These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I'm worried for the future of CODE and EVE online.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2015-10-11 13:32:48 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The reaction is telling.

Even though its been established this doesnt bother -10 sec players, by their own testimony, and though its been shown that an "accidental" illegal act is as valid and due for the same repecrussions as an intentional illegal act.

None of these are valid counterarguments, and already annihilated/obviated.


Why should this nerf happen when the very thing you want to target will not be impacted?

Why do you want to further punish people who accidentally get killed by concord?
Salvos Rhoska
#42 - 2015-10-11 13:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The reaction is telling.

Even though its been established this doesnt bother -10 sec players, by their own testimony, and though its been shown that an "accidental" illegal act is as valid and due for the same repecrussions as an intentional illegal act.

None of these are valid counterarguments, and already annihilated/obviated.


Why should this nerf happen when the very thing you want to target will not be impacted?

Why do you want to further punish people who accidentally get killed by concord?


1) False. Re-read what my proposal is meant to impact with your eyese, not your imagination.
My proposal is for purposes of increasing PvP in HS, by means of becoming red sooner from illegal actions.
This, categorically CANNOT AND DOES NOT, affect -10 sec status characters. And hence, they are not relevant as a counterargument.

This has solely to do with dropping sec status faster for illegal acts, so as to promote more PvP, as these illegal aggressors become available targets in HS for other players, to the ends of more content.

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime. Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine. Nobody gets "accidentally" killed by CONCORD, as you state. Anyone who is killed by CONCORD, is done so DELIBERATELY by CONCORD, not by accident. CONCORD does not commit accidents. Its a simpke hardcoded game mechanic, that only acts specifically when its parameters are actualised. There is no "accidental" element whatsoever. CONCORD cannot commit an accident.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2015-10-11 13:43:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) False. Re-read what my proposal is meant to impact with your eyese, not your imagination.
My proposal is for purposes of increasing PvP in HS, by means of becoming red sooner from illegal actions.


We are already mostly at -10 and people dont try to engage us save for a few stat padders who war dec us anyway. Zero change will happen with this nerf.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime.
Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine.


Yep, nobody has ever made the mistake of not realizing they just jumped into highsec when chasing someone, they intentionally shot that thorax with their pirate faction cruiser fitted with faction and ded modsRoll
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-10-11 13:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Carrie-Anne Moss
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The reaction is telling.

Even though its been established this doesnt bother -10 sec players, by their own testimony, and though its been shown that an "accidental" illegal act is as valid and due for the same repecrussions as an intentional illegal act.

None of these are valid counterarguments, and already annihilated/obviated.


Why should this nerf happen when the very thing you want to target will not be impacted?

Why do you want to further punish people who accidentally get killed by concord?


1) False. Re-read what my proposal is meant to impact with your eyese, not your imagination.
My proposal is for purposes of increasing PvP in HS, by means of becoming red sooner from illegal actions.

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime. Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine. Nobody gets "accidentally" killed by CONCORD, as you state. Anyone who is killed by CONCORD, is done so DELIBERATELY by CONCORD, not by accident. CONCORD does not commit accidents. Its a simpke hardcoded game mechanic, that only acts specifically when its parameters are actualises. There is no "accidental" element whatsoever.

Dude qhat freaking extra content?? How with that increase HS Pvp?
Gankers are already red you already camp their cheap catas and noobships.
Anyone can already shoot them with the help of FactPo.

So you just want more people to get red faster so people can camp code noobships at stations more/faster?

Its kind of silly to think that matters and that if offers any kind of content to anyone, ganker gankee or white knight .

Again Dumb White Knight that Camps Code noobsips and says its content....




one of those losers that sit outside station and try to shoot Code during ganks but omly manage to blow up their noobships?

Lol "CONTENT'
Bro you are like a bug on the wall that i see out of the corner of my eye while im banging my smoking hot girlfriend.
Yeah you in same room, yeah you get to see whats going on, yeah you kinda distracted me for a split second and got my attention for .6 of a second, yeah you make fly over and land on my ass for 2seconds...
But your still a worthless insignificant meaningless trivial worthless FLY! A FREAKING FLY ON THE WALL WATCHING THE BIG BOYS AND GIRLS BANG.
Fly off FLY
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
New Eden Tech Support
#45 - 2015-10-11 13:48:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


The missing factor, is a greater security standing penalty for illegal acts in HS, so as to more proportionately reduce them to -5.0, so that they themselves have to respond to overt player aggression, as they themselves enact on others.



I say CCP rolls back the nerfs to what we had in 2008 so you can see just how good highsec has it these days.


I'm really bad at math and my understanding of macro-economics is kinda shoddy BUT... isn't the value of ISK dropping relative to the price of PLEX? If that's true wouldn't that mean that we're all earning less than we used to? Maybe the logic of using PLEX as an economic benchmark is flawed... dunno tbh.

Thank me later :D
Salvos Rhoska
#46 - 2015-10-11 13:50:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) False. Re-read what my proposal is meant to impact with your eyese, not your imagination.
My proposal is for purposes of increasing PvP in HS, by means of becoming red sooner from illegal actions.


We are already mostly at -10 and people dont try to engage us save for a few stat padders who war dec us anyway. Zero change will happen with this nerf.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime.
Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine.


Yep, nobody has ever made the mistake of not realizing they just jumped into highsec when chasing someone, they intentionally shot that thorax with their pirate faction cruiser fitted with faction and ded modsRoll



1) "We are". Gotcha, right there. As I suspected, you are arguing out of self interest.

Not that its relevant, since as Ive stated time and time again, this DOES NOT AFFECT YOU AT -10.
Its not a "nerf" to anything. You can still commit illegal acts as a -10 character. This affects you in no way whatseover.

2). There is no such thing as an "accidental crime". CONCORD doesnt care, nor does the games mechanics, whether its deliberate or sue to your own stupidity. Its not relevant.

A crime, is a crime. The games mechanics dont care about your intent.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2015-10-11 13:56:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:



1) "We are". Gotcha, right there. As I suspected, you are arguing out of self interest.

Not that its relevant, since as Ive stated time and time again, this DOES NOT AFFECT YOU AT -10.
Its not a "nerf" to anything. You can still commit illegal acts as a -10 character. This affects you in no way whatseover.


So its fails the first test, a nerf that does nothing to its target but hurts others not involved is a bad change.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2). There is no such thing as an "accidental crime". CONCORD doesnt care, nor does the games mechanics, whether its deliberate or sue to your own stupidity. Its not relevant.

A crime, is a crime. The games mechanics dont care about your intent.


Yes, there is such a thing and it happens every day. Sticking you fingers in your ears and screaming "no it doesn't count" doesn't make this fact go away. The people you are going to punish are not gankers, they are people who accidentally get themselves blown up by concord.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#48 - 2015-10-11 13:58:10 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The reaction is telling.

Even though its been established this doesnt bother -10 sec players, by their own testimony, and though its been shown that an "accidental" illegal act is as valid and due for the same repecrussions as an intentional illegal act.

None of these are valid counterarguments, and already annihilated/obviated.


Why should this nerf happen when the very thing you want to target will not be impacted?

Why do you want to further punish people who accidentally get killed by concord?


1) False. Re-read what my proposal is meant to impact with your eyese, not your imagination.
My proposal is for purposes of increasing PvP in HS, by means of becoming red sooner from illegal actions.

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime. Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine. Nobody gets "accidentally" killed by CONCORD, as you state. Anyone who is killed by CONCORD, is done so DELIBERATELY by CONCORD, not by accident. CONCORD does not commit accidents. Its a simpke hardcoded game mechanic, that only acts specifically when its parameters are actualises. There is no "accidental" element whatsoever.


Your premises are false and so is your conclussion. You should get some first hand experience about ganking before you talk.

How many ganks have you seen?
How many times have you been ganked?
How many ships have you lost to ganking?

What is your experience?
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#49 - 2015-10-11 13:59:56 UTC
Accidentally getting exploded by CONCORD is a thing.

A friend went on one of those community-organised events, a few years back. FHC's Gank Nights.

They were nervous, and tacked the gate by mistake, when a flashy red thing jumped in, just as they were about to jump into lowsec.

Accidents do happen. Massively penalising people for mistakes like that, is more likely to make them Not Attempt to do things in the first place.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#50 - 2015-10-11 14:05:27 UTC
Worried about EVE as a whole yes.

Worried about code as a whatever it is no.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Zirashi
Cyclical Destruction
#51 - 2015-10-11 14:20:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) "Accidental" illegality does not exist, nor is it relevant. A crime is a crime. There is no such thing as an "accidental" crime.
Your argument is invalid, facetious and asinine.


Yep, nobody has ever made the mistake of not realizing they just jumped into highsec when chasing someone, they intentionally shot that thorax with their pirate faction cruiser fitted with faction and ded modsRoll

Was just lurking and enjoying the bickering, but I'd like to chime in real quick; IMO the hypothetical faction/ded fit pirate cruiser deserved it and this does not help your argument.

Two reasons:

1) His ship and fittings implies he probably isn't new or he plexed into it before he was truly ready. He had it coming either way.

2) Circumstances imply he was ready to kill. Although it's only expressly punished in Hi-sec, I posit that doesn't make it inherently "legal" in other parts of space like null. In those cases you are simply outside the reach of the "law." Therefore, "criminal" intent is still there. Only thing that changed is he thought no one was looking and wouldn't get caught, but they were and he did.

In addition, the "green safety" does not allow illegal actions and will warn you of the possibilities if you attempt to shut it off. I feel this is sufficient for the purpose of preventing accidents. Any "accidents" that occur despite these measures are entirely the fault of the player and should not taken into account when balancing punishments. Because of this, I feel the "accidental CONCORDOKKEN" is not a valid counter argument to the guy's proposed changes.

*fans fire*
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2015-10-11 14:25:36 UTC
Chribba wrote:
EVE haven't been that 'hardcore' game in years now, well before CODE arrived.

/c


The statistical instances of ganks were actually higher before CODE was institutionalized and nerfs for ganking crept up. There were hundreds of autonomous smaller groups and gankers just killing people.

Today, it's done with the logistical and organizational support of the Goonswarm Federation. Because that is what it takes. While the kill rate is numerically lower, what we have is presence, and an entrenched psychological perception that we are an invincible unbeatable entity.

It's all social engineering at work and psychology affecting players to a greater degree than game mechanics making people feel more or less safe.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-10-11 14:37:15 UTC
Valerie Valate wrote:


The problem with L4 missions is this:

They are, for the most part, doable in a t1 fitted t1 battleship with skills at III or IV.



that is NOT a problem


unless you are saying that L4 missions should only be available to the leet mlg pr0 players
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#54 - 2015-10-11 14:42:53 UTC
Zirashi wrote:


*fans fire*


Accidents happen, like hitting your smartbomb rather than your missilesTwisted
Maekchu
Doomheim
#55 - 2015-10-11 14:42:56 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
It's all social engineering at work and psychology affecting players to a greater degree than game mechanics making people feel more or less safe.

I'll agree with this.
Whatever issue there is with ganking. Is not due to game balance, but due to the minds of the highsec playerbase.
Highsec corporations have all the tools, in order to take up the fight with factions like Code. However, since most of these corps are only interested in the PvE aspect of EvE, there is no one to pick up the PvP responsibility.
So instead of acknowledging that they are just being out-played with the tools available in the game, they will cry for CCP to intervene.
Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-10-11 14:43:09 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

Today, it's done with the logistical and organizational support of the Goonswarm Federation. Because that is what it takes. While the kill rate is numerically lower, what we have is presence, and an entrenched psychological perception that we are an invincible unbeatable entity.

It's all social engineering at work and psychology affecting players to a greater degree than game mechanics making people feel more or less safe.


Think about this, our social engineering and psychological warfare are so utterly dominant that we can come out and say it, that that's what we are doing, and it won't even matter.

That's how good we are at it.

Feels good to be on top guys, feels good.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2015-10-11 14:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
Maekchu wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
It's all social engineering at work and psychology affecting players to a greater degree than game mechanics making people feel more or less safe.

I'll agree with this.
Whatever issue there is with ganking. Is not due to game balance, but due to the minds of the highsec playerbase.
Highsec corporations have all the tools, in order to take up the fight with factions like Code. However, since most of these corps are only interested in the PvE aspect of EvE, there is no one to pick up the PvP responsibility.
So instead of acknowledging that they are just being out-played with the tools available in the game, they will cry for CCP to intervene.


Also whenever they turn up the mechanical nerfs, we turn up the propaganda, and over the top burn events to induce fear. Our guns are louder. Propaganda has more of an effect on behavior than mechanics.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Salvos Rhoska
#58 - 2015-10-11 14:51:18 UTC
We have established, that an increase in sec standing modifier for illegal acts in HS:
A)Does not effect existing -10 sec characters. They are obviously already bottomed out. Doesnt affect them at all.
B) Its irrelevant whether an illegal act is "accidental" or intentional. EVE doesnt care. Its illegal, period.
C) As a result of increased sec standing loss for illegal acts, PvP is increased by a factor of more red targets in HS.

Its a simple and functional solution, concudive to more player cobtent, ship destruction and helps relegate that in HS away from CONCORDS reaction (as PvE)to player action (as PvP).

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Maekchu
Doomheim
#59 - 2015-10-11 15:00:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
We have established, that an increase in sec standing modifier for illegal acts in HS:
A)Does not effect existing -10 sec characters. They are obviously already bottomed out. Doesnt affect them at all.
B) Its irrelevant whether an illegal act is "accidental" or intentional. EVE doesnt care. Its illegal, period.
C) As a result of increased sec standing loss for illegal acts, PvP is increased by a factor of more red targets in HS.

Its a simple and functional solution, concudive to more player cobtent, ship destruction and helps relegate that in HS away from CONCORDS reaction (as PvE)to player action (as PvP).

It's not entirely irrelevant whether an illegal act is "accidental". Ask yourself, who would be the person to do an illegal act in HS by accident? Most likely a complete newbie who does not understand the game mechanics fully. Do you want to punish new players for mistakes, they don't even understand?

Gankers will eventually get to -10 sec, and it doesn't even take that long with the current system. Changing the amount of sec lost, will not change anything. Having more reds to shoot at, does not change the fact, that only a very small group of people actually wants to shoot at them.

Anti-ganking communities could just do what HS mercs do, and wardec all the corps that gank. Then they all are reds to you. But no one will do that, cause the interest of HS players is not in PvP.

This is not a game balance issue, but an issue with highsec players. A nerf to sec status will not change anything to the ganker, but hurt newbies who does not understand game mechanics instead.
Eternal Bob
Doomheim
#60 - 2015-10-11 15:08:36 UTC
CODE's outlived its novelty anyway. Muh permits, muh saviour of highsec hur dur. Yawn.

Biomassing to free a char slot.