|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:36:00 -
[1]
So I come back to my Bestower to see my pod instead floating nearby a stargate in Jita.
Thats enough CCP. If I cant AFK in high sec with a measly 150million worth in cargo youre not getting my money anymore. Sorry. Bye.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:41:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 19:41:15 Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 19:41:02
Originally by: Wang LeeMei can i haz ... oh wait....
if u got 150m in ur cargo and just know a small lil tiny bit bout eve you wouldnt be hanging afk on gates near jita lol
fly safe
Thats the point, I didnt know that 150 million was suicide ganking profitable in high security space. I didnt know crime was this easy in this game. I was wrong but now I know and its unacceptable.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:56:00 -
[3]
Well if anyone wants my stuff you can just send me your isk and ill send you double back. That would be the fastest way to do it.
I just thought this game was supposed to be challenging. Its dissappoiting to see that certain play styles have it easier to profit than others. In short the games not balanced in this regard. 150 million in cargo should not be a profitable venture to play suicide attack ganker. Suicide attack should cost more. Surley no one could rationaly justify it being this easy? Is 150 million that rich? Well I guess Ive reached the end game it seems.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:01:00 -
[4]
Originally by: blulululu
Originally by: Michwich Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 19:57:07 Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 19:56:27 Well if anyone wants my stuff you can just send me your isk and ill send you double back. That would be the fastest way to do it.
I just thought this game was supposed to be challenging. Its dissappoiting to see that certain play styles have it easier to profit than others. In short the games not balanced in this regard. 150 million in cargo should not be a profitable venture to play suicide attack ganker in high security? what? Suicide attack should cost a lot more. Surley no one could rationaly justify it being this easy? Is 150 million that rich? Well I guess Ive reached the end game if that the case.
If you fly that around in an untanked ship someone can kill with a t1 cruiser before concord is around, yes you make it profitable and it is your own fault. I think EVE is not the game for you go play an MMO where you can not lose stuff.
Im not blaming the gankers. Im blaming CCP design decision to allow such reward for no risk. Remember a suicide gank is calculated profit. Theres no risk involved once the numbers meet the right criteria. The point of this thread is that CCP has the numbers wrong. And until they get it right, I cant justify playing a game this flawed.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Michwich Im not blaming the gankers. Im blaming CCP design decision to allow such reward for no risk
That's just it: CCP didn't do that ù you did. You allowed for that reward. You reduced their risk.
Start looking there before you assign blame elsewhere.
So tell us, wheres the risk sitting at a gate scanning for a profitable suicide gank? Why isnt this done in null sec? Thats right. The weakest link. Concord. The only thing thats there to protect high security is a brain dead AI bot easily predicatable and as such we have protitable suicide attacks. Suicide attacks should never be profitable. The notion that loosing makes you win is called broken and therefore an exploit in my PVP eyes. No one can argue otherwise. No one. Not even CCP.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:21:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 20:21:59
Originally by: Lucjan An Armageddon blew me up for my 8m in cargo...figure that one out : in Jita as well. I was in a Badger.
You should be able to take CONCORD to court though for being useless.
Can I have your assets?
Thats a good Idea. You should be able to at the very leaste demand to know what your tax money is being spent on. Because it definately isnt going into security.
Why yes, you can have my assets. Bend over.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:34:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 20:33:58
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Michwich So tell us, wheres the risk sitting at a gate scanning for a profitable suicide gank?
You might be there all day, but only come across people who actually take precautions.
Quote: Why isnt this done in null sec?
Because people there take the necessary precautions ù in highsec, people don't and thus beg to be killed.
Quote: Thats right. The weakest link. Concord.
Wrong. The weakest link is you.
Quote: The only thing thats there to protect high security is a brain dead AI bot easily predicatable and as such we have protitable suicide attacks.
Wrong. CONCORD is the second thing ù the first is you, who should be smarter than a brain dead AI bot.
Quote: Suicide attacks should never be profitable.
Why not?
Quote: The notion that loosing makes you win is called broken
But you didn't win, did you? You were the loser here. The gankers simply paid the the price for high-sec aggression, and when they won, that investment paid off. And that's all it is: highsec is defined by the fact that aggression comes at a cost, either through a wardec or through the loss of ships and standings.
Theres not just me, theres 2 sides to this equation. And on the other side there was no risk, its been calculated that there would be none before I was attacked. Risk would be greater variability in whats destroyed and whats not. Risk would be the possibility of someone alerting the authorities that there were known criminals around. Risk would be having a module that defeated cargo scans making the otherside have to guess or gather intelligence. Risk is not hitting the cargo scan button and then firing your high slots. Thats not risk.
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:41:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dynast
Originally by: Michwich Theres not just me, theres 2 sides to this equation. And on the other side there was no risk, its been calculated that there would be none before I was attacked. Risk would be greater variability in whats destroyed and whats not. Risk would be the possibility of someone alerting the authorities that there were known criminals around. Risk would be having a module that defeated cargo scans making the otherside have to guess or gather intelligence. Risk is not hitting the cargo scan button and then firing your high slots. Thats not risk.
You made it profitable, not CCP. CCP didn't sit your fat, lazy butt in a paper-thin industrial with loot worth more than a hundred times what the ship is worth. All your blather and pathetic trolling pretty much boils down to one incontrovertable fact: you owned yourself.
Cry me a river.
Yep, thats the point. I own myself and I lose isk. Suicide ganker owns themself and they profit.
WAAAAAAAAA
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:49:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 20:49:03 But come on... admit it... its too easy. Should be harder and more dangerouse. Sitting afk with that little amount of isk and being targeted. The bar needs to be raised a bit. Its like putting a cap on whats considered too much money and worthy of the ultimate act of desperation - suicide and 150m is just too little
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 21:34:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Michwich on 02/11/2009 21:33:55
Originally by: Eskalin really just STFU troll. i'll give 2 to 1 that you will still be paying for your sub in 3 months
Youre right. This games not for carebears. Its for carebear eaters only. If you cant take getting ganked then just dont play. You guys win. Ill leave.
/unsub
|
|
Michwich
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 21:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: wickedpheonix So let's get this clear:
1) 150m in cargo 2) tiny little T1 bestower 3) AFK autopiloting 4) To Jita, where all the gankers are going to be waiting for your autopilot to finish and for your ship to just sit in space for a half hour while you get back to your keyboard.
In the meantime, your ganker has a BS fitted out with guns/missiles that can easily do probably around 3,000 damage in one volley (thinking missiles here), which means your little bestower is cooked. Especially if the guns can be tanked for any decent amount of time.
Oh yeah and he has insurance to get back most of what he lost. And you say this isn't profitable for him?! And it doesn't even HAVE to be profitable - this is EVE. It's enough to grab a Scorpion + full fit of t2 smartbombs + field full of Hulks and let yourself loose.
QQ some more n00b and contract me your stuff before you quit, ok?
Ok, bend over and I will contanct you with my stuff. Wait... I still got 29 days left on this cancelled sub. Youre going to have to wait.
|
|
|
|