These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#461 - 2016-02-01 00:25:20 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution.


Wrong.

Capital ships are not solo vessels. If the idea of having a second account is so distasteful, nothing prevents you from having a second player do it.


Quote:

Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic.


If you really believe that, then you might as well just quit right now, because that's true of a hell of a lot of things in EVE.

"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.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#462 - 2016-02-01 00:55:20 UTC
[/quote]

You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game.[/quote]

thats kinda rich coming from a member of the cfc .... TwistedPirateBig smile
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#463 - 2016-02-01 01:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Khergit Deserters wrote:
If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution. Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic. If you need two chars to play the game, then CCP would have to give every new subscriber two simultaneously playable chars.

The other way is the alt doing the (scouting, webbing, whatever) function has to be another player. If that's the case, then safe hauling can only be done by teams of players. Not solo. Which might be OK, game design-wise. But it would make hauling one other thing that a solo player can viably do in EVE.

You don't need an alt. It's just convenient.

One friend is enough to reduce the risk to an extremely low level.

Even alone, the risk of being bumped and ganked is small, so totally doable solo if you are smart about where you haul.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2016-02-01 01:50:43 UTC


[/quote]

You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game. If I blind jump to a cyno beacon and get my carrier burnt down...is it my fault? Or should I blame the people who burnt down my carrier and CCP?

To be getting bumped means you have catastrophically failed. You did NOT have a scout. You did NOT have a scout with webs. And you jumped into a system known for ganking...which relies on bumping.

Don't want to be bumped for 4-5 hours? Okay, logoff. Problem solved. Go do something else.[/quote]




Wait, just to be clear.....Consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP? So the whole Criminal Timer is a broken mechanic by that implication, no? Gankers should keep their ships if others players aren't killing them off after ganks.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#465 - 2016-02-01 02:04:12 UTC
So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)

That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#466 - 2016-02-01 02:31:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brad Neece wrote:
Wait, just to be clear.....Consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP? So the whole Criminal Timer is a broken mechanic by that implication, no? Gankers should keep their ships if others players aren't killing them off after ganks.

This thread is supposed to be about bumping and looting.

When it comes to bumping and looting, the aim in asking for consequences is to get the bumping ship and looting ship set to suspect so they can be killed (they are the most common requests in these threads).

So anti-gankers want to inflict consequences on those ships, but not if it means consequences for them; and hence they don't gank the bumping Machs.

From everything in this thread, anti-gankers want consequence free options to kill the Machariel by requesting CCP to inflict consequences on bumpers that the anti-gankers aren't prepared to take on themselves.

At the end of the day. if your desire is to shoot the Machariel or the looting Freighter/DSTs, then do it; but don't request CCP to maintain safety for some at the expense of others.

If you want the bumping Mach to have more risk, go make it more risky to bump.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#467 - 2016-02-01 02:32:08 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)

That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game?



Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme.

But on a serious note, maybe if CCP fixes the lame bounty system. Ganking bumpers might be a worthwhile EVE activity. But only if there is a way to confirm the bumping lead to a gank.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#468 - 2016-02-01 02:37:39 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution. Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic. If you need two chars to play the game, then CCP would have to give every new subscriber two simultaneously playable chars.

The other way is the alt doing the (scouting, webbing, whatever) function has to be another player. If that's the case, then safe hauling can only be done by teams of players. Not solo. Which might be OK, game design-wise. But it would make hauling one other thing that a solo player can viably do in EVE.



Get a buddy to provide the scouting/webbing. I do this when I need to jump to a cyno beacon and can't get a scout there quickly. I ask in corp chat, alliance chat, etc. If I need a cyno same thing. Imagine that in a game where there are thousands of other players online you learn to help each other.

And yeah...you are going to fly a big expensive ship...shock!!! You need help doing so. I do not move my carrier alone, nor my JF. In both cases I have the help of people in my corp.

Your complaint here is just simply an issue of the incorrect view of the game and how it works.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#469 - 2016-02-01 02:39:17 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Quote:


You just don't get it. The consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP. You the player have to impose them. If you decline that is not the problem of the guy doing the bumping....that is your problem. Running to CCP saying, "It's not fair! Fix it!" is antithetical to the very idea you just articulated: that there should be consequences to one's actions in game.


thats kinda rich coming from a member of the cfc .... TwistedPirateBig smile




What is that supposed to mean? That CCP does my beck and call? That is all you got left is Grrrr Goons. Roll

Guess your out of valid ideas and arguments.

Just the other day while chatting with CCP Fozzie I thought it would be good if he implemented....GMAFB.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#470 - 2016-02-01 02:59:25 UTC
Brad Neece wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
So what is your point? (to use a similarly exaggerated and non-sensical argument)

That all consequences should be handed out by CCP? If I shoot a POS in low sec I should be banned from the game?



Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme.

But on a serious note, maybe if CCP fixes the lame bounty system. Ganking bumpers might be a worthwhile EVE activity. But only if there is a way to confirm the bumping lead to a gank.


Because there is no perma-death, any bounty system that pays well will be exploited. But at least you get paid for sitting in a Naga and whoring on ganker losses.

The game was indeed designed with the notion that players take responsibility for their own protection and vengeance. Read the oft referenced 'falcon punch' post by CCP falcon. Players exacting revenge is exactly what kill rights are for. CONCORD were not intended to replace player revenge. They are a deterrent.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#471 - 2016-02-01 07:16:56 UTC
Rhetorical question-

I know freighters have a lot of room in their holds...but do they have enough space to carry a packaged shuttle in there? I know shuttles take up a lot of room and take months and months to train into flying, plus their expense has skyrocketed in recent years...but if you could get past all that, it occurs to me that even solo freighter pilots could carry a shuttle and periodically land at stations, scout ahead a few jumps, then continue. Especially just before gank hubs.

But, I realize with the time and expense training into a shuttle, that not all freighter pilots would be willing to do this. I was just thinking, maybe some of them could do so in the event they don't have a friend handy. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and god knows those shuttles might take up so much room in the cargo as to make the trip not worth it, but for some people, the hassle would be worth it to avoid the loss of their billion-isk ship with 3-billion-isk cargo.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#472 - 2016-02-01 08:00:23 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Rhetorical question-

I know freighters have a lot of room in their holds...but do they have enough space to carry a packaged shuttle in there? I know shuttles take up a lot of room and take months and months to train into flying, plus their expense has skyrocketed in recent years...but if you could get past all that, it occurs to me that even solo freighter pilots could carry a shuttle and periodically land at stations, scout ahead a few jumps, then continue. Especially just before gank hubs.

But, I realize with the time and expense training into a shuttle, that not all freighter pilots would be willing to do this. I was just thinking, maybe some of them could do so in the event they don't have a friend handy. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and god knows those shuttles might take up so much room in the cargo as to make the trip not worth it, but for some people, the hassle would be worth it to avoid the loss of their billion-isk ship with 3-billion-isk cargo.


You sir, are a man of subtlety and perspicacious insights. Naturally you are a bad, bad man.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#473 - 2016-02-01 08:23:08 UTC
Before I started multiboxing, back in the stone age, that was very similar how I used to scout gates that looked shifty: Logged in an untrained alt to jump first with my main in the system behind.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#474 - 2016-02-01 10:18:57 UTC
Brad Neece wrote:
Concord response should not happen against criminals.....if in-game consequences should be imposed by other players. I was taking that to the extreme.
The CONCORD response isn't a real long-term consequence but rather just a cost. CCP spells this out in the New Pilot FAQ which states how the mechanic is completely reactionary and is not there to protect you. In itself, CONCORD doesn't even care what your security status is - if you engage in illegal aggression they destroy you, full stop, whether you are have -10 or 5 security status. This cost protects small group and solo players by providing a financial deterrent to wholesale space violence from aggressors and larger groups.

In fact all this whining in this thread stems from having NPCs try to ascribe morality to complex player actions in this sandbox game. If you decide to suicide gank a former director of your corp who is moving the goods he blatantly stole from your corporation before dropping to the NPC corp, no space court in the land would hold you accountable for trying to get your stuff back. If you are in a bitter (and legal) war with a rival and decide to suicide gank their out-of-corp hauler, why would CONCORD get involved if you had irrefutable evidence they were supplying your enemy? And yes, if someone is bumping your freighter and working with criminals, why would CONCORD want to step in to protect them?

But the game cannot know these nuances. So basically any NPC-enforced safety you give to some players to protect them, other players can use to their advantage when attacking them which is why in highsec it is often the players the know the arcane engagement rules best who win rather than the more simple contests of pure might that occur in other sectors of space. This is why it is desirable to limit the influence of NPCs on the universe as much as possible if you are trying to make a competitive sandbox game where players determine the narrative. Let the players determine who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and you will have much less complaining over game mechanics getting in the way of player interaction which is the primary whine of this thread.

But make no mistake: this is just complaining. There is indeed nothing preventing you from engaging that bumper or that looter (or that former director who stole your stuff, or that neutral hauler). There is just a cost you have to pay if you want to impose your will on the sandbox. If you are not willing to pay that cost, then you will remain un-empowered, whining impotently on the forums while players who are willing to take the hit in pursuit of their greater goals gain advantage in the sandbox.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#475 - 2016-02-01 10:50:51 UTC
Removed some off topic posts.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#476 - 2016-02-01 13:08:01 UTC
Khergit Deserters wrote:
If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution. Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic. If you need two chars to play the game, then CCP would have to give every new subscriber two simultaneously playable chars.

The other way is the alt doing the (scouting, webbing, whatever) function has to be another player. If that's the case, then safe hauling can only be done by teams of players. Not solo. Which might be OK, game design-wise. But it would make hauling one other thing that a solo player can viably do in EVE.


I require between 20 and 32 people to attack a freighter in highsec. Your argument is invalid.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#477 - 2016-02-01 13:39:35 UTC
This just in.

Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.

"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.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#478 - 2016-02-01 13:55:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This just in.

Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.

Just checked that thread after seeing your post. I'm glad to see it. The changes make sense, have been supported by the playerbase with next to no opposition for a while now, and it shows CCP was listening. I'm very happy with that development, and a shout-out to Anthar who got the ball rolling on it.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#479 - 2016-02-01 13:57:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This just in.

Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.


Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#480 - 2016-02-01 14:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
baltec1 wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This just in.

Looks like CCP says "nope!" to the claim that it's too easy to loot a freighter. Freighters are having their wreck hitpoints increased to fifteen thousand.


Bat country strike again, Endie is a swell guy.

I know, right.
Don't want all that risk of getting your little wreck popped or having to think about a way to avoid that from happening, let CCP and CSM solve your problems instead. Sound familiar Lol?