To highlight the discussion:
Criminally tagged capsuleers can enter a high security system in only their capsule, and the local authorities will ignore them. They can board a ship in space, like one pulled from the ship maintenance bay of an Orca. The discussion started on what part of that needed to be nerfed.
Someone related that there was calls in the forums to have the Orca nerfed. I don't think it makes sense to nerf the Orca just because it can be used for piracy. You don't hurt the pirates, you just hurt the miners. I don't mind if pirates smuggle ships of war into high sec. But common sense to me says that if they approach a gate or a station, then the standard faction spawn should appear.
I don't know how that works, but apparently I'm too much of a carebear, using common sense and all. Clearly, the authorities are blind, and they can only attack you if somehow you enter through a gate or undock. Pointing this out, apparently, is an act of carebear crying.
Another part of the conversation spawned from ninja salvagers. Personally, I don't think it makes sense. You now have a zero-risk occupation. The ninja salvager should risk something. I don't see why the loot in the wreck should be protected, but not the wreck itself. The easiest answer is, salvage or loot, you go flashy.
Again, this is me crying great carebear tears, using common sense and all. What I truly don't understand, are some of the defenses used to protect these behaviors.
"CCP has been very clear about this topic."
CCP has also made mistakes in the past. A lot of them. Big ones. CCP is not infallible. To use the defense that it is structured that way, intended that way, legal that way, is very scary, in New Eden and out. Something is just, balanced, and fair based on its own merits, not because the game designer says so.
I like that Eve is dangerous and you are never completely safe.
Yet, the same people who say this, also think that ninja salvagers should keep their risk-free lifestyle. I'm sorry, but I have to think that the people using this defense really mean, "I like that Eve is dangerous for the mission runners." To my way of thinking, it should be dangerous for everyone equally. There shouldn't be a no-risk occupation that is built around harvesting the spoils of others.
Again, I don't think that ninja salvaging is wrong. I don't think it should be stopped. I just think it shouldn't be risk-free, particularly since it does directly involve another capsuleer who has extremely limited means of recourse. And is anyone complaining about ninja looting? They should be the same.
New Eden should be dangerous, but it shouldn't be the responsibility of griefers to bring the danger. There are very common sense solutions that would make piracy dangerous such that only smart pirates will actually do it.
- Transferable kill rights. How often does anyone actually have the ability to claim a kill right? It isn't a deterrent by any measure. Again, I don't want to end piracy, just make sure there are pressures acting against it so there is balance and people have to work to succeed.
- Looters are flashy. Today, the suicide pirate falls onto your kill rights board, but the hauler next too him does not. Why?
- When CONCORD is involved, there is no insurance payout. Immediately I'm sure there are those that will think I'm trying to break the back of high sec piracy and end it. I am not. One can make more than enough money in suicide piracy to pay for well fitted suicide ships. What I seek to end are the silly upside down attacks. Suicide attacks involving a battleship? Against a barge? Barges can't hold much. They don't have many slots and aren't likely to drop but so much. The only way this is profitable is because the battleship is nearly free. I am not a pirate, and even I can find targets that will not only pay for the ship involved, but will pay for ten more so one can continue suicide attacks even when droppings are slim. Again, it all goes back to life should be hard for everyone.
In the course of full disclosure, I am not a mission runner by trade. I run some missions for standings, and as a result, I run courier missions because they are quicker. I rarely run kill missions. I've never had anyone bother me in a mission. I've never had anyone flip a can while mining (even when I'm bored and leave bait cans). I also would not consider myself a carebear. I currently have limited access to PvP, but there are reasons for that, and eventually I'll have the chance to either return to the militia or return to 0.0. And yes, I've been in 0.0 wars, before there were cynos, before there were dreads and titans and doomsdays. And yes, that is tougher (and more fun) than anything in low sec.
p.s. It seems that this has been dragged out into the Tweeterverse and into other blogs. That is fair, and to be expected, I guess. But I have to admit that I'm really bothered that others have made this so personal and can't seem to make a comment without following it up with how I am a carebear crybaby or that I am simply and completely wrong.
I also am disturbed by the mindset of some that those that do not engage in PvP are inferior. That really bothers me. I love this game. I love to play it my way. I don't get missioning. That doesn't mean missioners are less of a player, aren't as good as me. I enjoy 0.0 wars, and I think they are much harder than FW or any low sec combat. That doesn't mean I think FW or low sec pirates are inferior to 0.0 warriors. I completely don't understand how anyone could enjoy scamming others (seriously, dude, where is the fun in that? "Your shoe's untied. Made you look." was only funny once.). That doesn't mean I should consider them inferior.
Okay, in all honesty, I would never knowingly hire a scammer into my corp.
I am not upset or worked up by this, but I do feel there has been more personal attacks against me than appropriate. And as a result, I feel I've lost some respect for capsuleers that I was really eager to work more closely with.
There is also some confusion, I feel, over just how anti-PvP I may seem. I am not anti-PvP. I do not think the game mechanics should be changed to the point where there is no PvP, or PvP-free zones. But I do think that New Eden needs to be harder for those that instigate unprovoked attacks. I do not think they are wrong, I just think they have it too easy.
p.p.s I meant to mention this earlier: all spawns should be like Sleeper spawns. I don't like kill missions cause they are just one big rinse/repeat. The only way the mission can defeat you is through sheer numbers. It should work smarter, not harder. Making the spawns smarter will not only give the missioners a challenge, but make things more interesting for the ninjas.
Posts
I missed the discussion that night and I am kicking myself as I would love to have debated these issues with you.
ReplyDeleteEVE is a PvP game first and foremost and that is the main focus of the game. If you don't understand that, use this comparison.
You go to a rugby match and instead of playing you sit in the middle the field and lay our a cardboard puzzle to assemble. Now, in this scenario, would you wonder why the rugby players run all over you? You simply don't belong on the field, you belong on the sidelines.
EVE is a lot like that. The cardboard puzzle assemblers have no place sitting in the middle of the field of battle, not unless they have things to protect them such as other players and the most powerful tool in game, knowledge.
Know the dangers before you undock. Search killboards and see if the system you are missioning/mining is has a lot of activity. Sit in system and just watch what happens for a few hours each day. See when that activity occurs and plan your operations around those times. Communicate with people that are in system, learn about the regular pirates that come around. Always be alert to danger and if you have a doubt that you are safe, there is no doubt and get out.
EVE can not be played AFK safely, that's part of the game design. You are meant to be 'live' when you are out in space. If you are not 'live' and paying attention, you will have problems.
In real life, you can't be asleep while driving your car, you will crash. The same goes for EVE, you have to actually be there and paying attention.
You bring up some good points here:
1. Transferable kill rights. This has been brought up before and I personally think it would add a truly engaging element to bounty hunting. Creating a 'kill contract' for someone you have kill rights on would be a lot of fun. Suggest it in the CSM section on the EVE forums. The more people who suggest it will help it's chances.
2. I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. If someone loots your wrecks, they become flashy to you. If someone suicide ganks you, they are flashy as well.
3. Concord involvement negating insurance payouts, this too has been brought up before and again, it's worthy of a CSM submission again.
Mate, I am sorry that thigns seem to have become less about the issues you want to debate and more of a name calling fight. The EVE forums are far worse as logical thought is simply not possible on there. There are many people who simply reply to a thread to get their name out there and to try to make themselves look superior with some really pitiful 'trolling'.
I feel for you on that front mate, I really do. I personally don't feel that non-pvp'ers are inferior in game.
I do wonder why they complain sometimes. If you are not paying attention and are hit by a train it's your own fault. It's the game world that you choose to play in. If you don't understand how to play, ask and people will help you out, but don't assume that you have the right to complain about getting popped when it's the nature and the design of the game.
I made a post or comment once that faction police should not only try to destroy a pilot's ship, but pod him too. Web scram, the whole shebang. I agree that the Orca trick is a loophole that should be closed.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the kneejerk reactionaries, every game and hobby has them :)
my comment was a tad too long :)
ReplyDeleteAnd same as Kirith said...ignore all the asshats that don't know you can actually have a disagreement and still be civilized about it!
http://handsoff.myloots.com/it-take-one-to-know-one
Actually, I generally agree with #1 and #3. I already thought #2 was how it worked (my n00bishness? :P ), so I support that bit, too.
ReplyDeleteI definitively do not agree on salvaging, though. Mission runners don't take risks, either, or at least no more than the salvager usually does.
The risk vs. reward argument for ninja salvagers kills me.
ReplyDeleteOne thing everyone has to remember when you hear this arguement is that it always, 100% of the time, comes from bears that run missions IN HIGH SEC! Don't tell the rest of us about risk vs. reward.... You guys receive plenty for the amount of risk you put into it.
You want to know about risk vs. reward? I always loot. Every. Single. TIme. Check out my latest blog post. 1 ninja vs. a corp of mission runners that are running a mission. That's what you call risk.
http://velocilogic.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/28/the-following-is-an-epic-tale-of-corp-op-mission-running-fai.html
Hey mate you hit on several things that really are pivotal to game play.
ReplyDeleteI cannot stand missions, thats just a personal thing. To eliminate Ninja salvagers just salvage your own loot ( alt, friend, whatever) I like that someone can hop in and Salvage a wreck if I want to...as amatter of fact I do not do this, as the action is just not my character. What bothers me is that Mision runners do NOT have any risk either. They know in advance what is gonna happen/ who to aggro/ how to burn through them etc...so I see 0 risk on their part as a result the wrecks are salavagable but someone else who has 0 risk..ninja salvagers...so I think this is a nod towards making things Even as it were.
I don't know if my comments were persoanlly insulting, if they were, you ahve my apology, if they were not... no worries.
So I disagree with the salvage thing but meh..no prob. Transferrable kill rights? hell yes...good idea.
Suicide ganking... I loathe the practice, but I defend their right to do it.
The protection? A ship that can withstand the onslaught for 15 seconds or a good bunch of friends who will watch your back.
Currently the reason I don't roam low sec is I cannot stand the security standings hit...
Eve Online is a computer game. It's made by game designers that have made it how they want it to be. It's evolved over the years in accordance with how its players have wanted it to be, in unison with how the developers wanted it to be.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, it's a game. It's not real life. It has game rules and game 'common sense'.
Please, stop expecting it to be a reflection of real life and then call the developers confused or wrong for not making it that way.
That's where your problem lies, and that's why you will always be ridiculed when you think the developers are 'confused', 'wrong', or just plain 'don't get it'.
The issue here is you, and your need for this game to be what you want. Accept the rules of the game, and just frackin' play it.
"people that ridicule", why do u ridicule? why do they ridicule? have u/they actually asked the designers what they intended or are just asking the mother of all fuck ups?? ASSUMPTION?
ReplyDeletealso, i work with devs, they are utterly and horribly confused sometimes. they job is interpreting design, not making it. theres a multimillion dollar industry devoted to trying to prevent misinterpretation in the computer industry, its the reason why software development has not proceeded at the same pace hardware development has!
this game is composed of huge amounts of criers, and they are all ultra conservation criers 'dont change it cos this is the way its meant to work'. well in case u missed it, the OP recogisned that and says it should be changed. sometimes it should, sometimes it shouldnt, i dont care about his arguments or reasons but the lack of respect that comes from the MOB of criers is pathetic! having a lot of people that share your opinion never makes u right, and when u have no respect or dont listen, u are a mob. and take a look at what the voice of reason does to mobs - they are disbanded 1 way or another.
well said OP, the only reason why i read 1/2 of these blogs was because they popped up on my iphone. this is first well balanced posting i have seen in months!
Okay, when people claim that a missioner goes through no risk that's bull. Sure, the majority of the time a mission runner has a minimal chance of losing his ship. However a salvager has literally no chance of loss. Unless he gets suicide ganked. Now I wouldn't take away anyones rights to be able to loot or attack. I wish salvaging was a variable ownership situation. The person who pops the wreck has a dialogue come up that asks if he wants to lay claim. He can yes or no and there's an option to make that answer automatic. However that option only appears if tje character has the capability to salvage. A salvager can still salvage a claimed wreck,but now there's more risk to it.
ReplyDeleteAlso this is at Ga'len the original commenter on this. I'd like to point out a few holes in your example.
ReplyDeleteYou make the analogy of a person setting up a peaceful and easily destroyed activity in the middle of a chaotic environment that they know full well is chaotic.
That would be an accurate depiction of someone upset and surprised they got killed in lowsec or 0.0. However this discussion is about conduct in high sec.
I believe this example works a little better. You're at a soccer/football match. You're sitting in a colliseum. This colliseum is eve. The farther from the field you are, the farther into high security space you are. The closer you are, the lower the security.
Now. Suicide ganking is like one of the fans from the lower stands, or even one of the players in the field making his way up into the high and far back seats, and purposefully decking a spectating fan as hard as he can in the face.
The reason I use this as an example is that while it's possible for this to occur. There's nothing actually preventing the player or more closely seated fan from doing this. It's the fact that it's unexpected becuase of factors and consequences that are supposed to encourage someone against doing that. Now I would say that you shouldn't make that physically impossible from occuring, but at the same time there should realistic elements preventing certain things. One of these is the orca trick. It really should be stopped from occuring because it makes no sense that concord wouldn't be able to detect the fact you're now a threat in a ship.
The other point I'd like to bring up is that people say that eve is a pvp game. Actually, I'll admit that it is. But when people claim that whenever someone complains about a mechanic they're complaining against "The way it's meant to be played". It's the same thing as saying, "You're disagreeing with life as it's meant to be lived." I make the comparison because they are subjective interpretations upon something and as long as it isn't against the Terms of use, neither is wrong, and neither is right. Both are opinions. It just frustrates me to see people who get so uptight about their method of play being potentially changed slightly that they claim "You're trying to break my game". The game changes no matter what you want, whether for or against you, so if CCP in all their wisdom wants to alter the game then they'll do it. Based on player input.
p.s. Yes I realize this is a game, but there are fundamental points and questions here that are as valid as the real world. Such as moral conduct, how to portray yourself in a argument, and how to expand perspective.