These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#141 - 2016-05-03 19:02:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Dani Gallar wrote:
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 ?


No we do not want hisec totally safe, I am happy to see ganks and I am happy to have war decs, we just want to see improved balance in the mechanics.

Bumping was a totally stupid one which I have explained in this thread, because it was no consequence, CCP might be sorting this out, if the timer does not get re-set then that works and changes how the gankers have to form for their ganks giving more opportunity to block them, however if it re-sets the timer they can carry on as before with just the cost of an ibis and a cheap scram module and two accounts.

The watch list was removed for good reasons, but it had a major impact on war dec corps that actually hunt, though they had free intel handed to them on a plate, I hope that this will come back in a Intel Structure for each region or even a constellation which people could disrupt who have a war dec from said merc corps.

So these two points are all about balance to create better and more likely content and I get accused of wanting it safer, I want to see pixels getting blown up and people getting engaged in a dynamic hisec. That is much better than gankers swanning around in Catalysts and war dec corps camping hubs and pipes...

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
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#142 - 2016-05-03 19:10:08 UTC
If you have gankers frequently killing empty freighters just because they can do so at little expense, then clearly something needs to be adjusted.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2016-05-03 19:31:23 UTC
I! Lord of Nullsec and Lowsec! Having made my life completely boring with massive blue lists, am here to give advice on making Highsec exciting.

Listen to my tears.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#144 - 2016-05-03 19:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Shayla Etherodyne
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:

By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.

You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


Beside the little fact that they can't because they can't kill someone as a proactive defense measure?

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management CODE would lose plenty of ships. But CONCORD avenge CODE too.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#145 - 2016-05-03 19:46:41 UTC
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:

By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.

You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


Beside the little fact that they can't because they can't kill someone as a proactive defense measure?

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management CODE would lose plenty of ships. But CONCORD avenge CODE too.


Code ships are profitable to gank.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#146 - 2016-05-03 19:56:59 UTC
Well we have the three people who every time the subject of ganking and ganking nerfs come up always ask for and support just one more nerf.

As per the topic yes, CCP has removed pvp content from highsec via the endless nerfs and buffs they have made.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#147 - 2016-05-03 19:57:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:

By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.

You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


Beside the little fact that they can't because they can't kill someone as a proactive defense measure?

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management CODE would lose plenty of ships. But CONCORD avenge CODE too.


Code ships are profitable to gank.
That's before we get into the fact that the majority of suicide gankers are kill on sight due to their security status, Concord aren't going to blap anybody that makes them explode.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#148 - 2016-05-03 20:02:43 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.



I fail to see why suiciding a T2 assault ship should pay back at all. you are really convinced that killing a ship priced at about 190 millions will a ship worth about 190 millions that will be destroyed in the process should give you a profit?

If it did work that way I would buy skif hulls with an alt, wardec his corp and harvest skiff kills.
Or you pretend that every skiff should run around with at least 400 millions in modules so that you get back the price of your assault ship and equipment plus a bit of profit from the drops?

Really, your argument seem to be that T2 mining equipment is to cheap.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#149 - 2016-05-03 20:10:44 UTC
I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target.

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
#150 - 2016-05-03 20:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
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.



I fail to see why suiciding a T2 assault ship should pay back at all. you are really convinced that killing a ship priced at about 190 millions will a ship worth about 190 millions that will be destroyed in the process should give you a profit?

If it did work that way I would buy skif hulls with an alt, wardec his corp and harvest skiff kills.
Or you pretend that every skiff should run around with at least 400 millions in modules so that you get back the price of your assault ship and equipment plus a bit of profit from the drops?

Really, your argument seem to be that T2 mining equipment is to cheap.



You kill the untanked zealot with a catalyst and harvest the dropped t2 mods. You don't always win vs the loot fairy but you win enough in the long run to turn a profit. Barges and exhumers used to be profitable to kill due to people fitting no tank and slapping on expanders. Oddly enough some of the more profitable ships to gank in this way are the blap talos and insta tornado.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#151 - 2016-05-03 20:17:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
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.



I fail to see why suiciding a T2 assault ship should pay back at all. you are really convinced that killing a ship priced at about 190 millions will a ship worth about 190 millions that will be destroyed in the process should give you a profit?

If it did work that way I would buy skif hulls with an alt, wardec his corp and harvest skiff kills.
Or you pretend that every skiff should run around with at least 400 millions in modules so that you get back the price of your assault ship and equipment plus a bit of profit from the drops?

Really, your argument seem to be that T2 mining equipment is to cheap.



You kill the untanked zealot with a catalyst and harvest the dropped t2 mods. You don't always win vs the loot fairy but you win enough in the long run to turn a profit. Barges and exhumers used to be profitable to kill due to people fitting no tank and slapping on expanders.


So because people are fitting a tank its unfair...ShockedRoll

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
#152 - 2016-05-03 20:19:37 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target.

I love the idea that you think people use catalysts much in null.

Your bubble is going to be pretty ineffective against the interceptor that comes as scout/tackle.

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..."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#153 - 2016-05-03 20:19:59 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
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.



I fail to see why suiciding a T2 assault ship should pay back at all. you are really convinced that killing a ship priced at about 190 millions will a ship worth about 190 millions that will be destroyed in the process should give you a profit?

If it did work that way I would buy skif hulls with an alt, wardec his corp and harvest skiff kills.
Or you pretend that every skiff should run around with at least 400 millions in modules so that you get back the price of your assault ship and equipment plus a bit of profit from the drops?

Really, your argument seem to be that T2 mining equipment is to cheap.



You kill the untanked zealot with a catalyst and harvest the dropped t2 mods. You don't always win vs the loot fairy but you win enough in the long run to turn a profit. Barges and exhumers used to be profitable to kill due to people fitting no tank and slapping on expanders.


So because people are fitting a tank its unfair...ShockedRoll


The unfair part is barges and exhumers were buffed in such a way that makes them the only subcap you cant gank for profit in this way.
Kiandoshia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2016-05-03 20:20:11 UTC
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
Note that the ability to bump hasn't been removed, simply there is a 3 minute timer for it.


There actually isn't. You can still keep bumping them for the rest of time (or at least until downtime). All you need for this are alts.
Freighter pilots have had to use web and cyno alts since the beginning of time. I wouldn't call it a nerf, just a balancing?

Besides, anything that makes people create more alts is yay, I suppose.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#155 - 2016-05-03 20:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Dracvlad wrote:
I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target.



If it even makes it to the bubble because intel channels.

Heck, if it even makes it past the lowsec gate camps or past the high-sec to nullsec fatal funnels. Oh it would need say a cloak and a stab? Less DPS then - more of a travel boat than a gank boat (more of a coffin than anything with that lack of tank).

But no no no - let the easy kill harvesters project "want of easy" on us. It's obviously a form of therapy for them.


Edit: Only Harry Forever could get destroyers through EC-P8R. I was there (stares into the distance)

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#156 - 2016-05-03 20:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target.

I love the idea that you think people use catalysts much in null.

Your bubble is going to be pretty ineffective against the interceptor that comes as scout/tackle.


Well you are the one who is suggesting that hisec people follow null sec risk management, I am just pointing out with a simple example why your suggestion is rubbish. An interceptor is no threat in hisec...

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
Giaus Felix
Doomheim
#157 - 2016-05-03 20:26:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Giaus Felix
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
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.



I fail to see why suiciding a T2 assault ship should pay back at all. you are really convinced that killing a ship priced at about 190 millions will a ship worth about 190 millions that will be destroyed in the process should give you a profit?

If it did work that way I would buy skif hulls with an alt, wardec his corp and harvest skiff kills.
Or you pretend that every skiff should run around with at least 400 millions in modules so that you get back the price of your assault ship and equipment plus a bit of profit from the drops?

Really, your argument seem to be that T2 mining equipment is to cheap.



You kill the untanked zealot with a catalyst and harvest the dropped t2 mods. You don't always win vs the loot fairy but you win enough in the long run to turn a profit. Barges and exhumers used to be profitable to kill due to people fitting no tank and slapping on expanders.


So because people are fitting a tank its unfair...ShockedRoll
I think the point he is trying to make is that since they were rebalanced, barges are no longer as profitable to gank regardless of whether a tank is fitted or not, primarily due to the increase in EHP they received as part of the balance pass on them.

Whereas before the balance pass it was possible to solo most of them, loot the modules and make a profit, now it takes multiple people and any resulting loot is split between them, hence no longer profitable.

I came for the spaceships, I stayed for the tears.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#158 - 2016-05-03 20:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:

By the way: In another thread someone was complaining that his hulk got blown up in High. One reply was to find some Null-Sec miners. That's safer because you have all the intel in Null that you don't have in High. So much for the safety/unsafety of High and Null.

You should learn the difference between risk and risk management.

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management in highsec, what do you think would happen?


Beside the little fact that they can't because they can't kill someone as a proactive defense measure?

If highsec miners used nullsec risk management CODE would lose plenty of ships. But CONCORD avenge CODE too.

If you think risk management for miners in null is just simply killing other ships, then you lack understanding of risk management in null.

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..."
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#159 - 2016-05-03 20:29:04 UTC
Bexol Regyri wrote:
I have only been playing eve for about 5 months and started out a high sec miner. One of the things that attracted me to eve was that it was pretty much what I expected of space from all the scifi books I read full of good guys and bad guys and that space is not a safe place. One of the things I found out right away was about 1/2 the players in space were not engaged in the game. There would be an ice belt with 30 people in it, but no one was really there. Their ships just mining away while they did stuff in real life. I almost fell into the same trap but then I met the pirates, as I later found out where called gankers in this game, mercs and griefers. At first I was like these guys are jerks to put it nicely. The more I watched them blow up people the more I realized they are forcing people to stay engaged in the game. At the same time I watched CCP make changes to hamper the high sec content creators and cater people to people that are not actively engaged while undocked. How does that help a healthy community?

so my question is why does it seem like CCP wants to stop or make close to impossible all non PVE highsec content when players have tons of in game tools avoid dying like d-scan, local chat, kills in system on map, etc...?


Because many pvpers eat in highsec...

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?"
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#160 - 2016-05-03 20:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Dracvlad wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I love these comparisons with null sec, for example in Null sec I would use a bubble and that Catalyst would not make it to its target.

I love the idea that you think people use catalysts much in null.

Your bubble is going to be pretty ineffective against the interceptor that comes as scout/tackle.


Well you are the one who is suggesting that hisec people follow null sec risk management, I am just pointing out with a simple example why your suggestion is rubbish. An interceptor is no threat in hisec...

No I didn't suggest that at all. Go back and re read what was written.

Maybe slower this time so it sinks in.

Alternatively, please quote where at all I suggested that. You can't because it never happened.

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..."