|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:I soon discovered the real reason why many of these miners chose to continue mining, defenseless, during an active wardec. They used bots and/or proximity alerts that enabled them to immediately warp back to a station if a war target entered local. At first, I was puzzled by their ability to react so quickly. I was able to eliminate the possibility they were using watchlists--my main joined the warring corp shortly before entering the system. Nor were they scouting the gates, since there were usually multiple gates, no one present at them, and/or all of their corp members accounted for in the belt during the initial scouting. And it couldn't have been that they were merely monitoring local for people with the war target tag, since the systems often had as many as 100-200 pilots. Yet some miners were able to immediately initiate warp from the moment I entered the system. The conclusion was obvious: Highsec miners were using cheats to protect themselves during wardecs.
You've highlighted a pretty big issue with the wardec system there. Why should one guy be able to cause that much disruption to so many players and be virtually untraceable without cheating? You really want every single highsec mining team to bring an armed escort tough enough to kill an Ishtar?
Then there's the fact that its a totally assymetric war. How would the miners strike back against a one man corp, when your combat pilot only joined right before striking? The whole thing is a bad joke, and I hope the next expansion improves things. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 16:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Invitus wrote:Congrats sir, You have caused 14 pages of pubbie tears about how wrong you are. My favourite is the one that complains about how a one man corp can wardec and ruin a mining corp: Takseen wrote::words:
Then there's the fact that its a totally assymetric war. How would the miners strike back against a one man corp, when your combat pilot only joined right before striking? The whole thing is a bad joke, and I hope the next expansion improves things. He clearly didn't read the bit about defending your miners. Some skillpoints in PvP would really help him out. However, a request for next time, please don't sign your post.
Yeah cheers for snipping all the relevant bits. Let's review what OP did. Took a seemingly harmless one man corp, and wardecced a bunch of industrial corps. Risk to the OP, zero, because his main char isn't even in the corp. Risk to the industrial corps, seemingly minimum. Then, at a moment of his choosing, he plops his Ishtar pilot into the wardeccing corp right before striking. If that particular mining op is sufficiently guarded that an Ishtar couldn't do any damage, all he needs do is pick another target.
The end result. One pilot can cause a lot of disruption with very little personal risk. If the Ishtar pilot had to make more of a commitment, and was able to be attacked back in return, I'd be able to take him more seriously.
Combat in Eve, especially when mining ships are involved, just favours the attacker too heavily for defense of mining ops to be very worthwhile. They're literally better off taking the same approach most shops and homes in real life do, hoping no one tries to rob them, and having insurance if they do. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote: what are the anti ganking nerfs that have been put into effect lately? The only real one I know of was the insurance thing but EVERY GANKER EVER says that wasnt imporant anyways or thats what they kept saying after the change was made.
They made tier 3 BCs with battleship guns and no tank to speak of. They are in effect ganking role ships.
There's also the fact that offensive dps increases have massively outstripped increases in tank for miners. T2 guns, faction ammo, artillery buffed to be alpha gods, a whole heap of different skills that can be dumped into dps increases, and not a whole lot that can increase your tank, especially passive tank.
If you constantly buff a pirate's ability to lock and kill ****, and only buff a miner's mining yield, suicide ganking is just the natural progression.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Drago Palermus wrote: (In a perfect world, CONCORD would only come to the rescue of low-SP players, or only in 1.0 space, so that those newest to the game could learn how to play without extreme grief. Otherwise, you'd be on your own.)
And player subs would be measured in the hundreds, or at best thousands. Cast your eyes across the MMO genre, and try and spot any of them with similar engagement rules, and check their subscriber numbers. Only one I'm aware of that fits the bill is Mortal Online, and that game is tiny. Carebears keep CCP solvent, griefers make it unique and interesting. Extremists who want to cater only to one of these groups should not be catered to. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Takseen wrote:There's also the fact that offensive dps increases have massively outstripped increases in tank for miners. T2 guns, faction ammo, artillery buffed to be alpha gods, a whole heap of different skills that can be dumped into dps increases, and not a whole lot that can increase your tank, especially passive tank.
If you constantly buff a pirate's ability to lock and kill ****, and only buff a miner's mining yield, suicide ganking is just the natural progression. If you continually allow everyone in high sec to easily evade war decs, and to continue earning non-meaningless amounts of ISK, then suicide ganking is the natural progression. In fact, it is the only course of action left.
Very true. That's a symptom of the attacker favoured war dec system. If a miner corp had more incentive to stick around and put up a fight in a defensive war, there'd be less need to rely on suicide ganks. Some ideas off the top of my head
-if corps offered bonuses the longer they'd been in existence and the more activities they'd carried out, dropping corp to avoid wardecs would be less attractive. -mercenaries should be able to "guarantee the safety" of miner corps. If anyone decs the miners, they get a cheaper counter dec. -some way to force conflict. Even if it was as simple as the attacker setting up a structure, call it a flag, somewhere in highsec. If the flag gets taken out by the defenders, the attackers are forced to surrender, or maybe just financially penalised. This offers the defenders a clear way to end the way if they can gain a combat advantage, even if its just piling everyone into a bunch of rifters.
Oh and you'd need to fix neutral remote reps, if they haven't already. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 20:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:James 315 wrote: When I arrived in his ice field, having carefully crafted a way to destroy his supposedly invincible ship, and having painstakingly calculated the means to kill his supposedly unkillable pod--that was the first time he ever played EVE.
Quoted for bump and for support. The fight begins today. I don't think he wanted to play EVE. Not that kind of EVE, not that way. But that's the thing about multiplayer games.
I used to build big tower blocks when I was a young un. This experience was entirely satisfactory on its own, and would probably not be improved by someone knocking down my tower at a random time(I preferred to do that myself really).
I've done the whole "getting emotionally involved in high-risk online worlds" thing before. Sure it provides a lot of emotion, but its not really sustainable. Eventually I realised I was never going to get to be part of the top tier who gets to inflict losses instead of sustaining them without spending thousands of RL $, so I quit. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Takseen wrote:I've done the whole "getting emotionally involved in high-risk online worlds" thing before. Sure it provides a lot of emotion, but its not really sustainable. Eventually I realised I was never going to get to be part of the top tier who gets to inflict losses instead of sustaining them without spending thousands of RL $, so I quit. Yeah. EVE is like that, there's consequences. I hear that, uh, just about every other mmo ever provides the no-losing type of gameplay you appear to be endorsing.
Most of them don't stack things so heavily in favour of the aggressor. Or in favour of the pvper over the resource gatherer in pvp combat. That makes Eve more unique, but doesn't lend itself to people wanting to fight back.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Takseen wrote:Most of them don't stack things so heavily in favour of the aggressor. Or in favour of the pvper over the resource gatherer in pvp combat. Ah. So CCP needs to give you more concessions. Gotcha. So, should we just hop to invulnerability? PvP flags would work right? If you flag then you are gankable, otherwise "lack of pvp flag prevents you from locking that target". Using smartbombs and FoF missiles (if the latter can be used anyway) or bombs would of course be an exploit as they don't require targeting before inflicting damage.
Why are you so obsessed with invulnerability, when there are many other approaches to bringing some balance? I'm sure you're smart enough to think of some on your own.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Fuujin wrote:True, it's easier to cry and throw a tantrum rather than learn to fit your very-tanky exhumer for survival. But that doesn't change the fact that the very tanky exhumer already exists in the first place. They probably view a tanky exhumer as a gyrostab Erebus or a lazer raven. When they have mining groups and everyone's all about their m3/min or isk per hour, you can just imagine~ What, you tanked your hulk? We'll never get gan-
Yeah its a funny thing. Your typical miner has no real emotional investment in any particular ship, the only concern is income. So if they don't get ganked often enough, skipping the tank results in greater income. It is actually a sensible choice.
Plus, a tanked hulk is still perfectly gankable. Probably solo gankable, with the new BCs.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:
Actually not re solo ganks. A tank-fitted hulk is beyond the grasp of any single subcap ship in eve to suicide gank. It might be in structure, but it will very much survive. However, it will also be limited to the default cargobay and the mining output of its bonused strips.
Got a link to the fit?
|
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:
And if the argument is "4 people shouldn't be able to kill my one guy" then...I have no words to adequately describe that level of callow bleating.
I'd be more annoyed at the fact that 4 people can kill one guy, and his 3(or 6, or 16) friends can't do anything about it. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xython wrote:
Move L4 missions to Lowsec. Move Ice out of Highsec.
Bleed some of the fat out of Highsec and we'll see the game continue to improve.
Level 4s are already in lowsec, and pay quite a bit more I'm told. But as long as they require a big and/or expensive ship to complete, take a long time to finish, and only pay out most of their reward at the end, they won't be popular in lowsec.
You could move the ice to null, but is that really doing anything but moving the bots around, and giving whichever alliance controls the ice fields even more passive income?
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Xython wrote:Takseen wrote:Fuujin wrote:
And if the argument is "4 people shouldn't be able to kill my one guy" then...I have no words to adequately describe that level of callow bleating.
I'd be more annoyed at the fact that 4 people can kill one guy, and his 3(or 6, or 16) friends can't do anything about it. Oh, they could, but that would require they not be AFK Bot Mining.
Righto, what can the 3 friends do?
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:
I would be robbing you of quality self-instruction and discovery by sharing the fits and the EHP limit that a solo suicide attacker can penetrate.
Suffice it to say that such a fit can and does exist, is not onerous to do, and uses off-the-shelf modules. The rest I leave to you and EFT.
You are protected against solo attackers. Obviously, if someone brings a friend or 4, you will not survive--nor should you.
Edit: Those 4 people will all have lost their ships and will be unable to do anything but warp in a very vulnerable pod for 15 minutes or sit in station. Short of being purely alphastriked (alphastruck?) by tornadoes (which is EXTREMELY costly to do if you're fit right) your friends will be able to help you as well.
I doubt the fit is either cheap or accessible. Last guy I saw who linked one turned out to be using Tech II rigs.
I'll concede the point about the ability to possibly retaliate against a non-instant gank.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Xython wrote: Jump in PVP ships and fight back?
Fight back against what? Concord will already have killed the attackers. And if my understanding of the system is correct, only the victim will have any killrights, which he'd have to pursue on his own. Likely against either 4 disposable suicide alts, or 4 highly experienced combat pilots.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:32 EHP Hulk fitted as previously posted on these forums. Orca with skill 5 links. Hulk dies to 4 destroyers ANYWAY. [GǪ] No, the mining ship will NOT survive to any barely organized gank, end of. GǪand all is as it should be. Takseen wrote:Plus, a tanked hulk is still perfectly gankable. Probably solo gankable, with the new BCs. No, you can make a Hulk safe from any kind of solo gank. Also, if they were solo gankable with the new BCs, they would have been solo gankable by the good old battleshipsGǪ and they weren't and still aren't.
So the "solo" hulk needs a maxed out Orca to achieve the 32k EHP necessary to survive a solo gank?
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Takseen wrote:So the "solo" hulk needs a maxed out Orca to achieve the 32k EHP necessary to survive a solo gank?
Well, the "solo" ganker is using an Orca to transport the supply of destroyers, so it balances out doesn't it?
Fair point. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:I've just gone back to the OP and read the whole of his massively long winded post, on reflection he does actually make some good points, it's just hidden in hyperbole. I retract my previous comment about him crying. Going back to a post I made earlier about how I would love to move my PVE operations to lo/null, are there actually any corps/alliances based in these areas that would welcome a PVE player who wants to continue with PVE, has no experience of PVP but would be willing to learn even if it's only as cannon fodder/hero tackle? Or am I still a worthless pubbie who deserves to die in a fire? I'm a carebear yes, but I'm willing to expand my horizons, I know this isn't recruitment, it's a hypthetical question
I think the problem is that if they want a primarily pve focused player in nullsec, they're better off just getting a bot. They're less whiny, less prone to spying or corp theft, they work longer hours, and they're less likely to die to stupid ****.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
I can't be arsed going back to reading the epic novel OP posted again, so what was the complaint against empire carebears again? That is to say, how are they wrecking the Eve experience of Pvpers operating outside of highsec? |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:Takseen wrote:Fuujin wrote:
And if the argument is "4 people shouldn't be able to kill my one guy" then...I have no words to adequately describe that level of callow bleating.
I'd be more annoyed at the fact that 4 people can kill one guy, and his 3(or 6, or 16) friends can't do anything about it. Can't? More like won't. Go gank the gankers, that's doing something about it. Learn to fly and fit a destroyer. There's nothing except your own apathy preventing you from taking action and fighting back.
Suicide gank destroyers in destroyers? When the targets are likely to be experienced combat vets or disposable alts? And as you've admitted, there's no way to pre-empt the gank, and Concord already provides immediate retaliation. |
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Siobhan MacLeary wrote: Even trying to fight back will win you some respect. The point isn't to prevent the gank or to retaliate, the point is to show some goddamn backbone and punch someone in the face for f--king with you.
Can't prevent the gank and can't retaliate, but can get "respect" from goons. Sounds great!
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
113
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 01:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
Siobhan MacLeary wrote: You're missing the point. Not all gankers are goons. If you fight back, they might actually respect you enough that they'll take you seriously when you tell them you want to be left alone - or that you want to break into nullsec and learn to PVP.
Risk and reward, pal - nothing ventured, nothing gained.
>There's nothing you can do to prevent a gank or retaliate against the gankers, but if you put on a good show, they might take pity on you and let you join their cool club.
Is that about it? |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
Corbin Blair wrote:What are you supposed to be anyway, my good twin?
The resemblance is uncanny. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 13:22:00 -
[24] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
But in all seriousness, care to explain why do you play EVE, the best SCI-FI PVP MMO as it is advertised?
For the Sci-fi and the persistent game world with other people in it. The pvp itself is unappealing.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 14:11:00 -
[25] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Takseen wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:
But in all seriousness, care to explain why do you play EVE, the best SCI-FI PVP MMO as it is advertised?
For the Sci-fi and the persistent game world with other people in it. The pvp itself is unappealing. Then you got the wrong game brah, and I don't want you to like PVP because I do. It just sucks you play a game where PVP is all around you, even in highsec, right? Removing PVP from anywhere would hurt what the game was initially all about. Do you really so openly demand EVE to mold into wow-in-space?
I do like Pvp. I just don't like Eve's pvp, so I don't participate in it. If you want more people to participate in the pvp, writing multi-page manifestos about how people who don't like Eve's pvp are Playing The Game Wrong won't do you any good.
You either make the pvp more appealing, or you accept that the type of pvp you enjoy isn't very popular.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 14:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote: EvE Online is not the game for you.
My subscription fees say otherwise.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 14:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote: The worst part is that the OP actually covers the point you just made. Seriously.
He could have covered the Grandfather Paradox and the Unified Field Theory for all I can remember. The posts weren't well written enough for me to bother reading them at length. I'll go back and have a look so. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 14:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
The worst part is that the OP actually covers the point you just made. Seriously.
Ok I reread "how carebears killed nullsec pvp", as ridiculous as the idea was. I get what he was saying, you need someone or something for the pvpers on either side to fight over. At the time, it was mining fleets. Over time, miners presumably found this less and less appealing.
That horse has bolted, I don't think you can entice them back. You(or CCP) need to come up with another conflict driver in nullsec.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 14:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Takseen wrote:Vaju Enki wrote: EvE Online is not the game for you.
My subscription fees say otherwise. So if I subscribe to a Tango dance class, then demand them to teach me Baseball because I payed for GODDAMN BASEBALL, my argument still holds? c'mon maaan! We all signed up for this, some us will like the game other won't. I'm sorry you lost your money, I truly am.
I subscribed to a game that had a vast, single-shard universe/server, a wealth of ship, module and skill choices, and a vast selection of space related activities to choose from. One of which was pvp, which I concluded was not in my interest any more then mining was. That game has not fundamentally changed since I arrived. Its the zealots on either side who want to either turf everyone bar the newbies out of highsec, or prevent all violence in highsec that are trying to fundamentally change the game. And I'm not a fan of that. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 15:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Just Alter wrote:Takseen wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote: The worst part is that the OP actually covers the point you just made. Seriously.
He could have covered the Grandfather Paradox and the Unified Field Theory for all I can remember. The posts weren't well written enough for me to bother reading them at length. I'll go back and have a look so. Don't go around blaming his ability to write as an excuse for your inability to read, understand or remember.
He could have said just as much with a quarter of the words. He could have written it a lot better too. If a point's worth making, its worth making well. |
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 15:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Takseen wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:
The worst part is that the OP actually covers the point you just made. Seriously.
Ok I reread "how carebears killed nullsec pvp", as ridiculous as the idea was. I get what he was saying, you need someone or something for the pvpers on either side to fight over. At the time, it was mining fleets. Over time, miners presumably found this less and less appealing. That horse has bolted, I don't think you can entice them back. You(or CCP) need to come up with another conflict driver in nullsec. All that is required is a proper risk/reward distribution. Highsec gave too much rewards for the lack of risks. Hell, I would not mind there being a 100% safezone if the rewards there are 0%. Want 99% risks? Then you get 1% rewards. At least they can still be AFK and keep doing what they are doing, without the fear of losing their ship. But wait, what? They ask for better rewards? Why do they even need rewards in the first place if they have nothing to replace. The argument falls flat pretty hard at this point. I'm sure if carebears described in the OP could mine docked in the station they would.
I disagree, I think the whole concept of needing a "worker caste" that the pvpers need to fight over in nullsec is not useful. It'd be like needing someone to play as the flag in Capture the Flag games. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 17:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
Hatch Nasty wrote:
2. This will require that CCP re-introduce risk into null. Null should never be safe space for anyone, let alone the bluefest it has become. Nullsec should be vast and profitable, a wild west frontier, and it should always be contested with war raging constantly and borders shifting daily. Change sov mechanics and logistics to make holding small areas of space easier, and holding large areas of space extremely difficult (if not, impossible). Let opportunity draw enterprising players to lowsec and null, while allowing them to scale their risk incrementally.
You're mixing two different ideas here. Nullsec can't be a wildwest frontier AND a constantly shifting mass of wars between power blocs. It was probably closer to a wildwest frontier in the beginning, but now that the big powers are firmly entrenched, only the wars and politics are relevant. Wormhole space is (or was) a better example of a new frontier.
|
|
|
|