EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2014-03-12 02:59
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-07-26 19:09
  • Number of Posts: 138
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 185

Toxic Yaken

Security Status -7.6
  • The Dickwad Squad Member since
  • Rote Kapelle Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Use Concorde Tax on Suicide Ganked Cargo as ISK Sink in Council of Stellar Management

    NanDe YaNen wrote:
    Where can we extract a lot of ISK from the economy to account for ratting and mission running?

    Let's start with someone else's problem. Whenever gankers suicide gank with alts and pick up the loot, they use unaffiliated accounts in order to acquire the loot because the gank accounts lose security status and can't get to the can.

    No problem.

    Let's apply a tax to the cargo.


    1. Cargo is flagged when non-wardec gank happens in system with security > 0.0
    2. Flagged cargo is not able to be sold on market or entered into contract until tax is paid
    3. Tax rate depends on both the security where the cargo was regarded as stolen and where the cargo gets put onto market
    4. War-dec loot no problem
    5. 0.0 stolen loot no problem
    6. 0.0 delivered loot no problem
    7. Ganked outside Rens station and sold in Rens, holy crap expensive
    8. Base tax on estimate used in assets window


    Everyone's happier that this tax is applied according to the severity of the security violation and usually will affect suicide gankers using new accounts that feel more like an abuse of alpha accounts than intended game mechanics? I'll accept your applause. Seriously. Who's complaining? Maybe you should live outside Jita occasionally.

    The only person not happier is a suicide ganker that needs to get 5bn ISK liquid to sell that loot or somehow get it to low sec so that they can move the gear, and now they can join the risk reward club.


    I'm preparing a doctrine for Liberal Universalism. Because the doctrine is heavily focused on trade, the broker fees and sales tax are generally regarded as an enemy to all pod pilots. The fact is that this tax is not set by any market. The spreads are set somewhat by the tax.

    This proposal is one of many that will be made for the benefit of the universe. Please set standings negative if you have a problem, and do so LIBERALLY.


    As someone who largely survives off of ganking for funding my activities, I don't personally like this idea, though it would be neat to see the black market trading for larger ticket items through trade windows to avoid paying these taxes. Of course, players could also just sell stuff in citadels where there are player set tax rates.

    Also what do you mean with your point about Alpha gankers?

  • [MERC] The Marmite Collective in EVE Gameplay Center

    Tora Bushido wrote:
    We dont bend, we dont bow, we dont need 1:2 rep ships, we kill and have fun!

    Sounds good? Join us today !Pirate

    Quote:
    To improve the performance of the war history tab of alliance/corporation show info windows when more than 100 finished wars exist, they will be divided into years and loaded separately when expanded.
    Thank you CCP ! Big smile


    Good to know that accidently loading Marmite's wars won't crash my laptop anymore. Pirate

  • [MERC] - Project Alpha in EVE Gameplay Center

    Molly Metal wrote:
    Project Alpha Killboard

    Project Alpha is now accepting the following types of contracts:

    - VS Contracts (General Mayhem)

    - POCO Removals and Replacement

    - Citadel Removals (Azbel, Raitaru, and Astrahus)

    - POS Removals ( Small, Medium, and Offline)

    If you have a need that isn't listed here feel free to ask.

    Please contact "Molly Metal" in game via evemail or convo if you think we can meet your needs.




    Out of curiosity, why is this advertisement for your corporation and not your alliance?

  • [MERC] Vendetta Mercenary Group in EVE Gameplay Center

    Dom Arkaral wrote:
    Khromius wrote:
    Betting against the HABS is a wardecable offense. Cease and desist!

    Lol
    Next year perhaps huehuehue


    I think I need to get you some habs merch next time you come to visit Dom...

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    G3neral D3stRuCtion wrote:
    Toxic Yaken wrote:
    Yaosus wrote:
    "I currently live with old friends in Nullsec as a member of the Dickwad Squad, part of Legio De Mortem and the larger Phoenix Federation in the South. I also maintain my Highsec funtimes with an alt in Fly Fearless trying to help newbros and learning how to FC against wardeccers, as well as having a ganking alt for funding my activities."

    We need a true Hisec denizen, not an alt in hisec that helps newbros defend from wardeccers, has a main in null and occasionally joins Hisec.

    Playing the wardec warden angle ...no way man. Stay in null where you honestly belong.

    This is not a hatepost, it's just my opinion.


    That's fair, you aren't the first person to dislike me for running as a Highsec candidate while my main is in Null. I disagree with your sentiment because Yaken is mostly just used to roam with my friends when we can all play together, and I otherwise play on my Highsec characters, but you're free to vote for whoever you think would be a better candidate next year.

    As for the wardec warden angle... Sorry you feel that way? Several members of CSM 11 have openly stated that they found the work valuable to better understand wardecs, and I plan to continue work on it this year.

    Toxic Pirate


    "I disagree with your sentiment because Yaken is mostly just used to roam with my friends when we can all play together, and I otherwise play on my Highsec characters"

    TOXIC! WHEN YOU GONNA PLAY WITH YOUR REAL FRIENDDSSS!!


    OKOKOK

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Yaosus wrote:
    "I currently live with old friends in Nullsec as a member of the Dickwad Squad, part of Legio De Mortem and the larger Phoenix Federation in the South. I also maintain my Highsec funtimes with an alt in Fly Fearless trying to help newbros and learning how to FC against wardeccers, as well as having a ganking alt for funding my activities."

    We need a true Hisec denizen, not an alt in hisec that helps newbros defend from wardeccers, has a main in null and occasionally joins Hisec.

    Playing the wardec warden angle ...no way man. Stay in null where you honestly belong.

    This is not a hatepost, it's just my opinion.


    That's fair, you aren't the first person to dislike me for running as a Highsec candidate while my main is in Null. I disagree with your sentiment because Yaken is mostly just used to roam with my friends when we can all play together, and I otherwise play on my Highsec characters, but you're free to vote for whoever you think would be a better candidate next year.

    As for the wardec warden angle... Sorry you feel that way? Several members of CSM 11 have openly stated that they found the work valuable to better understand wardecs, and I plan to continue work on it this year.

    Toxic Pirate

  • If one actually wants to fix the issues with wardecs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Alderson Point wrote:

    I could bother mentioning that the op clearly states, one could not wardec unless both defender and attacker had structures, you picked the word citadels out of discussion of a specific hypothetical scenario, but I know, reading, who need it eh?


    EVE players tend to be risk averse, so what would stop every single corporation/alliance living in Highsec from using alts to establish structures for their members use? Wardeccers could come and knock down your alt's structure, but members would never be at risk of a war unless you chose to ally to defend the structure.

    I also don't like structure grinding. :(

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Honey-Boo 2017 wrote:
    So...how did this guy's run for csm go?


    Didn't manage to get a spot this year, not sure of the total vote count though.

    Big shout out to everyone who voted for me, I will be running again next year.

    - Toxic Pirate

  • Upgrade wardecs with deployables, to create actual wars in EVE Technology and Research Center

    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    Toxic Yaken wrote:

    I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



    Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

    What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

    How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

    Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

    Cheers,
    Toxic Pirate


    • Hisec is mechanical safety. Wardecs are already a means of bypassing that. This is a way ot bypassing the bypass.
    • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?
    • Wardeccers have two basic choices: obscurity or strength. They can either have a director plop a wardec structure out in the boonies, or in the middle of all their defenders. If it's out in the boonies, the defenders have to either scout every system, or get REALLY lucky. If it's nearby, they can defend it.


    The structure itself should definitely have either a vulnerability timer or a reinforcement mechanic, or even both, plus the standard 24-hour cooldown period.

    This means that for attacking a large corporation, you can't just dock up when they do show up to fight.

    EVE being EVE, I expect that within a week, someone would be maintaining a curated list of every wardec structure in eve and who it's against, and quite probably an ISK cost for that information. :P


    I was hoping for more direct responses to my questions to think critically about the proposed idea and what potential changes it could have on the game besides the positive ones trying to be portrayed.

  • war decs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    roberts dragon wrote:
    we in a war against 1 corp 4 members to his corp, we have allaince with many players , i will state the problem and hopefully offer 1 idea to help ,

    1 corp 4 member war decs a alliance just to farm easy kills , example when we see him he runs back to udema and just waits outsdie station in a t3 cruiser . he normally attacks we dock up come outside and attack him but havent enough firepower to kill him under the timer .

    so i think with this tactics was told by pros unless we have massive fleet cant kill him with the timer so we went away , so we can only get him when he is away from station . he has good tactics been learning from him . just frustrating we just wait to see him in open to fleet up and get him.

    the idea is war decs should be against same size corps size up to 6 players 12 ,24 ,36 , etc . also the timer outside a station might need looking at .

    not sure but think same size corps/alliances can war dec if about same size , hopefully would make this war dec thing a positive outcome instead of , players just farming easy kills it can be worse for new players



    Wardec shielding to be completely immune to wardecs used to be a thing until CCP reworked it, and in an era of Alpha clones I'm afraid this kind of change would just lead to Wardec shielding 2.0. Fill your corp to the brim with alts, never worry about wars again.

  • Upgrade wardecs with deployables, to create actual wars in EVE Technology and Research Center

    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    Have CONCORD sell a few deployables, of various levels of ISK investment and toughness. The base model would be 50m, probably, with the rest of the ISK cost coming from the actual activation.

    Then, they are anchored somewhere (nothing special, 5m or 1m or whatever). Once anchored, they can be used to start a war (24h timer, obviously) or end it. Similar total costs as current system, except players should probably be able to pay even more for tougher deployables. ISK cost to run instead of fuel, since as far as ingame lore, you're just interfacing with CONCORD systems to flag ship-vs-ship engagements as not to be responded to.


    • The defending corp/alliance is not notified of the deployable location, but it is visible when entering a system.

    • The structure must be located in empire space.

    • If the defending corp/alliance or friends find and destroy the deployable, the war ends.

    • If the deployable is un-anchored, the war ends.

    • If the ISK runs out, the war ends, and the deployable can re re-used, but deccing again or deccing another will of course cost more ISK.


    Details: Vulnerability timers? Weapons on the deployable? Reinforcement timers? Deployed near (but not on top of) player structures? Where can the structures be located? Should it have to be located in hisec to carry the war into losec and hisec? Losec anchoring for losec only? Any point in requiring the wardeccing person to actually be at the deployable? Probably not.


    My thought is this: Wars are frequently not really very war-like. Lots of people use it just to get free targets, without any real risk, and then they just camp trade hubs. The attackers get to choose pretty much everything, target, timing, whether to engage or not.

    This system would create a defense point for the attackers, and they would need to protect it during vulnerable times, and/or respond to the structure going into reinforced. A defender would then have a CHANCE of responding to a war in a proactive manner, or hiring mercenaries to track down, join defenders, and destroy the deployable.

    It would help create fights.

    Bonus: if you successfully un-anchor and scoop, you get the deployable back.

    Bonus: people can have fun hunting around for these, and selling the locations.


    I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



    Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

    What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

    How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

    Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

    Cheers,
    Toxic Pirate

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM XII - Highsec Candidate in Council of Stellar Management

    With voting for CSM XII now closed, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who took the time to read my platform and considered me for a spot on their ballot. I remain hopeful that between the support I've seen for myself and the rest of the Highsec Ticket, we will see a representative elected for Highsec to this year's CSM. If not, you can expect to see me again next year, working to build up the next Highsec Ticket. Looking forward to seeing the results at Fanfest in a couple weeks.

    Thanks again. o7

    Toxic Pirate

  • Burn Goons 2017 in EVE Gameplay Center

    1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
    ...you already know how I feel about you...

    Please stop blocking me and return my calls.

    <3 <3 <3

    XOXOXO

    Aldo


    This thread will only get better from here, I can feel it. Big smile

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Areen Sassel wrote:
    Toxic Yaken wrote:
    Highsec doesn't need to be made safer by CCP, it needs to be made safer by the players.


    What do you think of James's proposal to remove facpo? I'd chase up the link but I imagine you read it some time ago.


    Sorry for the late reply,

    I have read it, and agree with the points that James makes in regards to Facpol. (Thanks for linking it though Sasha, the refresher on his points was good.) I think the main point that James drives home here - the idea of giving more power to players to police criminals is one that I really want to bring up with CCP if elected. The point James raises about the removal of facpol giving lowsec criminal types a chance to get fights in Highsec sounds pretty good to me, and being able to engage gankers in fights is something I really want to see. I want to play devil's advocate though for the sake of being critical - if gankers didn't have to worry about Facpol, what would change for their gameplay?

    Obviously not needing to worry about bouncing around or sitting tethered in Citadels out of fear would be a big change that I'm sure a lot of gankers would enjoy. You could easily stage out of a safe spot not far from your favourite gate, have better chances of getting on top of targets, all that good stuff.

    How does this make gankers more engageable? Sure, you can make the argument that a ganker lands on a gate to attack someone, and they hold their cloak after jumping into a system in hopes of someone coming to their aid (Assuming that ganker is already of low enough sec status to be engaged) But how many gankers are going to start actively sitting on grid where other players can engage them over sticking with sitting in a station/citadel and waiting for targets like they do now? Why risk your opportunity on catching a target just so that other players can engage you?

    I don't think there's going to be an end-all perfect plan for ganking, but it's important to discuss these ideas further.

    Thanks for your question,

    Toxic Pirate

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM XII - Highsec Candidate in Council of Stellar Management

    Madina Shouna wrote:
    I suggest a temporary ban from the server for 2 hours for killing a neutral in high sec and after that double the ban up to 1 day of a ban. Or maybe kind of mute button when you can't say **** in local but this way you can't use your weapons. And I suggest griefing report system for ******* gate campers in high sec. Especially near trade hubs. I suggest CCP start doing something against ******* gate campers. I swear to god if Goon swarm or PL complains CCP will listen but if a regular shmuck like me complains CCP does not give a ****. Introduce a ******* griefing system for a ******* gate campers who are killing everyone who is neutral. And don't ******* tell me that this is eve you die in eve. ************, you were newb too and you can't ******* avoid certain systems because the route will become too long. I can't ******* fly jump freighter or freighter. But what I suggest is simply neutralize ******* from killing neutrals. Especially in high sec. Only in high sec/ near trade hubs. Don't care about low sec


    I'm pretty sure this is bait but I like bait so I will take it anyways. CCP recognizes ganking as one of the two main pillars of Highsec PVP, and I will personally not support any proposals to remove it. Changing crimewatch to have compounding bans for criminally flagged pilots will pretty much kill ganking or force players into ganking on Alphas, and would likely have a way more negative impact on FW and Lowsec banning anyone who goes criminal there. Making this mechanic work only in Highsec would require an even bigger pass at Crimewatch mechanics to either create a new flag or differentiate between regional criminal tags, all to create something that CCP doesn't agree with in the first place.

    If you have thoughts to make ganking more interactive through I'd be happy to hear them. I know there are a lot of players who feel strongly about ganking and I'm not trying to discourage those players from reaching out about it, but I will try to be critical of proposals to changes with Highsec PVP mechanics because of the ways in which players will inevitably use and abuse them.

    Either way, I hope you can find someone to vote for that best represents your opinions.

    Toxic Pirate

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:
    Hello Mr Toxic Yaken,

    My friends and I from Highsec will be voting for a candidate who is proposing a better Justice system for Highsec to protect the weak and innocent and reduce and deter criminal behaviours.

    Nevertheless good luck to you in your campaign.


    Highsec doesn't need to be made safer by CCP, it needs to be made safer by the players.

    The only kind of change like that I would support would be shifting from relying on more player driven justice over that of NPC justice. I'd love to see players being able to be the ones defending eachother and getting revenge in a way that's actually fun. I have no intention to support changes that make it harder to be a criminal just for the sake of making it safer for everyone else.

    I hope you can find someone you feel represents your interests this year.

    Toxic Pirate

  • So finally people will fight against Suicide Ganks and Harrasments in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
    Get away from the trade and mission hubs and Empire is a desolate wasteland. There's probably 1000's of hisec systems that rarely see more than 3 people in local, I know of entire constellations which have residents in the single digits.

    Expanding Empire space will not result in a more widespread population, it will result in even more empty systems for those in the know to farm the shite out of the resources while everybody else clusters around the trade and mission hubs.


    Pretty much this. I understand why so many corporations establish themselves by popular resources and trade hubs - you minimize the amount of effort you need to put in to be prosperous. But the areas of space like Derelik or Solitude are super dead end to the point where most 'content creators' won't even bother unless they have a serious grudge against you. Sure, they absolutely suck logistically, but that's an opportunity to make those regions better for you and your group.

    In my opinion CCP doesn't do enough to educate new players considering how many end up living and learning their first days/weeks/months in Highsec. It's really hard to cope with losses because when you're a new character you see a lot of your assets as time investments just because of how hard it can be to make isk in those early days if you don't know what you are doing. Pouring hours into saving up for something just to have it smashed an hour later feels bad. Newbros well aren't educated on the golden rules of EVE; especially that ships are tools and not your character, they don't understand the risks of autopiloting, and they don't recognize the potential threats that they can face in Highsec in general, despite it being the "safer" space. I don't like reinforcing the perception that EVE is a scary game where everyone is out to get you, but telling players that Highsec is safe is a damned lie.

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Valkin Mordirc wrote:

    I really think it's time for CCP is start rethinking how Highsec behaves, and change the way it functions in order to make the Highsec playerbase interested again. Changing its dynamics both in veterans and the newbro's. Highsec is NPE and making it so the Newbro's understand how Highsec work needs huge reworks is revitalize the start of it games. If your core and start of the game decays it'll stop people from getting to a place they might enjoy.


    I agree with you completely. I'm sure that there are a lot of concerns about revisiting Highsec as a whole because CCP could make genuine improvements to the Highsec experience or further stagnate our gameplay... but it's something worth discussing. My concern right now is the potential lack of Highsec representation for CSM XII if these kinds of discussions occur.

    Always open to hear suggestions for ways to change Highsec by the way, and there's also the Wardec Project discord! Blink

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM - A Message to C&P in EVE Gameplay Center

    Moon Moon Burdy wrote:
    Boss says you're the guy, others I respect say you're the guy. Ok, you're the guy. You got my vote.


    The guy appreciates your support. Pirate

  • Toxic Yaken for CSM XII - Highsec Candidate in Council of Stellar Management

    Tengu Grib wrote:
    You'll have 10 votes from me old friend. I'll try to convince my HS buddies to vote for you as well.


    Thanks for the support Tengu, it means a lot! Pirate

    TheSmokingHertog wrote:
    Trying to form a ballot, saw Steve promoted you. Read your thoughts, like it. On the list. 07


    Thanks for the support!

Forum Signature

Vote Toxic Yaken for CSM 13!

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs