|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5442
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 20:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually, to the extent that CODE is growing and now targeting more freighters, I think that (1) is pretty obvious. As for (2), refer back to the OP and ganking empty freighters, done purely for tears and to drive people out of the game, which I think most people would consider bad for Eve.
So, what is the rate of Freighter ganking per Freighter trip (or jump if you'd like to use that) and what was the rate in the past?
You're claiming an increase, those are the pieces of evidence you need to provide.
Veers Belvar wrote:We could have someone sit on the gate with a counter and count for us....it would be an interesting experiment if anyone wants something to do for 23.5 hours....
Since that's part of the evidence *you* need to provide to support *your* claim, I'm glad you're volunteering. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5442
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 21:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Our own records. Data can be found on zkill.
Ganking freighters might be up from 2 months ago but it is still down from last year. Barge ganking when compared to 3 years ago is also dramatically lower.
Are you able to share this data? I'm not sure if you talking about absolute numbers, relative frequency, etc.... Also, it should be easy enough for you to check of the number of freighters blown up in the last 2 month has been increasing...a lot of people here seem to doubt it. As he said, historical data on Freighter kills can be found here: https://zkillboard.com/kills/freighters/Nobody's going to do your job for you. You made the claim, you provide the evidence to support it. Gee....or we could ask the person who already did the work to just share the final product with us. I'm sure the Goons would be happy to help us make Eve a better place.
They're not making any claims. You are. Which means it's your job to provide evidence to support your claims.
If I claim Coca-Cola is made of Cheese, I don't get to insist that the Coca-Cola Company release the recipe in order to disprove my claim. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5446
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 21:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Yes, and I provided strong circumstantial evidence for it. I am not required to spend 300 hours manually tabulating the hard numbers, especially when ze Goons have already done so, but won't release the numbers.
You have provided no such thing. You haven't even presented evidence of a trend over the short term. And again, it won't take 300 hours, you don't have to manually tabulate it, and the amount of effort it might or might not take to provide evidence for your claims has no bearing on your obligation to provide the evidence. If you want it so badly feel free to convince our local Goon here to provide it, or consider sending a personal mail to The Mittani.
I'm not making any claims. You are.
You are saying: "Ganking has increased" Everyone here is saying: "Prove it"
Since you're unable to do so, it's quite safe to conclude that you're making things up out of whole cloth.
Or do you also believe that Coca-Cola is made out of Cheese? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5447
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 21:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And I provided you with multiple pieces of information supporting my conclusion, including CODE's killboard, the minerbumping.com website, my intel channels, the increased complaints by freighter pilots on the forums here, and my personal observations and experiences. I'm sorry if any evidence that does not include graphs carries no weight with you, but believe it not we can adjudge things to be true with neither data nor graphs, when necessary.
So you have proof that CODE has killed some freighters. One data point does not a trend make. Freighter pilots have been complaining constantly for years. Cite your experiences with Killboard data.
Lets do this in babby steps since it seems so difficult for you.
Prove that Freighter ganking is *common.* What is the %chance of a freighter being ganked per trip it takes? I'll even help you out. Go take a 30 minute sample of Freighter undocks from Jita 4-4 and we can do the math together here.
Or are you willing to accept my claim that Coca Cola is made of cheese? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5447
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 21:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: Of course, the mere fact that "somedbody" is ganking ships" does not imply "ganking needs nerfing." But in my mind, if more ships are getting ganked (which I thought was the point of our dispute), and if the ships are not being ganked for isk but for tears (specifically the ganking of empty ships), and if those ships are well fitted, not autopiloted, and operated intelligently, and if we still see them getting ganked, then in my mind there is at least cause to concern some tweaks to the game mechanics. I am 100% fine with undertanked haulers with valuable cargo getting blown off the grid. I am less comfortable with empty freighters being blown up just to make the pilots cry, with the gankers themselves suffering little in the way of consequences.
I count 5 if statements in your short paragraph that you need to provide evidence for.
By the way, of the last 4 Freighters that were ganked, zero of them fitted any tank.
Now, are you willing to accept that Coca Cola is made out of Cheese? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5451
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Of course, the mere fact that "somedbody" is ganking ships" does not imply "ganking needs nerfing." But in my mind, if more ships are getting ganked (which I thought was the point of our dispute), and if the ships are not being ganked for isk but for tears (specifically the ganking of empty ships), and if those ships are well fitted, not autopiloted, and operated intelligently, and if we still see them getting ganked, then in my mind there is at least cause to concern some tweaks to the game mechanics. I am 100% fine with undertanked haulers with valuable cargo getting blown off the grid. I am less comfortable with empty freighters being blown up just to make the pilots cry, with the gankers themselves suffering little in the way of consequences.
I count 5 if statements in your short paragraph that you need to provide evidence for. By the way, of the last 4 Freighters that were ganked, zero of them fitted any tank. Now, are you willing to accept that Coca Cola is made out of Cheese? You're better than me. I don't even see that much that requires evidence. "tears" are as good a reason to do something in a video game as anyhting else, in fact, in the grand scheme, it's probably more valid than "internet space money". Some of us understand that part of playing the game is DENYING other people our 'tears'.
I'm perfectly willing to grant that if a large number of empty brick tanked freighters flown with perfectly executed webbers are regularly getting ganked, there's might be a problem.
Just like there might be a problem if Coca Cola is found to be made of Cheese. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5451
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:If you look at a lot of the freighters, in addition to having minimal cargo, which should make an attack unlikely, they fitted nanos or int stabs, making it quicker for them to warp out. Bulkheads, which would add hp, are not useful when the gankers routinely pin you down with bumpers and can hit you in multiple waves. You will also see some well tanked orca kills (which also suffered from bumping), which shows that pure ehp is not enough. Right now the combination of massed gankers in Taloses and Brutixes, plus the absue of bumping, makes freighters extremely vulnerable to ganking.
Nanos are the incorrect fitting for quick warping a freighter.
Bumping is a normal game mechanic and easily countered. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5451
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I too play numerous games without knowing how to play, then complain vigorously when I lose.
But Mag's, Casual "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5452
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Never stop Soly "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5452
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 22:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:The information is available to everyone. At no point in this thread have you, Benny or Mag's proven that ganking has in fact stayed stable or decreased.
I've made no such claim.
Though I easily could.
Quote:Sure the onus is on him to prove his claim... until you guys make half a dozen posts about the topic. You are all willing to invest this much time into telling him "prove it" in various ways; why not invest that time into providing your own statistics to counter his claims?
Are you willing to chemically analyze Coca-Cola to prove that it is not made of Cheese? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5456
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I can absolutely confirm that it's Fabulous Rod now. He spun that same Darkfall story in the Rattlesnake thread.
Looks like his attitude hasn't improved any, either. Still expecting the game to cater to his maladjusted expectations, instead of adjusting himself to the reality of the game. And lashing out at anyone who cares to correct him, to boot.
I remember Fabulous Rod. He spent a couple weeks spamming me with hilariously abusive mails on his alt after making a fan thread for me on the forums.
Because a Forum alt isn't enough, you have to have a mail alt. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5456
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:43:00 -
[12] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Great post. While I personally oppose autopiloting ships, because space is dangerous and should be treated as such, I agree with you that there is a major imbalance in how suicide ganking works. I have my 5-6 billion isk battleship at risk, PvE fitted, and the gankers risk only their cheap gank ship, which they know they will lose anyway. There are no real consequences for going -10 sec status, especially if your suicide gank alt is dedicated solely to that activity. I think the result is a lot of hurt feelings and players quitting the game.
Some fine posting right there. Pic related. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5459
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 00:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Thanks - that's really helpful. It looks like there was some kind of elevating event in late 2013, which is before CODE started targeting them. Any idea what it was?
Miniluv got off break. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5462
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Not because I don't think it's "fair" but it seems silly to "bump" another ship in space. I can whine and cry on the forms for weeks but you know what... At the end of the day it's how the game is played so adapt and overcome.
Agreed. Bumping harmlessly off each other is kind of silly, even for a Submarine game. But it's less silly than the two alternatives; ghosting through each other and damaging each other. The first alternative is more silly due to expectations concerns, and the second due to obvious gameplay problems.
I'm sure you know all this, I just wanted to make clear to other readers the reasons why the silly harmless bumping mechanic remains (and should remain) in the game. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5462
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Au contraire....I firmly believe that 3 optimally fitted and operated bumping machariels can render a freighter unable to warp off. What you believe is irrelevant. The fact is that they can't.
Even if 3 optimally fitted and flown Machs were inescapable (which they aren't), why shouldn't 3 players (plus the 10+ player gank squad) not be able to successfully mess with a single player? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5463
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Au contraire....I firmly believe that 3 optimally fitted and operated bumping machariels can render a freighter unable to warp off. What you believe is irrelevant. The fact is that they can't. Even if 3 optimally fitted and flown Machs were inescapable (which they aren't), why shouldn't 3 players ( plus the 10+ player gank squad) not be able to successfully mess with a single player? Well I think they are (and have not seen proof to the contrary, just assertion). And it's not a question of messing, its a question of what CONCORD should respond to, and how they would react to the victim being pinned down. I think they would escort him to safety. And when I'm looking at these recent freighter ganks, a lot of them are empty/have minimal cargo, so at least as far as freighter ganks go, ganking empty ones does not see to be so rare.
Why should CONCORD respond to bumping? CONCORD has no investigative role, nor is it intended to. It punishes Criminal Actions and that's it.
Why should the value of the cargo have anything to do with game mechanics?
Why is it a problem if people are willing to lose money to do something they enjoy? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5463
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 03:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And look through zkill for the latest freighter kills to see what I mean.
Just looked at the 5 most recent ones. Exactly zero were empty.
Stop lying.
Veers Belvar wrote:Repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it true. Please provide a source for the freighter being able to escape bumping, or admit that you have none.
Stasis Webifier II "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5465
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I see a Rhea with a paltry 100 mil cargo, that cost a lot more than to gank. then an obelisk with 700 mil ganked at a loss, another one with 500 mil ganked at a loss, then one with 150 mil ganked at a loss, and one charon with 1.4 bil in cargo ganked at a profit. so 4/5 were at a loss, and many at a significant loss.
My question involved the freighter itself being able to escape, without help.
You claimed empty, tanked freighters were being killed. None of those are empty, none are tanked.
Why should it be able to escape a trap laid by 15 plus people without any help. This isn't a single player game.
Veers Belvar wrote:Why does CONCORD come and save you if you get warp scrambled? Why don't they demand that you bring friends to help you? Because when people do bad things to you in highsec, CONCORD comes and kills them, and sets you free. Why should it matter if they pressed F5 to scram you, or used 3 machs to bump you so you can't align and warp off?
They don't. They come and punish the person with the temerity to activate an aggressive module in HS.
Try webbing someone. It doesn't hurt them, it helps them into warp, and CONCORD will kill you for it. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5465
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:I see a Rhea with a paltry 100 mil cargo, that cost a lot more than to gank. then an obelisk with 700 mil ganked at a loss, another one with 500 mil ganked at a loss, then one with 150 mil ganked at a loss, and one charon with 1.4 bil in cargo ganked at a profit. so 4/5 were at a loss, and many at a significant loss.
My question involved the freighter itself being able to escape, without help. You claimed empty, tanked freighters were being killed. None of those are empty, none are tanked. Why should it be able to escape a trap laid by 15 plus people without any help. This isn't a single player game. I meant empty or tanked, not both...here are some examples..... https://zkillboard.com/kill/40982597/ (basically empty) https://zkillboard.com/kill/40979249/https://zkillboard.com/kill/40978967/
So you've finally learned to provide evidence. I'm so proud. So that's 3 out of how many in August?
And why should a single player be able to escape a trap laid by 15+ people specifically designed to counter the ship they're flying without any help? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5466
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I disagree, sorry. I think that CONCORD should react to wrongful activity in highsec as they would be expected to respond - mainly by helping the victim. It's not just some random isk sink there to blow ships up.
Except that that is exactly what CONCORD is. It is a game mechanic designed to impose a cost on illegal aggression in HS. That's it.
Veers Belvar wrote:And what I'm saying is that by adjusting the risk/reward mechanics we can make it so that the gankers look for high value kills instead of blowing up empty ships, which I think is a more logical form of gameplay. It just requires some creativity and changes to the game mechanics.
They do look for high value kills. They very rarely kill empty ships, and when they do, they do it for roleplaying purposes. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5468
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 04:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:"McDonalds workers offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive."
Doesn't make sense now, right? Why? Because McDonalds workers are not a "law enforcement agency" and not a "police force."
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Chewbacca defense.
It doesn't make sense because McDonalds workers do nothing to react to or punish illegal aggression in HS. Has nothing to do with any similarities to law enforcement agencies. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5471
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I would be thrilled of CONCORD would act like hall monitors, the UN, or parking attendants. These people do more than just hand out fines. They also take necessary action to enforce the laws and accomplish their duties. A hall monitor who sees Student A beating up Student B would not just give them both tickets for being out of class and go home, he would break the fight up. Ditto for the UN. And the parking attendant would also enforce other laws in his jurisdiction.
If fighting weren't against the rules in the school, I'd expect him to do exactly that. The parking attendant will not enforce not-laws. Just like CONCORD doesn't punish those not performing Criminal Actions in HS. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5471
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:"other" is not a required word in that sentence. In your view CCP Falcon should have said "CONCORD is not a police force at all. They are not in highsec to protect you. They are merely an isk-sink that destroy ships that commit a criminal act subsequent to such act occurring. Go protect yourselves." The fact that he did not say that strongly suggests that CONCORD is in fact viewed as a law enforcement agency (which is exactly what they do - enforce the laws, and punish criminals). CCP Falcon said that exact thing in the sentences immediately surrounding the one you're quoting: CCP Falcon wrote:Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?
....
If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back. Notice the use of a rhetorical question to explain that CCP (and thus the mechanics of the game) do not provide and are not meant to provide protection to you. Also notice how he coolly dismisses your claim that HS is not a place where you need friends. CCP Falcon was referring to people getting blown up before CONCORD arrived (when I agree they deserve no protection). My point is that CONCORD should act intelligently once it shows up, and not let a ship effectively be rendered unable to warp due to bumping, hence my 60 seconds of immunity from bumping.
At no point does he limit his statements the way you're claiming he does.
CONCORD does act intelligently to enforce the laws of New Eden. Preventing someone from warping is not against the law in New Eden, only Activating an Aggressive Module in HS is.
Since you claimed to be a lawyer, think of this as being like going to Louisiana and arguing Common Law. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5471
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:10:00 -
[24] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And again - just like warp scrambling is a crime, using bumping to render a ship unable to warp, which is the functional equivalent, SHOULD be a crime.
It isn't a crime. It isn't functionally equivalent. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5471
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You don't define crimes by hypertechnical actions like "activating" a module. You define them by effect like "impairing mobility." It would be like punishing for murder by stabbing and not murder by bludgeoning - it would literally make no sense.
You might not, I might not. CONCORD does (and does for very good gameplay and lore reasons).
You also don't get a police force that arrives nearly instantaneously and summarily executes the criminal 100% of the time. More evidence that CONCORD isn't a police force. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5473
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:19:00 -
[26] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And it shouldn't, here where that can be easily remedied by adopting my solution (and look how weak the parade of horribles in objection is...."losing control of the situation," seriously?"), it should be adopted to make CONCORD's enforcement of the law more logical, and less hypertechnical.
Ok, so CONCORD now punishes bumping. All bumping.
Remember, CONCORD is not a victim's services organization. They have nothing to do with protecting anyone. There is only one punishment in EVE.
Your "solution" goes against several basic design principles of CONCORD. Namely, that they are not proactive and they are not protective. They are exclusively punitive.
In other words, if you want protection bring friends. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5477
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I'm just not seeing it guys, and it really is a question for CCP. Whether an optimally piloted freighter can always manage to warp off during 15 minutes of bumping by 3 optimally fitted and piloted Machariels. I really don't think the answer is "yes." I can't fathom that so many freighter pilots would be so stupid as to miss a trivial way of avoiding the bumping and saving their ship. I think it's a whole lot tougher to do than you are claiming.
Again, why should a solo pilot be able to escape the efforts of three pilots specifically fit and flown to stop him?
They have a good shot at escaping a single mach and with help (webber or interceptor) can escape a large number of machs. The reason for this is the way warping works, which bumping doesn't stop. If you are moving in the direction of your warp target at better than 75% of your speed, you will immediately enter warp. Doesn't matter why you're moving that direction. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5477
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 05:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:EXACTLY. If the bumpers are competent, and bump you away from celestials, like I assume they do in Uedama, you are SOL. Which is exactly as I suspected. Thank you for clearing this up.
Then be competent yourself and either have bookmarks prepared or have a friend burn you a warpout in an interceptor.
This is a multiplayer game. They brought friends, you can too.
Veers Belvar wrote:Why should a single pilot be able to escape the efforts of three pilots specifically fit and flown to warp scramble him? And still CONCORD comes and blows them up, ending the scrambling.
CONCORD punishes aggressive actions in HS and Scrambling is an aggressive action. Whether you escape or not is irrelevant. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:18:00 -
[29] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mag's wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:figuring out how to punish people with -10 sec status F1 Blowing up empty pods post-gank is not useful. And shooting at them lets them shoot back at you in gank fitted ships, often a swarm of them.
It lets *one* shoot back at you. The one you shot. Who is in a gank fitted ship which has no tank.
Further evidence that your claim to be familiar with the game mechanics involved is patently false. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5479
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:the victims are usually people who pay cash for their subs.
Since all your other "points" got covered quite well by others,
Everybody pays cash for their subs. The only exceptions are people with ISD accounts, Fansite accounts, or a couple other CCP gifts. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5479
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 08:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:I've seriously picked things more precious than you from my ********.
Accidentally swallowed a nickel, huh-uh? Told you your coin flipping habit was unhealthy, Harv. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5482
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P
They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*.
They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets.
In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied.
*To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5489
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Where did I ask for CONCORD to be prophylactic? I'm still trying to get my head around this question. Sense, it makes none, unless of course he meant prophetic or prescient.
Prophylaxis can refer to any type of preventative or protective thing.
For example, prophylactic anti-retrovirals are given to medical workers on exposure to suspected HIV+ blood.
But I'm going to imagine that he wants CONCORD to put the target's ship in a big, stretchy, protective balloon. Lubricated for quick warping, of course. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5489
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Thanks for the explanation, I was unaware of the medical use of the word.
I too choose to follow your line of thought, would that balloon be ribbed for pleasure?
I'm not sure. But it would have to be red, because red go fasta "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5495
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:47:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:^^ Defintitely red.
Although some prophylactics are designed to slow you down for a reason.....
Maybe if we work together, we can conceive a reason. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5499
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:But, that's not the point. The point is, he was flying an Itty V with a full Crystal set. Who flies Itty V with a crystal set, and on that note, who the **** goes afk with a crystal set? I lol'd all day long.
[Tayra, Crystal Badger of my Heart]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
Medium Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400 Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Warp Scrambler II
Light Neutron Blaster II, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
High-grade Crystal Alpha High-grade Crystal Beta High-grade Crystal Gamma High-grade Crystal Delta High-grade Crystal Epsilon High-grade Crystal Omega "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5499
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
I had a Battlebadger before they nerfed the name (and slot layout). I think now the only viable battle indy is the Itty V. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5501
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:52:00 -
[38] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Nope.
The Nereus can also be quite effective. I saw one take down a battleship in Amarr a few weeks ago but for the life of me can't remember who it was, or the specifics of the KM. I know that particular one was fit with neuts though, and I've seen a few other Nereus' fit for PVP and they can be pretty vicious, especially with the drones.
Oh, wow, the Nereus has fitting room, and an extra mid slot... and a drone bay. That's clearly OP!
That's fantastic. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5508
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:50:00 -
[39] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I already made an argument for action. These guys obviously don't care about isk. They do care about time. Solution - make them grind more to be able to operate in highsec, which will make their ganks more selective.
You can gank perfectly well at -10. And CCP made a very recent, very public choice to allow people to pay others to grind sec status for them.
What has changed since then to make you think they would be interested in reversing their decision.
(Incidentally, Hulkageddon, MiniLuv, and Burn Jita all got their starts well before tags4sec was introduced.) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5508
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:52:00 -
[40] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Let's just all strive to maintain civil discourse and avoid personal attacks - it certainly would make the forum a nicer, friendlier place.
Veers Belvar wrote:Just ignore the trolls...this is what they all do...
*Ahem*
Quote:Thankfully CCP is not listening to them and is taking proactive steps to rebalance suicide ganking, and end this crazy spree of empty freighter ganking.
Please cite your source for this. Or are you making things up again? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5509
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:As we heard from CODE agent Ima Wreckyou - 11 years of nerfs to suicide ganking. Every time there has been a sustained campaign of harm to highsec, CCP has looked into it and made adjustments. I would be shocked if CODE could just keep blowing apart ship after ship in Uedama without some kind of changes (not to mention the freighter changes which allowed for tankier freighters).
And here we have it. 11 years of nerfs aren't enough for you. What will be?
The current situation is this: Ganks of empty freighters make the ganker lose money, time, and sec status. They are also vanisingly rare (you found 1; as Tippia pointed out, 2/3 of your "examples" weren't actually illegal aggression). Ganks of full freighters will always be profitable so long as ganking is possible. A solo hauler, properly fit and flown, will always win against a solo ganker, and often win against several gankers. Only an organized group of more than a dozen players has a chance of ganking a Freighter and every time they succeed, they risk their own freighter picking up the loot. Ganking ships are more expensive per unit alpha or per unit dps than they have ever been before. Sec Status losses now are not dependant on the gank being successful, the full hit happens the moment you open fire. Bumping to avoid gate guns (required only because increased costs have required a change in meta from alpha to dps) is trivially avoidable and quite possible to escape no matter how good the bumpers. Avoidance and escape also require much less effort than the bumpers put in.
What more could you possibly want? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5510
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:31:00 -
[42] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah
Benny I think it does. What you you think, other Benny? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:45:00 -
[43] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:My scenario also involved 3 optimally fitted machariels using optimal bumping technique against a freighter.
Why do you get to assume a 3(well, actually over a dozen)v1 fight should be easy to escape for the 1? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:54:00 -
[44] - Quote
Anslo wrote:I mean, gankers don't really risk much. They risk a Catalyst. Oh God. The horror. What else is there? Sec status means jack **** to them. What are they risking that matches the reward of the gank, be it drop or km?
Real talk, legit question, cause I don't know the answer lel.
Since the reward is *entirely* player determined, who cares what they risk. (Also, a Catalyst today costs more to use in a gank than a Battleship cost to use in a gank before the insurance nerf)
Now let's flip your question. Without gankers, what do haulers risk? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:16:00 -
[45] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?' I know this is a side track, but I can't take this statement seriously due to what I just mentioned.
Most HS rewards are not player determined. Mission, Incursion, etc payouts are fixed by CCP, as are Ratting payouts. The issue is that the CCP determined rewards for the different areas of space are out of whack. But that's a topic for another thread.
Quote:...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking? M8 Pls Stahp
A Catalyst is less capable and more expensive to lose than a pre-insurance nerf battleship was. Those are the only two points of comparison I was making.
Quote:Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what? Not once did I mention anything about getting rid of anyone. It's about balance.
Ok, then what specific nerfs to ganking will be sufficient and why do you think the last 11 years of nerfs have not reduced ganking enough? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1. Not working as intended when CODE is repeatedly blowing up ships at a loss just to create tears. CODE is not treating it as a business, just a way of hurting people.
Find where CCP says that being able to hurt people isn't intended in EVE.
Quote:2. The game mechanics do apply to them, but are insufficient to actually deter them from ganking at a loss. 3. They obviously don't care about isk because they operate at a loss. Contra most of the other groups that gank that do it to make isk - lots of it. They carefully select high value targets, and profit from the drops. Check out minerbumping.com where they brag about blowing up empty freighters. You are the one ignoring reality, as per usual.
So?
Quote:4. Really, how did you prove it? Just asserting over and over? It seems that if the bumper pushes the freighter away from Celestials (which is apparently the way they do it in Uedama) there is no button clicking by the freighter pilot that will let him escape. And if, as I suspect, that is true, then CODE have managed to replicate warp scrambling without CONCORD intervention.
Again, even if that were true (it's not), why should a single player be able to effortlessly escape a trap laid specifically for their ship by over a dozen other players? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
Anslo wrote:OK, that's cool. I just still can't say the risk is even. A cata's a couple million isk. A freighter is..well, a whole **** ton more. The hauler may have to start all over in his Eve life, while the ganker just slips into another Cata.
Cost is not a balancing factor like that. Otherwise T3s would have much higher EHP than Combat BCs.
Quote:I think the module to keep someone from being bumped while mining would help, but freighters? That's different. I dunno what you could do. The rigs for freighters was, imo, a good start. But it doesn't seem to be curbing much (but hey that's just player fault, nothing more). But making a freighter a little harder to dunk, or making the risk of ganking and the reward received match, would help.
CCP gave Freighter pilots the tools to make themselves much more expensive to gank. The freighter pilots refuse to use them, instead fitting modules that make themselves cheaper to gank.
Also, there is a module that will get any freighter right through a cloud of gankers, if used judiciously. Stasis Webifier II (This is not an exhaustive list) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:23:00 -
[48] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't find it enjoyable to have fun by hurting other people, especially highsec players who are looking to avoid PvP. I'd rather do communal PvE, or PvP in low/null where blowing things up is expected.
You cannot hurt any people in EVE. It is internet space pixels.
EVE Online New Player FAQ wrote:In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core. http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/communityassets/pdf/EVE-Online-New-Pilot-FAQ.pdf
Blowing things up is expected everywhere in EVE.
Saying otherwise goes against 11 years of explicit developer intention. If *you* don't expect violence in some part of EVE, that's on you for not educating yourself about the game you choose to play. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5513
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:IIshira wrote:
"In EVE Online, any player may attack any other player if they choose to, no matter where they happen to be. This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core."
You are arguing in absolutes.
Actually, CCP is.
Quote:Nobody seems to be saying suicide ganking shouldn't be possible.
All you are doing is demonstrating your failure to understand the arguments.
Since we've already addressed all your "arguments" and you've refused to provide any evidence to support your claims, why shouldn't we point out that Veers is confused about the nature of the game he chooses to play when he suggests that HS is not a place where destruction is expected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxNW5dDYEY
After all, killing is just a means of communication. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5514
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:02:00 -
[50] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No I said that many players don't expect it...which is unrelated to what CCP says.
Which is not a game mechanics problem. Glad we're finally in agreement.
The New Player FAQ makes it clear. The advertisements make it clear. The damn tutorial makes it clear. Your boat can be violenced at any time by anyone. If people aren't willing to do basic research on the game they choose to play, that is entirely on them. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5515
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:29:00 -
[51] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:CODE has basically unlimited ISK already. Hopefully this thread has caused CCP to think about curbing the abuse of bumping and imposing grinding requirements on CODE, which would have far more affect on the operation than a bit more isk coming in so you guys can blow up empty ships.
So you're saying that CCP should make it a policy to punish success.
Veers Belvar wrote: CCP is rather unlikely to radically overhaul its physics engine anytime soon.
So why do you keep calling for exactly that?
Bye the bye, CCP has radically overhauled its physics engine at least once since bumping gained popularity as a tactic. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5516
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Tippia wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Just because you are incapable of understanding can't read minds and have never been told the problem, does not mean a problem does not exist. So define it. Explicitly. Using actual facts to prove that it is a problem. People have done that multiple times already. Scroll back and read the thread since you don't seem to understand what it is about.
People have provided facts. Bumping is working as intended: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199310
CCP is not going to be protecting your hauler for you: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4958992#post4958992
EVE Devs are invested in continuing to produce a game that is actually dark, gritty, and hard: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964192#post4964192
And PVP is to be expected anywhere in EVE: http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/communityassets/pdf/EVE-Online-New-Pilot-FAQ.pdf
So, how does this add up to there being a problem? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 03:59:00 -
[53] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I still want to hear about how it's not okay to force people to PvP, but how it's just fine to try and force people to PvE.
Care to answer that, either of you two hypocrites? I think it's fine to force PvP, I support suicide ganking. I also happen to think that the police would not take kindly to career -10 sec status suicide gankers hanging out, and would force them out of the system. Hence why I think highsec should be off limits if your sec status goes too low. Grind it up and be more selective with your ganks.
The Police don't take kindly to them, and they do try to force them out of the system.
Yet more evidence that you're unaware of basic game mechanics related to the discussion. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:04:00 -
[54] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Depends on the ship, Thrashers tank better than Catas, and a Talos or Brutix with an LSE can tank them for quite a bit.
None of those can tank HS gate guns and faction police for anywhere near long enough to perform a gank.
Stop lying. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:05:00 -
[55] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Depends on the ship, Thrashers tank better than Catas, and a Talos or Brutix with an LSE can tank them for quite a bit.
No gank ship has a tank, they all die fast on a gate. https://zkillboard.com/kill/40983022/Seems like with an LSE this could tank guns for a while.
7,800 damage is not "a while." "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Depends on the ship, Thrashers tank better than Catas, and a Talos or Brutix with an LSE can tank them for quite a bit. None of those can tank HS gate guns and faction police for anywhere near long enough to perform a gank. Stop lying. How fast with a Talos with an LSE go down? Stop lying.
Each gun does 176 dps and there are 8 on a high sec gate. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:and how would that help if the freighter could warp off?
The freighter can warp off. It has been explained to you several times how they can do this, either solo or with assistance. That they are unaware that they can or choose not to is nobody's fault but their own. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:So the guns will maybe melt 2 Talos's before Concord shows up. That means if you bring 10, 8 are still whacking away at the guy. If you don't bump him, its easy to warp off, and he will live. If you do bump him, some chance he wont warp off, and then if you bring enough dps you can kill him whether he is one the gate or not.
You're forgetting the Faction police which, in this case, did 5 times as much damage to the Talos as the gate guns.
Bumping is done to get Freighters out of range of gate guns and Faction Police. That the autopilot is bad at adjusting to changing circumstances is a happy bonus. That Freighter pilots are even worse at adjusting to changing circumstances is both pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
Bumping also happens to be trivial to avoid. You've been told this by several people who actually know what they're talking about. Baltec is pretty good at ganking. I ran a JF service for a year without losing a single ship or really being inconvenienced in any way, and I am abysmal at EVE. Tippia is a walking game mechanic encyclopedia.
You have been proven to be wrong on essentially every claim you have made about game mechanics. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:34:00 -
[59] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yawn, it replicates warp disrupting, *nice catch*
It doesn't do that either. Warp disrupting shuts off a warp drive. Bumping :drumroll: does no such thing. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:39:00 -
[60] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Once the faction police show up...which for gankers is often when CONCORD show up - hence irrelevent/minor.
The faction police are swarming around every HS gate at all times. They don't have to spawn.
Quote:And we have had multiple freighter pilots here tell us that they couldn't warp off. And my observations tell me that with competent bumpers it is hard/impossible to do solo. So I'll take that over the word of same gankers....thanks.
So now you object if it's *hard* to escape solo? Just because incompetent pilots can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Once again:
CCP Falcon wrote:If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
Your suggestion that Freighters should have a get-out-of-jail-free card handed to them by CCP is ridiculous, since anyone in a frigate with webs can already do that for them. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Yawn, it replicates warp disrupting, *nice catch* It doesn't do that either. Warp disrupting shuts off a warp drive. Bumping :drumroll: does no such thing. hence the word "replicates"
rep-+li-+cate verb -êrepli-îk-üt/ 1. make an exact copy of; reproduce.
Warp disruption does one thing: it shuts off a warp drive. Bumping does not shut off any warp drives.
In what way is that replicating anything? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5517
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:45:00 -
[62] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I happen to think that if the bumping is optimal that its impossible, but if its just really hard to do, that would also be troubling, because you would have essentially replicated pointing, except for a few extremely skilled players who could avoid it.
So you're saying that every bumper has to be perfect at bumping, but Freighter pilots should have the bar set to "half slackened-jaw."
And bumping in no way replicates pointing. One shuts off a warp drive, the other does not. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5518
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 04:54:00 -
[63] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:solo response....
with a buddy you can solve disrupting real easy too, just ecm the guy, does not affect CONCORD response.
The bumper can't gank you solo either, so what's the problem? The freighter automatically wins every 1v1 encounter they face outside a wardec or hilarious stupidity.
CCP Falcon told you to bring friends if you want to protect your hauler. Why do you continue to operate under the delusion that EVE is a single player game? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5518
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 05:16:00 -
[64] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:more dead freighters. 6 yesterday, today was quiet.
You've still steadfastly refused to provide any traffic volume information.
On 9/2 (the last full day of trading), 76 Freighters and 20 Jump Freighters were purchased in Jita 4-4. So, if we assume Freighters and Jump freighters are one use items and that those were the only freighters moving through HS (), then they had a 93.75% survival rate per trip.
Tell me more about how common Freighter ganks are. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5523
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:20:00 -
[65] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:To prove proof? Even I can't do that!
Glad you're willing to admit that all your various claims are lies. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5527
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 19:14:00 -
[66] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, I've explicitly laid out my position. Suicide ganking is an important part of the game, and should be retained. CCP should adjust incentives so that it occurs more when +EV, and less when -EV. That is hardly "lying" or "opposing suicide ganking." Keep it real Tippia.
There are quite large incentives to keep the expected value of ganking positive. In fact, they are such that 100% of ganks have positive expected values for the gankers.
Just because you can't see all the sources of value doesn't change this fact. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
|
|