These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

why does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators

First post
Author
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#421 - 2016-05-08 07:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Terquil wrote:
John Hand wrote:

The solution?

Restrict weapon fire in systems 0.7 and above where Concords presence is strongest. This means you cannot fire or lock any ship while in those systems. 0.5 and 0.6 systems (still high sec) are where Concords presence is weak. This means, as a player on both sides of the coin, people will know, and expect the possibility of a gank when passing through a 0.5 or 0.6 system (aka the Amarr/Jita pipe). This also means you will know where the war deccers will be as well, so both parties can expect a fight, or look for a fight, in said systems. This means those that care bear, can do so, but mining and mission running in "true" high sec doesn't pay very well, as most of those systems only give level 3's. Level 4's are mostly ran IN 0.5/0.6 systems, meaning that kind of game-play doesn't change any (it just changes location), it just means those who run said missions, and those who hunt mission runners, now know of a specific area where the possibility can occur. Any level 4 mission that now does run into a 0.7 system should be changed to head to a 0.6 at least. Also make ore fields in 0.5/0.6 systems regen faster and be bigger, while making those in the 0.7+ systems smaller and regen slower.


Never heard more BS than that. Eve is supposed to be harsh and dangerous. If you want perfect security with a no PvP zone, don't play eve.

Mechanics like endless bumping should be nerfed for obvious reasons.

Oh and ganking should take place and be allowed, but ganking a barge for profit is.....meh. scan targets, haulers, whatever, gank em and profit of those. Then u did something for your profit. Just flying to a belt and shooting anyone for profit is as boring and mindless as mining


I looked at that suggestion and went oh god no, that is wrong, the only adjustment I would do at this point above the bump changes and the 3 minutes not resetting after a point of course is to disallow -10 characters from docking in NPC stations in hisec. That will mean that they have to setup their own Citadels as bases, so they can be found and shot after a suitable war dec, then they too (the gankers) have assets at risk. Then for me the balance is fine and it fits in nicely with the new structures...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2016-05-08 08:44:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shouldn't there be a viable reason to gank miners? Right now there isn't one which means the attacks are simply random.
There's no more or less of a reason to gank miners than any other ship.


Every other ganking target can provide an income.

really?
Is lvl4 mission runner fully T2 fitted BS profitable?
Is empty capsule profitable?
Is empty rookie ship profitable?
.....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Wanda Fayne
#423 - 2016-05-08 09:10:04 UTC
Oh this thread is deliveringAttention

Moar pleezLol

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#424 - 2016-05-08 09:28:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
John Hand wrote:
You are also mistaking High sec as a PvP zone. Its not made to be one. High sec is mainly made for PvE and trading, NOT PvP, which is why war decs are some of the stupidest things CCP ever has added to the game.

There are places where PvP is expected to happen, Low sec/Null sec. If you can't handle it there, then you are the cause of the problem with high sec, NOT the solution.
You couldn't be more wrong, CCP have repeatedly said otherwise; turning hisec into a PvE shard in a famously unsharded game would essentially break Eve.

Hisec is by design, a PvP zone. It always has been and always should be.

Quote:
"High sec PvP is fun" people say, it might be fun for you the person shooting, but you need to consider how the person getting shot feels. If it fun for him for you, an otherwise faceless neutral, to be suddenly shooting him? Would the engagement be better if he knew you were looking for him, and he might of had an escort fleet? These are questions that no high sec ganker or wardeccer EVER thinks of, because they are literally spineless cowards that will run when faced with ANY opposition.
You do realise that gankers are usually alts of people doing other stuff including low and nullsec PvP, and that wardeccers generally appreciate people fighting back?

Quote:
The solution?

Restrict weapon fire in systems 0.7 and above where Concords presence is strongest. This means you cannot fire or lock any ship while in those systems. 0.5 and 0.6 systems (still high sec) are where Concords presence is weak. This means, as a player on both sides of the coin, people will know, and expect the possibility of a gank when passing through a 0.5 or 0.6 system (aka the Amarr/Jita pipe). This also means you will know where the war deccers will be as well, so both parties can expect a fight, or look for a fight, in said systems. This means those that care bear, can do so, but mining and mission running in "true" high sec doesn't pay very well, as most of those systems only give level 3's. Level 4's are mostly ran IN 0.5/0.6 systems, meaning that kind of game-play doesn't change any (it just changes location), it just means those who run said missions, and those who hunt mission runners, now know of a specific area where the possibility can occur. Any level 4 mission that now does run into a 0.7 system should be changed to head to a 0.6 at least. Also make ore fields in 0.5/0.6 systems regen faster and be bigger, while making those in the 0.7+ systems smaller and regen slower.
Crawl back under your bridge, I'll steal a scrawny goat and send it along shortly.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#425 - 2016-05-08 10:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm sure it can, and yet it doesn't tend to happen. I've clocked thousands of jumps with vastly more than required to entice gankers and not once even had my shield tinkled.


Which goes to show how rare ganking actually is if thats true.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And once again, that's not pre-fitting


You get a tank that makes profitable ganking impossible right out of the box, thats fitting a ship for you. Equally that massive ore hold on the mack is something you get right out of the box, again thats fitting the ship for you.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I think you missed his point. Of course if there were no purpose to PvE, it wouldn't get done, but what he was pointing out is that when he PvPs he doesn't sit around going "Oh I can only shoot ships that drop good loot", as the enemy ship exploding is the purpose of the activity. That said, many mining ganks are profitable and there's more than one way to kill miners in highsec some of which don't even require you losing your ship.


If ganking freighters stopped providing income that would also stop, piracy requires that you be able to make a profit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#426 - 2016-05-08 10:12:20 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shouldn't there be a viable reason to gank miners? Right now there isn't one which means the attacks are simply random.
There's no more or less of a reason to gank miners than any other ship.


Every other ganking target can provide an income.

really?
Is lvl4 mission runner fully T2 fitted BS profitable?
Is empty capsule profitable?
Is empty rookie ship profitable?
.....


If said mission ship fits no tank, full cargo extenders in lows/rigs and goes with full t2 gear then yes it is. The gank talos for example can be ganked for profit.

The empty pod and rookie ship obviously not because they have nothing of value fitted to them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#427 - 2016-05-08 10:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


As you know Miniluv was tasked with messing with hisec insted of this 200m, maybe you will admit that part next, to be blunt I used to watch War Akini with a certain amount of wow, but then I realised he was using multi-boxing software to do his ganks, I think he stopped when that was banned.


The 200 mil was the reason goons went all in for a time.
Kieron VonDeux
#428 - 2016-05-08 10:18:02 UTC
I haven't seen this much salt since I visited the Bonneville Salt Flats.

So your gameplay gets nerf'd a bit. One day the great Pendulum of Balance will swing back in your direction. Learn to adapt and try something different for a while.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#429 - 2016-05-08 10:22:32 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
I haven't seen this much salt since I visited the Bonneville Salt Flats.

So your gameplay gets nerf'd a bit. One day the great Pendulum of Balance will swing back in your direction. Learn to adapt and try something different for a while.



You can't adapt to outright removal.
Kieron VonDeux
#430 - 2016-05-08 10:34:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
I haven't seen this much salt since I visited the Bonneville Salt Flats.

So your gameplay gets nerf'd a bit. One day the great Pendulum of Balance will swing back in your direction. Learn to adapt and try something different for a while.



You can't adapt to outright removal.



Sure you can, try some other game play for a bit. Doing the same thing for years should get old.

My main's career has done the complete circuit of empire mining, missions, low sec ratting, null sec sov warfare, null npc warefare, worm hole, low sec pirate, and etc.

I've ganked in hi sec on occasion, but to be honest there is so much more out there than to cry about this one game mechanic that has become so much more popular and effective in the last several years.

But as with many other things Eve players have perfected, the nerf bat will eventually hit and may even hit for wrecking, but there will be a rebalance after everyone has long forgot about all the drama and nostalgia eventually gets CCP to bring it back in some form.

This is not the first game mechanic that has got this treatment.

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2016-05-08 11:17:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

If ganking freighters stopped providing income that would also stop, piracy requires that you be able to make a profit.

Just a question: is it possible to make a profit ganking miner-ganking-ships? Or are they fit so cheaply that you can't make profit by ganking them?

Why must everything be profitable? How much money do you make visiting Disneyland? Rock Concert?

If you get a T1 freighter through with your loot you could make 100+M ISK. A Miner in a skiff is risking 200M Isk for an ore hold of 4-5MISK in High. To make the freighter profit you need 1h max to get where you want and you are constantly moving. A miner has to stay in belt for hours.

Just a quick calculation:
You are an experienced player so you could make around 100+M ISK /h ratting/incursions etc. Lets assume you loose 10M ISK per gank and need to get your ships and boost your sec standing. Alltogether 3 h.
For this you gank 10 Exhumers. 1 Exhumer ~200M= 2000M ISK destroyed. A good miner makes what? 30M ISK/h? Thats around 66,6 man hours destroyed just for your fun. You invest 3h and the miners have to invest 66hours just to compensate this. And you REALLY think this profession should be profitable so that even more people do it for a living?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#432 - 2016-05-08 11:33:31 UTC
I am starting to realize the salt is too refined. We already see a nerf to bumping, but we have pointed out that a crew with their act together can handle it. But I see white mainstream table salt, not the dirty kind you get from a mine or the sea.

In a month or two, we'll be seeing a C&P thread from some codies about their ganks after the change. They already know how to do it right. But maybe, just maybe, they are making all the noise now so when they pull freighter ganks right on the gate, it will add weight to the boasting they plan.

We'll point out how we stated that it's a nerf to bumping, not ganking, and they'll gaslight and play coy as if we never did, as if we popped champaign corks and celebrated the end of ganking or something, and then to engage the argument after that point will be taken as "tears", or our lack of surprise will be taken as hiding our surprise and hence declared "tears".


I like the idea of not letting -10s dock in a station. It's possible after all, in the mechanics. That they can do so now is as dumb as say, getting insurance payouts for criminal acts, or all wrecks having 500 hp, or being able to warp scram a ship endlessly without using an actual warp scramming module - what is it? Oh yes, bumping!. People already wonder how faction war targets can dock anywhere in enemy space. It's possible for a station to be like "no dock for you!!!" already in the mechanics.

Yes maybe that day should come and then all that will need to be done is to kill ganker citadels like burning a beehive (no pun intended) in the back yard.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#433 - 2016-05-08 11:40:00 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I like the idea of not letting -10s dock in a station.

I don't mind the idea, except for pirate faction NPC stations.

That way -10s can still dock in stations in lowsec and nullsec and some highsec stations, but it would be very limited in highsec.

After all, no docking opportunities at all is really just another 'nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like' approach to requesting game change.

At the same time, it's arguable that non-outlaw characters shouldn't be able to dock at pirate faction stations, but that would be neither here nor there really.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#434 - 2016-05-08 12:23:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I like the idea of not letting -10s dock in a station.

I don't mind the idea, except for pirate faction NPC stations.

That way -10s can still dock in stations in lowsec and nullsec and some highsec stations, but it would be very limited in highsec.

After all, no docking opportunities at all is really just another 'nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like' approach to requesting game change.

At the same time, it's arguable that non-outlaw characters shouldn't be able to dock at pirate faction stations, but that would be neither here nor there really.


Yeah hisec would be better as it should link to security levels which is why I said hisec when I put up that idea, my objective in this is to push them to put up a Citadel or something like that. It is nothing to do with nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like, I want to see real meaningful combat over strategic assets in hisec and if you want to keep saying its because I don't like their gameplay you are missing the point by a wide margin...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#435 - 2016-05-08 12:38:57 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Yeah hisec would be better as it should link to security levels which is why I said hisec when I put up that idea, my objective in this is to push them to put up a Citadel or something like that. It is nothing to do with nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like, I want to see real meaningful combat over strategic assets in hisec and if you want to keep saying its because I don't like their gameplay you are missing the point by a wide margin...

Missed your pills again?

I responded to Herzog. I didn't even read you're post. I avoid a lot of them because they are just ridiculous.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#436 - 2016-05-08 12:41:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Which goes to show how rare ganking actually is if thats true.
Goes to show how rare tengu ganking is, sure.

baltec1 wrote:
You get a tank that makes profitable ganking impossible right out of the box, thats fitting a ship for you. Equally that massive ore hold on the mack is something you get right out of the box, again thats fitting the ship for you.
Except it's not, once again, it's ship specialties. Just like how other ships have varying statistics and traits, mining ships do too.

baltec1 wrote:
If ganking freighters stopped providing income that would also stop, piracy requires that you be able to make a profit.
Doubt it, there are plenty of non-profitable freighter ganks. Besides, you claim mining barges aren't profitable, and yet they get ganked all the time.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#437 - 2016-05-08 12:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Yeah hisec would be better as it should link to security levels which is why I said hisec when I put up that idea, my objective in this is to push them to put up a Citadel or something like that. It is nothing to do with nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like, I want to see real meaningful combat over strategic assets in hisec and if you want to keep saying its because I don't like their gameplay you are missing the point by a wide margin...

Missed your pills again?

I responded to Herzog. I didn't even read you're post. I avoid a lot of them because they are just ridiculous.


Well I got a massive number of + votes for pointing out your absurd argument 1-1 earlier in this thread, so putting you right seems to hit a chord with people.

I am of course not closed minded like you, I even gave you a couple of up votes on other threads for your comments and on this thread too even when I thought that you were still being off base in part of your thinking which I clarified. Thanks for showing once again that you are unable to debate and prefer to run and sulk in the corner making petty little insults..

Herzog responded to my suggestion, which actually was in terms of hisec only, based on high security space having a meaning, he missed that so I kindly took the time to clarify your thinking as you missed it though being petulant.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#438 - 2016-05-09 05:32:46 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Yeah hisec would be better as it should link to security levels which is why I said hisec when I put up that idea, my objective in this is to push them to put up a Citadel or something like that. It is nothing to do with nerf someone else because they don't play the way I like, I want to see real meaningful combat over strategic assets in hisec and if you want to keep saying its because I don't like their gameplay you are missing the point by a wide margin...

Missed your pills again?

I responded to Herzog. I didn't even read you're post. I avoid a lot of them because they are just ridiculous.


Well I got a massive number of + votes for pointing out your absurd argument 1-1 earlier in this thread, so putting you right seems to hit a chord with people.

I am of course not closed minded like you, I even gave you a couple of up votes on other threads for your comments and on this thread too even when I thought that you were still being off base in part of your thinking which I clarified. Thanks for showing once again that you are unable to debate and prefer to run and sulk in the corner making petty little insults..

Herzog responded to my suggestion, which actually was in terms of hisec only, based on high security space having a meaning, he missed that so I kindly took the time to clarify your thinking as you missed it though being petulant.



I was going to agree with her on the point about high sec status players docking in pirate stations, I even have a bit of "things I would do were it up to me ™ in addition to simply removing the ability of -10 players to dock in highsec". I would even go so far as to let low sec status players run up pirate faction so they could get a pirate citadel model that does not turn up on the overview.

but...

she wants to do forum PVP so the heck with discussions, tossing ideas around, and seeing where we could agree on things.

The usual.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#439 - 2016-05-09 09:09:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:


Why does there need to be a reason other than for fun? When my mates and I go out on a roam, we dont have a viable reason for killing anything we come across, we do it for fun.

Same thing, no?



Take away the reward for missioning or mining and see if people continue to do it.


Dude, I cant believe anyone seriously tries to make a profit from an actual miner gank. As I said earlier, I used to gank haulers for profit... that's one thing. But miner ganking? I had an alt once upon a time for ganking miners. I did it for fun... what profit could one expect to make, anyway? I mean really, whats so valuable in or on a hisec miner's ship?

Don't get em wrong, I'm all for hisec ganking and not making it too easy on the carebears... I'd even be omre than ok with it if there were no hisec at all, ok? but please, as some one who used to do it every night, don't tell me miner gankers used to be able to make a profit comparable to missioning or even mining. You're exaggerating too much, dude.





For a time goons got 200 million per hulk plus whatever mods dropped and salvage on top and the profits from playing the ice market. Naturally thats no longer possible nor should it be (the 200 mil bit) but miner ganking should return to profitability as the low end starter section for new gankers.


I think I agree. I just dont see miner ganking as a profit thing; it's a fun thing. I agree miner ganking should be the intro to ganking, and sometimes merely an end unto itself (fun) while teaching ppl some of the basics so they can advance on to the actual profitable ganking of haulers.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

Ni Neith
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#440 - 2016-05-09 11:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ni Neith
Ahahha... high sec ganking is "content" now... Also, nice try, code alt.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


Yes maybe that day should come and then all that will need to be done is to kill ganker citadels like burning a beehive (no pun intended) in the back yard.



It would be much easier than that. Code probably wouldn't even put them up because they know they wont last after one vulnerability cycle.