EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-12-30 08:13
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 21:09
  • Number of Posts: 8,427
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Teckos Pech

Security Status 0.0
  • Amok. Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:


    So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.

    If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else.


    Why? I am not having a direct effect on the game and I am using a module CCP put into the game where they knew this kind of behavior was a distinct possibility.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:


    Eh, you still might get bumped even with an empty cargohold. You know this. It's less likely, but it happens.

    Regardless, the only reason you are getting bumped instead of disrupted or scrambled is because those things would trigger Concord. It's stupid that it effects warping, more stupid that it's allowed to circumvent the rules of hisec. Kill them if you want, but do it in a way consistent with the rules. 'Emergent' isn't synonymous with 'Good'.

    But that's really a digression from the main point, which indeed was don't be an idiot about how you move valuable cargo around and then be upset that you got caught and killed.


    Yes, I know because it happened to one of my alts who can fly a freighter. I logged off. Came back 15 minutes later and logged in to a fully intact freighter. It was empty and ganking it would have gotten them nothing. It was opportunistic bumping hoping for a sucker to payout a ransom.

    People who suicide gank freighters tend to be profit oriented. No profit they don't gank....so logoff. You might lose that (empty) freighter, but probably not.

  • Remove Jump Fatigue for Logistics in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    We've been over this so much the horse isn't just fertilizer it's an apple tree.

    Jump Fatigue sucks, having people being able to quickly and effortlessly move Capitals around the game sucks worse. No one wants everywhere in Eve to be less than 15 minutes away from PL or Goons' staging system.

    A lot of alternatives have been discussed, every one has either had worse downsides for gameplay or has been fairly easily exploitable to move force around extremely easily.


    And besides...go look at Verite's maps before fatiuge and after fatigue....

  • We need ISK sinks, this is one in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vokan Narkar wrote:
    Piugattuk wrote:


    As I stated in another post it would be helpful if NPC's bought stuff besides a few cheap trade goods.

    I used to think its actually happening. NPC stations have the supply/demand tab that looks like a list of things they sell and they occassionally buy. But I never saw those stations to buy those items... So it is there or not?

    Assuming this feature is not in game, it would be nice if certain npc station would generate a buy orders on stuff that can be crafted such as 50x 5MN Microwarpdrive I.

    But, wouldn't that in the end lead only in having more ISKs in the system thus affecting economy in bad way?

    Also, it should be done as acontract I believe or the goods should have to be random every day something else otherwise players will put the stuff that station buys on the station with sell order in advance in oder to complete the buy order the moment it shows up.


    Why? All this would do is establish a price floor. Why do we need a price floor for various goods and the economic distortions that go with price floors?

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Well, it's nice to see you change your argument a little, but it still does not hold water.

    To make your statement true, there would need to be some kind of flag on every ship that undocks. As soon as the ship moves or takes any other action the flag clears and you are now a valid target.

    Of course, cloaked ships would have lost that flag as soon as they moved too. In space means being subject to non-consent. You don't get a magic button to just be immune whenever you feel like it. Or at least you shouldn't.

    That cloaked ship could have also had a miner on it, and cloaking after shooting a rock would still render it effectively immune to interaction, though I suppose you will be pedantic and point out it would have to move a short distance from the rock to pull that off and if it was near a rock someone might possibly come along and bump into it accidently if it stayed right there.

    I'd then point out that the need to move around a little to avoid hunters is all I've asked for.

    FFS, at minimum just giving the scanning bookmarks a margin of error so it's very unlikely to land directly on the cloaked ship would be enough. No one really needs the exact location of the ship to have a chance at finding it, and a chance is all that's asked for. It's just not that hard to make things be more reasonable.


    No there doesn't.

    Look a ship that warps to a secret safe and cloaks is essentially exempting itself from all game play that cannot be done in station.

    All other ships not doing the same thing are not exempting themselves from that game play.

    There. Done.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    To be clear here....

    Risk is not something imposed by CCP. Risk is imposed by other players.

    Yes.

    Risk is imposed by other players.

    If you screw up, other players may be ready to pounce and push in your poop.

    Jump instead of bridge....that is on you. You screwed up.

    But deadspace mods on your CNR and get ganked, you were dumb and created a situation ripe for a suicide gank.

    Put 6.8 billion ISK into your obelisk? Yeah, you just created a gank opportunity.

    In fact, putting 6.8 billion ISK into your freigher says the following, "I love risk. I love it and I find it exciting and thrilling!!!" When you get ganked after doing this a few times...WITF are you here on the forums complaining? You got what you asked for.

    Be prudent. Be smart. And you won't get bumped and you won't get suicide ganked.*

    *Aside from getting ganked for ***** and giggles.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Other than the bumping part I completely agree. Getting Bumped, especially for extended periods of time, should either count as aggression or not affect warping.

    Getting caught and killed is EVE working as intended.

    Yes, it happens because it's easy and because the consequences are things that people that play that way don't care about. You make it even easier when you load lots of value into your ship and decide to make it easier to kill and then go without escort.


    You only get bumped if you are a complete and total idiot. If you put 750 million ISK of cargo value in your charon with reinforced bulkheads guess what: YOU WON'T GET GODDAMNED BUMPED.

    Or if you do, just log off. They won't gank you they are hoping to ransom you. But with 750 million ISK in cargo value, at most 375 million can drop. Given that the gankers will need about 500 million to gank you...it is not an economically viable gank.

    Or let me put it this way: If you are getting bumped you likely made a number of dumb moves and deserve what is coming.

    Bottomline: Don't be dumb and you'll be fine.

    Good rule for life in general too.

    Edit: Oh and if that 750 million is in one stack or one freight can...guess what either it will all drop or none at all. Want to increase the risk for suicide gankers, create courier contracts with a cheap alt. There are plenty of suicide ganks where the item did not drop--i.e. the gankers got nothing and lost their ships.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Juss Karbuss wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:

    /snip

    But the point is. The risk/reward aspect of freighter ganking is due completely and totally to idiotic freighter pilots. Stop being idiotic and stop getting ganked.

    Edit II:L Sorry I used the word imprudent...that might cause some confusion among some of those who are upset by freighter ganking. Imprudent means you took a big chance and it is likely to blow up in your face. Another term for it could be stupid.

    Don't be stupid and don't get ganked.


    That is all true, but that all doesn't change the fact, that there is basically no risk involved for suicide gankers for so high rewards. Two completely different topics.


    Of course there is no substantial risk because of the idiotic freighter pilot. He created the disproportionate reward for the given risk. If he weren't an idiot, there'd be now discussion right now. None.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    Really?


    So the cloaked ship should have to go back to his own home system upon decloaking then? I somehow doubt your 'logic' is going to work out.

    You keep running into issues trying to justify the power of the cloaks because it's simply not justified.


    There is no power to cloaks other than giving the player using such ships the initiative. While that can be a powerful advantage that is not always the case. Depends on the group you are engaging. A good group will send in help ASAP. A bad group is one that does not have a standing fleet, nobody on comms and lets the poor sod die alone in the void.

    Quote:
    Merin's arguments are old, and long ago dealt with. Weak ships should not be immune. Expense has never been a major balance factor and especially should not be immune. Shutting your modules off should not make you immune.


    No, ships not interacting with the environment should be immune. If your barge has just hoovered up a bunch of rocks it has interacted with the environment. It has had an effect. Making it immune because it turns off all of it's modules and warps to station will let it continue to have a direct effect in game by hauling those rocks to station for refining and sale on the market.

    You keep wanting it to be "weak" when Merin is quite clear it is "effect".

    Quote:
    Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago.


    The correct phrase is nothing in space interacting with the game environment should be immune. A cloaked ship is not mining rocks. It is not shooting rats. It is not hauling stuff. It is, in effect, not able to do anything that can't be done in a station, citadel or POS.

    Quote:
    Just because people have a different playstyle does not mean they are bad, garbage, or otherwise less than you. It does not mean their playstyle should be less supported in a 'sandbox' than yours. This is especially true in this game, where 'sandbox' is the key selling feature.


    I do not disagree with this. If you want to just shoot rocks....fine. I couldn't give a ****. But that does not mean you should be exempt from interacting with me...whether you want to or not.

    Quote:
    You don't have to be a troll to point out the inconsistencies of logic in the Pro-Cloak arguments. ;The thread is badly misnamed, the problem isn't AFK, the problem is the cloaks themselves.


    It only appears to be an inconsistency because you keep changing "weak" for "effect". You are basically setting up a straw man and knocking it down, and then accusing us of using logical fallacies (poisoning the well fallacy). You are the one using fallacies Mike.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Do Little wrote:
    I am also a carebear industrialist. It's over 2 years since I last lost a ship in highsec. I ran a multibox mining fleet in Everyshore for 6 months with no problems. I haul billions through Uedama and Niarja every week. Gankers prey on the weak and the careless. If you factor them into the equation when you choose what, when and where to fly, New Eden is safer than most big cities in the real world. Being human, I expect to make mistakes and an occasional loss is built into my business plan.

    Ganking is an important part of the risk/reward balance - destruction means more demand for the stuff I make and risk means less competition.

    Learn how to survive as prey instead of asking CCP to remove the predators.


    This man gets it. This man will beat the rest of you carebears every single time.

    In fact, he is NOT a carebear. He realizes the nature of this game and takes the necessary steps to maximize his chances for success. And as a result he is not here whining for CCP to pat his poo-poo.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Piugattuk wrote:
    I am a carebear, however I do agree that the consequences are rather nothing more then a feeble attempt by CCP to make it look like there is some teeth to a paper tiger, the addition of tags that people turn in to gain sec status...bah, there is nothing with teeth.

    That being said, there is no growth by the grazers if there is no reason to fear the predator, however the folks who are -9.9 and others are not really predators, they are bored e-warriors, but like all things there must be something for them to stroke themselves over, if you adjust you game play you mostly won't have any issues, if I was a -9.9 I would expect more teeth out of the cops, since its just the way it is now I have no need to play as a criminal because I don't have to learn to survive off the land and meet others because it's not challenging enough to explore the criminal world when you can just buy tags to get back in good with the cops, true criminals would live in the frontier bushwacking folks for survival, lazy gankers...they don't learn anything but rinse and repeat.


    You have it wrong.

    This is NOT an issue CCP should even be looking at, talking about, considering or anything else.

    The risk and reward are entirely based on player actions. A stupid idiotic player puts way too much cargo value into his ship and it is then blown up by suicide gankers. The solution is obvious: don't be a stupid idiotic player.

    You're welcome.

  • More restrictions to the criminals. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vokan Narkar wrote:
    It is really annoying how easy suicide ganking is and that it has basically no consequences. Its basically a zero risk activity, the worst that can happen is that you do your math wrong and don't bring enough alts to destroy your target or you will be unlucky and you don't get any worthy loot (if the purpose of the sucide gank is to make a profit).

    I do not care that some players are multiboxing 10+ alts for sucide ganking. I don't care they all attack simultaneously. But I do not think its right that they can live in highsec with -9.9 security status thats just nonsense.

    My proposal:

    1) Disallow notourious criminals from docking in citadel stations. Force them to require other players or alt or to raise their security status if they want to trade in highsec. If they want to hide they have to use an upwell structure. Following current sec status and high-sec faction police mechanics, -2.0 or lower? forget docking in Jita. -4.5 you won't be able to dock in Uedama. etc.

    Alternatively, "notorious criminal" = -5.0 and lower.

    2) No rookie/noob ship for criminals. Player docking or respawning with criminal status should not get a free rookie ship in high-sec space stations. Force criminals to obtain frigate/shutle if they want to pull CONCORD from the gank point or to wait the criminal timer and then commit new criminal act before station to do it (and wait 15min more). (Obviously we cannot prevent them for keeping a home station in high-sec so they could respawn there...)

    This suggestion probably could use some modifications because its probably not a good idea not to give a ship replacement to the newbie player who somehow attacks someone else in highsec from curiosity/stupidity and become a criminal. Maybe it should apply to "notorious criminals" only.

    3) No citadel immunity for notorious criminals and players with criminal status. Force them to be docked in citadel before gank. Not to stay outside pre-aligned already.


    This three changes will give high-sec residents higher controll over well known criminals who keep ganking every day. Unless they invest time or ISK to fix their security status they will be banned from stations leaving them the only option of player owned citadels. Citadel owners might decide they dont want to allow well known gankers to operate from their citadel so they ban them from there as well. Result - they will have to get their own citadel. This also can create a player oriented content about "allow gankers to use your citadel or we will wardec you" or "disallow gankers to use your citadel or we wardec you" etc.


    Holy crap....

    I should start a Suicide Ganking Collection thread like I did with AFK cloaking...and then after ISD locks it an a year later they'll create a sticky for these shiptoasts.

    Look, suicide ganking is the fault of the pilot who is ganked. The large rewards are created by the terrible player who put way too much cargo value in his cargo hold.

    Yes. It is that simple. Stop overloading your freighter and you'll largely be fine. No. Really. Stop being bad and you'll be fine.

    Roll

    Edit:

    Here was my thread on why the risk and rewards of suicide ganking are not something CCP should even be thinking about.

    I'll go nice and slow with small for the dim witted here....

    1. A player puts, say, 7 billion ISK worth of cargo into his charon.
    2. To get it all in there he "anti-tanks" his charon by putting on cargo expanders.
    3. He then undocks.
    4. Flies through Uedama or Niarja or both.
    5. Gets bumped and ganked.

    The risk is entirely the fault of the charon pilot/player. He put way too much cargo value into his hold. Based on game mechanics about half should drop or about 3.5 billion ISK. Given that it takes about 240 million ISK in catalysts to burn down a charon that is anti-tanked the idiot charon pilot took on considerable isk. He put in his cargo hold almost 15 times the value of the ships needed to kill his charon. He was imprudent. He was a fool. He was asking to be ganked.

    Now had our foolish and imprudent charon pilot instead put on reinforced bulkheads and put in only 1 billion ISK worth of cargo he'd hardly be worth ganking. Make it 900 million and he'd be completely uneconomical in regards to ganking. Might he be ganked? Sure. Sometimes people just gank for ***** and giggles. Not much you can do about that besides using a scout and a webber.

    But the point is. The risk/reward aspect of freighter ganking is due completely and totally to idiotic freighter pilots. Stop being idiotic and stop getting ganked.

    Edit II:L Sorry I used the word imprudent...that might cause some confusion among some of those who are upset by freighter ganking. Imprudent means you took a big chance and it is likely to blow up in your face. Another term for it could be stupid.

    Don't be stupid and don't get ganked.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xcom wrote:
    Eve doesn't have stealth game play. Nothing about cloaking is a game then getting into cloaked state. If you don't want this type of game play to be ruined then you better come up with a damn good argument why you shouldn't be able to get killed when you are in cloaked state. Pre nerfed combat capability isn't a valid enough argument. Nothing in eve have been balanced around reduced capability because of cloaking. The reduced dps and tank is easily circumnavigated with workarounds.

    There is no stealth game play in eve. Its a single module you turn on and if your not bumped within 1min your basically invulnerable. That is a joke if anyone calls it stealth gameplay.


    You shouldn't be killed in a cloaked state because you are cloaked.

    Cloaks are designed to make it so you cannot be found. That is it. And even then in many contexts you can be decloaked and killed. About the only time to be really truly safe you have to be at a safe and cloaked.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Mike Voidstar wrote:



    OK... so it's not the ability of the ship that is your issue, but what the pilot chooses to do with it.


    Yes, if you choose the interact with the environment then the environment can respond.

    Quote:
    Thus anyone who shuts off their modules should be exempt. Got it. Any ship that stops moving with no modules activated should be perfectly safe in Merin-World. Seriously, all of these paper soldiers were debunked long ago.


    And put that ore he just mined back. Then yes, what you are saying is not completely unreasonable. Oh...wait, we can't put the ore back into the asteroid. And even if it is jettisoned and destroyed it is still having an effect.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xcom wrote:
    Marika Sunji wrote:
    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    Xcom wrote:
    By the analogy of cloak ships not being able to do anything, therefore they have the right to be exempt from combat is the same as stating that shuttles should be invulnerable.


    Shocking news: an expensive combat ship has more powerful abilities than a dirt cheap ship whose sole purpose is to be a disposable one-way shield for your pod while you're moving between real ships.


    Technically it adds +2AU/s warp speed too, you know.

    It also gives you 10m3 of cargo hold.

    We need to make the shuttle invulnerable to bring them in line with the same cloaking balance. Lack of ability's a ship has is obviously equivalent to buffed defences.


    You keep ignoring that a cloaked ship is only "invulnerable" when it is doing nothing. If you want a shuttle to be invulnerable, fine only when it is doing nothing, and that includes moving a pilot from point A to point B.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    Xcom wrote:
    By the analogy of cloak ships not being able to do anything, therefore they have the right to be exempt from combat is the same as stating that shuttles should be invulnerable.


    Shocking news: an expensive combat ship has more powerful abilities than a dirt cheap ship whose sole purpose is to be a disposable one-way shield for your pod while you're moving between real ships.


    There is that too. A highly specialized ship with an advanced electronics suite (can fit a cov ops cloak and cov ops cyno, and may have ewar bonuses, or is specialized in carrying over sized weaponry (stealth bombers)...is more useful than a shuttle. My God WITF are those pesky Devs thinking?!?!?! Somebody call the New York Times I am sure they'll want to cover this.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xcom wrote:
    By the analogy of cloak ships not being able to do anything, therefore they have the right to be exempt from combat is the same as stating that shuttles should be invulnerable.


    Maybe a shuttle at a secret safe spot....

  • We need ISK sinks, this is one in EVE Technology and Research Center

    For all the budding monetary theorists out there, please read this from the monthly economic report why ISK and inflation is not quite like it is IRL,

    Quote:
    Quite a few players have approached me over the years to discuss viable means for CCP to implement financial instruments into EVE Online. For many different reasons, most financial instruments can be ruled out immediately, with the absence of a legal system in New Eden being one example of a reason. Asset backed securities however are instruments that we could viably implement in EVE.

    What do I mean with asset backed securities? This is a fancy wording for Pawn shops in space. 😊 If you are sitting on assets and you need liquid ISK, instead of going through the trouble of selling off your assets, you’d be able to place them into escrow as a collateral for a loan that could be completely customized. Part of the customization could be the loan amount (principal), maturity date, coupon (interest rate), payment schedule/terms (0 for bullet), and of course calculated value of the collateral compared to the internally calculated estimate. Upon default (failure of a payment) the collateral is released. Players are already doing this on the forums, but this currently this is very much trust-based.

    I realize this is as niche feature as it gets, but we also understand that EVE has a special place in the video games industry for its advanced virtual economy and some of our players are solely here for trading and industry. On paper, it would also be pretty cool to be the first video game to implement financial instruments into a living virtual economy. An obvious next step would be to allow players to bundle bonds of default-prone players together into subprime bond packages with triple A rating with complete absence of any regulation! #eveisreal


    When a player goes out and creates say 1 billion new ISK it does NOT enter the economy unless it is spent. IRL, this is not the case. You'd deposit it in a bank and/or invest it. In either case it would enter the economy, either via the bank lending it out or by you directly investing into the economy.

    Finance in EVE is incredibly stunted. It could be changed, but first time I posted this the response was universally negative.

    From the link:

    Quote:
    I write the following Courier Contract:

    Item i want hauled: -[900m ISK] (yes, negative 900m ISK)
    Ship to: [Same station] (yes, not moving it anywhere)
    Reward: [50m ISK]
    Collateral: [-1 Plex] (yes, negative 1 Plex)
    Expiration: [3 days]
    Days to Complete: [1 month exactly] (yes, not less than but equal to)


    If you accept this then you would receive negative 900m to haul (i.e. give me 900m ISK) whilst the you put negative 1 Plex up as Collateral (i.e. i put 1 Plex up as Collateral) and i put 50m ISK aside as collateral for the fees.

    After 1 month exactly you complete the "haul" and return the -900m to me (i.e. i give you 900m) and i award you with 50m fees, and so i get back my 1 Plex Collateral.

    If the contact fails then you get the Plex.


    Without a change like this Finance in EVE will be forever primative and stunted.

  • We need ISK sinks, this is one in EVE Technology and Research Center

    adad qsdqze wrote:
    Piugattuk wrote:
    Pay NPC's to 'rent' a billboard like the ones we already see, so basically you pay the NPC's ISK to have your ugly mug up on the billboard for a day or week, etc, maybe your Corp logo up on the billboard etc.

    Day costing the poster based on standings with that Corp, etc, get your mug up on your enemies home NPC hangout, you know.

    Any ideals on ISK sinks ?


    The longer an economy exists, the more unbalanced it become, rich become richer, rise prices, poor become poorer
    Want a real ISK sink ? Shut down Eve Online and create another one
    Whatever CCP does, there will be always a group of people bypassing it and making it worst


    The game is experiencing, if anything, deflation. As for the rest take the economic illiterate nonsense elsewhere please.

  • We need ISK sinks, this is one in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    We don't actually need more ISK sinks, if you look at the Monthly Economics Report the Money Supply in the game has been holding fairly steady since Citadel when they adjusted Broker Fees and the Tax rate.


    If anything with a steady money supply and a growing "real" sector to the economy this would imply deflation. Not inflation. Adding in more ISK sinks would be bad. Increasing the rate of deflation basically rewards holding ISK not spending it. You want to crash the in-game economy...yeah implement more ISK sinks.

Forum Signature

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online