These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#121 - 2016-05-03 13:04:13 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


They would be docked up until system was clear of anyone else...


That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.
Xiahou Altiska
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2016-05-03 13:16:23 UTC
This is a sandbox game. There is no correct definition of "fun" or "content".

Really, if you think you're winning EVE by shooting unarmed and/or clueless players in high-sec, who are any of us to say otherwise?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#123 - 2016-05-03 13:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


They would be docked up until system was clear of anyone else...


That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.


In effect as a whole I think that mining in null is more dangerous than hisec, there is no question of that not being the case, I did a comparison of the front line mining ships used, Hulks for null and Mac's for hisec, and I found that more Hulk died than Mac's, over the period analysed the raw numbers were 65 to 70% of the number of Hulks killed.

The reward is so much greater, double or triple, so yes hisec is safer but the reward is much greater in null.

But its good to see that you acknowledge that hisec is not safe to mine in, that is progress.

And I should re-emphasise my quote:

They would be docked up until system was clear of anyone else who was not +10

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

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2016-05-03 13:36:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.
Right answer wrong conclusion. You can't manage risk in High. Too many people too much traffic not enough Information. So you just have trust your luck. If someone unknow is in a Null System you can bet that he is hostile. So you know your risk. In High you just have to trust your luck. And in Null you have friends nearby which may help.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#125 - 2016-05-03 13:49:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
People used to use battleships but that got nerfed. In fact damn near everything ganking related has either been nerfed into the ground or outright removed.
But they only used them because it cost next to nothing to do so. The only time battleships were used is when they themselves were cheap to use. There have been plenty of buffs to ganking, buffs to other highsec aggression mechanics and nerfs to opposing playstyles too. And again, taken in context of how player ability and mechanic refinement has improved efficiency of ganking, it's still in a better position now that in has been in a long time.

baltec1 wrote:
Go try gank an afk skiff in highsec, better yet, try to do it and turn a profit.
So your problem is if you select targets specifically geared to avoid being ganked, ganking is hard? Consider that highsec mining is one of the lowest forms of income and yet one of the easiest to disrupt.

baltec1 wrote:
For example a zealot with t2 guns, damage mods, tracking and so on but no tank mods can be blown up using a single gank ship and can turn a profit.
But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.

Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
No need to get all concerned about a post.
I'm never concerned by your posts, even when you riddle them with personal attacks, which accounts for 90% of your posting.

baltec1 wrote:
That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.
Highsec is safer... and it's supposed to be.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#126 - 2016-05-03 14:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Geronimo McVain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.
Right answer wrong conclusion. You can't manage risk in High. Too many people too much traffic not enough Information. So you just have trust your luck. If someone unknow is in a Null System you can bet that he is hostile. So you know your risk. In High you just have to trust your luck. And in Null you have friends nearby which may help.


This is why high sec miners get blown up so much, the ever present defeatist attitude. If you want to know how to mine safely anywhere, you can start by looking at the name of my corp lol. Fitting (including defensive implants) matters. Fleets matter, boosts (ie more than just mining boosts) matter. Positioning and movement matters. Not being so greedy that forsake all for material gain matters. Understanding that while there is no way to be 100% safe, making your self a 'hard as nails' target is a good way to minimize risk, that matters too.

Cooperation and per-planning doesn't occur to most high sec miners, they literally think it's "undock, warp to rock, solo mine, profit". High Sec miners get preyed upon because they make themselves such easy targets (and also because the people who prey upon them enjoy tears and high sec miners are amongst the best producers of tears).

To put it more bluntly, it's character traits of your average high sec miner that makes them targets. It's no different from the mission runner in the officer fit marauder who gets ganked vs the guy in the much less expensive mission ship that is fit to survive and avoid gankers (and gankers know it when they ship scan you, so they leave you alone).
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#127 - 2016-05-03 14:20:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Geronimo McVain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
That alone shows just how much safer highsec is.
Right answer wrong conclusion. You can't manage risk in High.
I disagree, managing risk in hisec is totally doable if you make use of all of the tools available to you; you can't eliminate it but you can certainly mitigate it to the extent that gankers and the like choose targets that aren't you.

Quote:
Too many people too much traffic not enough Information. So you just have trust your luck. If someone unknow is in a Null System you can bet that he is hostile. So you know your risk. In High you just have to trust your luck. And in Null you have friends nearby which may help.
While luck certainly has something to with it, you can use the information that is available to your advantage when minimising risk in hisec; judging by the constant "there's nothing I can do against gankers the game is imbalanced" threads that pop up I would say that the majority of gankers victims are ignorant of many of the basic tools and game mechanics that would make them a less desirable person to target.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#128 - 2016-05-03 14:32:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is why high sec miners get blown up so much, the ever present defeatist attitude. If you want to know how to mine safely anywhere, you can start by looking at the name of my corp lol. Fitting (including defensive implants) matters. Fleets matter, boosts (ie more than just mining boosts) matter. positioning and movement matters Not being so greedy that forsake all for material gain matters. Understanding that while there is no way to be 100% safe, making your self a 'hard as nails' target is a good way to minimize risk, that matters too.

Cooperation and per-planning doesn't occur to most high sec miners, they literally think it's "undock, warp to rock, solo mine, profit". High Sec miners get preyed upon because they make themselves such easy targets (and also because the people who prey upon them enjoy tears and high sec miners are amongst the best producers of tears).

To put it more bluntly, it's character traits of your average high sec miner that makes them targets. It's no different from the mission runner in the officer fit marauder who gets ganked vs the guy in the much less expensive mission ship that is fit to survive and avoid gankers (and gankers know it when they ship scan you, so they leave you alone).
But that's not true. Many highsec miners fit their ships properly and fly in fleets, and they still have people complaining because they now are too hard to gank or because they are in NPC corps and so can't be wardecced. Whenever a highsec miners plays well and avoid being killed, gankers explode into an autistic rage about how unfair it is that they aren't easy prey.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#129 - 2016-05-03 14:41:49 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I disagree, managing risk in hisec is totally doable if you make use of all of the tools available to you; you can't eliminate it but you can certainly mitigate it to the extent that gankers and the like choose targets that aren't you.
True enough. But when that happens it's apparently a sign that highsec is too easy rather than a sign of players mitigating risk.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
While luck certainly has something to with it, you can use the information that is available to your advantage when minimising risk in hisec; judging by the constant "there's nothing I can do against gankers the game is imbalanced" threads that pop up I would say that the majority of gankers victims are ignorant of many of the basic tools and game mechanics that would make them a less desirable person to target.
Of course they are, because generally the people targetted by gankers are the bottom of the barrel, either the newest players or the dumbest ones. The fact that those players complain though doesn't mean that ganking is perfectly balanced. As it stands everything involved in stopping ganking is in the preparation phase, you have to set yourself up to not be a target, then you won't be and someone else is. Anti-gankers have very little ability to do anything because they would have to get the target to have done something in the past. More active mechanics would make the whole system better, but to do that ganking would need to change, as right now it's just an F1 monkey mechanic.

The recent change to bumping though, which is what has ultimately led to this discussion, isn't really about ganking though, it's about being able to indefinitely hold a target without ganking them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#130 - 2016-05-03 14:58:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I disagree, managing risk in hisec is totally doable if you make use of all of the tools available to you; you can't eliminate it but you can certainly mitigate it to the extent that gankers and the like choose targets that aren't you.
True enough. But when that happens it's apparently a sign that highsec is too easy rather than a sign of players mitigating risk.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
While luck certainly has something to with it, you can use the information that is available to your advantage when minimising risk in hisec; judging by the constant "there's nothing I can do against gankers the game is imbalanced" threads that pop up I would say that the majority of gankers victims are ignorant of many of the basic tools and game mechanics that would make them a less desirable person to target.
Of course they are, because generally the people targetted by gankers are the bottom of the barrel, either the newest players or the dumbest ones. The fact that those players complain though doesn't mean that ganking is perfectly balanced. As it stands everything involved in stopping ganking is in the preparation phase, you have to set yourself up to not be a target, then you won't be and someone else is. Anti-gankers have very little ability to do anything because they would have to get the target to have done something in the past. More active mechanics would make the whole system better, but to do that ganking would need to change, as right now it's just an F1 monkey mechanic.

The recent change to bumping though, which is what has ultimately led to this discussion, isn't really about ganking though, it's about being able to indefinitely hold a target without ganking them.
For the most part you and I are in agreement Shocked

Is the pale horse out of the stable? Are the rivers running red? Is the Apocalypse just around the corner (or camping a gate somewhere)?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#131 - 2016-05-03 15:39:11 UTC
Sorry, I don't see the difference between a ganker and a miner in HiSec. They are both PVE activities until anti-gankers get engaged.

Bumping, suicide ganking, griefing, etc. are all CONTENT for the person initiating the action and maybe the anti-gankers. For the person on the receiving end of it, it's an annoyance.

So you have one side complaining "You nerfed our ability to do what we like: making money off other players!"

You have the other side complaining "These people are not letting me get done what I want to and costing me time and money so I don't want to pay real life money to be frustrated!"

Poor CCP has to listen to that and come up with some kind of balance.

You guys can talk mechanics, snipe at each other, and basically look like spoiled brats all you want, however, the issue isn't with what CCP does; it's with how you respond to the changes.

Do you come here and pitch a fit about it or do you try to resolve the change in game and see if it's possible to keep doing what you like. Maybe, as players, we should always be re-examining what we 'like' and figure out if there are other fun things we like to do as well and enjoy the changes.

I have never understood why a combat ship taking on a freighter is any kind of 'fun' but I don't want to take away that 'fun' from someone else just because it wouldn't be fun for me... to each their own. You're mining a ship instead of a rock.

I also can't sit in a belt and mine for hours at a time watching Netflix or doing something else. I've had my fill of that after about an hour or so. I'd rather be off increasing my negative rep with the Guristas. That doesn't mean I have a right to take away from those that like to play like that.

Haulers, explorers, industrialists, marketeers, researchers, speculative marketers, roamers, etc. etc. We all play this game and we all make our own content. Play how you like but you aren't the only fish out there. I encourage everyone to be more holistic in your approach to the game, it's how CCP *must* be in order to keep the peace. Instead of griping about stuff that impacts your traditional game play, try to embrace the change and meet the challenge. If you can't do what you have fun with, make a positive statement to CCP in the feedback forums, not complaining, just good constructive ideas on how to fix what got broke. Then go find something else to do until CCP fixes it.

TL;DR
For you bump/suicide jocks out there, take the 3 minute timer as a challenge. At least the victims of this style of game play now know they have to fight like mad to stay alive for 3 minutes so they can get away so they have a target to hit as well. It should make more 'content' for everyone involved.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#132 - 2016-05-03 16:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:

But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.



The zealot is a heavy assault ship, barges are just industrial ships, its bonkers that every subcap combat ship is profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods to them with no tank but the barges which are industrial ships are not. By all means ships such as the skiff should be able to be tanky but that should come from the fittings you chose, not come directly from the hull. If you choose to fit no tank on your hulk, retriever or skiff then your ship should be profitable to gank just like every other ship out there.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#133 - 2016-05-03 17:11:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.



The zealot is a heavy assault ship, barges are just industrial ships, its bonkers that every subcap combat ship is profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods to them with no tank but the barges which are industrial ships are not. By all means ships such as the skiff should be able to be tanky but that should come from the fittings you chose, not come directly from the hull. If you choose to fit no tank on your hulk, retriever or skiff then your ship should be profitable to gank just like every other ship out there.


Trying to work out just what this whine about T2 fitted ship with no tank having to be profitable to gank, seriously baltec1 your arguments are getting weaker...

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#134 - 2016-05-03 17:25:13 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Trying to work out just what this whine about T2 fitted ship with no tank having to be profitable to gank, seriously baltec1 your arguments are getting weaker...



You never have understood any arguments that go against your campaign of ever more safety.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#135 - 2016-05-03 17:53:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.



The zealot is a heavy assault ship, barges are just industrial ships, its bonkers that every subcap combat ship is profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods to them with no tank but the barges which are industrial ships are not. By all means ships such as the skiff should be able to be tanky but that should come from the fittings you chose, not come directly from the hull. If you choose to fit no tank on your hulk, retriever or skiff then your ship should be profitable to gank just like every other ship out there.

Mining equipment has to undergo stresses normally unfound on battlefields.
In a conceptual sense, being around the debris of an asteroid field would lead to a more sturdy ship than another combat ship that is reliant upon not being hit.
Game wise, its because people are too lazy to fit tank over yield/CCP didn't want to make it so mining barges are rightfully cruisers for fitting.

Me, I say if you are ganking people for profit, the loot fairy drop on T2 stuff is rather low on the order of things to go after.
I mean its there, but rather solidly in the territory of stretching for reasons for the kill over just wanting to ruin the guy's day.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#136 - 2016-05-03 17:59:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Trying to work out just what this whine about T2 fitted ship with no tank having to be profitable to gank, seriously baltec1 your arguments are getting weaker...



You never have understood any arguments that go against your campaign of ever more safety.



"Campaign of ever more safety".

I'm tired of you guys getting one angry noob to say something should be nerfed, then claiming that everybody who does not agree with you is on some mission to make everything safer.

Just get off it. It's not working any more. Nobody is calling for more safety. We are calling for less no-consequence mechanics (like bumping) but I can't help but notice how the topic keeps growing legs and walking into ganking. It reveals much on what this is all really about.

BTW Suicide ganks are not intended to be profitable. Too bad killboard stats can't buy ships.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#137 - 2016-05-03 18:04:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But defense is what the skiff is naturally designed to have. A zealot is naturally cheaper, smaller, faster and more agile then has far more capability to improve than a skiff thanks to it's slots, CPU and PG.
The zealot is a heavy assault ship, barges are just industrial ships, its bonkers that every subcap combat ship is profitable to gank if you fit t2 mods to them with no tank but the barges which are industrial ships are not. By all means ships such as the skiff should be able to be tanky but that should come from the fittings you chose, not come directly from the hull. If you choose to fit no tank on your hulk, retriever or skiff then your ship should be profitable to gank just like every other ship out there.
But it's only profitable if you choose to fit them with no tank and with profitable modules, at which point you'd probably be too fast to gank anyway, unless you are literally fitting to be profitable by dumping any old expensive modules on it.. On top of which, Zealots have more fitting options available specifically so they can be more flexible. Skiffs don't because they are designed to be the tanking exhumer. If the tank on the skiff came from the fittings you choose, it would be too versatile.

It's not at all bonkers that a ship designed to be a tanky ship is naturally more tanky than other more versatile ships.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sister Marita
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2016-05-03 18:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sister Marita
I just would say ...

Calm Down, Miners, Gankers, Haulers, Explorers and, and, and ...
Think about that, if no risk ... no Fun

Some simply basical rules can save you, use them.
One of them to survive in New Eden is ...
- Forget yourself,
Become one with eternity,
Become part of your environment. -
And believe me, it can help.

People are complaining because Hulks are killed in 0.7 or lesser.... Why are they onderway in a Hulk?
Would say Greed.
People are complaining because they can't kill the Skiff ... So! if your fighter is to weak or you are a solo Ganker look for another target. You want to kill a Skiff, fly in in a group!
People are complaining because they can't longer bump permanently freighters without any retaliation...
So! My opinion is, that permanently bumping, is an act of agression!
and so more.

Folks, just adapt.

***
Yes this Char is new; the player is not,
an long time ago i got killed, often killed ... so wath, where is the problem? its just a game.
Go and learn about why you got killed.
I did it.
I also went to 00 Space, but that simple minded black and white gameplay was boring me. HS is often more "dangerous" (and in my opinion more interessting) just because you mostly don't know "who are the others" in system.

i am not a Ganker, i am a miner & industrialist, i be absolutly peacefull and never killed other ones.
Why?
Simple, i just dont like Pew pew.

But, I love that game between the cat and the mouse (i am the mouse)
And before you can kill the mouse , you have to catch their.

Why do iplay EVE?
For me it is just a kind of a big monopoly, a game about power and weahlt.
To mine, to produce, to haul, to survive in an hostile environement, is for me the kick.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#139 - 2016-05-03 18:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Trying to work out just what this whine about T2 fitted ship with no tank having to be profitable to gank, seriously baltec1 your arguments are getting weaker...



You never have understood any arguments that go against your campaign of ever more safety.


"Campaign of ever more safety".

I'm tired of you guys getting one angry noob to say something should be nerfed, then claiming that everybody who does not agree with you is on some mission to make everything safer.

Just get off it. It's not working any more. Nobody is calling for more safety. We are calling for less no-consequence mechanics (like bumping) but I can't help but notice how the topic keeps growing legs and walking into ganking. It reveals much on what this is all really about.

BTW Suicide ganks are not intended to be profitable. Too bad killboard stats can't buy ships.


Herzog you nailed it, I want balance, ability to get at them and most of all consequences and yet baltec1 defines this as a campaign of ever more safety, the classic projection of his own prejudices. But there is progress in this thread he admitted that hisec is not safe to mine in.

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

Dani Gallar
Doomheim
#140 - 2016-05-03 18:44:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Herzog you nailed it, I want balance, ability to get at them and most of all consequences and yet baltec1 defines this as a campaign of ever more safety, the classic projection of his own prejudices. But there is progress in this thread he admitted taht hisec is not safe to mine in.


Do we want High-Sec to be safe to mine (or do other stuff) in ?

Isn't the whole 'no safe zones' what makes EVE stand out from the other (themepark) MMO:s ?