These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Hauling/Mining Kills - TY CCP for No Protection

First post First post
Author
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#901 - 2014-09-01 04:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
They should allow the target to escape the bumping,


The target can. (Though it's much easier to avoid it in the first place)

Quote:
as any law enforcement force would.


They aren't one.

Quote:
CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity,


Finally, you understand.

Quote:
and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.


Bumping, not matter what the context, is not a criminal action in New Eden.

"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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#902 - 2014-09-01 04:09:40 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

They should allow the target to escape the bumping


The target should just do it themselves. No added mechanics are needed for that.


Quote:

as any law enforcement force would.


Real law enforcement has to be called to the scene if they aren't already present.

So, since you're so big on realism you'd have no idea with CONCORD having to be manually called by the person being attacked, right?



Quote:

CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.


No, it's not, it involves zero use of an offensive module, which is the only thing that they care about.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#903 - 2014-09-01 04:14:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

They should allow the target to escape the bumping


The target should just do it themselves. No added mechanics are needed for that.


Quote:

as any law enforcement force would.


Real law enforcement has to be called to the scene if they aren't already present.

So, since you're so big on realism you'd have no idea with CONCORD having to be manually called by the person being attacked, right?



Quote:

CONCORD is there to punish criminal activity, and being pinned down so that successive waves of gankers can shoot you is clearly criminal in this context.


No, it's not, it involves zero use of an offensive module, which is the only thing that they care about.


CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#904 - 2014-09-01 04:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.


So now you do want bumping to be a criminal act. CONCORD response in EVE means one and only one thing, swift and inevitable destruction of the offending ship.
Now, depending on implementation, you get to pick one of two options:
1) Ganking no longer requires ship loss (if bumping is a Suspect action)
2) CONCORD provides the DPS for ganks (if bumping is a Criminal action)

"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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#905 - 2014-09-01 04:18:30 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.



Yes, it should. That is the only way for the game engine to tell whether or not someone has committed an aggressive action.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#906 - 2014-09-01 04:21:35 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.


So now you do want bumping to be a criminal act. CONCORD response in EVE means one and only one thing, swift and inevitable destruction of the offending ship.
Now, depending on implementation, you get to pick one of two options:
1) Ganking no longer requires ship loss (if bumping is a Suspect action)
2) CONCORD provides the DPS for ganks (if bumping is a Criminal action)


No, if you have been paying any attention at all (which I am beginning to doubt), I stated that since there is no simple way to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal bumping, the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not. So neither 1 nor 2 are implicated.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#907 - 2014-09-01 04:23:21 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.

But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.

Wait, wait, wait.

You're now setting a balancing factor based on isk? Why shouldn't everyone have access to this idea if its so great?

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#908 - 2014-09-01 04:23:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.



Yes, it should. That is the only way for the game engine to tell whether or not someone has committed an aggressive action.


Which is why i provided my 60 second free escape proposal.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#909 - 2014-09-01 04:26:47 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.



Yes, it should. That is the only way for the game engine to tell whether or not someone has committed an aggressive action.


Which is why i provided my 60 second free escape proposal.


And that's a terrible idea that "fixes" something that isn't a problem in the first place.

Why do you insist on going in circles? Did you not get the memo, in this very thread? We win, you lose. It's not up for debate, there is no "difference of opinion", and there will be no compromise. You are wrong.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Ryuichi Tigh
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#910 - 2014-09-01 04:29:14 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Try again.


Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree. Smile




This is the ROLE I wish to see CCP in. Stand your Ground, You handle the game aspect and let the players run as they should in a Sandbox game. Whether we kick the castle down or build it, it's up to us. I am so happy finally seeing CCP and a very respect Dev ontop of that taking a Solid stance for once. Actually the last few "releases" I have seen them stand their ground and I love it. Start dealing with everyone and not Catering to the Tearfilled Entitled.


Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.

It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on.

Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden.

Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent.

While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode.

The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things.

True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond.

The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered.

EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish.

EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers.

Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions.

EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time.

Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced.

That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence.

Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience.


Bit late to this party but this .. all of it ... Exactly what Eve is. Totally nailed!

I plan to live forever.... or die trying - Vila Restal - Blakes 7 (1979 -1981)

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#911 - 2014-09-01 04:31:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

CONCORD response should not depend on the activation of an offensive model - as for your other points, I have already answered them repeatedly.



Yes, it should. That is the only way for the game engine to tell whether or not someone has committed an aggressive action.


Which is why i provided my 60 second free escape proposal.


And that's a terrible idea that "fixes" something that isn't a problem in the first place.

Why do you insist on going in circles? Did you not get the memo, in this very thread? We win, you lose. It's not up for debate, there is no "difference of opinion", and there will be no compromise. You are wrong.


What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter (you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots). As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#912 - 2014-09-01 04:33:21 UTC
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#913 - 2014-09-01 04:37:07 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role. And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#914 - 2014-09-01 04:37:32 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter


No, but the dev who posted already laid it out.

You lose. You get nothing.

You only get a few choices:

Learn to play.

Get used to being used as a chew toy by a real player.

Quit.



Quote:

(you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots).


Yeah, because I'm actually a pretty big independent hauler, and the changes were an overall nerf, exactly like I said they would be. I drank their tears in that freighter thread, because I know that even if it's an overall nerf, the real players will adapt, and the bad players will die like dogs with their three cargo mods.


Quote:

As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.


First of all, good for him. I haven't had much playtime available lately, thanks to the kid.

Secondly, Freighters dying is not broken. They are allowed to die, in fact they're supposed to die. Every ship is supposed to die, that's how the economy works.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#915 - 2014-09-01 04:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, if you have been paying any attention at all (which I am beginning to doubt), I stated that since there is no simple way to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal bumping, the appropriate response is to grant a gank-victim a 60 second window where they are able to warp off regardless of if they are been bumped or not. So neither 1 nor 2 are implicated.


1) That's not a CONCORD response.
2) Why should they get an automagic effortless escape?
3) How does getting shot at suddenly make you incorporeal? How does getting shot at illegally do that differently than getting shot at legally?

Veers Belvar wrote:
What I "do get" is that you are not a CCP Dev and will not be determining policy on this matter (you already are on record as being opposed to letting freighters have rig slots). As pointed out already by me....already today Loyalanon (CEO of CODE) has killed two Orcas, a Charon, 3 Obelisks, and a Rhea, all today. Something is seriously broken here, and needs to be fixed.


And what percent of traffic is that? You say it's broken, you must know the relative frequency.
Tell you what, I'll even offer to do the math for you if you provide a 15 minute sample of Freighter, JF, and Orca undocks from Jita 4-4

"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

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#916 - 2014-09-01 04:46:39 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP.


Except that, once again, false imprisonment is not a Criminal Action in EVE. Only activating an offensive module against an illegal target is.

Quote:
is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers


[Citation Needed]

"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

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#917 - 2014-09-01 04:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Or I can continue to do what I am doing (and what freighter pilots did to get CCP to add rig slots), which is to highlight the faults in the current system to CCP, and ask them to change the mechanics. And FYI, I don't haul, and have never suffered a hauling gank. What I do do is talk to gank victims, cheer them up, and try to get them to avoid quitting the game. I give them fitting advice, introduce the to intel channels, and help them play the gamer better. And I will continue to do that, while at the same time pushing CCP to make highsec a better place.





Quote:


First of all, good for him. I haven't had much playtime available lately, thanks to the kid.

Secondly, Freighters dying is not broken. They are allowed to die, in fact they're supposed to die. Every ship is supposed to die, that's how the economy works.


Yes, but far more freighters dying than before, due to a combination of lack of consequences for gankers, and exploiting a broken bumping mechanic, is, in my view, a major problem, and one that I will continue to highlight on the forums, whether you like it or not ( and apparently you don't, which just makes me further determined to keep highlighting it!)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#918 - 2014-09-01 04:50:18 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold.
I would expect nothing less from people who's history involves vikings, volcanoes, eating poisonous sharks, and live in a place whos name reflects its climate.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#919 - 2014-09-01 04:50:19 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I just don't understand hyow people can be this weak-kneed in a video game. I mean, look at these people finding any excuse to claim that something is so bad the developers need to intervene to help them.

Did it not ever occur to them that the counter to bumping machs isfriends in smaller ships to bump the machs off course enough to let you warp? I'll bet real life money that these people complaining haven't even tried any solutions, just ran straight to "CCP help me" mode.

And that's stupid. CCP has said they won't help you. CCP designed the game to be harsh and THEN TELLS YOU they did that. Arguing on a forum (which galvanizes the opposition to the dumbing down you people seem to want) is counter-productive. And yet you persist.

Figuring things out, fighting back, outsmarting the people trying to hurt you, these thigns are what this game is about. If you don't want to play a game, then don't, but don't get made at the game for your lack of will or creativity.


Expecting CONCORD to respond to false imprisonment (a crime) in highsec does not constitute crying to CCP. It is simply requesting that the game mechanics be updated so that CONCORD performs its proper role.


Yes it is crying, they've pretty much said no everytime they've talked about this stuff. Even if they hadn't, look at how much opposition the idea gets. Post this idea in the features and ideas forum, or the CSM forums, and you'll get the same response because what you are asking for goes against the nature of the game.

You can waste your time like this if you want, it;s your time, but you could be having actual fun figuring out how to do for yourself what you are asking CCP to do. EVE Online is a video game, it's there to give you a place to experiment and succeed. It's not here to play itself for you.

Quote:

And pointing out that the combination of lack of real consequences for ganking, as well as the exploitation of bumping, is leading to a significant increase in ganks on haulers (the original topic of this thread) is something that CCP should be aware of, as it considers whether the current game mechanics are having their intended impact on highsec.


If you want them to address a 'problem', provide them (and us) proof that there is a problem. Then you might get some support.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#920 - 2014-09-01 04:51:25 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Yes, but far more freighters dying than before


[Citation Needed]

Quote:
due to a combination of lack of consequences for gankers


The consequences for ganking are higher than they ever were before.

Quote:
exploiting a broken bumping mechanic


1) Not an exploit.
2) Not broken.
3) Bumping has been essentially unchanged for the 11 year run of EVE. Why is it only a problem now?

"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