Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:01:00 -
[151] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:
If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.
But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....
CCP will change the numbers i`m sure but if somebody gets 10 bil into anything, it should be worth ganking.
If we take the Rhea for example, under you idea it would need to be carrying a cargo of 21 billion minimum before it became gank worthy. You honestly don't see how game breakingly bad this is? You are literally whining about ganking being risk free and then in the very same post you demand haulers get risk free hauling...
CCP will tweak the numbers.... it would be bad and they can see it as well as you can.
But for a Marauder i think they should be allowed to fit 1b worth of modules and not be profitable to gank it.
For a freighter maybe be able to carry 1.5b worth of loot before profit is in for the gankers and so on.
I also think nobody should be able to Suicide gank a Mining Ship using T2 modules and lose less than the hull value of the mining ship.
Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one. |
baltec1
Bat Country
8407
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:05:00 -
[152] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote: Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.
The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:16:00 -
[153] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Freedom Equality wrote: Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.
The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself.
That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)
They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine. |
baltec1
Bat Country
8408
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:20:00 -
[154] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:baltec1 wrote:Freedom Equality wrote: Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.
The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself. That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target) They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine.
You would rather see the destruction of one of the cornerstones of EVE rather than fit a tank and carry less stuff in one go. Why would CCP change anything when you refuse to use the tools available to protect yourself?
This is why we mock high sec bears, you are utterly useless at this game and forever demand CCP hold your hand and do all the work for you. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
3598
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:25:00 -
[155] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.
But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull.... Why should it matter what ship a person is in? A ship is a ship. An expensive hull is is usually better a specific task (reward) but can fall prey to much less expensive ships outside of this task (risk).
A 30 million ISK Stealth Bomber can easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate. A 100 million ISK Attack Battlecruiser can also easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate. A 200+ million ISK battleship can die to a small swarm of 1 million ISK frigates. A 2.2 billion ISK dreadnought can be locked by a 1 million ISK frigate and not be able to defend itself. A 60 billion ISK Titan can be locked down by a 200 million ISK HIC and not be able to defend itself.
As you can clearly see... hull and module value not having [too much] relevance towards effectiveness is a major theme in EVE.
And without referring to real life (which has no weight in a game)... why should suicide ganking not be be profitable (or very profitable? Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment? No one in this game has ANY right to say that what they do should be given more or less protections against others. It's all about what is good for the game as a whole (and unfortunately for you, more ships blowing up is good for the game as it drives demand on the market). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:29:00 -
[156] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:baltec1 wrote:Freedom Equality wrote: Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.
The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself. That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target) They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine. You would rather see the destruction of one of the cornerstones of EVE rather than fit a tank and carry less stuff in one go. Why would CCP change anything when you refuse to use the tools available to protect yourself? This is why we mock high sec bears, you are utterly useless at this game and forever demand CCP hold your hand and do all the work for you.
Freighters can`t fit any tank.
As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)
|
baltec1
Bat Country
8408
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:32:00 -
[157] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:
Freighters can`t fit any tank.
Dont stuff billions into it, use a booster, fit implants, have a fleet escort you.
Freedom Equality wrote:As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)
My battleships survive getting hit from several hundred other battleships all the time. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
3598
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:33:00 -
[158] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Freighters can`t fit any tank. Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances.
You can also using the best tank of all: not being there in the first place. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds. I use this method on 4+ billion ISK freighter hauls every week and I have yet to lose the ship.
Freedom Equality wrote:As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho) The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month? Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:36:00 -
[159] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:Freighters can`t fit any tank. Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances. You can also using the best tank of all: not being there. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds. Freedom Equality wrote:As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho) The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month?
So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-)
How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them. |
baltec1
Bat Country
8408
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:39:00 -
[160] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:
So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-)
How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them.
Most BS are not gank worthy. The only ones that ever get ganked are the ones who use very expensive mods they do not need. |
|
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 02:55:00 -
[161] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:Freighters can`t fit any tank. Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances. You can also using the best tank of all: not being there. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds. Freedom Equality wrote:As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho) The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month? So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-) How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them. That's what he's saying.
Most ships are not profitable to gank, so they don't get ganked.
Suicide gankers are a very small niche of the community. It's just their victims scream particularly loudly. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15651
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 05:53:00 -
[162] - Quote
Still waiting for those figures, to show how sucide ganks are not as rare as we think. Showing there is indeed a problem.
Take your time OP, we'll wait.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 06:36:00 -
[163] - Quote
QQ carebear tears. If you don't want to be ganked in your mining ship, fit a tank, but you wouldn't since you are greedy. Don't afk, be aligned with 0 velocity. Litearlly no excuse to lose one. For freighters... most dont gank freighters unless you are dumb and have 3+ bill in your freighter or you go through the known ganking systems AND you jump without ANY scout. I think it should be easier to gank you bads rather than harder. I can only go into high sec on one of my accounts and that is my JF pilot, I am ALWAYS paying attention every second I am in high sec on that char. High sec is far more dangerous than low or null in a JF. If you afk your freighter then you deserve to lose it imo. Additionally, only retards who have no clue how to fit a ship correctly and ridiculously pimp fit their PvE ships ever are the targets of suicide ganks.
TLDR: QQing Freighter pilots mad they die when they auto pilot, miners mad they die when they don't fit a tank, mission runners mad when they fit a battleship stupidly expensive and look like a free loot pinata. L2 Eve, harden the **** up. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15651
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 08:39:00 -
[164] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote: be aligned with 0 velocity. Just wanted to point out that at 0 velocity, it makes no difference where your ship is aligned to. You would get into warp at the same time, even if you faced the opposite way.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 13:09:00 -
[165] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Still waiting for those figures, to show how sucide ganks are not as rare as we think. Showing there is indeed a problem.
Take your time OP, we'll wait.
You don`t know how this works... it doesn`t matter how often or rare it is, it exists and it should be corrected.
Real life murder is rare, for example the US murder rate is 4.7 per 100.000 people. Using your logic it is so rare nobody should even care as it is quite rare.... it does not work like that. It never did.
|
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
325
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 14:14:00 -
[166] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote: it exists and it should be corrected.
Nice argument... should probably note it and use it for every occasion. OP, do you exist? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 15:26:00 -
[167] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Mag's wrote:Still waiting for those figures, to show how sucide ganks are not as rare as we think. Showing there is indeed a problem.
Take your time OP, we'll wait. You don`t know how this works... it doesn`t matter how often or rare it is, it exists and it should be corrected. *Snip* Please refrain from real life analogies on murder and suicide. EvE is a game, not real life. ISD Ezwal So the problem now isn't that it's too prominent, the very fact that suicide ganking happens AT ALL is bad.
|
Kenpo
61st Angry Angels
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 15:49:00 -
[168] - Quote
Griefing is griefing, doesn't matter how you paint it. Caution, rubber gloves and faceshield required when handling this equipment. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 15:53:00 -
[169] - Quote
Offtopic: Dear ISD you have censored a Wikipedia fact. Do you not believe in the Freedom of Information?
Ontopic: I will try to answer this without any facts so i don`t get censored again. Many things that are considered bad by society are rare if you measure them by how much of the population they touch percentage wise.
However, we have determined a long time ago that it is worth stopping the said things even if they only touch 1% of the population or less. That is something society agrees is the smart way of doing it.
So when you say "it should not be stopped because it does not yet touch 30% of the total population" i say to you: Humanity has decided you are wrong a long time ago. |
Puikko
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 15:55:00 -
[170] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:While I don't have any particular suggestions one way or the other, I do want to say that it's always struck me as odd that after all the training for a freighter and all the expense of buying one you can't actually carry anything significant in it unless you have a multple scouts, some webbers, 8-10 logi and a little bit of divine intervention.
Freighters being nothing more than 1b-ISK dump trucks seems somehow... wrong. Oh well, that's just EVE I suppose. They're not "1b-ISK dump trucks", they're bulk haulers. Their purpose is to haul massive quantities of stuff, not massively valuable cargo.
Filling them to the brim with something with a relatively low value:volume ratio, such as raw materials, is their intended use, what they're designed for. Filling them to the brim with something valuable is not.
There are specialized haulers in the game designed for transporting valuable stuff, and there are specialized haulers in the game designed to have (comparably) good defenses. |
|
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 15:55:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kenpo wrote:Griefing is griefing, doesn't matter how you paint it. It's only griefing if it's not done for profit.
Granted the whole "is it griefing" argument is pointless because suiciding freighters in highsec is not against the rules. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
576
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 16:02:00 -
[172] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Offtopic: Dear ISD you have censored a Wikipedia fact. Do you not believe in the Freedom of Information?
Ontopic: I will try to answer this without any facts so i don`t get censored again. Many things that are considered bad by society are rare if you measure them by how much of the population they touch percentage wise.
However, we have determined a long time ago that it is worth stopping the said things even if they only touch 1% of the population or less. That is something society agrees is the smart way of doing it.
So when you say "it should not be stopped because it does not yet touch 30% of the total population" i say to you: Humanity has decided you are wrong a long time ago. Stop bringing RL topics (especially ones involving murder and suicide) into a video game discussion. They are not the same thing, they cannot be compared at all.
Blowing up someones internet space ship deprives them of nothing that affects their quality of life outside the game. |
Puikko
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 16:04:00 -
[173] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:However, we have determined a long time ago that it is worth stopping the said things even if they only touch 1% of the population or less. That is something society agrees is the smart way of doing it.
So when you say "it should not be stopped because it does not yet touch 30% of the total population" i say to you: Humanity has decided you are wrong a long time ago. It's a game about immortal starship captains. What real life society agrees on has very little to do with it.
|
Kenpo
61st Angry Angels
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 16:25:00 -
[174] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Kenpo wrote:Griefing is griefing, doesn't matter how you paint it. It's only griefing if it's not done for profit. Granted the whole "is it griefing" argument is pointless because suiciding freighters in highsec is not against the rules.
Doesn't matter how you paint it. Caution, rubber gloves and faceshield required when handling this equipment. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
372
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 16:31:00 -
[175] - Quote
Kenpo wrote:Doesn't matter how you paint it.
Since griefing is against the EULA/TOS, I recommend to petition every time you get scammed or ganked. It's the only way to get these evil people to stop so we can finally mine in peace.
I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC. -- TheGunslinger42 "**** goons, they only kill stuff that can't shoot back, they aren't killing us fast enough, they missed my ****** Ibis so they failed, CCP ban goons they shot my ship." -- Distracted |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:18:00 -
[176] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:Ontopic: I will try to answer this without any facts so i don`t get censored again. Many things that are considered bad by society are rare if you measure them by how much of the population they touch percentage wise.
However, we have determined a long time ago that it is worth stopping the said things even if they only touch 1% of the population or less. That is something society agrees is the smart way of doing it.
So when you say "it should not be stopped because it does not yet touch 30% of the total population" i say to you: Humanity has decided you are wrong a long time ago. By this standard we should do the following to EVE...
- break up corporate monopolies in EVE... because they stomp all over the competition and prevent new businesses from growing. - stop people from manipulating the market (because it causes unjustified "economic hardship" for those affected). - stop price gouging and fixing. - stop all high-sec wars. - have the NPC empires go out into null-sec and wipe out the players who live there (because they are warlords who potentially threaten the security of empire space). - have the NPCs or GMs severely punish all players who steal from corps and alliances. - ban anyone with <= -5.0 security status to access or use anything in empire space (high-sec or low-sec). - outlaw the sale and use of all weapons in empire space outside of special "shooting zones" and self-defense.
These things are good in RL because they [mostly] prevent potential negative effects on the lives of many, many people. However... this is a game where there are no "true" negative effects**. You character never dies. You can never be "removed" from the game (unless you violate the EULA and TOS). The only thing you can lose here is time and effort... which, in a grander sense, you are losing anyways because you are playing a game and not something actually productive in the real world.
** when I say "'true' negative effects" I am referencing to things that would affect a person's quality of life and/or physical health. The only things that can ever be hurt in a game, especially an online game, is pride and personal sense of ethics. Moreover... - If your pride is getting hurt over a game then it is time for you to step away from the computer and do something to "center" yourself. It's a game. The objective is to be better compared to others... not have the game make you better. - if your personal sense of ethics and justice are being offended by activities in a game then step away from the computer and do a reality check. Games often do "what if" scenarios where commonly held ethics are scrapped or twisted to create a story or setting for you to exist in. It is not RL. It never will be RL. Get over it. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:30:00 -
[177] - Quote
How about raising the bar on profitable Suicide Ganks by the hull value of the ship ganked, not by the low cost of disposable ships?
That would actually make ships like freighters usable as they are intended.
It would keep suicide ganking a viable option. Just not a get rich option. |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
373
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:How about raising the bar on profitable Suicide Ganks by the hull value of the ship ganked, not by the low cost of disposable ships?
That would actually make ships like freighters usable as they are intended.
It would keep suicide ganking a viable option. Just not a get rich option.
Why is this change needed? Among all high-sec professions, suicide gankers already have the highest risk associated with theirs. I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC. -- TheGunslinger42 "**** goons, they only kill stuff that can't shoot back, they aren't killing us fast enough, they missed my ****** Ibis so they failed, CCP ban goons they shot my ship." -- Distracted |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:41:00 -
[179] - Quote
Freedom Equality wrote:How about raising the bar on profitable Suicide Ganks by the hull value of the ship ganked, not by the low cost of disposable ships? Why?
Freedom Equality wrote:That would actually make ships like freighters usable as they are intended. They are specialized bulk transport ships (note that I said "bulk"... not "value" there). They are being used as intended every single day.
Freedom Equality wrote:It would keep suicide ganking a viable option. Just not a get rich option. Refer to my question one page back.
ShahFluffers wrote:And without referring to real life (which has no weight in a game)... why should suicide ganking not be be profitable (or very profitable)? Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment? The latter question is especially important. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Freedom Equality
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 17:53:00 -
[180] - Quote
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:Freedom Equality wrote:How about raising the bar on profitable Suicide Ganks by the hull value of the ship ganked, not by the low cost of disposable ships?
That would actually make ships like freighters usable as they are intended.
It would keep suicide ganking a viable option. Just not a get rich option. Why is this change needed? Among all high-sec professions, suicide gankers already have the highest risk associated with theirs.
A suicide ganker can pick its target. It stands to lose 15mil if the gank fails.
A freighter loses at least 1 bil for the hull + the cargo.
How can you say there is more risk for the Suicide Ganker? Most ganks are a success.
The Suicide Ganker can decide when and who to attack, has time to figure out if it is worth attacking and can calculate the damage needed. And, in the unlikely event a gank fails, the Suicide Gankers pays 15mil.
The freighter pilot pays 1bil-1.5bil for the hull + the cargo value.
In truth, suicide gankers make profit from day one and they never risk losing more than than they won via Suicide Ganking.
The other professions always risk to lose a lot more, not matter how carefully they plan.
A mechanic needs to be introduced so on occasion, no matter how well a Suicide Gank team is, over a one month period they end up losing ISK. Then we can say they take as much ISK as any other profession.
A random mechanic would be preferred. I am sure CCP can think of something. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |