Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goddess Ishtar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:01:00 -
[61] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:How about if I'm seeing -10s entering high sec and using alts to supply them with ships at SS to suicide (ie circumventing these 'consequences')? Oh right. that's super intelligent game-play. Nevermind. Do their ships end up getting blown up by concord or faction police? If yes then they didn't circumvent the consequences. If no then you should petition it as an exploit.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:02:00 -
[62] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nobody said -10s cant get you still, its just not as easy.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:06:00 -
[63] - Quote
Goddess Ishtar wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:How about if I'm seeing -10s entering high sec and using alts to supply them with ships at SS to suicide (ie circumventing these 'consequences')? Oh right. that's super intelligent game-play. Nevermind. Do their ships end up getting blown up by concord or faction police? If yes then they didn't circumvent the consequences. If no then you should petition it as an exploit.
And round and round we go. It must be devastating for the suicide ganker to lose his expensive mods. Quite the cold harsh universe for him. |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:07:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mother of GOD! Like with most other whines, all the tools are ingame already.
Put tank on that hauler/hulk. Don't autopilot your hulk with plexes in cargo. Don't autopilot. Don't be a colossal moron and fill you crap little ship with 100s on millions worth of stuff.
And even if you do, you can still not get ganked. People have been transporting billions worth of **** in their transports for years and never been ganked, because they don't act brain dead like most of the whiners here.
Seriously, who really dies to suicide ganks? Pretty much the stupid/lazy/self entitled clueless tools. Occasionally someone that isn't in that category but guess what, those ganks are planned and carefully coordinated (oh noes effort). People who take the effort to not be soft easy targets, will rarely be one.
So what you're really saying (all the tear providers), it's logical and honorable and fair play to continue being a dumbass and a lazy **** therefore some arbitrary mechanic should be put in place to balance out you tardness?
You think insurance removal will stop ganks? Hint: no it won't. A shield extender and some hardeners on you vessel will.
Now stop being stupid. |
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:10:00 -
[65] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:And round and round we go. It must be devastating for the suicide ganker to lose his expensive mods. Quite the cold harsh universe for him. I agree. Nerf concord.
|
baltec1
146
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:18:00 -
[66] - Quote
Even ponies enjoy a good gank |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
858
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:22:00 -
[67] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Uninformed nonsense? Care in addressing his points instead of spouting your usual high horse drivel, Tippia? GÇ£Gankers have no consequencesGÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Ganking has plenty of consequences. It's just that the gankers are willing to deal with them and that the gankees are giving the gankers a free pass.
GÇ£Being destroyed yet refunded for your losses is not a consequence of any meaning.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Losses are not refunded, and do indeed have some meaning. This is amply and trivially proven by the rarity of ganks.
GÇ£that people can do this just goes to show that EVE is a game of consequences, but only if you're a miner.GÇ¥ GÇö uniformed drivel. Everything has consequences, and miners are most likely facing the least amount of them due to the simplicity of what they're doing.
GÇ£Why do threads like this get so big? Because half the people posting are gankers who don't want their insurance payout taken away.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. The threads get this big because the self-proclaimed victims are utterly and completely unable to explain what's wrong and why things should change, and instead go on entitlement-fuelled rants about how legitimate gameplay should be removed for undisclosed reasons.
GÇ£They will die, they know this, they also know that insurance will pay the bill.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Insurance does not pay the bill (unless you have some particularly clueless miner/industrialist providing you with the tools).
Quote:How about if I'm seeing -10s entering high sec Yes? How about you just shoot them, and then their alts can sit there with a ton of ships that they bought for nothing since they never get any chance to use them. You know: consequences?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:And round and round we go. It must be devastating for the suicide ganker to lose his expensive mods. Quite the cold harsh universe for him. I agree. Nerf concord.
Indeed. We wouldn't want to make the universe a cold harsh environment for ya.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
860
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 23:46:00 -
[69] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Indeed. We wouldn't want to make the universe a cold harsh environment for ya. You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:20:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Uninformed nonsense? Care in addressing his points instead of spouting your usual high horse drivel, Tippia? GÇ£Gankers have no consequencesGÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Ganking has plenty of consequences. It's just that the gankers are willing to deal with them (unlike the gankees) and that the gankees choose to give the gankers a free pass.
Would you care in elaborating what these serious consequences are so we can discuss them in detail? How do the losses and consequences the suicide ganker incurs stack up to the losses of the miner?
Quote:GÇ£Being destroyed yet refunded for your losses is not a consequence of any meaning.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Losses are not refunded, and do indeed have some meaning. This is amply and trivially proven by the rarity of ganks.
Funny that. I thought insurance did exactly that. And I'm sure their losses have some meaning. The question is how much of a meaning do they have? How 'cold' and 'harsh' are these consequences you speak of? You and I both know there is little to no skill involved in suicide ganking. And most importantly, Tippia, you know very well that these consequences are bullshit. All you need is the will to ruin someone else's gameplay and in this game that doesn't seem to be in low supply.
Quote:GÇ£that people can do this just goes to show that EVE is a game of consequences, but only if you're a miner.GÇ¥ GÇö uniformed drivel. Everything has consequences, and miners are most likely facing the least amount of them due to the simplicity of what they're doing.
I don't disagree with you that everything has consequence. But that's not what is in discussion here. Rather, the OP is quantifying these consequences and stacking them versus what the consequences to the miner are. How much is a miner losing versus the suicide ganker? Hi sec suicide gankers could run about all day long, day after day, suicide ganking. Would a single miner be able to sustain these many losses due to his consequences?
Quote:GÇ£Why do threads like this get so big? Because half the people posting are gankers who don't want their insurance payout taken away.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. The threads get this big because the self-proclaimed victims are utterly and completely unable to explain what's wrong and why things should change, and instead go on entitlement-fuelled rants about how legitimate gameplay should be removed for undisclosed reasons.
Oh but it is being explained. And you can deny it all you want. The fact is that these consequences you put on a pedestal as significant to the ganker really aren't. To be honest, I really don't care if CCP fixes them or not, because unlike crybaby Schadefreude-ridden gankers who threaten to rage-quit every time CCP even considers adding risk to their tear-causing profession, I move on. But it STILL doesnt change the fact that a suicide gank loss is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than a miner's loss. |
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:20:00 -
[71] - Quote
Quote:GÇ£They will die, they know this, they also know that insurance will pay the bill.GÇ¥ GÇö uninformed drivel. Insurance does not pay the bill (unless you have some particularly clueless miner/industrialist providing you with the tools).
You can can call this 'uninformed drivel' all you want. But the bottom line is insurance DOES compensate for most of the suicide ganker's losses.
Quote:How about if I'm seeing -10s entering high sec Yes? How about you just shoot them, and then their alts can sit there with a ton of ships that they bought for nothing since they never get any chance to use them. You know: consequences?[/quote]
Yes. Counter suicide ganking with.... Suicide ganking. /sarcasm
And please do remember that just because there are plenty of idiots that orgasm from other people's misfortunes doesn't mean we all play for tears. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Indeed. We wouldn't want to make the universe a cold harsh environment for ya. You do understand that nerfing CONCORD would making the universe very cold and harsh for the gankers, right?
You do understand why CONCORD was buffed in hi sec, right? If not, ask any ex-M0o to spell it for ya. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1136
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:33:00 -
[73] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Yes. Counter suicide ganking with.... Suicide ganking. /sarcasm
And please do remember that just because there are plenty of idiots that orgasm from other people's misfortunes doesn't mean we all play for tears.
right, someone has to produce them, and that someone is you |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1136
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:34:00 -
[74] - Quote
Roadkill Rhino wrote:The Mittani wrote:Rhes wrote:If CCP does something stupid like removing insurance for concorded ships Comrade Mittens will just up the alliance reimbursement for our losses. I actually kind of want to remove insurance now, simply because the whining miners can only think of the world in mercantilist terms; they're trying to put an isk-value on suffering. When I drop a completely uninsured Brutix on a Hulk after a ~massive ganking nerf~ like removing insurance, they will cry twice as much, as they will be unable to even conceive of how such an event took place. Brutix can't kill every hulk, only the untanked ones. Good luck fitting one who fits a proper buffer tank. You'd need to bring a couple of battleship and without insurance suddenly that seems a lot less of a good idea.
i routinely forget to insure my battleships
somehow, it hasn't stopped me |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1136
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
also the best-fit hulk can be taken down by three brutixes easily |
Sassums
Wormhole Exploration Crew Transmission Lost
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:37:00 -
[76] - Quote
I am all for Suicide gankers receiving no insurance for pirate actions.
If they are flagged as a criminal they should not receive the benefits of being a law abiding citizen.
I feel that Concord should also be able to pod the pirates |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
860
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:39:00 -
[77] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Would you care in elaborating what these serious consequences are so we can discuss them in detail? Loss of assets, loss of standings, loss of time, kill rights.
Quote:How do the losses and consequences the suicide ganker incurs stack up to the losses of the miner? The ganker is worse off, largely because of the time investment (if done for profit) or because of the constant negative cash flow (if done for fun). The miner loses a shipGǪ how often? How much does he earn in the meantime? In particular, if he keeps losing ships faster than he can earn them back, then maybe he should revise his investment strategy.
Quote:Funny that. I thought insurance did exactly that. They refund part of the ship cost. There's still loss.
Quote:Hi sec suicide gankers could run about all day long, day after day, suicide ganking. Would a single miner be able to sustain these many losses due to his consequences? Irrelevant. The question is does a single miner sustain that many losses? Again, the question is: how often does he lose his ship and how much does he earn? What is his cost of doing business. Yes, the ganker loses more ships, but he also earns lessGǪ in fact, if he runs about all day long, day after day, then chances are that he's not earning anything at all, which means the miner definitely comes out ahead.
Quote:Oh but it is being explained. No. The explanation is simple and we all know it, but no-one wants to say it because doing so would expose their unfounded sense of entitlement.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
860
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:39:00 -
[78] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:But it STILL doesnt change the fact that a suicide gank loss is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than a miner's loss. And the fact remains that this is completely irrelevant. How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven. Moreover, it just reinforces the lesson that the miners refuse to learn: they can mitigate their risk, and if they choose not to, then it's their problem GÇö not an issue with the mechanics surrounding ganking. Their bad decisions do not make the game unbalanced.
Quote:You can can call this 'uninformed drivel' all you want. But the bottom line is insurance DOES compensate for most of the suicide ganker's losses. GǪwhich makes it uninformed drivel since the insurance does indeed not pay the bill.
Quote:Yes. Counter suicide ganking with.... Suicide ganking. No. Learn the mechanics before complaining about them. Shooting them is not suicide ganking.
Quote:You do understand why CONCORD was buffed in hi sec, right? Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
860
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
Sassums wrote:If they are flagged as a criminal they should not receive the benefits of being a law abiding citizen. Why?
Quote:I feel that Concord should also be able to pod the pirates Why?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Loss of assets, loss of standings, loss of time, kill rights. "Loss of assets" Insurance.
"Loss of standings" Yes. I'm sure a suicide ganker is devastated over going from a -10 to a... -10.
"Loss of time" Except that to ill-adjusted kiddies whose purpose is to ruin people's play time that's exactly the reason why they invest their time on Eve.
"Kill rights" This is the only reasonable consequence to a suicide ganker. I'll give you that. But it still does not address the disparity in quantifiable losses between ganker and gankee.
Quote:The ganker is worse off This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this.
Quote:They refund part of the ship cost. There's still loss. And again, you're arguing semantics. I'm sure that technically there is still a financial loss however minute (LOL). Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?
Quote:Irrelevant. The question is does a single miner sustain that many losses? Again, the question is: how often does he lose his ship and how much does he earn? What is his cost of doing business. Yes, the ganker loses more ships, but he also earns lessGǪ in fact, if he runs about all day long, day after day, then chances are that he's not earning anything at all, which means the miner definitely comes out ahead. It is not irrelevant. Have you ever mined in high sec? Do you even realize how much a hulk loss would set you off EVEN WITH INSURANCE? Now think about the losses a suicide ganker incurs, and as we did with the miner, consider insurance payout. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1139
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:10:00 -
[81] - Quote
basically, you're bitter we can deal with the consequences, while you can't
maybe you shouldn't be so poor you're scratching isk from asteroids |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
401
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:12:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sassums wrote:I am all for Suicide gankers receiving no insurance for pirate actions.
If they are flagged as a criminal they should not receive the benefits of being a law abiding citizen.
I feel that Concord should also be able to pod the pirates
you're retarded m8 |
Tanya Fox
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).
That's like saying conform to my playstyle or get out.
People choose to be victims, what bs. Spoken like a true pvper who has little regard for PvE players. Expected more from you Tippia.
Now I'm not intending to be a carebear, but I would not try to force PvP on people that did not wish to participate in PvP. And yes I know the but this is a PvP game but the fact is this community is made up of PvP, PvE and a mix of both players. Because of this you have to find some middle ground acceptable to both extremes of the group. If it's acceptable to them then it'll be acceptable to everyone.
|
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
333
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:30:00 -
[84] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses? I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's?
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:59:00 -
[85] - Quote
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses? I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's? But I do not think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk
What I would like to see is real risk for the suicide ganker, just as there is real risk for the miner. Currently the 'consequences' a suicide ganker faces can either be completely circumnvented or mitigated. Like I said before, any PVPer worth his salt would admit to that. This isn't some secret.
'Cold and harsh universe' should also have to apply to the bad guys, not just the good. |
Vio Geraci
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 02:40:00 -
[86] - Quote
I have a deep unwillingness to place myself in direct competition with other players. Is mining a good activity for me? |
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
337
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 03:09:00 -
[87] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Skunk Gracklaw wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses? I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's? But I do not think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk What I would like to see is real risk for the suicide ganker, just as there is real risk for the miner. Currently the 'consequences' a suicide ganker faces can either be completely circumnvented or mitigated. Like I said before, any PVPer worth his salt would admit to that. This isn't some secret. 'Cold and harsh universe' should also have to apply to the bad guys, not just the good. But, as has been pointed out to you by several people, the ganker is suffering consequences. Circumventing them would be cheating. Just because you don't think he is suffering enough is irrelevant. |
David Cedarbridge
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 03:18:00 -
[88] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Loss of assets, loss of standings, loss of time, kill rights. "Loss of assets" Insurance. "Loss of standings" Yes. I'm sure a suicide ganker is devastated over going from a -10 to a... -10. "Loss of time" Except that to ill-adjusted kiddies whose purpose is to ruin people's play time that's exactly the reason why they invest their time on Eve. "Kill rights" This is the only reasonable consequence to a suicide ganker. I'll give you that. But it still does not address the disparity in quantifiable losses between ganker and gankee. Quote:The ganker is worse off This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this. Quote:They refund part of the ship cost. There's still loss. And again, you're arguing semantics. I'm sure that technically there is still a financial loss however minute (LOL). Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses? Quote:Irrelevant. The question is does a single miner sustain that many losses? Again, the question is: how often does he lose his ship and how much does he earn? What is his cost of doing business. Yes, the ganker loses more ships, but he also earns lessGǪ in fact, if he runs about all day long, day after day, then chances are that he's not earning anything at all, which means the miner definitely comes out ahead. It is not irrelevant. Have you ever mined in high sec? Do you even realize how much a hulk loss would set you back EVEN WITH INSURANCE? Now think about the losses a suicide ganker incurs, and as we did with the miner, consider insurance payout.
|
David Cedarbridge
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 03:20:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tanya Fox wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto youGǪ even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to GÇö the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice). That's like saying conform to my playstyle or get out. People choose to be victims, what bs. Spoken like a true pvper who has little regard for PvE players. Expected more from you Tippia. Now I'm not intending to be a carebear, but I would not try to force PvP on people that did not wish to participate in PvP. And yes I know the but this is a PvP game but the fact is this community is made up of PvP, PvE and a mix of both players. Because of this you have to find some middle ground acceptable to both extremes of the group. If it's acceptable to them then it'll be acceptable to everyone. You are clearly playing the wrong game. Nobody is "forcing" pvp on anyone. By nature the game brings pvp to the player from the start. The moment you sign into the game you are participating in pvp. There is no such thing as "pve only" in EVE. Eventually people will realize this. |
Kengutsi Akira
89
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 03:22:00 -
[90] - Quote
Rocky Deadshot wrote:so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM
Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win.
When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want. Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM
We should really stop calling it FiS
Dammit there is no FiS its Called EVE. Especially now that WiS is "back burnere"ed |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |