These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#221 - 2014-12-04 16:03:41 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
A lot of the problem here is that people think ships exploding in highsec is somehow vital to the game. Why? What would happen if all ship exploding was restricted to low/null/wh/consensual duels? For mission runners its already pretty trivial to avoid ship exploding in highsec, and the game is fine. Ditto for manufacturers, station traders, etc...


EVE not being safe anywhere is vital to the game. If you don't agree with that, then we are at a philosophical impasse and no rational discussion can result from it.

Also, why not remove CONCORD and keep AFK ratting in null intact?

The hypocrisy of my question should at least cause you to question why you find bluesec offensive, but argue for a conflict-free hisec in the same breath.



Funny you say "EVE not being safe anywhere is vital to the game" yet miner bumping and killing corp mates are 2 of the safest things to do in Eve.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#222 - 2014-12-04 16:05:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If they don't attempt to gank you withing a reasonable time (an hour maybe), then submit a ticket reporting them for harassment. As far as I remember, bumping for extended periods of time with no intent to take any other action beyond preventing someone from being able to play is considered harassment.


Bumping is a legitimate action and in the case of some ship types is the only 'defence' against them. The Procurer & Skiff are the notable ones I am referring to.

Bumping in one system is legal so for example I could follow you through all the belts in one system. BUT if I follow you into another system and carry on doing it you are within your right to report me. Which is why I only patrol one system and only 'police' large & destructive 'AFK' mining fleets. They don't have to be 'AFK' but they do have to be destructive. Smile
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#223 - 2014-12-04 16:08:37 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

The other the player has the choice of.... Log off and don't play for a few hours. Fly through Low sec which is even more stupid. Or fly into Uedama..


I do fly freighters through both low sec and Uedema. I have never lost one. Its not stupid if you take the proper precautions(either get an alt or a friend to scout for you).

It stupid if you want to fly through them afk or semiafk.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#224 - 2014-12-04 16:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Ugh, it's painful to see people fall right into it. I'm gonna do one last bailout before I disappear for a while.

Veers Belvar wrote:
1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game? What would change? Present an actual parade of horribles. I personally think the impact would be pretty minimal. Lot's of the current PvP (wars) is essentially consensual...and those who want non-consensual PvP can still find it everywhere else in the game. What exactly would happen?

High-sec is the home of non-consensual pvp. It can be said with some degree of objectivity that choosing to play in the safest environment the game has to offer is akin to providing the least consent for unwanted interaction with other players.

The removal of high-sec pvp wouldn't destroy the game per se, but it would change it. And the way it would change it would make it very similar to pretty much every other MMO available, what with the well-defined split between pvp and pve content they all seem to have. And it's here where EVE becomes endangered, because it doesn't offer features that are competitive enough in either the pve or pvp field to survive in the cut-throat MMO game market.

Veers Belvar wrote:
2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.

A component of this wealth transfer is wealth destruction, because not everything survives a ship explosion. Wealth destruction is the primary driving force behind EVE's economy, because this is the only way an economy with an upper ceiling for innovation can function. We can only create from a catalog of a few thousand items, instead of being able to innovate and invent indefinitely, like in real life. As such, EVE items need to be destroyed in order to have value. Take a significant portion of wealth transfer (and by effect, destruction) away, and the economy will lose steam. It has already been proven earlier in the thread that high-sec accounts for the majority of the game's pvp, and that players who engage in it wouldn't magically transfer over to other areas of space as a fallback option, so I don't see the need to address this further.

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
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#225 - 2014-12-04 16:12:35 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
No, see, those aren't pvp entities, because what they do isn't pvp, but griefing. Actual pvp only happens when two players agree to fight each other.

*eats a whole tube of fluoride toothpaste*


Actually I believe all of the corporations listed above use the CONCORD sanctioned war declaration system to get their fights. So they aren't actually griefers but I guess you could call them mercenaries. Marmite are currently in 'total war' with CODE I think for as long as people donate to the fighting fund so that's another reason for them to not be classed as griefers.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2014-12-04 16:14:43 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game? What would change? Present an actual parade of horribles. I personally think the impact would be pretty minimal. Lot's of the current PvP (wars) is essentially consensual...and those who want non-consensual PvP can still find it everywhere else in the game. What exactly would happen?


Every developer who has offered an opinion on the topic has stated that EVE should not be safe anywhere. Non-consensual PVP everywhere, including hisec, is how the game is designed. This is why we have non-consensual PVP in hisec. The game is designed that way, and it is defined that way. You are arguing for a change that is fundamentally opposed to the core philosophy of the game.

Falcon describes the loss of EVE's core principles as more catastrophic than the loss of subs. That is the "parade of horrible". It is enough to destroy the game as we know it.

In order for you to argue that PVP should be removed from hisec (ie: a game change), the onus is on you to argue why.



Quote:
2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.


A player does things in the game. He earns ISK. No one is arguing macroeconomics here. What does ISK transfer vs. creation have any relevance? Miners also don't create ISK and they constitute a significant portion of PVE in EVE (as evidenced by the Gecko competition last year). What is your point?


Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#227 - 2014-12-04 16:23:36 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game? What would change? Present an actual parade of horribles. I personally think the impact would be pretty minimal. Lot's of the current PvP (wars) is essentially consensual...and those who want non-consensual PvP can still find it everywhere else in the game. What exactly would happen?


Every developer who has offered an opinion on the topic has stated that EVE should not be safe anywhere. Non-consensual PVP everywhere, including hisec, is how the game is designed. This is why we have non-consensual PVP in hisec. The game is designed that way, and it is defined that way. You are arguing for a change that is fundamentally opposed to the core philosophy of the game.

Falcon describes the loss of EVE's core principles as more catastrophic than the loss of subs. That is the "parade of horrible". It is enough to destroy the game as we know it.

In order for you to argue that PVP should be removed from hisec (ie: a game change), the onus is on you to argue why.



Quote:
2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.


A player does things in the game. He earns ISK. No one is arguing macroeconomics here. What does ISK transfer vs. creation have any relevance? Miners also don't create ISK and they constitute a significant portion of PVE in EVE (as evidenced by the Gecko competition last year). What is your point?





To be on topic.

I bounce my ship off of yours in hi-sec, what is the risk?

None.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2014-12-04 16:25:49 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Funny you say "EVE not being safe anywhere is vital to the game" yet miner bumping and killing corp mates are 2 of the safest things to do in Eve.


And this safety is the result of game mechanics, or because players don't fight back?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2014-12-04 16:26:43 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:


To be on topic.

I bounce my ship off of yours in hi-sec, what is the risk?

None.


I leave, undock in an alt, and then kill you.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#230 - 2014-12-04 16:31:50 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:


To be on topic.

I bounce my ship off of yours in hi-sec, what is the risk?

None.


I leave, undock in an alt, and then kill you.



Who cares, the ship is cheap and easily replaceable. I could do this for years. Again...where is the risk?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#231 - 2014-12-04 16:33:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:


High-sec is the home of non-consensual pvp. It can be said with some degree of objectivity that choosing to play in the safest environment the game has to offer is akin to providing the least consent for unwanted interaction with other players.

The removal of high-sec pvp wouldn't destroy the game per se, but it would change it. And the way it would change it would make it very similar to pretty much every other MMO available, what with the well-defined split between pvp and pve content they all seem to have. And it's here where EVE becomes endangered, because it doesn't offer features that are competitive enough in either the pve or pvp field to survive in the cut-throat MMO game market.

A component of this wealth transfer is wealth destruction, because not everything survives a ship explosion. Wealth destruction is the primary driving force behind EVE's economy, because this is the only way an economy with an upper ceiling for innovation can function. We can only create from a catalog of a few thousand items, instead of being able to innovate and invent indefinitely, like in real life. As such, EVE items need to be destroyed in order to have value. Take a significant portion of wealth transfer (and by effect, destruction) away, and the economy will lose steam. It has already been proven earlier in the thread that high-sec accounts for the majority of the game's pvp, and that players who engage in it wouldn't magically transfer over to other areas of space as a fallback option, so I don't see the need to address this further.


Your first point is just wrong. Eve's appeal is not from the 1% of highsec players who live to blow up ships there. Look at CCPs latest trailer....how much of it had to do with non-consensual PvP? Oh wait...non. The appeal of Eve is nullsec fleet battles, exploration, incursions, etc....not suicide ganking or wardeccs. That's what the trailer advertised, and that's why people joined. I certainly had no clue Eve was a nonconsensual PvP game when I signed up. And for all the people who live in nullsec, nonconsensual PvP is a joke and an irrelevancy to them...and yet they keep playing. Nonconsensual PvP is responsible for a tiny, tiny amount of the interaction in highsec...and it's removal from the game would have a minimal impact. Mutual wars would still remain, and people could go to low/null for pew pew.

Destruction already occurs in low/null. We don't need destruction in highsec to spur economic growth. If people in highsec got wealthier...they would be more willing to go pvp in low/null. PvP in highsec conributes virtually nothing to the game.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#232 - 2014-12-04 16:35:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
A component of this wealth transfer is wealth destruction, because not everything survives a ship explosion. Wealth destruction is the primary driving force behind EVE's economy, because this is the only way an economy with an upper ceiling for innovation can function.


^^ This.

The only functional alternative is to have ships and modules age and break down. Hands up, who wants that?

Hands up, CCP employees, who wants to code that?

...

Yeah.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2014-12-04 16:37:40 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
I think you accidentally listed wardeccers, we were discussing PVP here.



Oh I'm discussing PVP. You're deluded if you think any aspect of this game is not PVP, that's the bottom line. You think RvB are the only PVP'ers because they do it a certain way that you approve of? Go shove your subjective hyperbole up your backside and come back to reality. PVP = player vs player. That's it, that's it's only definition.


No, because they do it in a certain way everyone approves of :)

But yeah, go on and live in your little fantasy world where ganking mission runners and noob pods is treated equally to PVP. You're seriously deluded if you think that hisec wardeccers are anything more than the laughing stock of the whole playerbase.



PVP isn't defined by subjective approval, it's defined as competition between players. That's it. That's all it is.

And no, highsec wardeccers are not the laughing stock of the whole playerbase. You are not the whole playerbase, just some scrub that needs to learn how to EVE.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2014-12-04 16:39:17 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

Who cares, the ship is cheap and easily replaceable. I could do this for years. Again...where is the risk?


The risk is that you actually get smart and do something as a reaction.

You're right. Preying on people who don't learn is risk free.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2014-12-04 16:40:41 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Eve's appeal is not from the 1% of highsec players who live to blow up ships there.


Citation needed on that figure mate, especially before you accuse others of being wrong.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#236 - 2014-12-04 16:43:56 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Eve's appeal is not from the 1% of highsec players who live to blow up ships there.


Citation needed on that figure mate, especially before you accuse others of being wrong.


Go through killboards...compare number of players engaged in suicide ganking to total population of highsec.

Hint: it's very, very low. Some Codeies, a few Goons...some hauler gankers....and that's it.

My anti-ganking intel channels feature the same few names over and over again. Vast majority of highsec is mining, mission running, station trading, manufacturing, scamming, etc...

The number of people looking to suicide gank is tiny. There are more engaged in wars (which are essentially mutual because of the easy of dodging), but I would be very comfortable asserting that at any given time there are more people running incursions than engaged in exploding ships in highsec.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2014-12-04 16:47:58 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Eve's appeal is not from the 1% of highsec players who live to blow up ships there.


Citation needed on that figure mate, especially before you accuse others of being wrong.


Go through killboards...compare number of players engaged in suicide ganking to total population of highsec.

Hint: it's very, very low. Some Codeies, a few Goons...some hauler gankers....and that's it.

My anti-ganking intel channels feature the same few names over and over again. Vast majority of highsec is mining, mission running, station trading, manufacturing, scamming, etc...

The number of people looking to suicide gank is tiny. There are more engaged in wars (which are essentially mutual because of the easy of dodging), but I would be very comfortable asserting that at any given time there are more people running incursions than engaged in exploding ships in highsec.


This isn't about how much PVP there is per capita, it's about how much PVP there is, full stop. The bottom line, once again explained for the desperately ignorant like yourself, is that EVE is a PVP game at its very foundation, which means all aspects of it are subject to PVP. You don't have to like it, you can kick and scream about it on the forums all you like, but it won't change because it's working exactly as intended.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2014-12-04 16:48:43 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

The number of people looking to suicide gank is tiny. There are more engaged in wars (which are essentially mutual because of the easy of dodging), but I would be very comfortable asserting that at any given time there are more people running incursions than engaged in exploding ships in highsec.


If the number of aggressors is tiny and insignificant, then why are we talking about it at all?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#239 - 2014-12-04 16:53:19 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:

Who cares, the ship is cheap and easily replaceable. I could do this for years. Again...where is the risk?


The risk is that you actually get smart and do something as a reaction.

You're right. Preying on people who don't learn is risk free.




That didn't take long for the insults to come when you had no answer.


That was an easy win.
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2014-12-04 16:54:47 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Go through killboards...compare number of players engaged in suicide ganking to total population of highsec.



Again, we're talking about PvP. All of it. As in, every combat interaction between 2 or more players. Stop trying to move the goalposts to fit your narrative.