Winter Expansion - Desperate times

[eldaec]

The defender can do plenty to prevent it.

You only have to survive 6 seconds for concord to save you. If you have ship sophisticated enough to be worth killing, you are more than capable of fitting a tank or using logistics support.

If you doing something immoral to attract ammunition delivery, like blue ice mining you can stop, and mine any other type of ice in the game.

[ajax34i]

It's sensible because it's not really a huge nerf to suicide ganking; the amount gained from the insurance (for the ship) is an afterthought in many cases, as the weaponry required for the alpha strike is more expensive.  It would move the threshold of cargo value at which gankers attack up a little bit, but not much.  The change would appease a lot of suicide gank victims without really doing anything to repay them or reduce the number of attacks.

[Amarr HM]

Removing insurance from high sec gankers?  Sensible.  What we get?   :CCP: 

CVA have been peddling this age old how to fix our Eve mantra since I can remember. But I think I and others have said before, CCP would have to open a whole new department just to handle the influx of petitions from noobs who genuninely got Concorded and didn't receive insurance. So you have CCP hire all those extra petition staff just to make ganking a teeny weeny bit more of a hindrance, but in no way stop people doing it. You would have to do something else to prevent ganking and to be honest I'm not sure if you should eliminate the kick in the balls parts of the game.

But if you want to you're doing it wrong with that suggestion.

[Amarr HM]

An alternative approach, just off the top of my head, could be insurance payback for the victims cargo.

[Reg]

Just have all of a destroyed ships' cargo also be destroyed.

[Brolan]

An alternative approach, just off the top of my head, could be insurance payback for the victims cargo.

Think of all the scams that would spawn.

[Brolan]

Just have all of a destroyed ships' cargo also be destroyed.

Not a bad idea.  I always thought idea of blowing up a ship, and then having some of the cargo survive intact in easy to pickup containers, was silly.  If you wanted to recover cargo from a wreak it should be like salvaging.

But if you JUST wanted to loot cargo you could require the gank ships to disable all offensive weapons, web, dock, and board the cargo ship.  You could resolve the boarding combat with a mini-game or make it part of Dust.  This also means the cargo ship wouldn't have to be destroyed, just disabled.  The gankers could get all of the cargo they wanted and not just some (or none) of it.

[Reg]

That's an interesting idea. Too bad CCP isn't capable of anything more demanding than changing a data entry in a spreadsheet these days.

[eldaec]

Just have all of a destroyed ships' cargo also be destroyed.

Part of the problem with this is that hi sec pvp isn't some kind of unforeseen abomination, it is the game working exactly as designed.

People who carry billions of isk of cargo are certainly rich enough to be able to afford to protect it. The fact that they have to do so is what keeps transportation a relevant consideration, this causes regional market variation which is a critical part of the way the economic game works in eve.

I appreciate this would be a terrible mechanic in WoW, but hard travel has to be a fact of life if you want EVE's economy in your game.

As for invalidating insurance, it would only shift the equation by a few tens of millions of isk, which isn't a big deal since the aggressor will be aiming for 1 billion+ targets if he is ganking for profit, and won't care about a 50M payout if he is on a purely altruistic mission such as the current goon ops in gallente space. It would, however, screw up new players who accidentally shoot the wrong thing, so it is probably not a good idea.

People generally overstate the impact hisec pvp has on EVE. It is an issue if you are rich enough to be a target and therefore rich enough to protect yourself. It is an issue if you don't pay attention to easily avoidable and very rare ~player generated content~ such as a hulkaggeddon or Goonswarm's campaign to liberate blue ice. Aside from that the average EVE player in high sec has zero reason to fear attack.

[Amarr HM]

Think of all the scams that would spawn.

I can't think of any to be honest.

Just have all of a destroyed ships' cargo also be destroyed.

That would defintely be the way to eliminate ganking altogether. Not sure if that should be done, I guess people still can't accept that Eve is supposed to be harsh world filled with pitfalls.

[Reg]

That would defintely be the way to eliminate ganking altogether.

Oh I'm sure there would still be quite a few that would keep ganking just for the fun of it.

[Fordel]

CCP doesn't want highsec ganking gone is the thing and not because of any economy concerns or whatever.

The guys at the top of CCP, are all old school 'azzrape' UO players.

[Brolan]

If you pay off stolen cargo with insurance you just doubled it's value for all intents and purposes.  So what's to keep one player from loading high value cargo into a T1 Indy, then flying out to be purposely ganked by a friend.  He gets his money back and the friend sells the cargo and gives him a kick back.  Then they do it again, and again, and again.

[Amarr HM]

I was never meaning to payout full value of cargo that would be awful, payout base mineral value or perhaps some base item costs in the same way as how ship insurance works. Likewise you still have to pay an insurance fee even if your journey is safe. It could be easily tied into the courier contracts.

[Kageru]

It makes no sense to get recompensed for a concorded ship and removing that compensation would make suicide ganking a little less lucrative.

But it won't happen because, as said, CCP think a gank is good PvP gameplay.

[Surlyboi]

That and even if they did remove all monetary incentives for ganking, there'd still be a segment of the population that did it just to farm the fucking tears.

[eldaec]

Also, if ccp's aim was to stop hisec pvp it would be much easier to just prevent people shooting each other in hisec.

[Phildo]

The first time I ever got concorded, I was in Amarr chasing wardecs with an RRBS fleet.  We had parked on one of the gates when a red non-wartarget Vagabond landed there with us.  I opened fire without realizing what I was doing, then panicked and started calling for reps when Concord showed up and began killing me.  Half my fleet was blown up because of a rookie mistake.  I'm pretty sure one or two of you were there for this.  If insurance was removed entirely from getting Concorded, people who make rookie mistakes like that would also get screwed over.

Why do you folks hate newbies?

PS We were fighting Ushra'Khan at the time.  Do you want Ushra'Khan to win?

[Gets]

Hybrid and (tiny) T2 ammo blog: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3012

Railgun change explained in graph form:

[eldaec]

The reason that graph is bullshit, is that it ignores how railgun accuracy is hilariously bad. The change to blasters makes sense, but blaster boats need a hell of a speed increase for anyone to care.

It doesn't matter how much damage a Diemos is missing for.

Not that I have a problem with this, Caldari have missiles, Gallente have drones, and in EVE there is no reason to obsess over every weapon system being equal.

[Amarr HM]

The first time I ever got concorded, I was in Amarr chasing wardecs with an RRBS fleet.  We had parked on one of the gates when a red non-wartarget Vagabond landed there with us.  I opened fire without realizing what I was doing, then panicked and started calling for reps when Concord showed up and began killing me.  Half my fleet was blown up because of a rookie mistake.  I'm pretty sure one or two of you were there for this.  If insurance was removed entirely from getting Concorded, people who make rookie mistakes like that would also get screwed over.

Indeed I remember that and everytime someone brings up the remove insurance argument it's the first thing that springs to mind. Also the time I tried to shoot up an asteroid in my first Level 1 mission.

[Thrawn]

would make suicide ganking a little less lucrative.

Would probably have almost no noticable change on the amount of people doing it.

"OH NO, I only made 500mil this gank instead of 550mil!"

Almost all of this ganking stuff needs to be broken to it's own thread, none of it is anything that hasn't been said a bunch before. 

[5150]

The problem being, BS guns can't hit a goddamn thing.  Especially without significant investment in gunnery skills.  So they've invented a wonder ship that has a battleship's sig and can't hit anything smaller than a battleship but has much worse tank than a battleship.  Where do I sign up?  Anyone who can fly a battleship should definitely be in one rather than one of these things, unless they have some amazing bonus we haven't been made aware of yet, or cost like 10 mil.

Given the prices (at least at release) of the tier 1 (Ferox was what? 25mil at launch) & 2 (Drake is about 35mil?) BC's I can't see the tier 3 BC being significantly cheaper than a tier 1 BS (~50mil).

Not seeing the point myself

[ajax34i]

Also if you look at the Amarr battlecruiser model (they just released a blog about it), it clearly has only 4 turret hardpoints.  Thus, yes it's a battlecruiser that has battleship guns, but CCP never promised they'd be 8-slot gunships.  So, half the tank, half the DPS, same price, similar sig radius, skills for T2 large guns still required, probably more cap/juice issues than a battleship (cause I'm assuming smaller capacitor), and possibly issues with not enough cargo space for ammo.

[eldaec]

The database leak listed it as 8 guns.

While that leak may be wrong, I have more faith in that than I do in concept art.

Especially when actual in game art doesn't always match the number of installed turrets anyway.

[eldaec]

Also I think is very unlikely that an Amarr ship is going to suffer ammo capacity issues jesus christ.

[tgr]

Them crystals are huge.

[eldaec]

I say that, but OTOH running incursions occaisionally my absolution can literally not carry enough scorch.

[Amarr HM]

As a previous subscriber who has very little intention of returning unless they improve the game in all the areas that I feel deserve attention. First I never understood why the game had to be so grindy in the first place, they already have subscriber income and I'm sure there's more ways to keep the gameplay addictive and engrossing without making you click on your screen a hundred times a minute.

hings I'd personally like to see changed/fixed.

* Fix 0.0 obviously top of the list. Start with the tedium that is POS shoots. See below.
* Fix titans so they can take out POSes alone. I don't mean instantly jesus just fix the whole mechanic.
* Reduce 24 hour timer for clone jumps it's archaic.
* Fix bounty hunter system (will never happen so whatever)
* Proper collisions with collidables
* Password security needs to be replaced with a proper user control system, having to wash rinse repeat passwords is tedious.
* Fix all cluttery and tedious GUI controls
* More incentives for small groups or people who want to PvP solo from time to time
* Ignore assault frigs, they work as intended and the Minmatar ones are pretty decent anyway why all the fuss?

TLDR; make Eve less boring & more fun.

[Gets]

I'll get right on it shouldn't be too hard.

[Amarr HM]

I knew I could count on you. After all these are desperate times.

[Amarr HM]

I think it's amazing the reaction Mittani has wrestled from CCP, very impressed. Just hope they have the wherewithall to improve the game experience.

[calapine]

Well, for what its worth, POS, 0.0 and GUI issues are in the pipeline.

[Amarr HM]

That's good to hear, also this tickled my fancy, I remember Endie giving out about how dated the skyboxes were for a game based solely in space. Baby steps I suppose.

[calapine]

Shamelessly stolen from the official forums:

Mechanical changes:

1. New ships: 3rd tier battlecruisers with oversized guns
   Minmatar: Tornado
   Gallente: Talos
   Amarr: Oracle
   Caldari: Naga
‪2.‬ New T2 modules
‪3.‬Adjustments to Assault Frigate bonuses (Delayed)
‪4.‬ Balancing for hybrid weapons and ships
‪5.‬ Balancing for T2 ammunition
‪6.‬ Adjustments and balancing to capitals and super-capitals (exact changes to fighter drones seem not to be set in stone)
-- Additional information: Minmatar capital ship balancing, re-thinking the initially proposed Fighter nerf
‪7.‬ Time dialation
‪8.‬ Something with Faction Warfare (specifics unannounced!)
‪9.‬ Something with new EWAR drones (specifics unannounced!)
‪10.‬ Something about T2 rigs manufacturing (specifics unannounced! possibly t1->t2 salvage conversion)
‪11.‬ Player-deployed Customs Offices for P.I.
‪12.‬ Loot All Button on wrecks
‪13.‬ Session change timer changed from 30 seconds to 20 seconds (on sisi)
‪14.‬ Nullsec: increased value of individual anomalies
‪15.‬ Corporation bookmarks (limit 250) and updates to BMs in general; CCP announces intention to make Alliance Bookmarks
‪16.‬ Changes to starbase logistics (fuel pellets and removal of some pos timers)

Cosmetic & Metagame changes:

‪17.‬ Implants on pod killmails
‪18.‬ New font
‪19.‬ Scalable UI
‪20.‬ New Raven model
‪21.‬ New model for the Condor/Crow/Raptor
‪22.‬ New nebulae background
‪23.‬ New capital cyno effects, now on Sisi
‪24.‬ New captains' quarters, one for each race now
‪25.‬ The glorious return of Engine Trails!
‪26.‬ Some improvements to shadows
‪27.‬ Gun icons are being rectified and made easier to see
‪28.‬ Fitting window now shows DPS output (on sisi)
‪29.‬ Show Full Body in character show-info window (on sisi)
‪30.‬ Ship textures and shaders are being updated in preparation for decals & logos on ships, etc.
‪31.‬ Some petition changes (categories for Stuck Character, additional details to be announced)