTC
back to the OP.

CCP is going to make sure that players are not driven or forced out of the game.

There WILL ALWAYS be a way for carebears to avoid war, to make ISK, to buy PLEX, to fund their accounts. Without such a mechanism, players that can't afford to pay a subscription will be unable to play. CCP will not allow that.


Cry all you want about how easy it is to avoid war decs, but CCP is never going to change that. PURELY a "working as intended" situation.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-03-01 00:06:35 UTC
No they won't change that.

They'll make it more worthwhile to be in a player corp.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2013-03-01 00:19:06 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
No they won't change that.

They'll make it more worthwhile to be in a player corp.



There is no way to make "unwilling to undock because you are in a player corp that is war dec'ed" more appealing than "can pretty much do whatever I want, because I avoided war by dropping to NPC corp and ganking me is a huge money loser to griefers".

Whitehound
#173 - 2013-03-01 00:20:03 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
And you'd be full of it because I'm looking at it from the standpoint actually used. Popularity of a ship has nothing to do with why balance changes are made. Its the reason why the ship is popular that gets looked at.

When popularity is the reason for a change, then it is the reason for the imbalance, too.

Take the Hulk and the Hurricane for example. The Hulk was the most popular mining ship. CCP then actually left the Hulk mostly unchanged and only adjusted the other mining ships. Now with the Hurricane is it rather the opposite and it gets nerfed pretty good. The only constant here is the popularity.

Going back to your belief of fairness, what about the following scenario:

An assault frigate attacks an interceptor and fires shots at it. The interceptor then flies away, because it can. Should the interceptor pilot now pay the ammo of the assault frigate pilot? Afterall, you want the fight to be fair and the interceptor pilot bailed out while the assault frigate pilot has lost ammo in this.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-03-01 00:51:20 UTC
Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#175 - 2013-03-01 00:57:07 UTC
Why does OP think the term 'cold and harsh universe' should only apply to the industrial corps he war decs and not himself?
Lin Suizei
#176 - 2013-03-01 01:09:46 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
An assault frigate attacks an interceptor and fires shots at it. The interceptor then flies away, because it can. Should the interceptor pilot now pay the ammo of the assault frigate pilot? Afterall, you want the fight to be fair and the interceptor pilot bailed out while the assault frigate pilot has lost ammo in this.


Let's modify that scenario a little, to bring it more in line with reality - the assault frigate pilot has identified a mission bot in Caldari highsec, and would like to kill it to take it's faction mods. After sending in a report via the "report bot" function, the assault frigate pilot pays a CONCORD fee of 50M to declare war on the mission botting corporation, and waits the required 24 hours.

The mission bot's botting software identifies the wardec, and notifies the bot owner, who logs on and immediately drops and reforms corp, evading the war completely.

Should the mission bot owner be required to compensate the assault frigate pilot? No, the mission bot owner identified a clearly broken mechanic and exploited it to enrich himself. In this case, the assault frigate pilot made a poor choice attempting to declare war, and should have upshipped to a neut ship and attempted to suicide neut the CNR's active tank while it was under attack by NPC's, with a neutral bumping ship to prevent it from aligning out, a logistics ship to keep the bumping ship alive and a podder to kill the pod.

Should the war mechanic be looked at, and revamped? Yes.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
Whitehound
#177 - 2013-03-01 01:24:26 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness.

Please, do go read the devblog by CCP Fozzie. He writes:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...Finally we were thankfully able to resolve some of the outstanding balance issues with the two most problematic Battlecruisers (Drake and Hurricane)...

And he further shows a picture of their popularity.

Why do you think he does this? Is it pure coincidence when he says that there are "outstanding balance issues" and then shows a graph of their popularity where these two ships stand out?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#178 - 2013-03-01 01:29:59 UTC
Lin Suizei wrote:
Let's modify that scenario a little, ...

No, I was not asking you. It was meant for Aren Madigan, who has got a strong belief in fairness. I do not think you posses such a belief.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2013-03-01 02:26:40 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]

Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts for the rest of your eve life. .


Fixed that for ya!

Don't ban me, bro!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2013-03-01 02:27:13 UTC
Lin Suizei wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him! Blink
Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic?
ssh don't tell him that