Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:51:00 -
[751] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Murk Paradox wrote: You mean it was an eye dee ten tee error?
=)
The 4 unique letters were used to refer to a 5 letter word where 1 of the letters is used twice. Learn to Sesame Street
Fair enough =( "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:54:00 -
[752] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:S Byerley wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Also, have you not seen that big thread about bumping? I'm sure it's been linked numerous times. The gist of that thread pretty much does indicate that bumping, if it's for some legitimate purpose, is valid.
You can make the font bigger if you have a hard time reading the screen Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving. Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance). Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away". But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all. (By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up). Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment. For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else. Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment. Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed. It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics. Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment. This is very well put.
How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:56:00 -
[753] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Callyuk wrote:S Byerley wrote:This is very well put.
.Extremely Well Put It's well written, but it is also incorrect. The same model can't be used for freighter bumping since it's only a single event, whereas the harassment-worthy mining bumping example is multiple events over a multiple locations and at multiple times. If, when the freighter pilot undocks after having bought a brand new freighter, he immediately gets bumped off the the station grid and (possibly, but not necssarily) ganked again without any gain in it, then maybe it starts to approach the initial stages of harassment.Post
In my defense you can claim, and be right, that you were harassed by a bumper (as a miner) in one day. You just have to prove he followed you over multiple systems. I do not think a matter of time (be it hours or days or weeks) need to be a requirement for proof.
Again, bumping freighters and bumping mining barges are entirely different and not comparable since the intent is different.
(Hell, mining barges can field drones as a defense). "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7215
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:58:00 -
[754] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote: Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.
Its exactly the same thing, the only difference is the size of the object we are ramming into. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:04:00 -
[755] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
Your turn.
That doesn't make it exempt to the rules on everything else.
It invalidates the fact when someone says the freighter was just like every other ship in the game that the timer affects, and also helps create credibility as to why it is indeed special (which is what the argument was; that the freighter is not special in any way, to which I'm arguing).
This, when used to say that the timers were put in place because of freighters, and you are unconsciously arguing that point when you say freighter ganks are at an all time low.
If ganks were at all time low, and freighters are moving loads by the hundreds, and the timer was put in place because of freighters avoiding combat...
Well, someone between you and Tippia are wrong. You guys figure out which is which. The timers aren't THAT new. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:13:00 -
[756] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:CCP's opinion?
Citation please.
The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers. Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008GǪ Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matterGǪ in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS). And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign GÇö longer campaigns being the big no-no.
2008... contrary to changes that are in place because of those outdated mechanics you mean?
Quote:GÇ£All ships are the sameGÇ¥ is not the opposite of GÇ£freighters are specialGÇ¥. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.
Wait wait wait. Now you're stretching nonsensicals. First, you told me that freighters are NOT special, that they ARE "just like every other ship in game" so you just contradicted yourself. Second, you said (I think it was you) said freighters were more like a capital ship than anything else (argued that capitals cannot enter highsec even though they are allowed to remain if grandfathered in at creation date). Now you're comparing freighters to shuttles and pods. Interesting. A ship with the largest cargo bay compared to the only 2 ships, of one is not a ship btw(pod), that have the smallest cargo hold. In the game.
Quote:GǪbut we're not talking about weapons timers GÇö we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.
Special. Yes. Not "like every other ship in the game". This has been my point for quite some time. Of which you have argued with me. Thank you for finaly agreeing with me. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Balius and Xanthus Traditional Gunsmiths
9654
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:13:00 -
[757] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Multiple posts containing the exact same quote with no added content
Now try adding some content instead of endlessly repeating the same post, I've seen threads get locked for a repeated question asked in posts from people who actually add content to a thread.
Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit? |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:16:00 -
[758] - Quote
Tippia wrote:And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.
Well, wait another second.
baltec1 said freighter ganking is at an all time low, and you are saying that freighters are responsible for the new mechanics.
One of you are full of it. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:17:00 -
[759] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space? Sure. That is probably intentional. They are extremely well served by having a small support fleet, for instance GÇö this is a fairly common attribute among capital ships. Then again, almost everything in space is well-served by having a fleet to support it, so that doesn't say much. It's almost as if there's some kind of implicit push towards grouping up built into the gameGǪ
Almost like orcas and carriers and such right? "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:18:00 -
[760] - Quote
1. I think bumping needs to have some consequences attached but because ships bump into each other all the time finding some reasonable way to do this eludes me, the only thing i can think of that would really solve the problem eliminates bumping altogether and reduces 'immersion' and that is to make all ships pass through one another rather than collide.
2. This doesn't help your situation but the devs have made it clear they are looking into the situation of freighters being a bit to easy to kill in their current form and as always deliver on that promise is coming "soon". |
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:19:00 -
[761] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?
(separate argument concerning ships and equality).
Given the hundreds of thousands of trips these ships make every month (perhaps millions) the very fact that only several dozen are killed in all of EVE a month says that they are very much equipped for the dangers out there. Freighter ganking is very rare.
Well, they were common enough to have a mechanic put in place just because of their ability to avoid ganking. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:20:00 -
[762] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". baltec1 himself said ganks were at an all time low. SO I find a lack of credibility in your statement.
Actually Freighter ganks are at a high, we have turned it into a true industry. Its miner ganking that is at an all time low.
Miner ganking has nothing to do with logoff timers.
The barge revamp however, was. Although it can be argued that the isk per loss is quite considerably higher than it used to be.
Coincidence? "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:24:00 -
[763] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Lack of slots, lack of drone bay, no way to aggress, ganks are at an all time low. This has been covered already. Freighters are very unique and "special". Lack of slots is shared with other ships. Lack of drone bay shared with tons of different ships (many of them even have explicit attack roles). An inability to aggress is shared with other ships. None of it makes freighters unique or special.
And what ONE ship has no aggressing module and no drone bay? And don't bother saying shuttles and pods for the love of god. That's way too obtuse.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:26:00 -
[764] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:We are talking about an instance in highsec and highsec mechanics were used. It is relevant. GǪexcept that there are no GÇ£highsec mechanicsGÇ¥ GÇö there are only the CrimeWatch timers, which are the same all over the place, and bumping, which is the same all over the place. So it being in highsec is not relevant. Quote:It is in highsec. Which shows the difference of this situation compared to anywhere else. GǪexcept that being in highsec is not relevant since we're talking about the PvP timer, which is the same all over the place. CONCORD is not related to the timer. The situation is no different from any other part of space: if you're attacked, you incur a 15-minute PvP timer GÇö be it in highsec or lowsec or nullsec.
Seriously, are you just trying to be dense as a kneejerk reaction to being wrong?
The situation used both mechanics, at the same time. Don't ignore facts.
"Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:27:00 -
[765] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote: Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.
Its exactly the same thing, the only difference is the size of the object we are ramming into.
So how are you using bumping as a warp disruptor when bumping a miner from mining a rock? "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:47:00 -
[766] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:1. I think bumping needs to have some consequences attached but because ships bump into each other all the time finding some reasonable way to do this eludes me, the only thing i can think of that would really solve the problem eliminates bumping altogether and reduces 'immersion' and that is to make all ships pass through one another rather than collide. 2. This doesn't help your situation but the devs have made it clear they are looking into the situation of freighters being a bit to easy to kill in their current form and as always deliver on that promise is coming "soon".
I dont agree with taking bumping out . Im a pvper ,so i know bumping is an essential part of pvp. However there should be a way to call a GM if youre 1 Your in high sec and not being bumped by a war target 2 getting bumped in a manor like this so he can insta ban hammer the offenders and place the bumped freighter/orca etc in a station. How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:48:00 -
[767] - Quote
There is a way to gank anything in High Sec you want to gank. Its called War Dec How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 20:49:00 -
[768] - Quote
If you used an alpha fleet like the good old days theres nothing to complain about. How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:00:00 -
[769] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:1. I think bumping needs to have some consequences attached but because ships bump into each other all the time finding some reasonable way to do this eludes me, the only thing i can think of that would really solve the problem eliminates bumping altogether and reduces 'immersion' and that is to make all ships pass through one another rather than collide. 2. This doesn't help your situation but the devs have made it clear they are looking into the situation of freighters being a bit to easy to kill in their current form and as always deliver on that promise is coming "soon". I dont agree with taking bumping out . Im a pvper ,so i know bumping is an essential part of pvp. However there should be a way to call a GM if youre 1 Your in high sec and not being bumped by a war target 2 getting bumped in a manor like this so he can insta ban hammer the offenders and place the bumped freighter/orca etc in a station.
It's becoming more and more obvious that you just want to be able to risk free move stuff in highsec. When wardecs aren't so trivial to avoid and you can wardec NPC corps that whole argument may sound like something other than bloo bloo bloo mean gankers killed me pls halp ccp! In the games current state what you are asking for is a PvP flag. That is about as un-Evelike as you can get.
Edit: also the idea that only alpha is acceptable is stupid. Stop begging ccp to make the game easier for you. There are many ways to counter a bump gank. Most of them require effort before the gank starts. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp Goonswarm Federation
868
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:08:00 -
[770] - Quote
I gotta get some locator agents so I can gank this guy every time he undocks. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3587
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:17:00 -
[771] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:If you used an alpha fleet like the good old days theres nothing to complain about.
How is this any different?
Also, I thought you wanted everyone to have to use WarDecs to kill freighters:
Callyuk wrote:There is a way to gank anything in High Sec you want to gank. Its called War Dec
This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:28:00 -
[772] - Quote
Im saying theres a way to kill a freighter with 30 catalysts besides uainsg an exploit How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:31:00 -
[773] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:I gotta get some locator agents so I can gank this guy every time he undocks.
Lmao B**** The only way you will ever gank me is in a defenseless ship
I will fraps u getting PWned if u want ! How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3587
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:42:00 -
[774] - Quote
Callyuk wrote:Im saying theres a way to kill a freighter with 30 catalysts besides uainsg an exploit
Which exploit was being used?
Keeping ships in space by shooting them is a normal, expected, and intentional effect of the aggression timer rules. Ships bumping into each other is a normal, expected, and intentional effect of the physics engine. Ships being unable to warp when not aligned is a normal, expected, and intentional effect of the warp mechanics.
Suicide Ganking is a normal, and expected consequence of the CONCORD mechanics and (per your comment on alpha) is fine with you.
Where's the exploit?
CONCORD arrives when it's meant to, and the Gank fleet is all killed. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:14:00 -
[775] - Quote
You can flame me all you want the video Speaks a million words . How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:26:00 -
[776] - Quote
Yes it says "hey we are using the systems provided to kill people trying to solo in an MMO." You can whine and cry all you want but playing eve solo will always put you at a disadvantage. |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:29:00 -
[777] - Quote
Yea Im crying . LOTS of tears mmmmmmhhmmmmm How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:32:00 -
[778] - Quote
Show of hands who thinks he's crying for ccp to nerf big ebil gankers so he can haul in peace? o/ |
Callyuk
Thundercats The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:32:00 -
[779] - Quote
Game Mechanics 101
All Mechanics have uses that arent intended This is a thread about CCP'S intent Do they agree with you or me Well find out when they rule on the Petition But for now its up for discussion How Goons Gank Freighters with the new flagging system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdq5in9fR-Y https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193&p=25 Theres a gear at the bottom right in every YOUTUBE video use it |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
319
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 23:05:00 -
[780] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
1. I think bumping needs to have some consequences attached but because ships bump into each other all the time finding some reasonable way to do this eludes me, the only thing i can think of that would really solve the problem eliminates bumping altogether and reduces 'immersion' and that is to make all ships pass through one another rather than collide.
This would be bad because bumping a friendly ship could save it if you say bump it out of scram range.
There is a plus and minus to every situation. It is up to CCP to decide if what was happening was good or bad. I have said my piece about how I feel on the bumping mechanics locking down a ship. 1 hour of bumping a ship to hold it from warping is excessive in my eyes. You can't use a gameplay argument in low null and WH space for bumping because there is a ship called a heavy interdictor that is designed for the purpose of holding a capital in place so that it can be killed. Also, if someone was bumping you in those regions they are as open to attack as every other ship. In highsec there is not that option though. It falls under a different set of rules and should be judged as such.
SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |